Talk:Robert Stanek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Revert
A MrTroy reorganized the article, with a comment that the reorganization made it more NPOV. I felt that the reorg puffed up Stanek's claims. I reverted. However, if MrTroy wants to come here and make a longer argument for the reorg, we can listen. Given the pitched battles over this article, I don't think it's a good idea for a newb to do a reorg without some communication with everyone else. Zora 13:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- There really shouldn't be a discussion about this. Read this:
- Reagent Press has called Stanek "America's Tolkien" and claims his books are bestsellers. Reagent Press is a sole proprietorship owned by William R. Stanek. [1] Sales claims can not be independently verified.
- It's clearly biased to put this so early into the article. The editors who organized the article this way clearly want to emphasize the self-promotion. That's not what Wikipedia is for. In the first place, we should be giving the reader information about the writer and his books. This article, however, seems to be an anti-Stanek page. Making "self-promotion" the very first heading in the article doesn't show NPOV either. Mentioning "which is owned by William R. Stanek. As such, claimed sales figures cannot be independently verified." in Selected Biography is just pointless. There's nothing about sales figures in the whole paragraph for heaven's sake, why then would you mention that sales figures can't be verified?
- The first line reads William Robert Stanek (born 3 January 1966) is an American author, maybe we should change it to William Robert Stanek (born 3 January 1966) is an old fraud just to match the organization of the article? MrTroy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's not sales figures, it's sales claims. I think perhaps MrTroy should re-read that first paragraph, as the very first line, which he even quotes above, states that Reagent Press has called Stanek "America's Tolkien" and claims his books are bestsellers. Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse here, but I'm pretty sure I see something there about sales claims. And for the record, I agree with Zora's reversion, especially in light of this article's sordid history. MikeWazowski 17:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are the one who needs to reread. Reread my comment on the talk page, that is. I was talking about the "which is owned by William R. Stanek. As such, claimed sales figures cannot be independently verified." in the paragraph Selected Biography, not about the one after "...claims his books are bestsellers". MrTroy 18:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- According to his user page, MrTroy appears to have left Wikipedia as of this writing, however, it may be instructive to others to point out the following:
- In the first heading, it is stated "In addition to his non-fiction work, he has written a number of fantasy novels and fantasy series, including the Ruin Mist series, published by Reagent Press. Reagent Press has called Stanek "America's Tolkien" and claims his books are bestsellers. Reagent Press is a sole proprietorship owned by William R. Stanek. [1] Sales claims can not be independently verified." (emphasis added for this discussion).
- To be "bestsellers", it is clear a record must be kept of sales. Since "Reagent Press" is a sole proprietorship owned by Mr. Stanek, its sales figures are not a matter of public record. Extensive internet searches, including searches of Reagent Press's own web site, have failed to turn up ANY independant documentation of numbers for the "bestseller" claim. Examinations of the Reagent Press website show an extraordinarily limited stable of authors, and claims of "bestseller" status for such a small press with an extremely limited pool of authors are both "notable" if for nothing but the sheer chutzpah involved and as an indication of the veracity of other claims made on their behalf. Synthfilker 02:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are the one who needs to reread. Reread my comment on the talk page, that is. I was talking about the "which is owned by William R. Stanek. As such, claimed sales figures cannot be independently verified." in the paragraph Selected Biography, not about the one after "...claims his books are bestsellers". MrTroy 18:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's not sales figures, it's sales claims. I think perhaps MrTroy should re-read that first paragraph, as the very first line, which he even quotes above, states that Reagent Press has called Stanek "America's Tolkien" and claims his books are bestsellers. Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse here, but I'm pretty sure I see something there about sales claims. And for the record, I agree with Zora's reversion, especially in light of this article's sordid history. MikeWazowski 17:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Latest Stanek avatar
Article is under attack again. Ubergeekin, who's adding the unreferenced adulatory material, has sent me several emails full of rage that we're persecuting Stanek. I suggested that he WAS Stanek, which he denied indignantly. Just a headsup to anyone else who dares remove the vanity edits.
I'd have no problem including relevant material that was referenced, but none of this military stuff is. I believe that someone previously found that Stanek was claiming his father's military achievements as his own, so I'm going to be extra-wary of unreferenced military claims. Zora 02:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ubergeekin Speaks to "The Maintenance Group" Concerning the Quality of Content of the Stanek Page
I have edited the material once again to no avail with you people. I referenced the material I put on the page, only to have it edited out again. As I stated previously to Zora, I am open to discussion. Zora, as for indiganty, you haven't even scratched the surface...the rage was directed at you for calling me a "Sock Puppet". I am continuing to feel quite disgruntled by you now calling me an "Avatar". I am a real person, not some virtual representation of someone else. I am quite certain if you spend some time online you can find information concerning my identity from previous online participations. That should server as enough proof to keep you from trying to label me.
