Jump to content

Talk:Steve Niles

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

Niles vs. Busch

[edit]

Rich Johnston may have declined to comment on the matter, but his column did give Niles a chance to rely his side of the story: "As to the reason behind the phonecall to Busch, Niles told me by e-mail, 'These people threatened me, my loved ones and my ex wife. That's how I react to cowards. People taunt me for years, or post coward rants, and I react. I'll work on that. Bottom line, I don't think airing personal or professional disputes is either the right or professional thing do. I'm trying to protect my ex wife, Nikki, who clearly wants no part. The divorce is painful enough without all of this.'" [1] --Sillythekid 09:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is really sad to see that Wikipedia is being used as a forum to air personal issues. --151.200.44.73 02:46, 26 June 2006

The article as it is reports a major controversy provoked by the subject, Mr. Steve Niles. It now has a special section where it presents the entirety of the dispute. It is UNDISPUTED that Niles made the calls, that Niles stole the girlfriend that Niles got divorced. Seems like a Fanboy WISHES things were not true, but that is not the job of Wikipedia. And yes, SillyKid kept changing the FACTS which is a bozo no no. --ColScott 05:41, 26 June 2006

When did I change any facts? I removed the comment regarding the 30 Days of Night screenplay, "and then he was replaced by someone competent," because it is subjective and completely inappropriate. I didn’t delete the “Matt Busch incident” section, although I do think that the link to Matt Busch’s livejoural should probably go at some point (unless it is consistently about Steve Niles). I added the word “allegedly” because there is no source but Matt Busch (that I know of), and he is undisputedly biased on the matter. I removed the phrase “shacked up” because it doesn’t suit the tone of the article. I tried to include Niles’ side of the story, but I’m lazy and I just pasted a quote, (which was promptly deleted) assuming that someone else would clean it up later—the article does have a “copy editing” tag. The whole argument seems to be Niles’ word against Busch’s, so to not include Niles’ side of the story really is not encyclopedic, and I don’t see why anyone would oppose it.
As undisputed as the calls may be, I, and I can only assume the greater comic reading community, do not fully understand their context. Those messages have clearly been edited, and in all probability have been arranged to give Niles no sympathy. It is a fact that Niles left messages, and got divorced (I can’t agree that he stole anyone’s girlfriend. Women aren't property; she can make her own decisions) but Wikipedia, in addition to not being a place for fanboys' wishes, is also not the place for judging a man for his divorce or for his affairs.
And for the record, I am not a Steve Niles fanboy, or even a Matt Busch critic. Yes, I contributed to the 30 Days of Night thread, but the Alan Moore and Daredevil threads don’t exactly need my contributions, and comics are what I know best. I am fond of some of Steve Niles' work, but not all, and I could not care less about his personal affairs. His work and personal life have nothing to do with each other. You don't have to dislike the man's work because you don't like him, and you don't have to dislike the man just because you don't like his work (or because someone else tells you that you shouldn't like him). Sillythekid 07:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly is as Silly Does. You are clearly either Steve Niles or his friend which is why you would have a problem with people actually reporting the truth. And to 155..... your input is meaningless because you don't stand behind what you have to say. ColScott 18:45, 26 June 2006

Do you honestly think that Steve Niles would use the name "Sillythekid?" I've never met him, I've never seen him in person, and I certainly am not him. There is a reason that legitimate publications check their facts. Reporting the truth implies having a source beyond one person making a claim. This is the first time I know that a Wikipedia article contains an entire section based solely on a post on someone's livejournal. Doesn’t that strike anyone as inappropriate?
As of now however, I think the article is as balanced as it can be with the available information. Sillythekid 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please refer to the Verifiability page for more information as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Repaste of the above hidden, click 'show' to view (JavaScript)

Using online and self-published sources

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym. However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

Evaluating sources

Editors have to evaluate sources and decide which are the most reliable and authoritative. For academic topics, every field has an established system of reviews and evaluations that can be found in scholarly journals associated with that field. In history, for example, the American Historical Review reviews around 1,000 books each year. The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature (1995) summarizes the evaluations of 27,000 books and articles in all fields of history. Editors should seek out and take advantage of these publications to help find authoritative sources. Disagreements between the authoritative sources should be indicated in the article.

Also ask yourself:

Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or Al-Qaeda. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only as sources about themselves or about their viewpoints, and even then with caution and sparingly. Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable. Find out what other people say about your sources. Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.

Are the publications available for other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online.

See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. --ifwagba 04:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the Verifiability page for more information as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources Based on the Wikipedia's guidelines the bulletin boards and personal journals are not acceptable sources. The other source that is of concern is from Comicbookresource.com... The following is directly from The "Lying In the Gutters" column.

Repaste hidden, click 'show' to view (JavaScript)

LYING IN THE GUTTERS VOLUME 2 COLUMN 53

Welcome to the most popular and longest running comics column on the internet. In its various forms, Lying In The Gutters has covered rumours and gossip in the comics industry for twelve long glorious and quite scary years.

