User talk:Time Will Say Nothing

From Amoammo

This is your talkpage - found it!

I got all your emails. I think that that blog you linked to was where i read it.

re: "I guess you're the one to do this?" i would have been happy to do it, but there shouldn't have been anything to stop you doing it (or any other good faith edits you want to make). Good luck with editing the articles you're interested in. I'm guessing you'll want to start an article Three Women (play)! Amo (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Scottish literature and a new outwardness

I don't regard Kennaway's living in England as notable for a Scottish writer. Off the top of my head the same could be said of Fred Urquhart, Aeneas MacDonald or A J Cronin and many other mid-C20 writers. The paragraph where you are inserting Kennaway is about something rather different - writers whose practice was intervention in other cultural areas (France in the cases of Trocchi and White) and known through that rather than activity in their native land. A distinction that is clear , I think, in MacDiarmid's denunciation of Trocchi as "cosmopolitan scum" at the 1962 Edinburgh Writers Festival. I will be reverting the Kennaway insertion again, on grounds of non-notability to the subject at hand; if you want to discuss that further we can take it to the Talk page. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested above, differences of opinion are best covered on the Talk:Scottish literature page. I'll put a brief summary and references to the views expressed on our respective Talk pages onto that page. It's not a heavily used page, but that will give others the opportunity to put their views as and when they read it. AllyD (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

James Kennaway and place of death?

BTW there seems to be as contradiction in the article: place of death in the article given as M4 but Infobox as Scotland? The article is unreferenced (maybe something to address before a notice gets put on it) and I have no referenced information to fix on either myself, so I thought I'd mention to you, given your obvious interest. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see the tone of your response on my Talk page to what I regarded as a friendly query with regard to improving the Kennaway article. AllyD (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Rereading the rest of your Talk page, perhaps you may have misunderstood something - I was not suggesting that the Kennaway article could have a Deletion notice put on it. Far from it, he rightly has a page. What I was meaning is that it could have an Unreferenced notice put on it: the general principle is that anything should be backed up by references to published sources and it is good to add these when editing with info to hand. That was all. AllyD (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert Shaw (theatre director)

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Robert Shaw (theatre director). The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your username and inside-intelligence.org.uk

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen (Insideintelligence) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.

There are two issues with this:

1. It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization.
2. Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guideline to avoid editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Note inside-intelligence.org.uk which is being used to source various articles you have edited.  Voceditenore (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've had this username for several years and no one has made this suggestion before now. The statement "welcome to Wikipedia" is inappropriate and betrays the problem here. It implies that the person making it thinks I have just joined, meaning he or she has not bothered to do proper research into how long I have had this login and what input I have made with it since that time. If you had looked into that fully, I think you could not have reached the conclusions set out above. Also, Inside Intelligence is not a group or a company or a website. It is a registered charity. Further, inside-intelligence.org.uk is not being used to 'source various articles [I] have edited'. It has been used to reference one single article. I understand your desire to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, but it does not appear that you have acted effectively to achieve that in this case. Insideintelligence (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again you have misunderstood Wikipedia policy. Please read this. Whether the organization is a charity or not, the username cannot be such that it suggests that the user editing on its behalf, or that it represents a group of editors (note that you use the term "we" in your comment in the following section). The fact that you (or your group) have edited other articles before is immaterial. You have recently created an article about the founder and artistic director of your organization and used his biography on that organization's website as the sole source. Furthermore, the article clearly contains other information for which there is no published source, independent or otherwise, to verify it. Voceditenore (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Article on Robert Shaw

Thanks for your interest in this page. It is not agreed that there is any conflict of interest. There are no grounds for copy-editing. Whoever proposed that has not actually read the article. This is irreponsible. It has been referenced from a third-party website. A single reference was originally requested. This has been provided. Satisfying one request is not a justification to start making more. We accept the need to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. These flags have not achieved that in this case.

