Talk:Howard W. Robertson

message: Please read WP:BIO to see how to make this person notable and keep it from being deleted. Aboutmovies 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is looking better, but not there yet. Note, of all the on-line sources provided (http://academics.sru.edu/SlabLitMag/hrobertson.htm doesn't work) only one, the award site is of any value. And that site is not the type of sources that by itself establishes notability. The others are publishers or his own site, and those can be used, but only after notablity has been established through independent reliable sources. The Who's Who is a good one, but more are needed. At this point I'd say two more non-trivial sources would do it. Think Eugene Register Guard. If he is that notable the paper should have some coverage (like a biogrpahy or retrospective). The Oregonian may have things as well, or try literary journals. It's going in the right direction (in the way of sources at least), but needs some more work. Aboutmovies 23:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable?

message: Poetry with Robertson acquires its archaic meaning: a made thing, ποίημα, which is to say that he defines the poem very broadly.  Each of his poems is an ode, a fiction, an essay, an abstract painting, and a jazz recording.  His poetry is a mimesis of the streaming of Being through Nonbeing.  It flows continuously, pausing at times but rarely stopping.  Line-breaks never halt the fluent forward progress.  His poetry affirms with Aristotle that truth is most universally told through a blend of ficta and facta.  Each poem is an essay of existential discovery, an enterprising foray into the discursive wilderness.  Each portrays visually the drift and swirl of the things themselves and the interconnected chiaroscuro of shadowy everydayness and shimmering intensity.  His work is based on the belief that reality never fails, nor does the phenomenal revelatory streaming of its representation in authentic poetry.
This section has been reverted without discussion about three times by the author of this page. Time to discuss. This is lovely, but not the kind of thing that goes in an encyclopedia article. Is this a quotation from somewhere? If so it could perhaps be cited as such and put back. Most of this, however, like much poetry, is subjective. Encyclopedia articles should strive to be objective. If you disagree, Wikipedia may not be the venue for you. As a side note, anybody associated with this poet (or the poet himself) who wishes to edit this article should take a look at our conflict of interest guidelines and strive to maintain a neutral point of view. You may also want to read up on ownership of articles. Currently this reads like an autobiography. Who but the author would know what hospital he was born at? (I was born at Sacred Heart too--how is this notable?) I see a list of sources, but it would be helpful if the facts in this article were individually cited with in-line citations, especially from national or regional publications. (I found one unflattering review from The Oregonian, which, if what I suspect is true about the authorship of this article, would not be welcome here.) I've also tried to clean this article of the type of 2nd person instruction that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. To no avail. If you dispute anything removed from the page, please discuss it here on the talk page, and note that Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Thanks. Katr67 22:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material moved from Works section 

message: I am trying to help whoever wrote this article by bringing the article up to Wikipedia standards. If the author of this article disagrees with my changes, please discuss them here. Katr67 16:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that it's foolish to revert to a previous version when numerous improvements in grammar, spelling, wikilinks, form and style have been made since that version. If you insist the deleted material needs to be in the article, at least add it to the latest version of the article rather than reverting to your preferred version. Reversion is not an editing tool. This kind of behavior does not make me well-disposed to using my valuable time as a volunteer editor to help improve "your" article and does not help your cause. Katr67 16:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any suggested improvements to grammar, spelling, wikilinks, form and style will be considered.  You will notice that I have added references to the Life section in this latest edition of the Howard W. Robertson article.  It is not helpful for you to simply remove text that accurately summarizes the life and works of the poet.  Please stop doing that.  Discuss it with me first.  Robin Fletcher 22:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every edit made is saved in the history area, so everyone can see exaty what you are doing. Trying to disguise one edit by doing another shortly after (which the edit summary did not match the the actual edit) is a very routine act that fools no one. Again, see WP:OWN reegarding your comment above. Aboutmovies 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not trying to disguise anything.  Your accusation is libelous.  Your actions are crossing the line into vandalism.  If you are interested in constructively improving the article as a responsible member of the Wikipedia community, you will change your behavior immediately. Robin Fletcher 22:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know how to use the "history" button? The second edit summary said: "I added references to the Life section" but the only difference was the removal of "Robertson has been a full-time poet since 2002." in that edit. An edit summary is for that edit only, not future edits, not previous edits. As stated on your talk page, look up what vandalism means on WikiPedia. Aboutmovies 23:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the guidance.  I have improved the sourcing.  Do you have any suggestions for further improvement?  If so, would you mind starting out over at the left margin again?  We are getting squeezed in pretty far over here to the right.  Robin Fletcher 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion,  again 

