Talk:Howard W. Robertson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
Start This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article is rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

Contents

[edit] Notable?

Please read WP:BIO to see how to make this person notable and keep it from being deleted. Aboutmovies 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is looking better, but not there yet. Note, of all the on-line sources provided (http://academics.sru.edu/SlabLitMag/hrobertson.htm doesn't work) only one, the award site is of any value. And that site is not the type of sources that by itself establishes notability. The others are publishers or his own site, and those can be used, but only after notablity has been established through independent reliable sources. The Who's Who is a good one, but more are needed. At this point I'd say two more non-trivial sources would do it. Think Eugene Register Guard. If he is that notable the paper should have some coverage (like a biogrpahy or retrospective). The Oregonian may have things as well, or try literary journals. It's going in the right direction (in the way of sources at least), but needs some more work. Aboutmovies 23:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion, again

I am trying to help whoever wrote this article by bringing the article up to Wikipedia standards. If the author of this article disagrees with my changes, please discuss them here. Katr67 16:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note that it's foolish to revert to a previous version when numerous improvements in grammar, spelling, wikilinks, form and style have been made since that version. If you insist the deleted material needs to be in the article, at least add it to the latest version of the article rather than reverting to your preferred version. Reversion is not an editing tool. This kind of behavior does not make me well-disposed to using my valuable time as a volunteer editor to help improve "your" article and does not help your cause. Katr67 16:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Any suggested improvements to grammar, spelling, wikilinks, form and style will be considered. You will notice that I have added references to the Life section in this latest edition of the Howard W. Robertson article. It is not helpful for you to simply remove text that accurately summarizes the life and works of the poet. Please stop doing that. Discuss it with me first. Robin Fletcher 22:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Every edit made is saved in the history area, so everyone can see exaty what you are doing. Trying to disguise one edit by doing another shortly after (which the edit summary did not match the the actual edit) is a very routine act that fools no one. Again, see WP:OWN reegarding your comment above. Aboutmovies 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to disguise anything. Your accusation is libelous. Your actions are crossing the line into vandalism. If you are interested in constructively improving the article as a responsible member of the Wikipedia community, you will change your behavior immediately. Robin Fletcher 22:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you know how to use the "history" button? The second edit summary said: "I added references to the Life section" but the only difference was the removal of "Robertson has been a full-time poet since 2002." in that edit. An edit summary is for that edit only, not future edits, not previous edits. As stated on your talk page, look up what vandalism means on WikiPedia. Aboutmovies 23:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. I have improved the sourcing. Do you have any suggestions for further improvement? If so, would you mind starting out over at the left margin again? We are getting squeezed in pretty far over here to the right. Robin Fletcher 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)You can restart the indention scheme anytime. Thanks for trying to work within Wikipedia guidelines. Katr67 16:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup/Robin Fletcher

Frankly this article is still a mess. And this is not a commentary on the subject of the article. Merely dumping a laundry list of unlinked publications into the article to show notability doesn't really help. These all still need to be cited. Since you seem willing to work with us, rather than my usual style of editing where I make dozens of changes that improve the quality of the article, I am willing to make those changes one at at time, though this method is tedious and clutters up the edit history. I am trying to stop you from wholesale reversion of my changes again. I don't usually go on about my skills as an editor, but I will point out that I have over 20,000 edits on Wikipedia, am well-respected for my editing skills, and have helped several articles reach good article status. It would be nice if you gave me the benefit of the doubt. So I will make a few changes at a time. User:Robin Fletcher, if you disagree with the changes, please bring them up on the talk page rather than reverting them. You should attempt to cite a Wikipedia style or policy guideline that I am violating by my changes if necessary. I don't usually work this way but I'm willing to give it a try. For your part, I encourage you to reread our policy about ownership of articles. Remember, a good-looking article can only reflect well on the article's subject. Katr67 19:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am eager to learn the changes you recommend. When you say the "article is still a mess," this is too vague for me to understand what you think needs improving. Please discuss the specific changes here on the talk page before making them. Your characterization of my adding citations as "merely dumping a laundry list" of publications is insulting. Civility is better. What do you mean specifically when you say "these all still need to be cited?" It is not that I do not respect your 20,000 edits; the problem I have had with your edits to this article up to now is that often they have made the article worse not better. Looking forward with positive spirit, I am optimistic we can work together with good results. I should mention that I will be traveling and unable to respond to your messages from basically now until October 11. I will immediately check here upon my return and resume our collaboration. Looking forward, Robin Fletcher 20:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
By "article is still a mess" I mean it does not conform to the Wikipedia form and style guidelines, basic English grammar and usage, and several Wikipedia policies. Because you do not own the article, I will not discuss the specific changes before making them. Most will be basic form and style edits. I will address them singly as I make the edits. (see below)By "these all still need to be cited" means that they need to be cited according to Wikipedia guidelines. My turn: What does "have made the article worse not better" mean? BTW, this will all be much, much easier if you have read the form and style guidelines and the links to policy that we have pointed out to you.
I'm sorry you feel insulted, but this:

Jack Straw Writers Anthology (v. 11, 2007, pp. 28-32), SLAB (issue 1, 2006, pp. 11-12), Square Lake (no. 5, spring 2004, pp. 52-53), The Clear Cut Future (2003, pp.90-103), Tor House Newsletter (summer 2003, p. 3), Hipfish (April 2003, p. 31), Emily Dickinson Awards Anthology (2002 issue, pp. 20-21), Nest (summer 2001, pp. 129-132), Literal Latte (v. 4, no. 2, November/December 1997, p. 16), Nimrod (v. 41, no. 1, fall/winter 1997, pp. 113-120), Fireweed (v. 8, no. 4, summer 1997, pp. 20-21; v. 7, no. 4, summer 1996, pp. 13-16; v. 7, no. 3, spring 1996, p. 45; v. 4, no. 2, January 1993, p. 33; and v. 1, no. 2, January 1990, pp. 17-20), Pacifica (1996, p. 2; and 1995, pp. 3-4), iNTOWN (v.5, no. 8, August 1995, p. 15), Ergo! (1993, pp. 74-76), Croton Review (no. 6, 1983, p. 4), Yet Another Small Magazine (v. 2, no. 1, 1983, p. 5), Yellow Silk (no. 6, winter 1983, p. 5), Negative Capability (v. 2, no. 4, fall 1982, p. 84), Pinchpenny (v. 3, no. 2, April/May 1982, pp. 14-15), Assembling (no. 11, 1981; no. 8, 1978; and no. 7, 1977), Laughing Unicorn (v. 2, no. 1, 1980, p. 16), Glassworks (no. 3, 1978, pp. 47-49), Laughing Bear (no. 6, 1978, pp. 21-27; and no. 2/3, 1977, pp. 57-59), and Interstate (no. 9, 1977, p. 89).

Is unreadable and unsuitable for an encyclopedia article.
Katr67 22:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 3

[edit] 1st edit

This diff shows how I wikified (used coding to link to another Wikipedia article) several items, and removed an embedded titled link in favor of using that link as a reference. Then I used a template that creates a references section. Katr67 23:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd edit

This diff shows how I removed three external links from the references section because they were already linked in the text. See our external links guidelines for more information. Katr67 23:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 26

[edit] 3rd edit

This diff shows how I started standardizing the references to be more inline with Wikipedia standards. Read WP:CITE for more information. I also created a redlink to a possibly notable workshop and changed the embedded external link to a reference. I also placed a tag above the section I didn't get to yet. (note:I have not yet checked the references to make sure they back up the facts stated). Katr67 17:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4th edit

This diff shows that I removed a link to the author's dojo, because it does not appear to "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. Katr67 17:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 31

[edit] 5th edit

This diff shows how I cleaned up the list of publications, separated the awards and reviews into new sections, cleaned up the references in those sections to match the rest of the article, and removed "iNtown" magazine as a non-notable (scope was only Eugene) defunct magazine. Katr67 16:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 6th edit

This diff shows how I added a bracket in order to fix a reference I previously worked on, moved the Poets & Writers link to the external links section, and expanded the description of the link contents. Katr67 17:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7th edit

