Talk:Tom Swift/Archive 1

message: An editor removed this external link:
*Tom Swift fan fiction rewrites of some and some new stories
with the edit summary:
* remove link to site that violates copyright
Could the editor please explain how copyrights are violated at the site? It appears to be original fan fiction. -Will Beback 21:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site that violates copyright 

message: I feel the links to the years (ex.1935) are valid and helpful to put things in perspective.
As such, I think they should remain. After all, they certainly aren't hurting anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.236.54.99 (talk • contribs) 
::Could you please create a username to make it easier to communicate with you? FYI, communications from other users are appearing on your IP user talk pages, but your IP address changes so you are probably not reading their comments.  For example, see User talk:4.236.54.52 --Slowmover 18:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:CONTEXT to see why others may disagree. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, years appear so frequently in articles that the cumulative effect in 1 million plus articles is to place a significant burden on the WP servers.  This would be worth it if the years in question actually pointed to something relevant to the article, but this is rarely the case.  Cluttering the page with links that add no information about the current topic doesn't serve the reader, it just makes it harder to find links that do point to a meaningful association.   Slowmover 15:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year Links 

message: Of a full paragraph acknowledging Wossan Kau's comments on the appropriate tenor for this discussion page, he has chosen to remove all but one sentence (above), and has characterized the rest as a "diatribe." I find this confusing, as I presumed I was merely expressing agreement with his stated recommendation and noting that (considering his experiences re the "Tom Swift community," which were shared with me in some detail at the time, with appropriate documentation) his attitude was all the more praiseworthy. I also am confused by the discrepancy between the attitude expressed in his comments on the reason for his deletion (viewable in "history"), and the principles he enunciated not long ago on his blog-site. But rather than go back and forth on it, I'll contact you, Wossan, by your e-mail for some mutual clarification. I gather this sort of "working it out" is the preferred Wiki process.
Lest it be forgot, the original relevance of these matters to the discussion of the Tom Swift article was to challenge the editing practices of one individual, whose identity is well-known and much commented upon despite his attempts at self-concealment. I don't regard the justifications he has repeatedly given as adequate. My understanding is that Wikipedia is for information and usefulness. Issues of "who should really get the credit" are basically private disputes: what counts is making the information available. Any disagreement on that?
Separately from Mr. Kau's comments, I'll state what I presume is unobjectionable: that honest, signed, above-board discussion is preferable to anonymous, pseudonymous, or puppeted contributions. Like Mr. Kau, I provide my (real) name in connection with any and all my contributions to Wiki. I hope those who choose otherwise will permit a civil question: why?--67.101.86.15 02:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unexplained Characterization of Edit

message: Have we a Phyllis Newton fan amongst us? Okay--"and nothing more" was too much a personal opinion (and a bit snide). But I will ask for an explanation of the change to my characterization of "Miss Trent" in the TSII section. The point is that she is given essentially no personal characteristics other than "efficient," is the only Swift Enterprises recurring female employee, and has a very-50's stereotyped role. I'm not criticizing the series on that basis, just bidding those who seek out the article to consider in a bit of depth what a "boys series" of the era incorporates. (But I may be jumping to conclusions as to your rationale.)-Scott Dickerson --67.101.86.15 16:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why some recent changes?

message: I'll see if I can track down the TASER and Wozniac cites: first is from my memory of a news article, second is "somewhere" in Google-land.
This is now a sterling article! Well done. The Toms would be proud. -Scott Dickerson --72.245.1.234 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on article development

message: I'd be bold, but here's something I am unequipped to do. Rather than having the MOTOR CYCLE cover twice, how about replacing the first one with another (AIR SHIP is neat)?
Also--how about a cover sample and character list for those series lacking same? Yes, even TSV. -Scott Dickerson --72.245.1.234 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit and addition suggested

message: I won't be a jerk and just revert. Please tell me why the link to a new juvenile series discussion group--which so far consists almost entirely of Tom Swift threads--is irrelevant. -Scott Dickerson --67.101.86.72 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss link deletion, please

message: Most are just for better "flow". I delinked all years (except the first for each titles list), as they promise greater specific relevance than they actually provide. Still recommend changing first Tom Swift cover pic.-Scott Dickerson 67.101.86.72 17:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of edits

