Talk:Robert Stanek/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Contents

[edit] Not worth fighting over

It isn't worth fighting over. Might as well delete the page. Soulrunner 02:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is not worth fighting over then why do they keep at it? I've agreed to delete the page if it ends the bickering, but they just won't stop because they're out to ruin this guy. Jnb27 02:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The ORIGINAL version of this page is this:

Jnb27 01:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

(copy/paste deleted to avoid clogging up the page; see main-page history at [1] ) Shimgray | talk | 02:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose deleting all, and moving on to other stuff. Enough already. Eakers4 01:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree what a waste of time. I'm ashamed to say I thought the idea of wikipedia was cool, but everyone here is so hateful and mean. If they delete the Chris Paolini pages next I'm gonig to go on a rampage. Soulrunner 01:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the objectivity of the harrassers. There has been discussion about Shimgray and others having personal agendas. A look at Amazon shows February 15 as the publication date for Stanek's latest book (Into the Stone Land). The fact today's February 17 is no coincidence I would suspect. I'm surprised someone like DrBob would allow the use of Wikipedia as a forum for harrassing, and posting derogatory comments.

List of 7 unpublished books deleted. I thought long and hard for a couple of days before doing this, weighing editing the post of another, and the high probability than the OP will go off the wall against an obvious attempt to circumvent the "vanity" clause by putting the information in the talk page. Edit won out. Obviously the information is still available in the history... Synthfilker 17:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a big year for the author, so is this the point of the harrassment? I would think so.Jnb27 02:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Odd, innit, that someone complains about a lack of objectivity, then launches into a commercial about upcoming releases? Frankly, I'm about 2 seconds from deleting the list of upcoming books. 69.213.249.15 01:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


I dispute the objectivity of this article. There has been discussion about Robert Stanek, to wit: his books are really not that good, because they are not that good they are self-published, and the rave reviews at amazon.com and other places are bogus--any person can create multiple accounts at such sites. Also notice this quote from the original article:

"He started work as a journalist and editor – with a school newspaper – at the age of nine!"

An exclamation point at the end.

Exclamation point was remedied. I also DISPUTE the facticity and neutrality of this article. It seems to me that one person basically wrote this article in its entirety, bit by bit, to make it appear like more information was being discovered and added. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the author may have potentially written large chunks of this. Just pull up a search for "Robert Stanek" and fraud on Google. I am not alleging that this is the case, merely hinting that based on past observances (i.e. widespread belief he writes his own reviews on Amazon with fake reviewers, and then sent a threatening legal notice to an author, Stephen Leigh, from a fake attorney--GW law school apparently cofirmed the attorney was a fake). At any rate, there are serious questions about Stanek among literary circles. See: http://sleigh.livejournal.com/97971.html http://trufen.net/article.pl?sid=05/11/10/1121246 Also... check out the "Regeant Press" website, it appears to be a front for self-publishing as it has only published stuff by Stanek. 69.216.236.40 03:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I basically dispute the neutrality of any article about Robert Stanek with no reference to suspected fraudulent reviews, as these (along with being an atrocious writer) are what he is best known for as far as I can tell. This article seems to be written in the same bizarre, stilted style Stanek uses. What an odd coincidence.

The biography is taken verbatim from Stanek's website, including the bit about editing ended with an exclamation mark. Perhaps it may be an idea to add a section regarding the fraudulent reviews. Connor Wolf 12:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

The militant deletions on this talk page only add credence to what others have stated. No one has a grudge against Robert Stanek, we are merely trying to produce an accurate article that is not ripped off an someone's website. The Amazon fake reviews thing has been a big issue, basically you can see that all the reviews have the same writing style, which is eerily similar to the writing style in this article. I think there needs to be a serious objective analysis of this article, as I repeat again that it seems to have been wholly written by a single individual. Wikipedia is not a site for self-promotion. Secondly, claiming that people had been "reported" to wikipedia for trying to get people to STOP AND CRITICALLY analyze the situation here is pretty ridiculous. There are serious allegations in literary circles I have said about Stanek's practices and the guy is also self-published. Personally I'd say as it stands this article either needs to be deleted or heavily reworked. 69.216.236.40 00:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I dispute this. Take 3 seconds to visit [[2]] There is an obvious personal agenda in this harrassment. Jnb27 02:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

I've reinstated the content of the page, but added the comment that was placed over it below. (Incidentally, I'm not any of the other users below, but hey) Shimgray | talk | 01:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC) [another comment added]

[edit] Wikipedia policy against sockpuppets

It appears several users, including Shimgray, Joturner, Connor Wolf, 69.216.236.40, 128.227.1.161 are sockpuppets. Wikipedia has an explicit policy against using sockpuppets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulrunner (talk • contribs).