message: ====1st edit====
This diff shows how I wikified (used coding to link to another Wikipedia article) several items, and removed an embedded titled link in favor of using that link as a reference. Then I used a template that creates a references section. Katr67 23:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: October 3

message: This diff shows how I wikified (used coding to link to another Wikipedia article) several items, and removed an embedded titled link in favor of using that link as a reference. Then I used a template that creates a references section. Katr67 23:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1st edit

message: This diff shows how I removed three external links from the references section because they were already linked in the text. See our external links guidelines for more information. Katr67 23:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd edit

message: ====3rd edit====
This diff shows how I started standardizing the references to be more inline with Wikipedia standards. Read WP:CITE for more information. I also created a redlink to a possibly notable workshop and changed the embedded external link to a reference. I also placed a tag above the section I didn't get to yet. (note:I have not yet checked the references to make sure they back up the facts stated). Katr67 17:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: October 26

message: This diff shows how I started standardizing the references to be more inline with Wikipedia standards. Read WP:CITE for more information. I also created a redlink to a possibly notable workshop and changed the embedded external link to a reference. I also placed a tag above the section I didn't get to yet. (note:I have not yet checked the references to make sure they back up the facts stated). Katr67 17:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd edit

message: This diff shows that I removed a link to the author's dojo, because it does not appear to "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. Katr67 17:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4th edit

message: ====5th edit====
This diff shows how I cleaned up the list of publications, separated the awards and reviews into new sections, cleaned up the references in those sections to match the rest of the article, and removed "iNtown" magazine as a non-notable (scope was only Eugene) defunct magazine. Katr67 16:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to list your edits here. This is not usually how it's done. I know how to check page diffs and edit summaries on my own. This section is for your benefit only, as I explained above, in order to get you to stop edit warring over form and style changes. If you think you now know how to check page diffs and edit summaries  by yourself, we can cease cluttering the page with this nonsense. Katr67 23:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please continue to list your edits here, as doing so is useful to me.  Employing the term "nonsense" seems unnecessarily harsh and even hostile.  If it annoys you, I am happy to refrain from listing my edits here.  I was just attempting to reciprocate your helpful gesture.  Robin Fletcher 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't reciprocate unless you find it helpful for yourself. Like I said, I don't need the further explanation as I can easily see your edits when I check the page diffs that come up in my watchlist. Katr67 03:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: October 31

message: This diff shows how I cleaned up the list of publications, separated the awards and reviews into new sections, cleaned up the references in those sections to match the rest of the article, and removed "iNtown" magazine as a non-notable (scope was only Eugene) defunct magazine. Katr67 16:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 5th edit

message: This diff shows how I added a bracket in order to fix a reference I previously worked on, moved the Poets & Writers link to the external links section, and expanded the description of the link contents. Katr67 17:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 6th edit

message: This diff shows how I provided a citation for the Elizabeth R. Curry Prize and added the interview by novelist Matt Briggs. Nice work on the 1st through 6th edits.  This article is looking good.  Robin Fletcher 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to list your edits here. This is not usually how it's done. I know how to check page diffs and edit summaries on my own. This section is for your benefit only, as I explained above, in order to get you to stop edit warring over form and style changes. If you think you now know how to check page diffs and edit summaries  by yourself, we can cease cluttering the page with this nonsense. Katr67 23:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please continue to list your edits here, as doing so is useful to me.  Employing the term "nonsense" seems unnecessarily harsh and even hostile.  If it annoys you, I am happy to refrain from listing my edits here.  I was just attempting to reciprocate your helpful gesture.  Robin Fletcher 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't reciprocate unless you find it helpful for yourself. Like I said, I don't need the further explanation as I can easily see your edits when I check the page diffs that come up in my watchlist. Katr67 03:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 7th edit