message: This [personal attack removed, please read as 'editor' instead] continues to insert his "predecessors" section despite the fact that there is a) no connection whatsoever to Tom Swift, b) is entirely made up of conjecture, supposition, surmise and opinion which is directly contraindicated by all Wiki guidelines and c) is irrelevant. Additionally, he continues to promote his Tom Swift fan fiction site in the External Links section despite the fact that the site contains absolutely NO information on any of the various series. Furthermore Mr. Dickerson refuses to log in under his purported user name (Doxmyth) so that his "edits" can be tracked. IMHO this bad faith editing is a subtle form of vandalism and I ask Mr. Dickerson to cease and desist. MookiesDad 00:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MookiesDad, you used a first-level header for your newly created section.  If I assume good faith, I assume you made a mistake.  If I refuse to assume good faith, as you refuse to assume it of Doxmyth, I assume that you violated policy deliberately and with malign intent.  Which do you think I should do, and if I grant you an assumption of good faith why should I deny it to Doxmyth?  Once again, stop the personal attacks, and stop using phrases such as "a subtle form of vandalism" which have no meaning in the context.  This is a content dispute, not vandalism on either side. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doxmyth continually violates every Wiki guideline as to NPOV and presenting fact, not opinion. He continues to insert his irrelevant "predecessors" section despite all attempts to reason with him. He continually links to his site that has absolutely no information about Tom Swift. Furthermore a mistake in header levels can hardly be equated with Doxmyth's continual reversions and link spamming. MookiesDad 01:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On headers - I quote from Wiki guidlines "Headings are hierarchical, so you should start with == Header == and follow it with === Subheader ===, ==== Subsubheader ====, and so forth. The 'second-level' == Header == is overly large in some browsers, but that can be fixed for individual viewers with a style sheet more easily than a nonhierarchical article structure can be fixed (see help:User style)." Please note the word "should" is used not "must". Frankly I think using bold headers under the fainter but larger top level header makes the article harder to read. If you have any evidence that the way I set up the headers is a violation of any Wiki rule instead of your personal opinion, I'd sure like to see it. MookiesDad 02:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Predecessors section