I would welcome a checkuser examination myself. In the interests of full disclosure, I originally posted as 69.213.249.15, then a time or two as 69.214.51.71. I thought I had a stable IP address... obviously I didn't. I've since gotten a regular ID and re-signed all my posts in all the Stanek topics with the perm ID in addition to the original signatures. Synthfilker 03:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Now this is interesting... See this discussion on the Ruin Mist chat boards. Note the location of one "Sparhawk"... Sofia, Bulgaria? Hmmm... where have I heard that recently... Synthfilker 07:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it was me. I don't hide. You created a wave of negativity about RS works, and I think that it's only accurate for RS fans to create another tide of bad reviews about works you created and like.

OK, I happen to be quite fond of Jane Austen and Charlotte Yonge. Do your worst! Zora 12:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Really - why do you post in fantasy page, then?

Learn to sign your posts, Sparhawk. Well, for my part, I like Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Theodore Sturgeon, and H. Beam Piper, but my REAL favorite is Robert Lionel Fanthorpe. Have fun. Synthfilker 15:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Asimov and Heinlein are dead, I see, Fanthorpe is bizzare, never heard the others. Probably for a good reason.

Irony is lost on the clueless... Synthfilker 18:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not for airing personal grudges

Apparently several people have a personal grudge to air. Wikipedia is not for airing personal grudges or vendettas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulrunner (talk • contribs).

Please cease from deleting huge sections of content from this page. If you wish to actually address the issues raised rather than decry them as "personal grudges" or threaten to "report" people, please feel free; persistent removal is generally considered vandalism. Shimgray | talk | 01:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Bother

The more important question is why is this individual bothering to try to cause problems? I would agree. Shimgray should cease from making edits. Jnb27 01:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exclamation point

I don't think the article has the following any longer:

"He started work as a journalist and editor – with a school newspaper – at the age of nine!"

I'm not sure what it mattered or why this matters at all. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a forum for harrassment. Jnb27 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bogus complaints

A quick look at other places shows several of the folks posting to this page have been airing bogus complaints on other sites, and the intent of this should be obvious. one of these jokers has posted on other sites as riftzone. Jnb27 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ASIN Issues

I have no idea what an ASIN is but I know it has to do with books. Shimgray certainly seems to know what an ASIN is. Maybe it's why he's so interested in harrassing. Jnb27 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia shouldn't be used for personal attacks or defaming others

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

Individuals should not post personal attacks and defamatory comments. Personal attacks and defamatory comments are against the Wikipedia rules. Jnb27 04:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Perry Mason, for the note. I note that you didn't even bother to do more than add a standard {{attack}} template, three times, to generate your warning.

Now please familiarize yourself with this policy, particularly the second item:

Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [3] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability.

--Calton | Talk 06:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fandom to the rescue

Prompted by a comment on the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.fandom, I visited this article and found it to be a bloated puff-piece obviously penned by Robert Stanek himself. He is well-known among fen for his obsessive self-promotion and hallucinatory claims to bestsellerdom.

I removed everything in the article that I found self-serving or non-notable. There are still two bloated areas -- the categories (Stanek has assigned himself to every possibly category, in an attempt to get his name out there), and the list of non-fiction publications. How many of those are from Reagent Press? How many actually exist, or sold any copies? I would appreciate some help from other editors with further fact-checking and pruning. Zora 21:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I should add that a number of the editors here are probably Stanek socks. If we get a round of reverts, a sock check may be in order. Zora 21:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
You're a braver man than I am, Zora Din (last night's thrilling screaming match was enough for me). I'll have a hack at some of the more crufty other pages, lists of his books and whatnot. Shimgray | talk | 21:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, we're down to this page and a (mostly isolated) collection of Robert-Stanek-universe-related pages such as Ruin Mist. What to do, what to do... Shimgray | talk | 21:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Given there will no doubt be massive screams about my bias (see comments passim) if I do what I want to and redirect them all, I'll list them all for deletion en masse sometime this evening. I swear, I didn't give a damn about this guy until last night... Shimgray | talk | 21:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Some citations for the claims about him would be good; the Ansible comments? Shimgray | talk | 21:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes please, if you have easy access to them. That's a published and known reliable source. Zora 22:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, what the heck, I'm avoiding work, I inserted an Ansible section and links. Zora 22:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a list of probable Stanek-socks that I've been keeping an eye on since I first noticed the proliferation of articles [4]:
Keeping an eye on them may be in order. --Bob Mellish 22:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Shimgray (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) OrbitOne (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) Zora (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) 69.213.249.15 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) 69.216.236.40 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) Calton (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) Connor Wolf (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) Joturner (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) 128.227.1.161 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) Wwwwolf (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

Eakers4 01:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Please visit Wikipedia:Mediation. You guys are giving me a headache over at the vandal watch. This article is showing up every 15 minutes. --OrbitOne 02:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What is mediation? How do I do it? Jnb27 02:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

