User talk:Pernoctus

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Pernoctus, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Slashme (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W. H. Pugmire

I saw your comment on Dennis Bratland's talk page and made a response there you may be interested in. I'm also willing to answer any questions you have about why I closed the AfD as Keep.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my perhaps too-lengthy reply on Dennis's page, no further questions or dialogue are necessary regarding this matter. I think that your decision is wrong, but the subject is not worth any more of my time. I am also reproducing my reply below, in case Dennis might (understandably) want to delete it from his talk page. It usefully memorializes this fiasco, I think.Pernoctus (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SouthernNights & Dennis Bratland:

Thank you both for your replies.

First, I do understand the protocol regarding deletion reviews, but I did not contact SouthernNights about his decision because, according to his page, he is often unavailable for long periods, and I did not want the matter to grow stale.

Now, I want to add some final thoughts on why I think that the "keep" decision is in error.

Anthologies: My understanding is that appearing in anthologies, as most of Pugmire's stories do, is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Likewise, the reference to "well-known small presses" puzzles me. Well-known to whom? To other fans of the genre? Is that really enough? Further, shouldn't subjects be mentioned in more scholarly secondary sources that are indexed in databases other than those that are devoted to a particular genre, e.g., JSTOR, Google Scholar, and the like?

I also think that SouthernNights gives insufficient weight to the principle that proof of notability needs to be independent of the subject. By all evidence, Pugmire publishes widely because he has a wide network of friends who are in the small press, and he has other personal friends to puff his work. Further, the overwhelming majority of his work is not published by the major publishers SouthernNights mentions. What is more, Pugmire not only has not had a collection published by a major publishing house, but he is merely one author among many in even the fan press anthologies. Are one or two appearances in books by major publishing houses really all that is required to establish notability? And likewise, one review in a (arguably) notable publication, one which, again, caters to a genre market?

I do not agree that appearing in the Daw's Year's Best series anthology automatically confers notability. I am looking at my copy of The Year's Best Horror Stories: Series II (1972-73). It contains a story by T. K. Brown III, and (s)he does not have a Wikipedia entry.

Perhaps most important, SouthernNights fails to distinguish between genre fiction (such as horror) and fan fiction (genre fiction written in imitation of a particular author). The distinction to me is crucial, and I find it difficult to believe that Wikipedia considers fan fiction notable. Pugmire is not simply a genre author; he is a fan fiction writer, and by his own admission. (See the link to lovecraftzine.com, below).

Finally, and with all due respect, I must question SouthernNights' objectivity in this area, precisely because he is a specialist in genre fiction, and therefore, I gather, automatically sympathetic to genre writers, over-inclusively considered. Let me be clear: I mean no disrespect by this statement, nor am I impugning SouthernNights' honesty or motives. We all have our personal interests, preferences, and even biases. For that reason, I was inclined to seek a deletion review by administrators who do not share that particular interest, and who look more broadly to literary value, professional publication, and frequent citation in reputable, scholarly secondary sources. If fan fiction (which is really what we are talking about here) gets a pass in all these areas, or is to be judged according to different standards, and that is Wikipedia policy, then that should be made clear.

That said, I will defer to Dennis's judgment that the matter is not worth the effort of pursuing as far as a deletion review. Still, I do so reluctantly, as the "keep" decision is disappointing for many reasons, not least of which is that I dislike seeing the poor arguments, the flagrant misunderstandings of Wikipedia definitions, and the personal attacks by Pugmire's fan base rewarded for their efforts. Of course, I understand that the matter is not about that, but I can't pretend not to be disillusioned that my arguments and others' were given short shrift in this instance, by contrast. In fact, I see no evidence that SouthernNights accorded the "delete" arguments any weight or merit whatsoever. Apparently, I don't understand Wikipedia much better than Pugmire's fans, as I tried very hard to grasp and follow the notability criteria, and I still firmly believe that a fan fiction writer such as Pugmire can be considered notable only if "notability" means "notable to a relatively small group of fans". Obviously, I do not think that authorial or biographical notability should be diminished in that way.