message: Why was this section restored? It contains nothing but a dead link to a person not even remotely connected to the Tom Swift books. MookiesDad 02:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: The section on "predecessors" asserts three things: (1) That Jules Verne wrote popular invention fiction in the 19th Century; (2) That Luis Senarens wrote such fiction, in the form of popular boys' series, in America in the 19th Century; (3) That some titles of the Senarens books, and the continuation of his Frank Reade stories under the "Jr." rubric, foreshadowed the Tom Swift series. To substantiate #1, see the Wikipedia article on Jules Verne. For #'s 2 and 3, please refer to: "Explorers of The Infinite" by Sam Moskowitz (Meridian Books, 1963; LCCCN#63-8778), Chapter 7; see also "Tom Swift & Co." by John T. Dizer, Jr., Ph.D. (McFarland & Co., Inc., 1982; ), in toto but specifically Chapter 10, Stratemeyer and Science Fiction, which references Senarens and the Frank Reade stories (and similar boys' series of the era).
As to the question of relevance, this will always be somewhat subjective, of course. In my opinion as an editor, the Tom Swift books and character are significant in their keeping alive the tradition of "invention fiction" that originated in the 19th Century. As indicated by the references to Wozniak and the TASER, this is a phenomenon that gives the books a certain distinction, as compared to, say, The Rover Boys or Frank Merriwell (or Harry Potter). The facts may be more aptly expressed--which is what Wiki editing strives to do--but I would argue that the section is truthful, noncontroversial, informative, pertinent to the article--and brief.
I await the counterargument to these justifications.
Regarding the link to my fan fiction site (first placed in the article by someone else without my knowledge), I have added a brief sentence noting the existence of net groups and activity, including the existence of "some" fan fiction, to make clear that the link is tied-in to the general subject (which does include various mentions of the popularity of the books/character, further substantiated by the existence of such groups and sites). As we link to dedicated information sites and discussion groups, a link to the only Swift FanFic group of which I am aware seems not out of place, and is a convenience for the reader/inquirer. (The site does not give my name, does not sell anything, and does not track or "capture" visitors in any way.)
I apologize for the accidental deletion of the one title. Good it was caught.
I yield the floor to MookiesDad. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 02:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fact: You have presented not one iota of evidence that Edward Stratemeyer, his Syndicate or any of the ghostwriters hired by the Syndicate to write Swift books were ever in any way influenced by the predecessors you cite. Therefore the section is immaterial to the article.
Furthermore Tom Swift fan fiction is non-canonical, usually bad, possibly illegal and, once again, immaterial to this article. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your non-informational web site, regardless of how good your intentions are. The body of the article exists to present the reader with fact, not opinion, conjecture, speculation or surmise (that oughta cover it) and your section is all that. Sure Stratemeyer may have been influenced by the people and things you mention but have you done any research into whether or not that actually is true? If so please list your citations. Quoting the venerable John Dizer's speculation does not a fact make. MookiesDad 02:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, the "venerable" John Dizer's opinion is an opinion, not a fact.  However, it is appears to be a published and thus verifiable opinion from John T. Dizer, Jr., Ph.D., published by McFarland & Co., which I would say makes it a reliable source -- and that verifiable opinion from a reliable source is better than MookiesDad's personal opinion that there is no connection and the section is "immaterial to the article". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have the book in question and nowhere does it say there is a direct link as Doxmyth seems to imply. Furthmore, as much as I respect John's work, it was done in an era when finding info on the Syndicate was neigh on impossible. Now researchers have access to the Stratemeyer archives in the NYPL 5th Ave branch, were I have spent many a pleasant day researching the Syndicate's boy stories like Rover Boys, Tom Swift and Hardy Boys. While I haven't searched every document of course, I have yet to see any proof that the Syndicate was influenced by either Verne or Reade. Anyhoooo, I feel very strongly about including the aforemention "predecessors" section until the writer can provide some modern citations of the veracity. MookiesDad 03:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understand how this works.  If Dizer is a respected authority on the field, which it sounds like no one disputes, and his opinion is that there is a connection worthy of mention, it is not appropriate for you to surpress any mention of that until you receive "proof". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I mentioned earlier, scholars are reexamining Mr. Dizer's work in light of the torrent of new evidence which became available after he wrote his book and new facts have turned up to dispute some of his suppositions. If "rescpected authority" write "Black is white and white is red" that simply doesn't make it so. I have no desire to disparage Mr Dizer's wrok, which was fine for its time. But later scholars are far more cognizant of the workings of the Syndicate. And anyway, as I stated earlier - I have John's book and he makes no claim that Verne or Reade had a direct influence on Tom Swift. ANd that, after all, is the point. MookiesDad 03:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 1) fan fiction - the text you mention that you added was entirely self-serving and a clear attempt to validate a link to your site. Fan fiction is non-canonical and irrelevant to this article. You should create a Wiki "fan fiction" page and link to your site from that, if you must promote your site.
2) The "years" links certainly aren't hurting anything and can be helpful, No reason at all to delete them
3) Predecessors - If you can find anything with a proven connection as an influence on Tom Swift otherwise the section is so pointless as to be completely useless.
MookiesDad 01:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With reference to MookiesDad's three points, above-- (1) The text removed from the Series Overview section, provided here for easier reference, was: "Continuing to present there have been several internet discussion group sites devoted to, or specifically including, the several Tom Swift series, and some Tom Swift fan fiction has appeared."  I presume there is no question as to the factuality of this statement. The question appears to be its relevance. I have given my justification above. Disagreement has been presented, but no counter-argument to date. (2) Two arguments against the year-links have been made, by SlowMover on 1 June 06, and by me ("...they promise greater specific relevance than they actually provide..."). No counter-arguments have been offered to date. I'll now add a third consideration respecting the linking. Whereas I do think milieu and historical/social background is relevant in a general sense, the relevance of a specific year to the title next to which it appears seems questionable. The stories were not necessarily written during the year of publication, and some relevant "milieu" elements may stretch back several years. It follows that this sort of linkage may be more confusing than helpful. (3) Again, no theory of influence is asserted in the disputed "Predecessors" text. I have provided my reasoning, and two citations, above. There has been a reassertion of disagreement but no specific rejoinder to date. It is my defeasible claim that in Wiki articles Usefulness=Relevance: whatever is useful to the specific inquirer is therefore relevant, and whatever is relevant to the specific inquirer is therefore useful. In other words, I'm suggesting that MookiesDad's definition of subject-relevance is too narrowly drawn and constrictive. You've made clear that you find it to be of no use to you individually. Please clarify why you judge it to be of no use at all to the likely typical inquirer--someone who has run across references to Tom Swift and wants to know more. Thank you for continuing to participate in the discussion. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pointless to try to reason with you, every time I do, you dismiss it as argument. You have provided no reason for the "years" links to be removed; no justification for link-spamming the site with a link to your site (and the self-serving commentary that brings the subject up) and reject my point of view that any "predecessor" must have some relevance to TS. You seem hell bent on changing the article to your liking regardless of anyone else's opinion, your specious reasoning notwithstanding.MookiesDad 20:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Justification for Predecessors section, Links, etc.

message: A question was raised above about where else I have edited. I have participated in not only this article, but also the following: Tom Swift, Jr., Rick Brant, Time Dilation, and Frank Reade. I don't recall whether I made any edits to the TSIII or TSIV articles; but if I did, I think they were minor. Most of this was prior to my registering with Wiki, though I did state my name, Scott Dickerson (SD). I don't necessarily endorse my earliest edits made as a newbie, and assume some have been subsequently reworked. Doxmyth 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other articles with Doxmyth edits

message: My proposed and disputed Predecessors paragraph merely offers a few factual statements and does not touch upon any theory of "influence". However--and relevant to the discussion of having a link in this article to Frank Reade--I did run across the opinion of a noted private Tom Swift researcher, Thomas R. Ippolito, which he published in a small booklet call Blueprint (June, 2002--Issue Number 5). In an article entitled A Blueprint for Tom Swift, he states: "...several of Stratemeyer's most popular series are strikingly reminiscent of ones that appeared before the turn of the century. Tom Swift is no exception. Stratemeyer was not the first to introduce, or even popularize, the 'boy inventor' theme. In fact, by the time his first science and invention story...was published, the series that undoubtedly served as the inspiration for Tom Swift, Frank Reade Jr. had been in print for nine years." As this constitutes original research, it cannot be used as formal substantiation for a discussion of influences in the article, should anyone care to insert one. But Mr. Ippolito is well-known for his studies of the Stratemeyer Syndicate, and I thought his comment interesting enough to quote here in the article talk page. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is absolutely no evidence of a connection between Frank Reade and the Tom Swift series, let alone anything that would support this claim! You may find Ippolito's opinion "interesting", but that's all it is –- OPINION. Pak434 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: the question of influence