There are no neutral parties. These people obviously have axes to grind, and they're pulling in about 10 different people to do it. Jnb27 02:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm... there's your story, and there's their story, and then there's the mediators. Check the above article. Bet you can find someone from that list who hasn't touched the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The point I suspect is to ruin this guy, and you are trying hard to do it. I've agreed to delete the page to end the bickering. You obviously do have an axe to grind. Jnb27 02:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violations

As predicted, the suspected Stanek socks are reverting like mad to keep embarrassing material off Wikipedia. If a sock check confirms their "sockiness", how about a 3RR ban for Stanek and his avatars? Zora 02:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How about a 3RR ban for Zora, and the Shimgray sock puppets? You people aren't being fair, and you know it. Your just trying to ruin someone. Jnb27 02:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Have you left a note at WP:RFCU? (And feel free to ask for me to be checked, too, for the sake of transparency... not that it'll stop the attacks) Shimgray | talk | 02:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I've left a note requesting a checkuser on Jnb27 (talk • contribs), Cwnewma (talk • contribs), Soulrunner (talk • contribs) & Eakers4 (talk • contribs). I've also, for the sake of transparency, asked for one in case you're really a sockpuppet of me :-) Shimgray | talk | 02:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. It's like you are out for blood, and it's not fair what you are doing. Jnb27 02:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Why so many edits on this page? This scruff should be deleted, and all should stop inserting scruff that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 172.164.196.220 04:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ban

Everyone who's talked here should be banned from wikipedia forever, starting with shimgray, and on down the line. Enough already on editing. I think everyone gets you have a grudge or such. 165.247.191.244 04:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that include you too, since you talked here? =) Wikipedia has a rather good criteria on what qualifies as a perma-ban offense, and talking on-topic stuff on the talk page is not one of them. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shameful!

Robert Stanek's page was very informative and useful for me. It's a shame when people don't stop to bash a successful author. You guys are just jealous! If Stanek was so unsuccessful as you claim, why bother with his articles at all? It's obvious that Stanek's haters are paid by rival publishers. Do not delete the page, keep it neutral! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.187.166.230 (talk • contribs) .

Successful? When this ridiculous debate started up again, I did a search on Amazon.com last night to see what he's actually written. There are 46 books on there (some different editions of the same book). Not a single one of his fiction books is in the top 100,000 of Amazon's sales rank - there's a cluster at 150,000 - 250,000, and a surprising number are the wrong side of 1,000,000 (the worst-selling books are at nearly sales rank 3,000,000 !). If he's relying on book sales for his income, he must be in penury. His best-selling book appears to be "Microsoft IIS 6.0 Administrator's Pocket Consultant " at around 40,000 today (it was 25,510 last night, so presumably someone bought a copy recently!). He seems to be an utterly non-notable writer, except for his self-promotional antics. -- Arwel (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
His first books was in top 100 when published. Then again, why bother with him? IMO he is a great author.
Fantasy Fan from Bulgaria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.187.166.230 (talk • contribs) .
Cite? Top 100 what? Where? By who? If true, it would certainly be worth adding to the page... 69.213.249.15 19:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Top 100 in www.amazon.com, of course. Also I don't understand while instead of bashing, people who dislike RS haven't added just a section "controversy" in the article. This would have been an intelligent way of disagreeing with official information from "Reagent Press". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.187.166.230 (talk • contribs) .
Actually, if you'd track back through the edits and reverts, you'd see that's exactly what was done... and it triggered a wave of reverts from the "Stanekites" who seemed to think anything other than glowing recommendations had no place in the article. So you see, that was tried already. Can you (or anyone else) provide a link to an Amazon archive of their "Top 100" with Stanek in it that we could reference in the article? If not, it's a useless (and unverifiable) datapoint. 69.214.51.71 02:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Observation Actually, if you back track through the edits carefully, you find the following:
  • (cur) (last) 22:40, 18 February 2006 Zora (OK, I added the Ansible stuff)
  • (cur) (last) 21:28, 18 February 2006 Shimgray (→External links - trim cats)
  • (cur) (last) 21:03, 18 February 2006 Zora (Major pruning -- see talk)
  • (cur) (last) 14:41, 18 February 2006 69.213.249.15 (Including covers violates copyright, and is also promotion of the book(s), both violations of WIKI policies)
Exactly what was done was you decided to cut out everything from the article, then Zora add the controversy after. 4.156.147.159 00:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
What was deleted was PR puffery copied and pasted directly from Reagent Press press releases on their web site, specifically these: [5],[6],[7],[8]. (Note that these PRs are also the source of the infamous 'exclamation mark' discussed previously.) While they might provide a single source among multiple sources, they are hardly unbiased, or a sufficient basis for an encylopedia article on their own. Basing the entire content of the article on the press releases violates the principle that a individual must not be involved in the writing of an article about themselves. Synthfilker 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Observation Also according to wikipedia policy, use of book covers is considered fair use and do not violate copyright. 4.156.147.159 00:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Use of one cover can be fair use. Use of EVERY cover of every edition ever printed strains fair use well past the breaking point, and even if it didn't violates the "no promotion" guidelines and simply confirms the article is nothing but astroturf. Synthfilker 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You should sign your posts, Mr. Stanek. Yes, your books have occasionally been in the top 100 at Amazon -- due entirely to your tireless astroturfing. Various links have been posted to sites where readers complain of being duped by sockpuppet reviews into buying books that they loathed. As for there being a controversy -- I don't think that one man against the world counts as controversy. Zora 21:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
In all of fairness, 85.187.166.230 appears to be assigned to Net-X NG, Bulgaria. So either that's an actual fan from Bulgaria, a mysterious open HTTP proxy, or Stanek on holidays in Sofia or something. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Is Stanek a Bulgarian name? It could be a relative! =) -- Arwel (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Observation: According to his extraordinarily detailed bio posted in early versions of the article, his father was originally from Budapest, Hungary... only 30 miles from the Bulgarian border. Now isn't that interesting. Synthfilker 05:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh, Hungary doesn't border on Bulgaria. -- Curps 09:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Oops. That's what I get for staying up late. I used Google Earth, and just outside Bulgaria was"Bucharest". I mis-read it as Budapest, and didn't zoom back out far enough to catch the error. The REAL Budapest is 290 miles from the nearest part of Bulgaria. Synthfilker 14:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday, when I read your bashing, I was angered by your malice. Today, I am amused. You simply believe what you want to believe and what fith your theories of conspiracy. :) It's true that Bulgaria is close to Hungarian border, but between us, Bulgarians and Hungarians there is nothing similar. We are Slavs. They are unique, with the Finns. Do some research before posting rubbish. Also, for haters you know amazing things of RS. For example, I knew that he is descendant of Hungarians, but I didn't know that his father was born in Budapesta. Anyway, I'd like to repeat my question - why you had to destroy RS page, while, you could have simply added a new matherial called "RS controversy" in which both sides could have intelligently defended their opinions?