Please see my detailed comments at Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) and please read the guidance pages which I have linked there. I read the article thoroughly before placing the maintenance tags, and have since made some edits to make its format conform to Wikipedia's Manual of style. I have also added one reference to it and have restored the relevant tags. You have completely misunderstood the request for a source. At least one is required to prevent outright deletion per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. However, adding one inadequate source does not mean that the other claims made in the article do not need to be verified and that the article is not currently in violation of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons and no original research. Note that the source added is not a reliable source, as it is not remotely independent of the subject. It is on the website of his own theatre company. The conflict of interest is blatant, I'm afraid—starting with your username, and continuing with claims about the subject's life, accomplishments, and opinions for which not a single reliable published source, independent of the subject, had been provided. If you want further clarification or verification about what I'm telling you, you can contact any or all of the following:

• Biographies of living persons Noticeboard
• Conflict of interest Noticeboard
• No original research Noticeboard
• Reliable sources Noticeboard

– Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

From the conflict of interest noticeboard: "Please note that the conflict of interest guidelines do not require editors with conflicts of interest to avoid editing altogether. An editor who has disclosed a conflict is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page, or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Furthermore, accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited." Since I commented on your previous flags, you have intensified your attention to, and criticism of, the article. You appear to be using conflict of interest to gain the upper hand in a dispute about the content of this article, which would put you in flagrant violation of the conflict of interest guidelines.

With respect to original research, this article contains no research as that word is normally understood. The Russian title does not have a recognised English equivalent. I can find no requirement for titles to be in English. Your flag on that point appears capricious. The anecdote about Behan is harmless and entertaining. All witnesses to it are now dead, save one. Should it therefore be lost? It is agreed that "much missed" is not appropriate. That sentence has been edited. The article did not require copy editing, as you have acknowledged by default. The tone is factual and the suggestion to the contrary is not understood. Further sources have been provided. However, some of these are reviews. These may conflict with the need not to promote the subject of the article. Insideintelligence (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I have not "acknowledged by default" that article did not require copy-editing. I copy-edited it myself to make the format conform to the Manual of Style for biographies and to remove the unsupported claim. "His translation of Tejas Verdes by Fermín Cabal was widely praised when it opened at the Gate Theatre in 2005".

2. As the phrase is understood on Wikipedia, this article is full of original research, i.e. contains personal knowledge about the subject which cannot be attributed to a reliable independent published source. Read the policy at WP:OR:

• "The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged."

• " Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material."

• "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material."

• "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. In fact, expert input is encouraged and experts often have specific knowledge of the relevant literature. However, as with all editors, this policy does prohibit experts from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest."

3. Re the Russian title, it is utterly meaningless to the reader without at least some contextualization as to what the play is about or at least a literal translation of the title. Please see Wikipedia:MOS#Foreign_terms.

4. If you honestly think that I am using your conflict of interest to gain the upper hand in a dispute about the content of this article and am therefore "in flagrant violation of the conflict of interest guidelines", I suggest you bring this issue to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. But I can guarantee that you will not like what you'll hear there. I simply want to see this article comply with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, and to comply with the requirements of encyclopedic style. Your refusal to contemplate or remedy any of these issues is your choice. But as with most articles like this, to any neutral observer it looks like a promotional autobiography, and as such detracts from rather than enhances the reputation of the subject.

I'll bring this article to the attention of an experienced member of Wikiproject Biography next week. Perhaps you will listen to their advice, since you are clearly determined not to listen to mine. Voceditenore (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your continuing attention to this article. :In your most recent post you confirm the allegation that you are using conflict of interest, and now other issues, to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Given the very substantial number of tagged articles on Wikipedia that have no further action taken against them, it must be wondered why you are picking so insistently, intensively and repeatedly on this one.

Your statement at 1. that you copy-edited the article yourself is flagrantly false, as a review of the history will confirm. Detailed examination of the History, comparing one edit with the next (specifically your revisions of 6:24 and 7:40 on 25 December), discloses not one single example of your copy-editing the article, although you did one piece of formatting - formatting that is not routinely done on biographical articles. There are many examples where it has not been done. Why do you pick on this article for your persistent attention? The History also discloses a reference by you to removing or tagging "egregious" examples of "puffery". In fact you (correctly) removed one single phrase ("widely praised") that could have been so construed. This statement has now been restored following the discovery of verifiable references.

You further state: "Your refusal to contemplate or remedy any of these issues is your choice." Plainly you are not one to allow forensic analysis to stand in the way of some good posturing. In fact, a substantial amount of work has been done to add independent sources and references since you first commented on this. (Check the history.) This is to some extent a tribute to the help you have given with the mechanics of all that - the proper code etc. It is also in spite of the fact that you yourself, having sourced a reference, then added it in the wrong way (Detailed reference included in sources instead of references - I have had to put this right).

You go on: "But as with most articles like this, to any neutral observer it looks like a promotional autobiography, and as such detracts from rather than enhances the reputation of the subject.". This is an interesting point. I've read a number of biographical articles on Wikipedia about persons living and dead. What binds them together is the inclusion of facts with little or no commentary upon those facts - at least in the case of living persons. You rightly drew attention to a phrase which, if unsupported, could appear to be empty promotion. That was helpful and it has led to an awareness of the problem in general and to the specific example being rectified with two third-party sources.

I get the impression that you are beginning to make this personal. Every time you are challenged, you come up with increased numbers of objections. There is now a danger of your attitude becoming ego-driven. I would certainly suggest that you are becoming unhealthily obsessed with this article, to the extent that your conduct could now be construed as harrassment. I suggest that your own judgment is now in question. I would like to suggest that you now leave this alone.

You are free to refer this to another editor. Plainly you are fairly new to editing on Wikipedia. However, I see no reason why you should get away with using this post to bring yourself to the attention of more senior editors. "Egregious puffery" indeed! Insideintelligence (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I note that your most recent post was on 25 December, whereas I read it and commented on it on 1 January. Insideintelligence (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Advertisements not wanted here

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. The book has been out of print for about 70 years. No possible promotional benefit could accrue from this article. On the contrary, researchers and writers regularly consult this book as a resource. Posting extracts from it on Wikipedia will assist such researchers and writers in their work.

Some examples of works that quote Up To Now in the bibliography are:

• A Strange Eventful History, by Michael Holroyd, Chatto and Windus 2008;
• Gordon Craig: The Story of His Life, by Edward Craig, Victor Gollancz 1968;
• Isadora: The Sensational Life of Isadora Duncan, by Peter Kurth, Little, Brown 2001. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Teetotaller

Hello. The article you created is not encyclopedic in nature. It appears to be heavily original or narrative. I've directed it to the book you've cited.--v/r - TP 22:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. Nakon 22:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please quit creating these types of articles. WP:N states that notability is not inherited and so just because the autobiography may have notability does not mean each individual work does as well. Please include them in the Up_to_Now_(autobiography) article if you feel the content should be included.