message: Doxmyth continues to complain that other editors should "assume good faith" about his repeated insertion of this link and the lead-in text in the body of the article. To quote from a Wiki essay on this topic, "the more a given user invokes assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user is acting in good faith." Assuming good faith does not mean that edits cannot be criticized. Doxmyth's complaints about incivility are not credible. Other editors are not required to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary, such as someone insisting on inserting a link to a web site that he owns and maintains, which is discouraged by Wiki. Pak434 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...a link to a web site that he owns and maintains, which is discouraged by Wiki." So who owns and maintains the several informational sites and discussion-group sites linked at the bottom of the page? Not me. Shall we accede to Wiki discouragements and remove them? I don't care to. But be bold, Pak434. You brought it up. Doxmyth 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Boohoohoo, nobody thinks my link is valid. I'll show 'em - I'll remove ALL the links! I'm doing this in good faith! I'm being bold! I'm a good Wikipedian! - There you have Doxmyth in a nutshell. SuperDuperMan 02:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  This is not a very persuasive argument. There has been no objection to the other external links from this article and no indication that they were added by the owners of those web sites. I understand your difficulty in holding a neutral point of view on whether your website should be linked from the article. This is exactly why Wiki rules discourage editors from adding a link to a website that you own or maintain. Again, please refrain from stubbornly reinserting it, and the text dealing with the so-called invention-story milieu, as you are instigating an edit war by doing so. A consensus has been reached that none of it belongs in the article. Pak434 01:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assume Good Faith

message: As the newly converted are often more eloquent than anyone else, I'd like to urge those with concerns about the appearance of a link to the Tom Swift Lives! site to have a discussion with MookiesDad, previously a staunch opponent of the link to have a discussion with MookiesDad, previously a staunch opponent of the link. Now you can see, at The Hardy Boys, the following text: The stories have inspired some authors to create their own Hardy Boys fan fiction. This, a near quote of my own attempted edit, was inserted by-- MookiesDad. On 23 September 2006. In other words (if the point is obscure), he's doing on one page the exact same thing he's decrying here, in terms of (irrelevant? self-serving?) references to fan fiction. (Also note that he has tolerated the link to Hardy Detective Agency Fanfiction for quite some time, despite his not infrequent visits to the page for editing.) And as we're told above, with authority, that all these consensus-agglomerating editors are in fact the same person (that equals 1, if you're counting), a person who now endorses and promotes fan fiction on boys book series pages, it seems the opposition has dissolved.
Which leaves the Wiki-issue raised above by "Pak434". Namely the use of sockpuppets to attempt to subvert the Wiki process. As so abundantly demonstrated herein. Doxmyth 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself" US poet (1819 - 1892) SuperDuperMan 02:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that sockpuppetry has been used to make the consensus seem broader does not mean there one doesn't exist. I have objected to the repeated insertion of the "invention-story milieu" text, the text about fandom and fan fiction in the body of the article that you are using to justify the link to your website, and the link itself. The editor using sock puppets has objected to the same things, as has Noumenes. This is three editors opposed vs. one editor in favor. Your argument about similar external links or text that has been "tolerated" on other articles does not "dissolve" the consensus reached here. Pak434 01:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doxmyth writes "And as we're told above, with authority, that all these consensus-agglomerating editors are in fact the same person ". What authority? One person makes a suggestion and it becomes fact? Is it so incomprehensible to you that your repeated edits are self-serving? SuperDuperMan 02:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another otherwise uninvolved editor (me) who came on this page by semi-accident (and read lots of Tom Swift as a kid) says: leave out the fan fiction.  Not relevant.  jesup 03:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  It doesn't seem like this is even a real argument if this is already being tolerated on the Hardy Boys Wiki.  Just as long as it is made ABSOLUTELY CLEAR the distinction between the originals and the fansite, I really don't see how this could be seen as being 'irrelevant' by anyone but the truly hardcore Tom Swift enthusiast.  Make another separate section for 'fansite links', that is maybe at the very bottom of the Tom Swift page, as not everyone that visits this page will REALIZE that there is even another section for that. Frank da Tank 21:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Talk:Tom Swift, Discussion of Fan Activity.  Wiki is not meant to be an internet guide or web directory.  Pak434 01:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconvenient facts