Bulgaria does not border on Hungary, not even close. That's not a mistake that any Bulgarian would make. Why is a non-Bulgarian posting from a Bulgarian IP address? -- Curps 09:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not that far away. If you travel with a bus from the morning, you pass Serbia and in the evening you are at Hungary. So for me it's close.
Finland is far away.
Learn to sign your comments. Synthfilker 14:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shameful! Pt. 1a

Well, Sparhawk, if you had actually read the article here you and the other Stanekites trashed, you would know his father was from Budapest. That's where I got the info, after all. And again, if you had actually read the article, you would know that the "controversy" heading was added... and it was then that the supporters of Stanek began trashing the site in order to keep anything that could possibly be perceived as negative off the site. The rabble-rousing you and others are doing over at tvpress.com is silly. Your 'conspiracy theories' about big publishing are ludicrious, and the threats I see posted there are laughable [9].
Ohhh, we must have been naughty... the public BB that the above link references now requires a login and password to read - I wonder why the sudden change? No wonder it's been quiet the last few days - they've been hiding the skeletons! <<grin>> Synthfilker 00:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"We can and we must crush the people, who try to destroy our fave books. If you are with me, I have an ideas what we must do."
"We have felt the malice of the haters and I think that we must give them a proper responce. Not only we must defend RS - and CP, for that matter, because he is another face of the fantasy we love - we must also deal with the authors who move that haters."
"Well, that's open a whole lot of possibilities especially now when this monsters have revealed their ghastly personas in "Asimov's" forum. These are deluded imbeciles who must pay for their malice and unprovoked attacks. I also suggest to hit back with negative reviews about their fave authors. They must feel the pain upon themselves."
Sound familiar? They're your words, Sparhawk.
And you've prodded and encouraged others to make thinly veiled threats. For example, edog said:
"These haters think they can do whatever they please. They should watchout. I just started working and I know for a fact you can't use the company computers for this kind of nonsense. In school if you were caught doing this kind of thing you'd get kicked out of the computer labs. They think they can hurt RS well we can hurt them too."
and:
"I have much hate in me for those hurting RS. they better start watching their backs."
You know, those forums aren't private.... Synthfilker 08:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I have nothing to hide from you. These are my words and I stand behind them. You are evil, sick people and deserve the worst. Your wave of hatred hurts the fantasy, not only RS. I answered and encouraged other Stanek fans to hit back at you and the authors you support with bad reviews. Is it not this what you do when you encourage your friends to bash Stanek? Or you thought that I had in mind violence? Are you so paranoic?
And to say "Stanek is a liar" is hardly an intelligent debate. I reccomend to you to check the article about "Jedi Prince" series of books and to see how is the best way to portray a controversial series.
Sparhawk, to see you, of all people, accuse me of paranoia is... amusing. You and the other Stanekites are the ones calling other people "haters", "evil", "sick", "twisted", and claiming there is some vast hidden conspiracy of fearful publishers and jealous authors who are trying to destroy Stanek. You're so blinded by your cult-like obsession with this author you can't tolerate even the slightest hint that the man isn't perfect.
You also seem to misunderstand the basic concept of Wikipedia. The articles aren't the place for debate, they are for facts. Facts have no agenda, they are not jealous, fearful, or vindictive. They simply exist without regard to your personal feelings. Articles about other books or authors are irrelevant to this discussion. The vandalism that resulted when a simple (and not even all that critical, actually) statement of fact was posted was remarkable in its ferocity, and continues even now. If you want to dispute something, dispute the facts, if you can. Don't look for hidden agendas or secret cabals, look for citations to dispute those of others. I note you've taken the time to respond here, but have not as yet responded to the comments regarding the lack of proof for the claim about Stanek being in Amazon.com's Top 100. Wouldn't your time be better spent finding citable sources for your earlier claim?
