Talk:St. John Publications
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board. | ||
| ??? | This article has no rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Deleted inappopriate self-aggrandisement
An unregistered person added, to the head of the article, "Most of the information contained in this article was taken directly from Ken Quattro's extensive and far more detailed article, Archer St. John and the Little Company That Could [1]."
First, that source was duly and properly credited under References right from the very beginning. Second, having created this page and going to great lengths to find other, confirming sources — as well as independently and solely creating a bibliography from scratch using often-contradictory sources — that statement is not only self-aggrandizing, it is inaccurate. -- Tenebrae 21:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Misappropriation of another's work
Interesting... On March 14, 2006, Mark Evanier wrote: "Ken Quattro has written the definitive article on the long-defunct comic book company, St. John. Actually, that's faint praise since there have been so few articles about the firm so let me ratchet up the compliment a bit: It's a terrific, well-researched article on a publisher about which little has been known."[2] And then two weeks later, your Wikipedia entry appears. The entire section in your entry on Archer St. John is taken from his article and nowhere else. Granted, you do list Mr. Quattro's article amongst your references, but nowhere did I see a footnote link back to his article as you did for the rest of your 'sources'. The only self-aggrandisement is yours, Tenebrae. Try doing some original research.Mrnitpicker 02:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No misappropriation
I guess I did not realize, User:Mrnitpicker, that you're new to Wikipedia. I urge you to read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, in particular [No Original Research].
Also, I not only list Mr. Quattro's article, but if you had actually gone to the reference, you would have seen that it does link to the article.
Additionally, the entire section is NOT "taken from his article and nowhere else". Information came from there highly edited, condensed and in my own words; a huge section on Archer St. John's early life got condensed to four sentences. And if you want to look closely and compare, you'll note that in addition to the Quattro piece, I either listed or linked to Alter Ego magazine, the Grand Comics Database, a Joe Kubert site, and more. Finally, I'd like to ask what you mean by "misappropriation": Did I plagiarize? Did I not credit my sources? Did I try to claim something as my original research? The answer is no.
I have added a welcome note to your Talk page, which has useful links to Wikipedia policies and other important information. I hope you have a chance to look at them, and that they inspire you to become a productive, working member of our community. Thanks -- Tenebrae 15:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stop adding inappropriate comments
It Rhymes with Lust is not copyrighted by Ken Quattro. Its image is not exclusive to him, and if you want to get technical, what right did he have to put it on a commercial website himself?
If this behavior, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy, continues, I'm going to report you to the Admin and have you blocked. -- Tenebrae 21:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: Your threats and inaccuracies
Wrong again, Tenebrae. Mr. Quattro never claims to own the copyright to "It Rhymes with Lust". In fact, if you go back and look at the very top of his article, he notes that, "all artwork and images © St. John Publishing or respective copyright holders." Did you take those images I noted off his site? Of course you did. You didn't scan them in, did you? Your idea of "research" is to surf the Internet and paraphrase other people's work and to lift images from various sites. Do some of the work yourself. Try doing an interview, read a book (other than Overstreet), or scan in a comic. I have nothing against you personally, Tenebrae, but stop acting so offended. All you have to do is give credit where credit is due.Mrnitpicker 02:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just to respond to these additional specifics, having already posted a Wikipedia welcome on your Talk page: One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is no original research. I understand you didn't know that when you made your somewhat incendiary remarks. I don't hold that against you. I would only ask you not to make statements based on things not personally known to you. I actually do conduct interviews and not only read books but write books for a living. And in point of fact, I completely, as you say, gave credit where credit was due.
- I hope this information, and my previous posting, above, helps illuminate what Wikipedia is about, and that nothing untoward, illegal, unethical or immoral was done. I hope we have a chance to interact again as community-members once you've had a chance to digest the Wikipedia policy/information links. Thanks-- Tenebrae 15:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