message: This editor repeatedly inserts links in the "See Also" section that have absolutely no connection to Tom Swift. He refuses to discuss his reasons for doing so. It's clear Feldspar has never read a Tom Swift book otherwise he would not be insisting on his off-topic links. SuperDuperMan 00:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Antaeus Feldspar has tried to remove this section claiming falsely that it is an attack upon him, rather than his edits. In doing so he has directly contradicted numerous chastisements he has issued to other editors regarding their editing the comments of other editors. SuperDuperMan 18:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hair splitting. The assertion that Antaeus Feldspar has never read a Tom Swift book  because he disagrees with your position is a gratuitous, unsubstantiated comment that is meant to discredit him. Pak434 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine then let him debate that point, not delete an entire section. It's my opinion that he hasn't read the Swift Sr. series otherwise he wouldn't be making the edits he does. SuperDuperMan 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the entirety of the section because the entirety of the section is a personal attack focused on the contributor and not the contributions, making it absolutely irrelevant.  The only fragment of commentary that even approaches discussion of the article, which is what article talk pages are for, is your claim that the links in question "have absolutely no connection to Tom Swift", and since you have already shared that that is your opinion in other sections of the page, this section contains nothing of value.  Of course, as indicated in my edit summary, if despite being informed of the existence of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL you think it is acceptable behavior to create an entire section on an article talk page for the sole purpose of making unsubstantiated accusations against other editors, I'll be quite happy to alert administrators that you take that position, and let them inform you of their position on that matter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, for the record, you make this claim:  "In  he has directly contradicted numerous chastisements he has issued to other editors regarding their editing the comments of other editors."  No, there is no contradiction.  There is a great deal of difference between removing a personal attack or removing a comment counter-productive to discussion on how to improve the article, and what  did (here, here, and here), leaving the comment in place but altering the wording so that it attributed to that person things that they had not in fact said. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your argument is completely self-serving. You have, in fact, done the same thing which you accuse Noumenes of doing on this very page in the past:  -. Making empty threats about "reporting" me doesn't alter any of the facts and is no doubt in violation of one of the seemingly endless rules of Wiki! SuperDuperMan 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the "seemingly endless rules of Wiki[pedia]" are really just common-sense extensions of basic policies like WP:CIVIL.  As for the edit you pointed out, yes, I did indeed remove two personal attacks in the edit you mention, one from the section header and one from an editor's post.  As I have previously explained, there is a difference between changing another editor's wording to make it look like they said things that they did not say, and removing personal attacks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet another self-serving response. It's not for you to decide what is a personal attack and what is not. As much as you long to be one, you aren't an admin and probably never will be. I'm done with you Feldspar, you are a shameless hypocrite, a blowhard and an insufferable know-it-all. SuperDuperMan 00:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antaeus Feldspar 

message: On 19 October 2006 I called attention to the fact that user IDs 71.125.234.14, SuperDuperMan, MookiesDad, and Fwdixon all appeared to be the same person and that this person appeared to be using sockpuppets to broaden a legitimate concensus that had emerged against the insertion of a link and text that Doxmyth has wanted to place in the Tom Swift and Tom Swift Jr. articles. See 16:37, 19 October 2006 Pak434 (Talk | contribs) (→Discussion of further edit work by Scott Dickerson) . Instead of Doxmyth applauding the fact that I pointed this out in the spirit of fair play, even though I strongly oppose his repeated insertion of the disputed link and text in these articles, he has since actually placed a Socksuspect on  my  user page claiming that  I  am a sock puppet of Fwdixon et al. This defies reason. In fact, he has indiscriminately done this on the user page of  everyone  who has opposed his desire to link his fan fiction web site from these articles. This can only be viewed as a form of hysteria arising from the fact that a consensus has formed that he should not be permitted to use these articles to promote his web site. Pak434 18:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently Doxmyth decided to report everyone who disagrees with him as Sockpuppets.  This is an abuse of the whole process of Wikipedia.  jesup 19:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to suggest that the good-faith interpretation is that Doxmyth suspected that some of the editors who were vehemently opposing him were sockpuppets (a suspicion in which we now know he was correct, of course) and merely guessed incorrectly as to which editors they were.  I'd remind everyone that Doxmyth has been subjected to some pretty vicious personal attacks and when you're under such an assault, it can be hard to distinguish the person who's harshly criticizing your edits, but only your edits, from the person who's harshly criticizing your edits, your sanity, your integrity, etc. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Playing devil’s advocate, seeing I was among those swept up in Doxmyth’s indiscriminate allegations of sockpuppetry, it is a violation of the good-faith principle to assume that everyone who opposes your position must be a sock/meat puppet of your tormentor. This was really annoying to me seeing I was the one who brought Fwdixon’s sockpuppetry to light. The convoluted logic that Doxmyth used to explain this was: A recent (and undiscussed) revert war ostensibly between MookiesDad and Pak434 appears designed to give evidence that they are separate identities; in this spirit, "Pak434" has himself stated in Talk:Tom Swift that "MookiesDad" and several of the others appear to be sockpuppets. Both of these allegations, the one about being a sockpuppet and the one about the so-called "revert war",  were completely untrue the same way as SuperDuperman’s recent allegation that I have consistently violated 3RR and am a sockpuppet of you is completely untrue. As far as I can see, if you disagree with either one of these guys you end up becoming the target of some pretty outlandish and completely unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. I see your point though and agree that the withering personal attacks and brinksmanship that has gone on here is reprehensible. Pak434 16:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank You? 