My apologies for the long-winded response, but, since the other discussion is closed, and this is my last word on the matter, I did not want to omit anything. Despite all the high-minded talk, the bottom line is that I was shouted down by Pugmire's fan club, and my arguments were never seriously considered. I "lost" my case because, unlike Pugmire, I did not have an online mob to whom I could publicize the situation (http://lovecraftzine.com/2013/02/01/urgent-and-important-w-h-pugmire-needs-our-help/), and mobilize to swarm and do battle. Nor was I fortunate enough to have a sympathetic administrator take an interest in this discussion.

At the risk of taxing your patience further, I'll add that this process, far more than the result, has frankly discouraged me from wanting to have anything further to do with Wikipedia (cue the cheering section from Pugmire's peanut gallery!), so it is unlikely that we'll cross paths again. Despite SouthernNights' kind invitation, I certainly have no interest in working on an article about a non-notable author whose fans think that accusing me of "homophobia" is a form of legitimate argument. After all this, I begin to understand better and sympathize with Wikipedia's critics, and I think that I'll stick to reading the Britannica, in the future. At least there I won't have to run into the likes of Pugmire, or his fans, or this sort of administrative fiat. At Wikipedia, there really are too many cooks, with too many recipes (or an inability to decide upon a recipe and follow it consistently), and, to my taste, the broth is beyond spoiled.

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion. It's been an educational experience!Pernoctus (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2023 Detroit Lions season. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did the other individual who is engaging in and escalating this so-called "edit war" receive the same scolding message as this one? If not, then why not?

I have already requested dispute resolution, and did not receive a reply. Pernoctus (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Waldorf education. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are not a mind reader, please do not attribute me bogus motivations. I know that many Anthroposophists do not hate me for breaking the WP:RULES, but precisely because of obeying the WP:RULES. I'm not saying that this applies to you, because you do seem to misunderstand website policy, such as WP:NPOV. I'll explain what your misunderstanding is: you seem to think that the criticism of WP:FRINGE cults performed by mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP is banned from Wikipedia, while in reality the opposite is the case. The powers of WP:PAGs are against you, especially the power of WP:NPOV, as this website policy is understood by all experienced Wikipedians. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop infesting my talk page with your own baseless accusations. I am not attacking anyone. If anyone is being over-sensitive here and losing his cool, it is you, not I. Nice try with the subtle ad hominem, though.

Speaking of attacks, on the Waldorf talk page, you accused someone of "whitewashing" Anthroposophy. I questioned your own motives for making this accusation, as well as called out the hypocrisy of your accusing others of whitewashing while simultaneously begging not to have your own motivations questioned. You cannot have it both ways. I do not claim to be a mind reader, but I do make inferences about motivations based on actions, and your motivations based upon your one-sided participation in the Waldorf page are clear.

Let me explain what your misunderstanding is. I am not using NPOV in the technical Wikipedia sense of the term. Perhaps I should have been clearer about that. I am rightly impugning your objectivity in participating in the discussion of the page. And when you go on about what I "seem" to think, you are engaging in the same sort of behavior of which you accuse me.

I am, however, grateful for the reminder of what a flawed resource Wikipedia is, and why it is necessary always to look at Talk pages. Doing the latter is like checking under the hood of a seemingly brand-new car, only to discover that the engine mounts are loose and worn through. Pernoctus (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to caution you about WP:NPA having got caught up on the waldorf page. I would suggest, in the future that you don't got to an article talk page just to chew out an editor regarding your opinion of their comportment - if you don't have an edit to propose for the page just move along. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to caution you against leaving pointless messages on others' talk pages that misrepresent both that person's actions and motives.

I did not "go to an article just to chew out an editor regarding his comportment". I visited the page, noticed the comment, and offered my view of the person's suggested edits to guide other editors in the future. I noted this person's obvious bias and suggested that other editors ignore his suggestions for that reason. All of this was and is directly relevant to the content of the page in question.

If you are unable to offer an honest accounting of what happens in a Talk Page discussion, and instead simply offer your misinterpretations as fact, then just move along. Pernoctus (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[[reply]