This diff shows how I provided a citation for the Elizabeth R. Curry Prize and added the interview by novelist Matt Briggs. Nice work on the 1st through 6th edits. This article is looking good. Robin Fletcher 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to list your edits here. This is not usually how it's done. I know how to check page diffs and edit summaries on my own. This section is for your benefit only, as I explained above, in order to get you to stop edit warring over form and style changes. If you think you now know how to check page diffs and edit summaries by yourself, we can cease cluttering the page with this nonsense. Katr67 23:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Please continue to list your edits here, as doing so is useful to me. Employing the term "nonsense" seems unnecessarily harsh and even hostile. If it annoys you, I am happy to refrain from listing my edits here. I was just attempting to reciprocate your helpful gesture. Robin Fletcher 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't reciprocate unless you find it helpful for yourself. Like I said, I don't need the further explanation as I can easily see your edits when I check the page diffs that come up in my watchlist. Katr67 03:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Who's Who in Poetry

Apparently this is a vanity press that will accept submissions from anybody and is not subject to a reliability check: http://www.europapublications.co.uk/biographical_form.asp I don't think we can consider this a reliable source, so we need another source (other than the author himself) for the biographical information on the author. Katr67 20:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The International Who's Who in Poetry and Poet's Encyclopedia is not a vanity press. It solicits information regarding published poets and incorporates it into the encyclopedic directory. The poets included do not pay the press anything and are not obligated to buy anything. Robin Fletcher 23:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not independently verified, thus it is not a reliable source. It's true that poets don't have to pay to have themselves included in the book, but it isn't considered a legitimate reference work. Katr67 00:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Almost all directories of living persons rely heavily on information supplied by the persons included. This is true of the most reliable directories around. The independent verification would lie in birth certificates, marriage licenses, university diplomas, university catalogs listing faculty, any journals cited, any books listed, and other primary source documents. The tenth edition of the International Who's Who in Poetry and Poet's Encyclopedia is a legitimate reference work that serves as a third-party source. The facts included in it can be verified by research into primary sources offline. Another third-party source for Howard W. Robertson is the Poets & Writers Directory, which verifies much of the information in The International Who's Who in Poetry and Poet's Encyclopedia. Any poet who is included in the Poets & Writers Directory has passed objective, impartial publication requirements and should be included in Wikipedia. To digress for a moment, do you know what happened to the Ingrid Wendt article in Wikipedia? There was a very good, very informative article about her around ten months ago, and now there is nothing. Ingrid Wendt won the Oregon Book Award and has published several excellent books of poetry. Did some questionable interpretation of the "reliable source" policy drive this valuable article out of Wikipedia? I wonder how many other articles about living poets have been forced out. Really, anyone in the Author's Guild should also be in Wikipedia, because they have passed objective, impartial publication requirements and are verified representatives of the living writers of today. I understand and applaud the effort to remove false and misleading information from Wikipedia. For this community-produced online encyclopedia to reach its full potential in the area of living writers, however, the power of the Internet should be tapped to provide a completeness of coverage not heretofore possible in conventional print encyclopedias. We should be careful in our zeal to eradicate the false lest we eliminate the comprehensive. Returning to reliable sources, there are two newspaper articles about Howard W. Robertson that verify much of what is included in The International Who's Who in Poetry and Poet's Encyclopedia and are valid third-party sources: "Cut to the Heart" by Barry Johnson (The Oregonian, February 22, 2004; pp. D7-D8) and "Ode Writer Has New Book" by Paul Denison (The Register-Guard, March 28, 2004; p. G2). Also, the Jack Straw Productions website contains valid third-party statements that verify the International Who's Who in Poetry and Poet's Encyclopedia, including a biographical statement about Howard W. Robertson by Van Diep and an interview with Howard W. Robertson by American Book Award winner Matt Briggs. Robin Fletcher 02:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
In response to your question about the Ingrid Wendt article, I could find no trace that it ever existed under that spelling. Since I do have Admin privileges, had the page been deleted, I would have found it. Is that the name used for the article? -- llywrch 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is the name, Ingrid Wendt. Strange that you found no trace of it. It was there early last spring. Robin Fletcher 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up Works section?

The Works section of this page seems a little, oddly worded, anybody volunteer for clean up? 71.34.123.70 (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)