User talk:Charlie Faust

Welcome!

Hi Charlie Faust, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Andre🚐 02:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Roger Ebert—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was a little heavy on quotes, is all. If you like it, terrific. (I like it myself, it just seems a bit quote heavy.) Charlie Faust (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Your recent article moved to draft space

Hi, I moved your recent article to draft space by giving valid edit summary. Please check and improve if you're interested. Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Happy editing! :-) Maliner (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the feedback.

I think the song is worthy of a page as it was the basis of a music video by a major director and was covered by a major artist (among other reasons.)

Any advice for reliable sources on music? Charlie Faust (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Your recent editing history at Stephen King shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I know what an ed it war is, thanks.

You wrote,"This material has been in the article for years" as a justification for being there.

So? A lot of stuff on Wikipedia is flat-out wrong, including things that have been there for years. That's true of King's page, actually; an earlier edition said that King sought treatment shortly after the publication of Cujo. Wrong. Cujo was published in 1981 and King didn't seek treatment until 1987. That matters because addiction provides the subtext for many books published after Cujo, notably Misery and The Tommyknockers (both 1987). As King told The Paris Review, Misery is a book about addiction: "Annie was my drug problem, and she was my number one fan. God, she never wanted to leave." He was in the throes of addiction while writing it. That doesn't make sense if, as the article used to say, he got treatment shortly after Cujo.

Another edition of the page said King was influenced by H. P. Lovecraft's The Lurker and the Shadows. This is doubtful, for the simple reason that no book of that title, by Lovecraft or anyone else, exists. Elsewhere, King identified it as The Lurking Fear and Other Stories, and there is a book by Lovecraft of that name.

I'm alarmed that you restored the link to Looper. If I may quote the following exchange: How "reliable" is entertainment news site Looper.com? Specifically for citing in the article Prisoners (1981 film). Muzilon (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Not. It's a notorious clickbait website. Also, if you've visited there, consider a malware scan. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I learn from another editor, Sergecross73, that "WP:VG/S lists Looper as unreliable. They've got a real clickbait/churnalism problem with their video game coverage at least. Unlikely it's relegated just to that content area.12:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)". Maybe their articles on literature are better, but they don't seem to have any articles on literature, besides the one you linked to. If you think Looper, which gave us such obvious clickbait as "The Most Disturbing Animated Nude Scenes", merits mentioning on Wikipedia, I'm not sure about your standards.

Saying "it's been in the article for years" may be an argument, but not a convincing one. It's an appeal to authority, which is less than worthless. Kind of like Looper. I encourage you, actually, to peruse it, to see if you find anything redeeming. But you might consider a malware scan. Charlie Faust (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

As for things on Wikipedia being wrong, where to start? An earlier edition of the page for John Williams said he was "heavily influenced by Richard Wagner". Passing strange, since he told Alex Ross in The New Yorker that he "really [doesn't] know Wagner's operas at all" and that if people hear Wagner in his music, "It's not because I put it there." (See Ross, Alex, "The Force is Still Strong With John Williams", The New Yorker.) And yet Williams's supposed debt to Wagner was there, in the header, no less. No reason for it to be there, when it can be falsified easily. And even if it had been there for years (it may have been, for all I know) that's no reason for it to be there. Saying "it's been in the article for years" sounds like an appeal to authority, and appeals to authority are useless. Saying something belongs in an article because it's been there for years is the worst kind of reasoning.

Should go without saying that the link to Looper (noted by other editors as a "notorious clickbait website" that should make you "consider a malware scan") I'd like to know what you think is an unreliable source.

Charlie Faust (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

By all means, prove me wrong about Looper. Feel free to peruse and let me know if you find anything of value. But, as noted, you might consider a malware scan. Charlie Faust (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You write that I should "use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors."

But I have. If the story were true (and had "psychologically inspired some of his darker works") he would presumably have mentioned it in his memoir or in subsequent interviews. It's established that King makes no mention of the story at all in his memoir On Writing (2000). I challenged anyone to find an example of King mentioning it in any subsequent interviews. No one did.

You say that "his family reported it." That is not reliably sourced in Danse Macabre, or in the Looper article you cited. I challenged anyone to find any direct quotes from King's family members mentioning the incident. No one did.

When I pointed out that the aforementioned Looper was listed as unreliable on WP:VG/S, I challenged anyone to find a better source (surely a low bar.) No one did. I said that if no one found a better source than Looper, I would ax the story. No one did, so I did.

You restored the link to Looper, listed as unreliable on WP. Another editor, asked if it was reliable, responded succinctly: "Not. It's a notorious clickbait website. Also, if you've visited, consider a malware scan." I thought about leaving the Looper link; if that's the best source for the story, that says something about its veracity. I thought better of it, lest the link lure unsuspecting readers into needing malware scans. If that's the best source you can find for the story, that says all you need know about its veracity. Charlie Faust (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You also write: "Whether or not this incident actually happened, it has nothing to do with repressed memory."

It has everything to do with traumatic amnesia as, and this is a key point, King tells the tale as a textbook case of traumatic amnesia in Danse Macabre, where it originates. Per the article: "he has no memory of the event. His family told him that after leaving home to play with the boy, King returned speechless and seemingly in shock. Only later did the family learn of the friend's death." Had he actually witnessed the event, he would, almost certainly, have recalled it upon coming home, as traumatic events are usually the ones we recall most clearly. Per the story, he did not. He would, almost certainly, recall it now. He does not. That makes the story dubious, as the phenomena of traumatic amnesia as dubious at best. It is common in fiction (including King's fiction) but not real life, and not in fiction until the 19th century, when it entered the popular imagination. See Pope, Poliakoff, et al. in Physiological Medicine.

Why does this matter? It matters because facts matter. The biography section of an encyclopedia entry, particularly of a living person, is a place for facts, not a half-baked tale that is a textbook case of a phenomena common enough in fiction but not real life; a tale told once more than forty years ago but not before or since; a tale told to answer a question the teller admits he used to "confabulate" and to which he has, before and since, provided other, simpler explanations. Not to beat a dead horse, but Occam noted that the simplest answer is usually correct. Charlie Faust (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Your recent editing history at Stephen King shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)