message: Apparently this is a vanity press that will accept submissions from anybody and is not subject to a reliability check: http://www.europapublications.co.uk/biographical_form.asp I don't think we can consider this a reliable source, so we need another source (other than the author himself) for the biographical information on the author. Katr67 20:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The International Who's Who in Poetry and Poet's Encyclopedia is not a vanity press.  It solicits information regarding published poets and incorporates it into the encyclopedic directory.  The poets included do not pay the press anything and are not obligated to buy anything.  Robin Fletcher 23:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not independently verified, thus it is not a reliable source. It's true that poets don't have to pay to have themselves included in the book, but it isn't considered a legitimate reference work. Katr67 00:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all directories of living persons rely heavily on information supplied by the persons included.  This is true of the most reliable directories around.  The independent verification would lie in birth certificates, marriage licenses, university diplomas, university catalogs listing faculty, any journals cited, any books listed, and other primary source documents.  The tenth edition of the International Who's Who in Poetry and Poet's Encyclopedia is a legitimate reference work that serves as a third-party source.  The facts included in it can be verified by research into primary sources offline.  Another third-party source for Howard W. Robertson is the Poets & Writers Directory, which verifies much of the information in The International Who's Who in Poetry and Poet's Encyclopedia.  Any poet who is included in the Poets & Writers Directory has passed objective, impartial publication requirements and should be included in Wikipedia.  To digress for a moment, do you know what happened to the Ingrid Wendt article in Wikipedia?  There was a very good, very informative article about her around ten months ago, and now there is nothing.  Ingrid Wendt won the Oregon Book Award and has published several excellent books of poetry.  Did some questionable interpretation of the "reliable source" policy drive this valuable article out of Wikipedia?  I wonder how many other articles about living poets have been forced out.  Really, anyone in the Author's Guild should also be in Wikipedia, because they have passed objective, impartial publication requirements and are verified representatives of the living writers of today.  I understand and applaud the effort to remove false and misleading information from Wikipedia.  For this community-produced online encyclopedia to reach its full potential in the area of living writers, however, the power of the Internet should be tapped to provide a completeness of coverage not heretofore possible in conventional print encyclopedias.  We should be careful in our zeal to eradicate the false lest we eliminate the comprehensive.  Returning to reliable sources, there are two newspaper articles about Howard W. Robertson that verify much of what is included in The International Who's Who in Poetry and Poet's Encyclopedia and are valid third-party sources: "Cut to the Heart" by Barry Johnson (The Oregonian, February 22, 2004; pp. D7-D8) and "Ode Writer Has New Book" by Paul Denison (The Register-Guard, March 28, 2004; p. G2). Also, the Jack Straw Productions website contains valid third-party statements that verify the International Who's Who in Poetry and Poet's Encyclopedia, including a biographical statement about Howard W. Robertson by Van Diep and an interview with Howard W. Robertson by American Book Award winner Matt Briggs.  Robin Fletcher 02:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In response to your question about the Ingrid Wendt article, I could find no trace that it ever existed under that spelling. Since I do have Admin privileges, had the page been deleted, I would have found it. Is that the name used for the article? -- llywrch 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is the name, Ingrid Wendt.  Strange that you found no trace of it.  It was there early last spring.  Robin Fletcher 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Who's Who in Poetry 

message: The Works section of this page seems a little, oddly worded, anybody volunteer for clean up?
71.34.123.70 (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up Works section?

message: Robin Fletcher (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  resolution of copyright concerns