message: My apology to other good faith editors for requesting admin intervention on this article but this user has been engaging in edit warring, flagrant sockpuppetry, repeated personal attacks, removal of legitimate warning messages from his various user talk pages, prank retalitory warnings on other people’s user page, and at least one 3RR violation over the past month. This demonstrated a brazen disregard for the rules of conduct governing Wikipedia and it was apparent that his disruptive behavior was not going to stop. So the edit war is over for the time being but the issue of this user’s conduct still has to be addressed. Pak434 16:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Pak434 has consistently violated the 3RR rule among other rules, also edits under the sockpuppet User:Noumenes, he has insisted on posting supposition as fact on the Tom Swift page. I suspect both edit names are sock/meat puppets of User:Antaeus_Feldspar - SuperDuperMan 19:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fwdixon/MookiesDad/SuperDuperMan/71.125.234.14 

message: In my experience, some of the most productive discussion goes on when a page has been protected, so I'm not too disheartened by the current protection.  Let's take this opportunity to discuss changes that we think should be made, and see if we can get consensus for some of them by the time the protection is lifted.
One that I'd like to propose to start with is removing the Moonlighting reference from the "Modern influence and references" section.  Considering how many shows on TV have made "pop culture references" their main raison d'etre I really don't think the fact that Tom Swift was once referenced by one such show really measures up to having an asteroid named after you or being named as an inspiration by a computer pioneer.  Especially as it doesn't seem it was even a well-targeted reference; while that point in the series was around the time I stopped watching Moonlighting, I don't remember anything indicating that the character in question was an inventor, which is what Tom Swift is famous for being. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the proposal to remove the Moonlighting reference from the "Modern influence and references" section. Pak434 01:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at it, I tend to agree.  Whatever we have to say that's applicable to all series is better off going in the introduction to tell what Tom Swift is, while whatever is particular to only one or two series is better off going in the sections for those series.  It leaves that "Series Overview" section with no clearly defined purpose. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally agree. The only one that merits inclusion is the Project Gutenberg link. People can surf for the others if they want to. Wiki guidelines say that external links should be kept to a minimum and that Wiki is not meant to be a web directory. The idea of converting the link to the American Heritage article to a reference makes sense. Pak434 01:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be encyclopedic, not a search engine, link repository, nor a random website.  jesup 05:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree completely. Wiki is not meant to be an internet guide or web directory. On the specific issue of adding text dealing with fandom, a majority of editors have opposed this. In fact, the only editor who has argued in favor is one who wants to include a link to his personal fan fiction web site. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a vehicle to promote specific web sites or fandoms. Also, in reading some of the discussion on this topic I found this comment by Doxmyth: It came to me that my insertion of the statement about TS fandom being "small" is a widely-held belief, but not substantiated. If Tom Swift fandom is that small, how can it be argued that mention of it merits inclusion in the article? Pak434 10:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems Feldspar and his meat/sock puppet Pak234 are becoming drunk with power. Further reason this article should stay protected, probably forever. There's no reason to remove the external links, they are valid by Wiki rules and point to information not found in the Wike article, They've been part of this article almost since its inception. No need to remove them now. FWDixon 14:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No evidence has been submitted to show that the fan sites listed in "External links" "point to information not found in the Wike  article" or in fact add value to the article in any way whatsoever, and since Fwdixon has of course recently been unmasked as the sockpuppeteer who operates the puppets MookiesDad and SuperDuperMan, his claim that these sites (including his own) are a great part of the article is not very meaningful. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feldspar is bootstrapping again. It has been clearly demonstarted that he is a sockpuppeteer who operates the sockpuppet Pak434 among others FWDixon 20:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What has been "clearly demonstrated" is your predilection for making baseless counterclaims whenever your misconduct on Wikipedia is challenged or brought to light. Pak434 22:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Its true that two of these links are to Fwdixon’s personal Tom Swift web site and a fan forum that he runs. In cases like this Wiki guidelines say that it is best to let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide the issue. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a vehicle to promote specific web sites or fandoms and external links are supposed to be kept to a minimum. I think each link should be considered on its own merits and a decision to retain or delete made by impartial editors with no affiliation to them. Pak434 03:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I submit that neither Antaeus Feldspar or his sock/meat puppet Pak434 can in any way be considered "impartial" or "unbiased". Anyway, it wasn't I who initially added my sites to the "External Links" section. Your compaign to remove the links merely demonstrates the unwonted vendetta you are waging against me. FWDixon 20:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  While the page is protected 