I'm really looking forward to the reported "Oprah" interview with Stanek that is mentioned in the discussion groups on Stanek's site. [10] Given Oprah's recent experience with Frey, I expect some hard questions regarding his promotional methods and legal threats against critics - It'll be interesting to see Stanek have to publicly respond to these points. I'm sure someone will see to it Oprah has the necessary background information... Synthfilker 14:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for the answer. Despite that I loathe your opinion about RS, whom I respect very much, I appreciate that you at least try to answer me, despite your hostility.
I want to clear some things. I do believe that there is a conspiracy against RS and I do agree with fellow Rs fans the big publishers are trying to destroy him. What I also believe is that there is a movement, moved by people like you against traditional fantasy (elves, dragons, magic, quests etc.), which I love and which is recently repesented by author such as Robert Stanek and Christopher Paolini. As a fan of this type of fantasy since I was very young (I got into these books with Brooks'"Shannara" series) I felt that I must defend my fave authors and my type of fantasy. Hence, my thread in RS boards. I think that fans of Stanek and/or Paolini must strike back at people who bash these books, or we will lose them. And I also think that fans of Dragons & Magic type fantasy books must hit back with negative reviews to rival fantasy books (with court intrigues, sex and violence). Simple as that.
I did not and can not find a matherial which supports the Amazon Top 100 claim - I simply remember the sales rank, but it was back in 2002, at time of which I have not read any book by Stanek. I ordered them in the end of 2003 and read them in the beginning of 2004, at that time their rank was between 4000-10 000. I, however, did not save screenshots of these, for I never thought that I'd need them. Also, it's very hard to find numbers of sold copies on the Web. I searched figures of my fave authors, David & Leigh Eddings, and I didn't found any.
I also want to state that I don't defend RS just because he writes about Elves. I like his books. I like the world and the creatures, and the strange feeling of mysterious magic.
I like other books, however, too.
Now about the opinions page. Can I see exactly what brought so much trouble (link please), then I'll have the opportunity to answer you. I seriously doubt that the added article was as innocent as you claim.
Thank you in advance.
Learn to sign your posts. What opinion about Stanek? Once again, you show a failure to grasp the concept of Wikipedia. Articles aren't opinions, they're supposed to be facts, no matter how uncomfortable that makes you. Your beliefs are immaterial. No matter how passionately you hold to a belief, it doesn't elevate it to the standing of a fact. If you think there's a conspiracy, prove it. Believing there's a conspiracy doesn't make it so, it only makes you look foolish.
I did a Google search on "david eddings new york times best sellers" and found this as the first hit of over 51,000. (This clearly demonstrates that the information is indeed available on-line, and is trivial to access.) I substituted "Stanek" for Eddings, and got 31,000 hits, many of which appeared to be computer books, and none of the first 200 were an actual listing comparable to the Eddings find. I added "+fiction -microsoft -computer" to the search to eliminate the computer books but keep fiction references, and found only ads. I wonder why...
As to finding the original page, learn to use wiki. A deleted or modified page doesn't just go away, use the history. It's still there. Synthfilker 16:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shameful, Pt. 2

(added for easier editing)Synthfilker 16:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

First - your belief that Stanek lies about his success is also not fact. Your belief that the reviews are artificial is not fact, too. On the contrary, I think that the negative reviews are written by a same person or a group of people. You might do a little research in www.amazon.com and you'll find that many of the negative reviews are the only ones, which the reviewers have. Which clearly shows something - whould would register just to bash a book? Also I claim that jealous authors organize this effort. In Asimov's forum, the most vicious of critics is a man, who publishes his own boks for free and urges others to bash Stanek on-line. Also, I choose whether or not to sign my posts. If this makes you feel more secure - OK. Sparhawk


OK, one claim at a time at a time:
  1. "First - your belief that Stanek lies about his success is also not fact." From his publisher's website, which, being self-published, is under his control: "RP Books, Reagent Press is proud to be the official publisher of #1 bestselling author Robert Stanek and his Ruin Mist books." No documentation of Stanek ever being a bestselling author is provided, much less a #1 bestselling author. The list on which he was supposedly a "#1" is unspecified, making it impossible to verify. No independant documentation is available. If you can provide such, I'd be glad to see it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Have you any proof that he is not #1 Best-selling author of any list? You accuse the publisher of lying, yet there is no proof that there isn't a list, dominated by RS.

