Talk:Robin Williams (writer)

message: I found
: is a founding member of the New Mexico Internet Professionals Association, the Santa Fe Mac Users Group,
and kept the refs while reducing the text they support to 
: has been a leader in New Mexico computer-related groups
In this fashion, we can support OR by others without burdening the article with unencyclopedic text that arguably violates WP:SYN by seemingly trying to prove how vigorous she is in non-notable pursuits. --Jerzy•t 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer groups 

message: IMO, the bio is notable for her computer books and should not be deleted, but i don't want to go too long without getting, say, WP:PR on the notability of her foray into the works of Shakespeare. My sense for a need for considering that is heightened by 
# the emphasis given to the opinion of her community-college prof who turned her on to the subject;
# the consistency between the facts and some scenarios where Peachpit might avoid her carrying out her intention to privately publish Swan of Avon..., for reasons unrelated to their hope of turning a profit via its sales (or, for that matter, unrelated to making a worthwhile contribution to knowledge): e.g.
#:- they're not funding her imprint, or
#:- she twisted their arm, or
#:- they believed she had a chance of taking it and her future computer titles elsewhere, or
#:- they believed her value to them as a tech writer would be impaired by the embarrassment of her becoming a self-publisher, or
#:- as she suggests, they're just nice people; and 
# the partisan diligence of the major contributor, and the evident friendship between her and him: 
##  has brought the prose from 6 sentences to almost its current state with 2 secns of prose and 4 of lists (my ensuing edits removed some prose since his last edit), and from 2,768 to 8,851 bytes, from 04:14 on the 16th, to 13:19 on the 19th of December 2007 (with insignificant changes by a few intervening editors).
## The most significant intervening edit was the conversion by an IP of a "birth_date =" field from user:Hjal's () April '07 "c. 1954" estimate to "1953"; interestingly, Navy.e converted that to an exact day within the next 2 hours). 
## I have deleted the image that appeared in the author box, but i presume that at least admins can still see the verbal matter that accompanied it on the image page(s). Navy.e claims there to have communicated with the subject by EMail, and that she both has thanked him (addressing him as "George") for adding the pic and/or his editing, and placed her photo in the public domain. (On reflection, she can do that only if she took the photo with a timer; otherwise, only the photographer can, unless it was a work-for-hire paid for by her publisher, in which case only they can do it.) In any case, he implies they are two different people and that she can put it in PD, but he wiki-signed our statement that he is the copyright holder. Assuming he's not her, she feels he deserves thanks for furthering her interests.
--Jerzy•t 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Navy.e also used the tricky syntax required to single out :Category:Mac OS, among the Cat tags he added, to have Williams listed above the alphabetical A entries (i.e., behind only the significantly name article Mac OS, and ahead of, e.g., Apple Guide, Inside Macintosh, Macintosh File System, and MultiFinder). IMO this is a serious part of the pattern of PoV. --Jerzy•t 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Looking at the article, your question still has not been addressed, and it is still a 100% subject-referenced page. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability issues, including conflict of interest 

message: Way too "everything and the kitchensink." Try to make a limited selection of noted works, not everything ever published. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been making a first attempt to collect what has turned out to be massive amount of available sources - I am planning to ask a Wikiproject or two for help if the article survives the AfD. I think the article can eventually be reorganized into sections of notable works, or have separate articles created for notable works, and that will help a lot. For now, I think treating this as a work in progress would be helpful due to the vast amount of sources available due to the dozens of works published by this author and the significant amount of critical attention many of these works have received. Given the early stage of the research, I think it is too soon to figure out what needs to be trimmed. Beccaynr (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography