Jump to content

Talk:The Steps of the Sun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MacRusgail (talk | contribs) at 13:10, 29 June 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconNovels: Sci-fi Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Science fiction task force.

Redirect

This article has no sources and no claim of notability. I recommend that it be redirected to Walter Tevis until sources verifting notability can be found per WP:NRV. Does anyone know of any reviews of this book on or off line? All I can find about the book are comments that he "...also wrote..." it. JbhTalk 15:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article has at least one source. I am also going to go to a print edition of "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction" which is not some user edited website, to get a reference.
Note to other users - nominator has been a persistent stalker of mine for some days now.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MacRusgail: Enough. Read WP:HOUND. "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Any more accusations of stalking and I will raise the matter at WP:ANI. --NeilN talk to me 19:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: Thank you. I spent a while writing a long reply and edit conflicted with your post. When that happens it usually means that what I had to say did not need saying at the time. JbhTalk 21:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: "Enough. Read WP:HOUND" - Thank you, I am all too aware of "hounding" and stalking, I have been experiencing it for some weeks now, and you have done nothing whatsoever to understand my own viewpoint. Isn't it about time you did? -MacRùsgail (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MacRùsgail, your viewpoint is wrong. I don't know how much more plainer I can be. --NeilN talk to me 13:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: - You aren't being plain here. In fact you're condoning harassment, as long as it conforms to rules that are concocted on parts of Wikipedia that most editors never see and never vote on! Following someone around is never acceptable whether on the computer or in a dark alley way. (I have had serious misgivings about this aspect of Wikipedia for a while. Basically it's a self-selecting oligarchy of people with a lot of time on their hands.) The only reason we are having this discussion on this article is because I wrote the thing and Jbhunley is following me around.
"Any more accusations of stalking and I will raise the matter at WP:ANI" - Blame the victim mentality. I hope you never take up a legal/police role...-MacRùsgail (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The book review listed is not RS as it appears to be a blog. The publishers site has extracts from Kirkus Review, Newsweek and Publisher's Weekley. If there are published reviews to go with those extracts rather than simple comments all is good. I tried to find them but my guess is they are from the early '80s. While Tevis has written some very notable books I do not think he is notable enough that the book passes WP:NBOOKS criteria #5 but others may disagree. I suspect it is an 'also ran' compared to his other works. JbhTalk 21:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please double check some of the claims made in these comments. The OP has an extremely liberal notion of what constitutes a "blog".
"I do not think he is notable enough that the book passes WP:NBOOKS " - Yes, and we know why that is. Nothing to do with the creator of the article at all.-MacRùsgail (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clearly a personal blog and your reference for the meaning of the title was synthesis. --NeilN talk to me 13:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but The Blake Song Settings page does not look like a blog to me, otherwise I would not have included it. It is a webpage about William Blake's songs and their musical settings. I consciously avoid obvious blogs these days as references.-MacRùsgail (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MacRùsgail, Jbh referenced the book review site as a blog - it was. The reference to The Blake Song Settings is not useful. Please read WP:SYNTH. --NeilN talk to me 14:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From an uninvolved editor, this seems like a case where referencing standards have clearly become much higher than in years past. You can easily find articles similar to this on Wikipedia but the demands for newly created articles are much more strict these days. MacRùsgail has created quite a few articles and I think he is running into the demands that new articles now face in the wake of NPP, Prods and CSDs. I think NeilN is right that is probably best to work on these articles in user or draft space before moving them into article space once they are ready. Lots of folks on the new page patrol don't pay attention to articles that are a work-in-process and will tag an article for deletion as soon as it is posted. Liz Read! Talk! 17:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the demands for newly created articles are much more strict these days" - They keep on being altered one way and another in parts of Wikipedia which are not easily accessible, or even known by the bulk of editors. However, in this case it is perfectly clear that the complaint was made originally on the basis of who created it. This is basically a licensed form of vandalism. It doesn't improve or broaden Wikipedia, in fact it weakens it, through the decision of people who often have little or no knowledge of the subject in question.
" I think NeilN is right that is probably best to work on these articles in user or draft space " - Having had a number of articles interfered with IN my user space, I tend to disagree. In fact I'm loathe to work on other articles (not all my own work) in case a certain editor decides to destroy them all.
There is an over-reliance on Google, which apart from being run by an insidious company, leads to the regular use of on-line references, which invariably disappear after a few years, as websites do. Then we're back to square one.
In future, I would suggest users tag articles, rather than maniacally trying to delete thousands of them without actually reading them.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MacRùsgail, if your edits are disruptive, they will be "interfered" with. And I've pointed to WP:SYNTH many times now with respect to the book's title. Are you not reading the policy, not understanding how it applies, or just ignoring it? --NeilN talk to me 16:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You completely failed to listen to any of my comments on your talk page, so why should I listen to you? You've also condoned some extremely dubious behaviour towards me, and possibly encouraged it.
Regarding WP:SYNTH, the complete instability of such rules makes it extremely difficult to follow from day to day or week to week. Regarding articles on literature, it is clear that whoever concocted the rules has little knowledge of either publishing or creative literature. Then again, of course, it is possible for someone to quote rules to whatever purpose, if there are enough of them, and if they get changed frequently by a tiny minority of users.-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH is long standing core policy. --NeilN talk to me 17:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on sources and my edit