  1. "Your belief that the reviews are artificial is not fact, too." No one has claimed they're artificial - they obviously exist. However, it's odd that so many of them use exactly the same phrases and odd syntax. They read like a bunch of politicians hitting their talking points. See the Controversy Ansible Controversy.

This is an opinion. Many reviews of other books also sound similar. Check various book in amazon.com and you'll see.

  1. "Also I claim that jealous authors organize this effort." Do you have any proof of this, or are you just parrotting Stanek's opinion? Frankly, there has been no evidence presented that un-named "jealous authors" have anything to be jealous of, much less that there is any kind of organized "anti-Stanek" effort of any kind. The postings here aren't even anti-Stanek, they're anti-astroturf. (wiki it)

I gave you the forum which shows all.

  1. "In Asimov's forum..." And that's Asimov's' forum, a place for opinion. This is Wikipedia, a place for facts. I have seen, done, or received no urging from anyone here, or in any other forum, in any form of communication. Actually, you provide a great deal of my motivation.

And you manipulate the facts to prove your point. If it is true that I give you motivation, I quit. I can only hope that RS will overcome bashing from people like you.

  1. "Also, I choose whether or not to sign my posts. If this makes you feel more secure - OK." It's not a matter of making me or anyone else feel secure, it's good manners and makes it easier to figure out who you're talking to. And you're still not doing it right. Next time you reply, scroll down a little and read what is says right below "Your changes will be visible immediately."
Synthfilker 17:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I can sign or not sign my posts. You, basher, are not the one who would teach me to good manners. SPARHAWK

OK, how we come from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Stanek&direction=next&oldid=38296139 to that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Stanek&direction=next&oldid=40148830

You guys have chopped the article.

Please, answer to this. SPARHAWK

[edit] Amazon Top 100 claim

OK, doing a little homework here. Googled on "Amazon top 100" stanek, and got 202 hits after asking for all hits. Remarkably, many of them contained exactly the same phrase: "Robert Stanek has inspired readers...". After examining a few of these links, it became obvious that they were all ads that linked to the Reagent Press website at tvpress.com

So, I redid the search removing those items with that exact phrasing: "Amazon top 100" stanek -"Robert Stanek has inspired readers"

This left me with 38 hits - much more manageable. In all cases, the cached page was checked.

Well, you get the idea...

Every single hit of these 38 was an simple case of an ad for Amazon.com, mentioning their top 100, appearing at some time on the same page as an entirely separate ad for Stanek's book(s).

There was NO incidence in either search of any mention of Stanek appearing at any time in Amazon's Top 100. Does this mean it never happened? No... but it indicates there is no way to verify it on the web via Google. Synthfilker 06:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, amazing. You obviously are in love with Stanek to do such careful research. :) Now, besides aruing each other, i'd like to ask you is there any official figures of sells of individual fantasy author? My question is not conected with this thread - I'm just curious.
SURE it's not (and "Learn to sign your posts"). I neither love nor hate Stanek. Other authors are not the issue. Claims were made in the original article that Stanek was on best-seller lists. These claims were unverified. A claim was made that Stanek had been on the Amazon.com Top 100. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I made a documented attempt to verify that claim using specific methods, and was unsuccessful. If someone else is interested in attempting to verify this claim, knowing what methods did not work will save them some footwork. Can you verify the claim? Synthfilker 15:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm ready to admit that I can not. I remember that he was. You can believe me or not. About the figures, that's the point. I often did some research about sales figures, but rarely find anything. Sparhawk.

[edit] Continuation of Talk:Robert Stanek - Page 2

Please contine the discussion on this new page

Improperly named continuation page moved to Talk:Robert Stanek/Page 2 - and there was no need to create a continuation page anyway. -- Arwel (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the mis-naming - thanks for the correction. I was getting warnings that the page was getting too long, that's why I created it. Synthfilker 00:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Continuation page? Back when I was young, we had archive pages... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of Archives

I did a search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers.

  • Best Sellers in Fiction shows one or more of the books on the bestseller list on 5/5/2005, 5/27/2005, and 6/2/2005.
  • Best Sellers in Science Fiction and Fantasy shows one or more of the books on the bestseller list on 7/1/2005, 6/2/2005, 5/27/2005, and 5/5/2005.
  • Best Sellers in Kids shows the books one or more of on the bestseller list on 6/24/2005, and 6/23/2005.
  • Best Sellers in Mystery shows one or more of on the bestseller list on 9/2/2005.