- Hmmm... well, first of all, there IS no "Maintenance Group". There is no organization to the editors here. There is no grand conspiracy of "haters" (to borrow a term from the unlamented Sparhawk) out to get Stanek. Examining your contributions under this name, it seems you are only interested in Stanek... an odd choice at best. I'm not in the least interested in cyberstalking you to discover your secret identity, nor, I suspect, is anyone else. As far as we're concerned, you're a newbie with only one interest. Synthfilker 03:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no interest in the pervious material placed on the site previous to my edit, and left if completely intact. In the last edit I made, I did reference every fact, with the exception of the military records, only to have all of the content edited out again by someone else in your "group" by the name of Calton. I have since emailed him, but have received no response, the same with Zora for my last email to her concerning the content on the page. While I have no problem not listing the military service, the rest of the material was referenced at least as well as the other material on this page. I believe that makes is relevant content on the page. Are there objections from the crowd?
- Yes, I imagine there are quite a few "objections from the crowd". The "pervious" (sic) material was covered many times in the previous (note spelling) discussion, as you should have realized from your reading. Part of the problem is in the nature of the references. In this particular case, references to sites such as that of Reagent Press are highly suspect, and nearly worthless for an encyclopdia entry. Nor am I (or anyone else, probably) interested in discussing this via e-mail. If you can't say it here, in public, don't bother. Synthfilker 03:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
For your future reference, I will be editing the page again. Either we will come to an agreement on the content of this page, or maybe we should continue the previous discussion of removing the page completely from the site. (I read that too...) Complete removal would probably make the most sense in this case, as I have noticed everyone involved in the management of this page to be of the same mindset as Zora on protecting the frivelous accusastions with poor referencing of two people's opinions on a subject that has little relevance to biographical content. The last time I looked, referencing peoples' opinions did not fall into the "fact" category. Personally I think you've all held this page hostage long enough based on the historical reference listed on the page.
- This is yet another "clue" pointing towards an obvious pro-Stanek bias. If you can't have the page the way YOU want it, you want it deleted. I think you need to read the WIKI section on Editing with a conflict of interest to get the official stance on that... in particular the section on "Unintended Consequences". This article was created as a Stanek puff piece. (see original posts by Jnb27 in the history). You might try reading through the archived discussions on the article, too - this territory has been covered before. in the "Delete" discussion it turned out that the consensus was that almost the ONLY "notable" thing about Stanek was his efforts at self-promotion, which is exactly what is covered in those sections you object to. In addition, those "two people" have LONG track records as critics, commenters, and authors themselves, (in at least one case a FIVE TIME Hugo award winner) and they fall precisely into the "expert" category, with published writings that can be quoted. Synthfilker 03:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
To quote some of the material I sent Zora: "While I have been a user for some time, I have never seen the reason to work as an editor. After seeing the page you maintain on Stanek, I have changed my mind. I see now that not everyone on Wikipedia feels that facts should prevail in listings." I haven't changed my mind about this position either. Keeping non-relevant and non-factual information on Wikipedia makes it a poor source of reference for books, and other relevant educational materials, thereby lessening the value of the entire project as a whole.
- Actually, we DO agree that "facts" should prevail... we just have a much more stringent view of what constitiutes a "fact". Puffery from a personal or company website is not a "fact", just because they say so. You might also want to note that the term "Selected" does not map to "Exhaustive"... Synthfilker 03:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
For those not familiar with the term biography please reference the following information. For the individuals that will accuse me of "insulting their intelligence"...it's just a definition for clarification so all involved can clearly see the reason for this discussion:
American Heritage Dictionary
bi·o·graph·i·cal (b-grf-kl) Pronunciation Key also bi·o·graph·ic (-grfk) adj.
Containing, consisting of, or relating to the facts or events in a person's life.
Of or relating to biography as a literary form.
Ubergeekin 06:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, please. How condescending can you get? Not only are you violating copyright by posting this, but it actually has NO relation to the discussion at hand. The real crux of the matter is that the original article was written as a puff promotional piece, and when it was brought into line with actual, verifiable "facts", it turned out the Stanekites didn't like it any more. It looks like I'll be checking on on this entry quite frequently... again. I suspect we've got another lockup coming. Synthfilker 03:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disturbing posts on the Robert Stanek Message Board
I periodically check in here, and lurk occassionally on the Stanek Message Board as well to keep up on what his rabid defenders are doing. You may recall (and can check back in the archives of this talk page) that I've seen some unsettling things there before, and was locked out of their forums for a while... Odd, because I had never posted anything there.
I've just come from the Forums there (in the "Chat It Up" area - I suspect mentioning that will get it locked down to "registered members only" again...) and found some recent posts there that, if true, are deeply disturbing... and if not (as I suspect) cross the line into libel. Judge for yourselves:
Killing 11yearold's future (sic)
and
I have tested these links in the preview page, and both work as of this posting. I have also saved both of these pages as web archives on my computer, in case access is cut off or they are deleted. Perhaps some others might wish to do the same.
Please, do NOT go and stir up trouble on the Stanek Forums. That would be highly counterproductive. Synthfilker 02:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- As the target of these two pages, I contacted ProBoards. The content seems to have been removed, but the forum has also gone registration-only (even for viewing) so it's hard to be sure. Approximately the same course has been followed for a similar page at Squidoo, and might soon be followed for two more at Amazon. The persistence with which this defamation campaign has been waged might merit mention on the main page at some point, but I'll leave that to others.
- Please forgive any formatting errors, etc. Contrary to the claims made about me as the leader of an anti-Stanek cabal at Wikipedia, this is my first attempt at editing a page.
- Obdurodon 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