  • Rm Worthington Library salutes Walter Tevis. There is only a bare mention of the book in this source is - "He successfully crossed genres with a handful of cherished volumes of speculative fiction - ...The Steps of the Sun ..."[1].
  • Penguin Classics, Walter Tevis is a publishers biography and simply says "He wrote three more novels -- Mockingbird, The Steps of the Sun and The Queen's Gambit..." [2]. This is simply a bare mention and does not contribute to notability.
  • [3] this is a "...uncut, behind-the-scenes interviews were the foundation of Don Swaim's long-running CBS Radio show, Book Beat." which seems to be a good source, I would prefer if there were some indication the interview were actually run on the show but I can not get it to play. All in all a very good find though. JbhTalk 19:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jbhunley: The corresponding mp3 file available here plays. --NeilN talk to me 19:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @NeilN: Thank you. Its the things right in front of me I miss :) JbhTalk 19:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not know if I would say this contributes to notability. The interview is more about the author's use of science fiction as a narrative device and there is only about three and a half minutes (from abt 07:00-10:30) about this book, most of which is a plot summary. If there is some evidence this part of the interview was broadcast I would feel a lot better about it since it would show that what the author had to say about this book was significant and worth air time ie the definition of notability. Other's opinions may differ and I am enough on the fence that I will not argue the point if that is the case. JbhTalk 19:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: You're shifting the goal posts again. For future reference, do not condone or justify bullying, and also listen to BOTH sides of an argument.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments hold no water. Saying that content needs to meet Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards is not bullying. --NeilN talk to me 17:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: You haven't offered anything constructive, just stock answers. But leaving that aside, as you seem not to listen much - it is better to improve articles yourself in the manner you yourself specify rather than destroy them. That completely undermines the co-operative aspect of Wikipedia.
If you are such a stickler for the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, why aren't you helping improve articles such as this one, instead of criticising what others do? Probably because it would take more time to do that.
But if you bring yourself to, please add references to this article which improve it, and conform to your idea of what a good article should be. That would be a decent and kind thing to do. Better than some of what you've condoned recently.-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MacRùsgail: I guess you haven't noticed that I improved and expanded one of your articles that was on the edge of notability, correcting a factual error that you added? [4] --NeilN talk to me 17:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nor did he notice the article of his which I improved. Of all the text he has written here and in other places I see much more complaining than editing.

@MacRusgail: - please do not misrepresent my actions. The only time I 'interfered with' anything in your user space was when you moved articles at AfD into your user space to try to stop the AfD. That is not 'interfering with' that is correcting a bad act. Instead of complaining spend the time improving articles or, since you say content policies have changed a lot, go read and familiarize yourself with the current policies. The only reason I checked your articles is you have a history - as AfD has shown - of creating articles about non-notable subjects. There is no 'improving' a non-notable article there is only A) not writing it in the first place or B) deleting it - period.

My response to your continuing complaints is simple either take me to ANI, where I am sure your behavior will be sanctioned or stop whining about me and get over it. I have avoided taking you to ANI because I hate dealing with it and frankly your obnoxious behavior is not worth the frustration. Sooner or later you will either DROPTHESTICK and calm down or you will continue down this path and get blocked for continuing behavior you have been previously warned about. If editing has become too stressful or is no longer enjoyable please take a couple of months off to regain perspective. From your behavior I think a break is advisable and whether it is voluntary or enforced by block I frankly do not care.

I have offered to work with you and you have rudely refused, that is your right. I will continue to work on the problematic articles I have indicated regardless. They are not your articles. Please see WP:OWN if you have any questions about that. JbhTalk 18:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: -You can mention whining and abusive behaviour all you like, but I think you know the real reason that you are spending so much time on line, and so little interacting with people offline. You pursued me, and I don't care whether you hide behind idiosyncratic jargon, or the rulebook or anything else. It is clear that you have absolutely no understanding of literature, or the arts, or even publishing. Unlike you, I actually work in that area.
You are a bully, and have been cutting a destructive swathe across Wikipedia for some while now. It is a pity that this entire website seems to be taken over by idiot savants, anal retentives and Asperger's types, but there you go. You do more damage than the vandals. Quoting your beloved website:
"The term anal retentive (also anally retentive), commonly abbreviated to anal, is used to describe a person who pays such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, potentially to the detriment of the anal-retentive person."
As for @NeilN: - you're promoted above yourself, and are clearly unfit for your role. Try looking at both sides of a problem. You've screwed up this time, and should quit before you screw up other people's enjoyment of this website even more. I don't really care if I get banned by you at all, since you've got no power over me whatsoever. You need to spend more time off your computer as well and talking to people face to face. Get some fresh air.-MacRùsgail (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Steps_of_the_Sun&oldid=669181402"