message: OK, I've made this a sub-heading because I think it needs to be addressed not just in one manifestation, but in basic principle.  One seeming constant of Wikipedia is that fans think the perceptions and activities of fans are more encyclopedic than they actually are.  Which is why, unless we find some truly significant fan activity to discuss, I think that at most we should have a single sentence along the lines of "Tom Swift fandom continues even today, with fans collecting the books and creating their own fanfiction for the series" and no more.  And there's no need for links to anyone's fanfic site, either; in order to be fair about it, we'd need to pick a truly representative sample, the kind that would come up on a Google search.  Which there's no reason for us to do, since the reader could just do that same Google search themselves. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be encyclopedic, not a search engine, link repository, nor a random website.  jesup 05:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree completely. Wiki is not meant to be an internet guide or web directory. On the specific issue of adding text dealing with fandom, a majority of editors have opposed this. In fact, the only editor who has argued in favor is one who wants to include a link to his personal fan fiction web site. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a vehicle to promote specific web sites or fandoms. Also, in reading some of the discussion on this topic I found this comment by Doxmyth: It came to me that my insertion of the statement about TS fandom being "small" is a widely-held belief, but not substantiated. If Tom Swift fandom is that small, how can it be argued that mention of it merits inclusion in the article? Pak434 10:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems Feldspar and his meat/sock puppet Pak234 are becoming drunk with power. Further reason this article should stay protected, probably forever. There's no reason to remove the external links, they are valid by Wiki rules and point to information not found in the Wike article, They've been part of this article almost since its inception. No need to remove them now. FWDixon 14:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No evidence has been submitted to show that the fan sites listed in "External links" "point to information not found in the Wike  article" or in fact add value to the article in any way whatsoever, and since Fwdixon has of course recently been unmasked as the sockpuppeteer who operates the puppets MookiesDad and SuperDuperMan, his claim that these sites (including his own) are a great part of the article is not very meaningful. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feldspar is bootstrapping again. It has been clearly demonstarted that he is a sockpuppeteer who operates the sockpuppet Pak434 among others FWDixon 20:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What has been "clearly demonstrated" is your predilection for making baseless counterclaims whenever your misconduct on Wikipedia is challenged or brought to light. Pak434 22:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Its true that two of these links are to Fwdixon’s personal Tom Swift web site and a fan forum that he runs. In cases like this Wiki guidelines say that it is best to let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide the issue. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a vehicle to promote specific web sites or fandoms and external links are supposed to be kept to a minimum. I think each link should be considered on its own merits and a decision to retain or delete made by impartial editors with no affiliation to them. Pak434 03:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I submit that neither Antaeus Feldspar or his sock/meat puppet Pak434 can in any way be considered "impartial" or "unbiased". Anyway, it wasn't I who initially added my sites to the "External Links" section. Your compaign to remove the links merely demonstrates the unwonted vendetta you are waging against me. FWDixon 20:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of fan activity

message: We are having a problem with the definition of "consensus". Consensus means a general agreement among a majority of the editors or agreement of most of the participants. By any other definition there would have to be unanimity and content disputes would rarely if ever be resolved. In the case of both Edisonade and fan fiction lone dissenters have refused to accept the view of a majority of editors after prolonged debate. Filibustering to this point is disruptive. Pak434 10:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Consensus 

message: The source cited for TASER being an acronym for Tom A Swift's electric rifle is incorrect.  However, I emailed TASER and they did verify that as correct. (Incidenctly, the OED left out the A).  Would the person who unlocks this page could please change that citation? 24.18.171.52 16:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TASER 

message: should the "extraterrestrials" link be changed to link to Extraterrestrial_life_in_popular_culture?--Kent Witham 03:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  change link 

message: Quite by accident, I found another useful external link, also from American Heritage; this one is quite comprehensive...
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1976/1/1976_1_64.shtml
Mark Snyder 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another useful external link 

message: Two of the Tom Swift Jr. titles are in Project Gutenberg now if you follow the link. The link says specifically Tom Swift Sr. Gweeks 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Gutenberg 

message: 
Please change the "Tom Swift article:  The perfect inventor" external link at the bottom of the page to 
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1976/1/1976_1_64.shtml
since the link which is there now is incorrect.  Thanks!  Mark Snyder 17:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, an uncontroversial swapover. Daniel Bryant 11:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please make this change 

