User talk:TedKey2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The book has been printed. It will be shipped shortly. It will appear on Ingram within the next two weeeks. It is not a crystal ball issue. Mr. Key authorized content and would be appalled at the behavior of these wikipedians!(TedKey2 (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)).

You need to have these discussion with Tenebrae, rather than posting them on your talk section. I've been in touch with Tenebrae, and he has valid reasons for deleting your changes. Before you start making claims about what's right and what's not, start a dialogue with him. Thanks, Konczewski (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The blind leading the blind. You're quick to judge that the book doesn't exist because you can't find a review yet on the internet. Well, first off the book was just released so it doesn't have any reviews yet. The publisher BearManor Media didn't need to and doesn't seed Wikipedia to get free publicity. Your remark about a disinterested outside source as criteria for putting something on wikipedia is absurd. SO much of wikipedia is tainted with self-aggrandizing ego trips for the compilers. Here, where information is given by the subject who just died (Ted Key), all those ready to undo copy come out to undo useful information for someone researching Ted Key. Shouldn't those interested researching individuals know that Ted Key gave vital information before he died to an author (and it was published)?TedKey2/talk 17:15, 15 May 2008

Okay, a couple of points to make. First, I don't think you need to take that tone with Tenebrae and me about our editing this article. Between the two of us we've contributed hundreds of articles to Wikipedia, and edited thousands more (check my history if you need verification. While I agree there are articles that have unsubstantiated or trivial information in them, that's no reason to permit it to continue. Rather, that's why Tenebrae and I try to make these kinds of corrections.

Second, you're way overestimating the value of Mr. Key's foreword. Someone trying to get information on Mr. Key will probably get a pretty clear picture of his career and work without also being told he wrote a foreword to a book.

Third, you have a lot of nerve lecturing us about contributing to an article when you don't even know how to format your text, or provide footnotes. Book titles are in italics, and article text goes before the Notes and References section, not after. Go read the Help section, or look at Tenebrae's helpful suggestions in the Talk:Ted Key section first before you insult people. Konczewski (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have another suggestion for you, if you're so worried about interested researchers finding out every detail of Mr. Key's life. Why don't you add a Bibliography section to the article that lists the books Mr. Key wrote? That would be a simple way to include your book. Konczewski (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not waste my time with your petty arguments. Do what you want with the Ted Key page. You misunderstand the point to Wikipedia information. I will offer you a free signed copy of my book when you stop deleting the informtaion that's relevant to Mr. Key's biography. It's not just a Foreword he contributed, but that's besides the point. As far as the bibliography of books by Ted Key if I had all the information I would do it. Why don't you do it and give me the courtesy of being listed as his last contribution. Until then you can keep wasting your time undoing changes because the truth will be revealed. You and Tenebrae are just caught up in this thing about controlling what goes into a page that you've become obsessional if something doesn't meet your high standards. User talk: TedKey2/talk 17:15, 15 May 2008.

I can agree that when one contributes to an encyclopedia, high standards of research and writing are indeed necessary. It's also important to abide by the hard-wrought consensus on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. One of them concerns civility to your fellow contributors. I urge you to read that policy, as well as the additional policies that have been wikilinked on this page. For my part, I will keep watch for a disinterested, third-party reliable source with no commercial interest in selling the book, and enter that source as a footnoted citation when adding the book to his bibliography.-- Tenebrae (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

TedKey2, you can stop arguing with me now. If you'd check the article, you'll notice that several weeks ago I added a bibliography section that includes your book on Shirley Booth. Also, please sign your comments on other's talk pages with 4 tildes (~).Konczewski (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] shirley booth

i removed the book simply because after a pretty good search, 1) i could find no evidence that it exists, and 2) the isbn provided is apparently invalid. if you have a valid reference for the book, please share it so it can be properly cited. also, future, please be more judicious with your reverts by undoing only the portions you wish to challenge. cheers. --emerson7 06:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove something without thoroughly checking. I just checked. The book exists. I hold a copy in my hand. Target and Amazon both list and ship the book. The isbn is 1593931468 or 9781593931469. Usertalk:TedKey219:3021May 2008