This post is the product of inappropriate co-ordinated harrassment by Wikipedia editors. This page is an extract from a published book - a recognised secondary source. The source is quoted on the page. I have removed the redirect Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No such coordination exists. Simply being a minor subject of a published book doesn't make a subject notable. The book itself may perhaps be notable but even that is questionable. Please quit adding these types of articles and read WP:N and WP:BOOK. I will have to report you to the Administrators noticeboard if you continue.--v/r - TP 23:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nakon 23:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not making disruptive edits, nor is there any vandalism involved. You are wilfully depriving the Wikipedia community of valuable research information. This is personal harrassment directed at me because of previous justified complaints about an editor. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way but no such targetting of you exists. Prior to my contact here, I was unaware of any previous complaints toward you nor would I give them much weight as all editors receive complaints at some point. My talk pages have them too. The point of contention here is that Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate source of information. Please be aware of our policies and what is considered notable and should be included.--v/r - TP 23:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, but I have given the source on the page concerned. There is no consistency in the objections to these edits. First they are said to be promotional. I note that that ridiculous objection has been removed by the editor who made it, having been disproved. Then the objection seems to be vandalism of a page. Now you suggest indiscriminate collection of information. What exactly is the objection? There is nothing indiscriminate about this project. I intend over time to add significant extracts from the book. These extracts will take up too much space if they are all on one page. As it is they are co-ordinated (and therefore not indiscriminate) by the fact that they are linked from the main page Up To Now. This is a carefully thought-out project, unlike the raft of inconsistent objections, and aggressive edits. Kindly stop preventing information from being posted in an orderly and co-ordinated manner. Thanks Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that extracts from the book are not encyclopedic. It is the same problem for all of us although since we're all different people we have different ways of addressing the issue. Perhaps the first editor's first opinion was that it was promotional, I can't be sure of their thinking. As far as vandalism, it is considered such if you keep posting the material after you've been asked to stop; but the original creation of the article would not be considered vandalism. You sound reasonable and that you'd like to contribute in good faith and so it's honestly a little harsh to call your edits vandalism as much as you might say they are test edits. I dont feel you are intending to commit vandalism. Other editors may disagree and I am not saying that Nakon's opinion is wrong, just that I don't see it that way. But the link I gave you to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information should help you understand why your articles about the subjects in the book are not notable themselves even if they are mentioned in the book. Our guideline on notability is pretty clear that the subjects do not gain notability simply by being a minor subject of the book. Being the topic of a book may imply notability, but generally not autobiographies. If the subjects themselves were to have their own independant coverage seperate from the book, that would certainly imply notability. I hope I've helped you understand.--v/r - TP 23:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The author of the book is the subject of his own article on Wikipedia (Martin Shaw, therefore probably regarded as notable? I have been told to post the content on the page itself, or to add it to a "different project". There is no consistency to the objections, suggesting that the real problem may be an originality of approach! I'm afraid I don't understand the objection about being "minor subjects of a book". Is Martin Shaw considered a minor subject of his own book?! The fact is that there is not enough room on one page to post all the content I have planned. The sensible way to do it seems obvious - make each extract into an individual article and link them all back to the main page. Why are you so uncomfortable with such an elegant solution? Is the real problem that someone else didn't think of it? :) Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

PS Some examples of works that are sources on Martin Shaw and which quote Up To Now in the bibliography are:

• A Strange Eventful History, by Michael Holroyd, Chatto and Windus 2008;
• Gordon Craig: The Story of His Life, by Edward Craig, Victor Gollancz 1968;
• Isadora: The Sensational Life of Isadora Duncan, by Peter Kurth, Little, Brown 2001.

Notable? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, to the contrary, many people think of doing it that way. Which is why we have created policy that tells us exactly how to create articles. Like I have said, WP:N says that notability is not inherited. Like I said above, and like Nakon told you, you can add the content to an article with a notable subject. Martin Shaw may be notable, but The Teetotaller is not. I understand your frustration, but please assume good faith on my part instead of accusing me of having a vendetta for not thinking of a 'solution' first. Everyone's goal here is to improve the encyclopedia. I believe yours is as well, although I don't think you understand what we consider improvement. As I said and linked you to the policy, Wikipedia is not an indescriminate source of information. As Nakon said, if you continue the pages even after being warned, you can be blocked for vandalism. I am trying to help you and I dont appreciate the negative feedback and accusatory remarks. These kinds of behavior can also lead to you being blocked. Again, I'm trying to help you.--v/r - TP 00:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you concede that Martin Shaw is notable, which is the question I was asking you. So, I can add the material to the Up To Now page. Thank you. What do I do when there becomes too much of it to include in a single article?