What I find hard to believe is that no one else knew this before starting to attack this author. Surely gary, zipzapjack, et al knew this going in 4.154.208.199 23:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What I find hard to believe is that you have a resource that seems to have escaped everyone else. Source, please? --Calton | Talk 00:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's all true. What's left out is that it's a "best sellers" report from his own publisher. Best-selling from Reagent Press, not best-selling on the whole market. The real source is just a press release from his own publisher that showed up on an RSS newsfeed on a slow day. And it's in teeny type in a box running down the margins, not even in the body of the feed. It's a real honor, I'm sure, like "best-selling Frank Stallone album." Probably those are the days when somebody bought a copy on Amazon. 1 copy of anything looks like a pretty good sales day for that publisher.Monicasdude 00:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for the source. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment What is being referred to is RSS newsfeed which requires a subscription to the feed. I archived the feeds referenced above: 1. Any one can subscribe to a feed and get archives. 4.154.212.74 19:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Even worse than the link I found. That looks like the feed from overstock.com, where the "Best Sellers" are often actually the titles they've got way too many slow-moving copies of. Monicasdude 19:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Somehow I have trouble with a plain text html site, that lacks links back to the source material, and lists a book as a "Best Seller" for all of FOUR SECONDS, being a credible source... (From that list... note the time stamps. Spacing lines removed for clarity)
The War of the Worlds (Unabridged) 7/2/2005 3:45:31 AM
This classic chiller, when adapted for radio in 1938 by Orson Wells, was realistic enough to cause widespread panic throughout the United States....
The Kingdoms and the Elves of the Reaches Book III (Unabridged) 7/1/2005 3:45:27 AM
Adrina, Emel, Vilmos, Galan, and Seth face even greater challenges as their world is transformed....
The Traveler (Unabridged) 7/1/2005 3:45:27 AM
Maya is hiding in plain sight in London....
Wow... a best seller from 3:45:27 AM to 3:45:31 AM! He must be so proud! <<snicker>>
You don't really expect us to take this seriously as a source, do you? C'mon, pull the other one... Synthfilker 01:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong So let me get this right since synthfilker and monicasdude have no idea what RSS newsfeed is it makes the sources invalid? A review of the RSS newsfeeds shows to be official newsfeeds of the #1 bestseller or bestsellers for a specific week in a specific category. Subscribing to the RSS news feeds discussed previously shows exactly as was mentioned. To verify the bestseller status, alls needs to do is subscribe to the RSS newsfeeds. I counted 9 weeks where there was a book at #1 by this. There may be more but I only search Best Sellers in Fiction, Best Sellers in Science Fiction and Fantasy and Best Sellers in Kids. Argyle6 20:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal No, the fact that these "newsfeeds" don't represent a "best seller" list with any standing in the publishing community, and even more importantly given the history of this particular author, cannot be verified from the supposed primary source makes them invalid. Sorry, but a "best seller" in the lists of a single publisher or clearinghouse is meaningless. You want to impress us, show us a _real_ "best seller" list. This supposed "evidence" is just more PR puffery. Synthfilker 19:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment These newsfeeds are from [11]. For the RSS-impaired, I created clippings of the bestseller feeds for mystery, science fiction and fantasy, kids and fiction. Found 14 weeks as a #1 for various of this author's titles. 4 weeks at #1 fiction. 4 weeks at #1 in science fiction and fantasy. 4 weeks in #1 in kids. 1 week in #1 in mystery.

Rebuttal Audible does not have a connection to archives of their newsfeeds beyond two months, and the "last month" link currently has no entries. There are currently NO entries in ANY of the categories you named for Stanek. Therefore it is impossible to verify any claim made for Stanek's supposed "best seller" status. Synthfilker 19:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Edit

I recommend changing:

In addition to his non-fiction work, he has written a number of fantasy novels and fantasy series published by Reagent Press, an independent press. As Reagent Press seems to exist primarily to publish Stanek novels, there is wide speculation that it is a vanity press controlled by Stanek. Stanek's claims to bestsellerdom are not supported by any outside evidence.

To the following:

In addition to his non-fiction work, he has written a number of fantasy novels and fantasy series published by Reagent Press, an independent press. For 4 weeks in 2005, various of the author's works were #1 in Fiction on Audible.com[12].

Hatsu 05:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

For the THIRD time, guy, provide a source. You can create an RSS feed by pasting in a bunch of URLs: whoop-de-doo for your mad tech skillz. How about some actual proof of actual best-seller status instead? --Calton | Talk 09:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose edit It is clear from checking the information given above that these claims of being #1 on a best seller list cannot be verified. No change should be made. The link provided above is a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to provide proof - it does not provide any proof as purported, but rather is simply a list of links back to the sales points on the Audible website. It's a lazy attempt at a snowjob, mimicking the look of the Audible RSS feed. Synthfilker 19:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Synthfinker shouldn't be moving people's edits around. I posted edits to the section "The only thing they have to fear is... the truth?". Synthfinker moved these two sections up, where presumably my responses to the oppose edit would not be seen. As stated, newsgater online maintains 180 days worth of data for best sellers. These feeds are here:

Best Sellers in Fiction [13]

Best Sellers in Kids [14]

Best Sellers in Mystery [15]

Best Sellers in Science Fiction and Fantasy [16]

Hatsu 01:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Response I created that new section, and you edited the entire page, keeping me from adding my text into it. I simply moved your non-sequitur post to the place it appeared to follow. I wasn't exactly trying to hide the fact I moved it... Check the logs. ("Synthfinker"?? Is that the best you can do?) Synthfilker 01:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
As for the suitability of these as a source for an article, see my response above to the previous attempt to cite these supposed 'best seller lists' by Argyle6 . Synthfinker!?!? <snicker> Synthfilker 16:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives, Pt. 2 - The "Blue Ribbon" award

Stanek has this to say in his December 2005 blog entry (presumably, straight from the horse's mouth):

An update on the Blue Ribbon award for my audio books—this is no 
longer a maybe. My audio books have won multiple awards, which will 
be announced in 2006. Keep your fingers crossed for the 2006 
Grammy awards and 2006 Audie awards, which appear to be sure 
things.

Here is the list of Blue Ribbon Awards for 2005, released in January, 2006, and presumably the ones to which Stanek was referring. No Stanek. On the basis that he might have come close, but not won the award after all, here's the list of dissents that didn't quite make the cut. No Stanek. That's odd... Maybe he meant a previous year... 2004? No Stanek. 2003? No Stanek. 2002? No Stanek. 2001? No Stanek. 2000? No Stanek. 1999? No Stanek. Went all the way back to 1990. No Stanek.

Maybe this explains it. It seems the organization reviews only trade and mass-market books - they don't do audio books at all. Hmmm, curiouser and curiouser. So what "Blue Ribbon" award was Stanek talking about? Or just perhaps, when he said "no longer a maybe', it was because he had realized that audiobooks aren't considered for this award. Synthfilker 19:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The only thing they have to fear is... the truth?

Oh, this just gets better and better.

In the section above titled "Shameful Pt1a", I posted a link to the Stanek discussion boards, and made reference to the rabble-rousing that was going on in a particular topic there. Shortly thereafter, those boards (and the entire site) were closed to public view. I simply signed up as a new member of the board, using a different ID, and continued to observe without making a single post. Today, I find that I've been banned from the board! Oh, the shame and indignity! However shall I live with myself - banned from such a haven of wisdom and sagacity!

You really have to wonder what they have to fear. I did not make a single post on any forum, so it couldn't possibly be that I violated any terms of service. After I signed up on the board, I had not even found a reason to copy anything new from the site. If this is an example of the kind of thought control they exhibit over members, then it's no wonder Stanekites exhibit such cultlike fervor. Every time there is a stunt like this pulled, it makes me that much more determined to get to the bottom of this matter. Synthfilker 01:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Stanek, unstoppable juggernaut

Curious, I ran a Lexis/Nexis search on Robert Stanek. No articles or book reviews in major US newspaper or magazines in the last ten years. The BusinessWire archives turn up about 7 press releases from Regent Press. This is my favorite:

Business Wire, October 3, 2002, Thursday
HEADLINE: Tell Johnny Not to Finalize His Wish List Yet: Ruin Mist Role Playing Games, Video Games, Trading Cards, Toys All in Planning
DATELINE: SEATTLE, Oct. 3, 2002
Add Them to Johnny's Reagent Press Ruin Mist Book Collection
Reagent Press has been inundated with rights requests, including those for film/tv, foreign and audio rights ever since the publication of Keeper Martin's Tale.
Early interest for film/tv rights was expressed by DreamWorks SKG. The ongoing worldwide rights auction should heat things up.
With the upcoming release of a companion guide, Ruin Mist Heroes, Legends & Beyond, Reagent Press is also looking to role playing game, video game and toy opportunities and there's been strong interest in licensing King's Mate(TM), a chess-like board game Robert Stanek invented for the books, so other types of games make sense and it's what the author wants -- gaming is sort of in his blood. (emphasis added)

From July 8, 2002

He is a family man with strong values, and perhaps, one of the best authors you've never heard of. His blockbuster debut book sold over 150,000 copies and worldwide book sales are over 1 million...Our readers don't care that critics have snubbed the books -- it's simply more proof that critics don't always understand. And the proof is in the pudding as they say. Keeper Martin's Tale and Elf Queen's Quest climbed online bestseller lists this spring and sales continue to be strong -- proof that underground sensations can break through to the mainstream.

Yet from January, 2003,

In addition to premium trade editions, Reagent Press is seeking publishing partners for hardcover and mass market editions. World rights are available for these titles.

So much for the worldwide rights auction. Also, curiously, the last press release about Stanek is from 2003. Has Regent Press lost faith in its greatest author? Thatcher131 19:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess Stanek has just been too busy writing books to write press releases.[17] Thatcher131 17:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/b/Talk%7ERobert_Stanek_Archive_1_d567.html"