message: I hope that visitors to this discussion page, admins or not, will take some time to read it over with care. The discussions have been interesting as examples of how people approach the editing process on Wikipedia. Pak434 prefers to address motive in urging the rejection of a proposed change. I offered several perfectly rational reasons (persuasive or not) in support of my suggestion; those reasons were ignored in favor of repetitive ad hominem commentary on my putative "bias" in making them. Why? These are encyclopedia articles intended to be of use to inquirers. All that matters here, on this page, are whether the reasons given in support of a proposed change outweigh the reasons given in support of not making it. The basis for a rule against "bias by editors" is not that motive inherently and intrinsically renders a suggestion bad, but rather that it tempts one to cut corners with regard to justification. Ultimately, comments about "hypocrisy", "bias", "self-promotion", "crybaby-ism", or whether one is Doxmyth, FWDixon, or Pak434, are inflamatory and without relevance to the task of editing. The merit of the suggestion is all that matters.
And now, for all that, we appear to have a consensus. As stated by Pak434: "The easiest solution to this problem would be to delete all disputed links." Agreed: in fact, it was one of my offered alternatives. Pak434 and I concur in asking that an admin delete the link labeled “Fan Forum For All Swift Fans”. 69.3.132.105 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 69.3.132.105 is the third anonymous account, all originating from the same server in the Los Angeles area, that Doxmyth has used in recent months to advance his position on the inclusion and deletion of links from Wiki's Tom Swift articles. The others include 69.3.130.153 (attempted to add a link from the Tom Swift Jr article to a Tom Swift fan forum he is affiliated with on 5 February) and 67.101.87.172 (urged the removal of a link to his rival’s fan forum in preference to a link to the one that he is a member of on 22-23 March). He also used account 5bCA62g4tPa on 20 February to urge "at least give SD (Scott Dickerson/Doxmyth) a link" (to his fan fiction web site). This persistence, under both his registered account and various anonymous ones, in attempting to justify links to web sites that he is affiliated with, i.e. his fan fiction web site and the Tom Swift fan forum he posts on, is a good example of why Wiki's guidelines on conflict on interest exist. The issue of sockpuppetry notwithstanding, I concur with this suggestion only with the stipulation that I made previously -- that it be recognized that Wiki is not meant to be used as a vehicle to promote specific websites or fandoms, particularly one versus another, and that links to such sites be strictly prohibited. Pak434 15:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment and consensus 

message: First, see my apology above. No "I contain worlds"--I just screwed up.
Inasmuch as the issue was raised above, I am: Doxmyth, Scott Dickerson, 67.101.87.172 and 69.3.130.153. I do indeed live in the LA area, as do a few other people. I have recently chosen to sign in using the 4 tildas, which is not a violation of any Wiki rule, in the (so far vain) hope that my comments will elicit responses based upon their content and merit, not who I happen to be, a hobbyist-writer of nonpublished Tom Swift fan fiction that precisely one individual finds worthy of scorn. I have not pretended to be a disinterested visitor or anyone else. I am not this Lester guy or 5bCA62g4tPa (is this also an LA server?) and knew nothing about the latter's post. It is my belief, which no one else has to accept but which I and some others consider well-founded, that most of the other recent commenters here, Pak434 included (but not Mark Snyder, Antaeus, or Bryant), are the same person--an active Wiki editor who is the owner/operator of numerous sites about juvenile series books, including the one here that is to be removed, who is perhaps best known under the moniker FWDixon. (Concerned about motive? Don't ask me.) Except for my "Tom Swift Lives!" fanfic site and its subsites (none are discussion groups), I neither own nor operate nor moderate any site or group. And none of these things should be worthy of mention except insofar as a claim of consensus rests upon the participation of such unacknowledged aliases. In which case the comments are not to be deleted, but the commenters count as one only.
Do count me as one only.
The basis of my original recommendation remains unaddressed, subsequent comments focusing on who I am, my ulterior motives, and in effect whether I am worthy to participate here. Thus it shall be unto eternity, I guess. The prof above who zinged the Wiki process and its shortcomings has a valid point.
"I concur with this suggestion only with the stipulation that I made previously -- that it be recognized that Wiki is not meant to be used as a vehicle to promote specific websites or fandoms, particularly one versus another, and that links to such sites be strictly prohibited." If one were to take this comment literally, the proposal would ban all links on Wikipedia that lead to a site--which is all of them, of course--given that every website is a "specific" one, and the mere presence of a link can always be construed as promotion. I mention this to demonstrate that I take seriously the content and words of my fellow editors, whether they are real people or not.
So, sysops, we do have a consensus here among--actually, between--the major participants. Somebody please delete the link in question. And then re-lock the page lest it, or something worse, reappear.
: As I said before, it is apparent that this editor and his rival FWDixon, editing under these user names and various aliases/sockpuppets, imported a personal conflict to Wiki. For over a year now, both have used this and other Tom Swift talk pages as a battleground, blog for personal commentary, and medium to link to websites that one or the other own and maintain. Incessant edit warring, personal attacks, calls for bans and blocks, etc. has been the result. Moreover, the principal interest of both seems to be to use Wiki as a vehicle to further a personal agenda, namely the promotion of their websites. Even now, months after the article was protected due to these problems, one of the parties is back attempting to have a link to his rival's website removed and the page locked to editing so the change cannot be reversed because a link to his own website was rejected. As puerile as this request may seem, I think that, to be fair, it should be considered. Pak434 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments on this page should be archived. Asking to retrieve a years worth of bickering between these two is ridiculous. Pak434 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's protect this page.