I dare say you don't appreciate the assertions. They are made in good faith, however. Threatening to block someone for making statements in good faith, just because you don't appreciate them, is scarcely a mark of integrity, intellectual or otherwise.

I would also suggest that simply removing pages without prior discussion si not the way to improve Wikipedia. If you have an issue with a page, why not start by sending messages proposing amendments and solutions and save the aggressive editing as a fall back position. Part of the trouble here is that the way this was done was high-handed and put my back up. Accusing me of of self-promotion for including this material, or simply pouncing oin the pages and removing them or redirecting them etc etc is, with respect, not tremendously competent from a person management point of view. The essence of power is knowing how and when to exercise it.

As a case in point, I would draw attention to the post by Pasquale on Nakon's talk page, which makes a similar point to mine. Plainly I am not the one who objects to this kind of high-handed editing style. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with criteria for speedy deletion, but it is a community agreed guideline and ultimately the good of the encyclopedia is above the good of the editor. It's tough but true. If a page becomes too long, it may need to be trimmed. However, the individual elements of a page cannot be split into their own articles unless they by themselves can support their existence per our guidelines and policy. I haven't accused you of self promotion, please do not attribute other's remarks as if they were mine. Please keep in mind that I've told you how to avoid being blocked, not threatened to block you. Again, please do not attribute other's remarks as if they were mine. As far as the deletion of your page, the Wikipedia community has agreed upon criteria for speedy deletion. Any page deleted under this policy is considered "discussed" at the time the policy was discussed. A lot of new editors can be frustrated and discouraged by this policy, but it keeps Wikipedia clean from spam and "My name is John Doe" type of pages. As a word of advice, if I were you I'd add the content to the autobiography article, however, please keep in mind that what you had in the articles that were deleted was not encyclopedic and would be deleted anywhere it were posted, even in the autobiography article.--v/r - TP 02:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to create a page entitled Meeting Strindberg, which should be self-explanatory. I'm going to link it to Up To Now. Presumably that does qualify as notable and encyclopaedic content?

I would suggest that the content I posted was encyclopaedic in the sense that it was evidence of the kind of man Martin Shaw was - his sense of humour, what interested him what made him tick. Also other editors have agreed it could be posted to the up To Now page. What do I do with editors who can't agree among themselves? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not all editors will agree and the best thing you can do is try to find consensus based in established policy. If I were you, I'd try just editting other existing articles until you become more familar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines before you start creating new ones. I realize you have been on Wikipedia since late 2008, but you're edits seem very thin to have grasped the concepts behind the policies.--v/r - TP 02:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, this is the content I am interested in posting. I am not interested in being an editor in general. Please forgive me, but I would suggest if you are an editor, you need to improve your spelling! Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Meeting Strindberg

The article Meeting Strindberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a travel blog.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Feezo (Talk) 03:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Plainly not a travel blog! This is becoming malicious and personal on your part. Many things are a matter of interpretation. You are now actively seeking out ways to interpret my posts so as to frustrate them. Your conduct is becoming malicious and could be construed as harrassment. I would suggest you back away to avoid this dispute moving to another level. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Meeting Strindberg

Perhaps I should have said travelogue — the point is that an extract from an eighty year old biography isn't really an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article — unless you show why this particular passage meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Feezo (Talk) 03:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already been through this with another editor. This is purely vexatious. It is not fair or competent if editors do not co-ordinate amongst themselves, nor if they interpret the rules in different ways. It is plainly not a travelogue or a travel blog. It is the record of a meeting between three notable persons. In any case, your tone is unacceptable. You are seeking to disparage and belittle the content by dismissing it as from "and eighty-year-old" biography. To begin with, it is an autobiography, not a biography. For another thing, this book is a research source for many writers. Again, I have already been through that with two other editors. You gave not acted competently by taking the time to read those before commenting. This persistent attacking by many editors who repeat themselves is pure harrassment. it has no editorial value. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki ettiquette notice

Hello, Time Will Say Nothing. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--v/r - TP 03:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)