User talk:Terence7/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Terence7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice...

Just saw the stubb you made about Milton Pitts. What a great random article. That is all. Rothery 05:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

J.E. Pitts

You have no right to delete my addition to 2007 in Poetry. You think I just made it up? I published the book this year, so why don't you delete all the other books that were published this year, too? I think you're just a vandal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.74.112.227 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Sure, you published a book of poetry from some no-name, third-rate press. The question is not about whether you published anything but about the standard for inclusion in the article "2007 in poetry." I would argue that significant contributions to poetry are the ones that belong on this page, but I'll put the question to the talk page of that article. Terence7 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here's what the Wikipedia notability guidelines say: "... list articles like List of English writers are expected to include only notable writers." Terence7 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I ask you, why don't you delete ALL the books on the 2007 in Poetry page. And who are you to denote which presses are third-rate, and no-name? If you did an ounce of actual research on the matter, instead of assuming, you'd see that Wordtech Communications is one of the biggest publishers out there right now. They do almost fifty titles a year in poetry. Do you think your big name, first-rate publishers like Norton or Random House do fifty titles a year in poetry? Ha. And if you had done other research, you'd see that the poems in the book were previously published in major national magazines and journals like Poetry, Shenedoah, Southern Poetry Review, etc. The problem with you and your kind is you don't know much about anything, much less things like art and poetry, yet Wikipedia gives you a club to swing to hide your deficiencies. Wikipedia props you up and gives you the mantle of "expert" when your judgements are actually random and follow no ryhme or reason, just your whims. I'm actually glad that Wikipedia gives you a forum where such decisions can be limited to this one web site, where your blunders and mistakes can be mostly contained. I wonder: how does it feel to suspect that you're only a footnote in the larger scheme of things?

I'm not deleting all of the books there because they are from notable authors, given the Wikipedia definition of "notable." If you disagree with the definition of what is notable on Wikipedia, you should go to WP:NOT and argue it on the talk page there.
I find your ad hominem attacks quite rude and inappropriate. You know nothing about "me and my kind" (whatever that means) and you shouldn't assume that you do. Also, it's downright laughable for you to say that I "don't know much about anything." I am tagging your talk page with a warning. Terence7 23:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. You're right: This IS laughable. And you can parse words all you want, and tag me with a warning, or a black mark for my file, or whatever. The fact remains that you roam around Wikipedia, looking for any place my name pops up, and then you go to work. And I can assume whatever I want because I can track your every step on here just like you can track mine, so I know you've been checking these same pages every day. I see you've made no comment on the fact that Wordtech, by Wikipedia's definition, is not "third-rate" and "no-name". So yes, you do know some things, and I apologize for my ad hominem attacks. What I meant was, you don't know anything about me. But until you give me a plausible explanation for why you are targeting me specifically, then I'll keep on commenting on any page that you've displayed your "editing" skills with regard to me.

No, I do maintain that Wordtech is a third-rate press. It might be better than fourth-rate, but it's not a prestigious press at all. And I have told you why I am reverting your edits: it's because you keep adding yourself into articles even though you do not belong there according to the Wikipedia notability policy. Once I edited your article the first time, it was added to my watchlist and I ended up seeing what you were doing every time you logged in. I'm not "targeting" you, but I do see the improper edits that you make and I am going to revert them. It's not like I do nothing else on Wikipedia — see Milton Pitts, for example. I wrote that whole article myself. Terence7 23:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There you go again. Third-rate. Fourht-rate. Prestigious. Your language betrays you. All you care about is rankings, etc. Would I be justified in telling you that my second book is under consideration with what you deem "major, first-rate" publishers at this time? Probably not. And yes, I read your Milton Pitts article. You might want to add in the story of how he cut Nixon's hair on the day he resigned. It's recounted in The Last Days by Woodward and Berstein ("first-rate" authors published by a "first-rate" house--Random House). It's quite a good story. I could go into how he's a distant relative and all that, and tell some stories, but that would be deemed original research, etc. I just find it sort of odd that you're willing to sweep me off the table without having ever read my work, seen my artwork, etc. I've worked and sacrificed just as hard as the next guy to get where I am in both fields. I know what I've accomplished. I can't believe I would even care that much about these entries when I have so much physical evidence to back my claims. So, you win. I refuse to fight you. You can delete everything. But if Wikipedia survives, I suspect time will bring many other people who make their own pages about me. So now you pave the way for them, you give them a clean slate to write the eventual permanent record. Thanks. p.s. You may also want to hit the articles Oxford, MS, Vox Journal and Oxford American.

My language betrays me? What is that supposed to mean? I don't care about "rankings" — I've never said that. Nonetheless there are differences between good and not-so-good presses.
You should add in the documented information about Milton Pitts. That's what Wikipedia is for.
I do not "hit" articles and never have.
If you attain notability according to WP:Notability (people) then it would be great to have an article about you on Wikipedia. Right now you're not there.
By the way, I have read your work and seen your artwork. Terence7 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling that I knew you, based on the articles you chose to edit. A lot of local and Mississippi stuff. Is it something personal, then? Did we cross paths once, or not? Do we now? I take it that you would rather not email me as I proposed. If you've read my work, then what do you think? If you've seen my artwork, what do you think? My skin is thicker than it seems. I've been insulted by the best, I assure you. If you have seen my work, as you claim, then I'll take it on faith that you're a competent judge and know what you're talking about. But if you're just saying that to appease me, it won't work. And by "hit" I meant "check out", and nothing more. I am not savvy in the Wikipedia lingo, as may be apparent. Like I said, I don't care anymore if I'm on Wikipedia. So if you would like to be friends, I'm game. If not, I understand. (Jepitts 00:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

I can't help it if I'm third-rate. Most people never get that far. (Jepitts 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

I just figured out who you are. The Colonial Club? Princeton? I can't believe it was so obvious. Needless to say, I'm sort of surprised. (130.74.112.227 01:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

You don't know me, and I don't know you, and you do not actually know who I am.
Anyway, I think your work is good from what I have seen of it. I have looked into your stuff since encountering you on Wikipedia. But that hasn't been the issue here. I recognize that you could be a fantastically good poet and not yet have a book published with a major press. I have just been trying to maintain the Wikipedia standards of notability after encountering your article for the first time, and I feel that you have been ignoring them to promote yourself on Wikipedia. That has been the source of this conflict, not any kind of personal animosity. Terence7 01:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First line: yes, I do. As many people on Wikipedia and elsewhere have stated in various media sources as of late, the "standards" that you speak of are fluid and changing on almost a daily basis, so don't drop back on that. Like I said earlier, I'm going to step back because I have wrongly been trying to promote myself. It was not done on purpose, but out of ignorance and haste. I find this whole process fascinating, actually, and think I could probably write my own good article about it for a magazine. But, I ramble. This is the last you'll hear from me on Wikipedia. I've enjoyed this learning experience. Almost as if I were in a classroom again.

Feel free to state here who I am if you are so sure.
Standards like the notability guidelines in fact do not change much. They have been solidified at this point although it's still possible to change them if the community reaches consensus. I'm not "falling back" on them here; in fact I've been citing them from the beginning.
At any rate, I agree that there is a great article to be written about the Wikipedia editorial processes. I've found it all really interesting in the few months I've been editing. I wish you the best. Terence7 02:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.