Talk:The Spot

message: As I've said before, the proper way to go about this is to actually discuss the issues here, not strip out practically the entirety of what I added.  I will freely admit that there are edits that could and should be made to what I wrote.  But you seem to be making this into a personal attack, and that's neither friendly nor how things are done around here.  To address some of your points:
* First, I disagree with the contention that I turned this into a "Bishop-fest" about me.  One of the items was solely about me.  Furthermore, the only way anyone would have even known that was by being around then to begin with.  You are one of the few people that could possibly interpret it a "Bishop-fest," considering I never even mentioned my own name or used first-person.  I included examples of how several of the readers of the site were included in it, as a means of demonstrating the interactivity that I believe was characteristic of the site.  If you think that such examples are superfluous, I'm willing to listen to your arguments regarding that.  A possible compromise may be to have a separate section of the entry for "Fan Interactivity," distinct from the strictly historical portion.
* The information which, admittedly, I provided no substantiation for, was how I now remember things that happened back then.  I am willing to accept that this should not be included unless and until there is corroborative evidence from other sources.  As for "slander," I firmly disagree that anything I wrote is even close to slanderous.
* Fine, it was the first episodic web site.  Please don't make it sound like this single word implies that I have some sort of agenda.  That particular wording was from text I had written some time ago -- I meant to remove that word, but simply forgot.
* I certainly have no disrespect for any effort you went through to work with Scott on this.  However, that cannot and should not be the "end-all" of any Wikipedia article.  I'm glad that you did check and confirm things with Scott, but that does not mean that additional information not "approved" by Scott should not be included as well.
As for your claim that I am arguing about how I "changed [your] article and have every right to?", remember that:
* once you post it to Wikipedia, it's no longer "your" article, and therefore
* I have as much right to change it as any other user.
However, I am honestly trying in good faith to resolve this in a way we can both live with.  Accusations of slander and vanity don't help.
Bishop^ 04:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I'm going on about. 

message: Hi, folks, just a reminder that articles in Wikipedia should only contain information which can be cited from another source. The policy of No Original Research specifically prohibits the insertion of ideas and descriptions based on our own beliefs and experiences, rather than on info published elsewhere. Thus, unless there can be Verifiable and reliable sources found for the assertions made to this article, such claims need to be removed. The original version I created was based on the only two sources I was able to find, which I have listed as references. If additional sources for the claims made here can be uncovered, such material may be included. However, any discussion of the history of The Spot, and specifics of its traffic, membership and activities is not appropriate to Wikipedia. You may publish this history yourself, elsewhere, but unless you can reference a specific article or other published resource, your personal recollections of the site would qualify as "Original Research" -- regardless if they are true. —LeflymanTalk 05:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Wikipedia Policy 

message: Leflyman: I presume when you say "any discussion of the history of The Spot, and specifics of its traffic, membership and activities is not appropriate to Wikipedia," that you mean unverifiable discussion of that nature.  Certainly, verifiable information about the history of a subject is appropriate for a Wikipedia article about it, right?  Do correct me if I'm wrong about this.
:Verifiable means that material put into an article can be directly cited from a published source; not one's own memory or experience. Please look back at the original version I wrote which was based on the articles used as "references" not merely my own recollections. The version I created is neutral, and does not use flowery opinion-laden claims like "the most successful interactive fiction site to date"; "creating intense loyalty to the project"; and, "the movers and shakers of the Hollywood elite eagerly watched the site." Such is Original Research of the self-promotional kind. If there's no movement to cleaning up the article, I'll revert to something closer to that more neutral language. —LeflymanTalk 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Referring to this article as "my work" is an inaccurate assessment of what happens on Wikipedia. No one owns the articles here; by submitting your writing to this project, you give up all rights to it. Anyone can (and likely will) edit it. In this particular case, especially, if either of you have been involved in some capacity with the topic, you should review the the discussion at Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —LeflymanTalk 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There is another article at Thespot.com which this one should be merged with; it's likely that's the article that's being referenced as two years old. —LeflymanTalk 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was referring to my article previously written at everything2, much of which I had attempted to weave in to the article SpotV wrote.  His incredulity could be easily assuaged by simply looking at the date stamp on that article, which is in 2003.-Bishop^ 12:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution Proposal 

message: As someone who enjoyed and respected The Spot and its place in online history, I just found this article and thought it sounded like it held a lot of POV.  I did a rewrite to try to make the text more encyclopedic, and added some context for what features of the site (documented in the references) were in fact pioneering.
I came over to this talk page to note what I had done, and found the debates above -- and realized I should have looked at the talk page before trying my rewrite.
In any case, I think I may have inadvertently responded to comments from several editors.  I'd like to invite feedback and comments on the changes I made.
I apologize to any editor who may (justifiably) feel that I bypassed their opinions on this talk page -- I just didn't consider that such a debate might be going on and no disrespect was intended.  Coll7 00:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of 4/7/06 

message: http://replay.web.archive.org/19970616103846/http://www.thespot.com/classic/index.html is supposed to show what it looked like in 1995-1996
Many images are missing
WhisperToMe (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1996 page