All stories are sourced from well-connected individuals and checked with respective publisher representatives before publication. Mostly. The veracity of each story is judged by me and given a spotlight - Green is the most reliable, Amber means there's likely an interest involved or the likelihood isn't set and Red means even I can't quite bring myself to believe it.

Lying In The Gutters is for your entertainment. Neither Fair Nor Balanced.

Additionally, please refer to the following section Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Please review the section "Presumption in favor of privacy" [2] --ifwagba this comment was added by 206.200.254.205.

Please ensure that the entry for Steve Niles is updated to improve the NPOV. Please ensure that sources are updated to meet the Wikipedia standards. Thanks for your writing, and adding to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia.

--ifwagba 15:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There might have been a misunderstanding, I see that the NPOV flag was removed, I assume that was a mistake. Please review the standards, listed above, and make the appropriate edits. I'd be happy to help with edits, if you'd like. --ifwagba 16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see there has been some changes, but it doesn't appear to meet wikipedia guidelines (at minimum, in the following two areas).

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy

I would be more comfortable if this section was removed from the article. --ifwagba 20:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tales from the Crypt

[edit]

The Tales from the Crypt episode in question featured Bruce Payne, Michael Ironside, and Vivian Wu. The plot did indeed resemble 30 days.

14:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Enda80

I am sure that you are correct that it is similar. The reason I pointed out that it needed to be cited is that it stated "reportedly". If it was "reported" then it should be cited.--ifwagba 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I am not sure I would have deleted all the links, but I feel that given the questionable nature about some of the urls, I think this is acceptable. --ifwagba 18:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put external links back as many are valid and complete removal is pretty harsh and detrimental overall. Feel free to remove what is at issue if need be but blanket removal is virtual vandalism, or simply being slack. --User:Selinevets 04:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Vandalism --User:Maynard2k 09:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the removal of the links is appropriate and meets Wikipedia guidelines; I support it. ifwagba 15:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think removing this portion is correct; and meets the guidelines of Wikipedia.ifwagba 15:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with wholesale deletion. Especially when the user 64.169.99.74 apparently appears to be the subject of the entry.Some acknowledgement of the issue/event and/or his professional character should probably be noted/left. --User:Maynard2k 09:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

[edit]
Parties involved: User:Omicronpersei8, User:ColScott
Content in question

In the spirit of dispute resolution, I'd really like to try to establish some dialogue about the content dispute at hand here. I believe the repetitive reversion battles are getting us nowhere, and I would like to avoid them, but I also disagree completely with the inclusion of the additions in question.

For starters, I am not in any way accusing ColScott of what might be considered "vandalism" — this is an issue I assume will come up given my counter-vandalism background on the site. I also have no interest in Steve Niles or his doings, and honestly believe I am trying to keep Wikipedia factual and neutral, while adhering to the very clear policies of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

That said, I have been contacted by the subject of this article more than once [3], presumably because I warned him for deleting the content in question while I was on RC patrol. I have also expressed a sensitivity to his plight [4], as well as strong feelings about the legitimacy of the content [5] [6]. Still, I must argue that this is not swaying my opposition of the included content as much as my interest in the preservation of good taste and encyclopedic tone is.

While I do not believe ColScott is trying to degrade the quality of the article (and is probably not editing in bad faith), I do feel that he or she is disinterested in following policy regarding this article. The aforementioned section on my current talk page [7] has offered several reasons for my removal of the content, which mostly hinge on the guidelines of WP:LIVING and my disapproval of the sources offered. My opinion is thus: even if the new additions about Steve Niles are true, they're unencyclopedic, weakly proven, written in a partisan tone, are of little intrinsic value, are not clearly notable, and clash with the tone of the rest of the article.

To me, ColScott has given scant valid reasons for keeping the material in question. I feel this is section and its tone are indicative of a personal dispute with no legitimacy as far as inclusion in an encyclopedia, and I also think it is being both blown out of proportion and regarded with a higher level of importance than it really commands (see: verbiage such as "scandal" [8]). Regarding the aforementioned quality of the sources, I will quote my talk page:

The links in question are as follows:

  1. http://planetmatt.livejournal.com/36028.html#cutid1
  2. http://www.d13satellite.com/donmurphy/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10479.html
  3. http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=2467
  4. http://planetmatt.livejournal.com/36138.html

As stated, I believe these links are all to pages concerned primarily with expressing statements of opinion, and are thus not at all "reliable" sources.

I do believe there may be a way to include some mention of this real-life dispute in the article (though admittedly to my chagrin), but it would have to be handled very delicately. I wish to offer the opinion that I do not have any vested interest in this article other than an interest in omitting what appears to be ill-conceived hearsay, and still know very little about the subject of this article or its underlying context. I do, however, feel the content in question is unimportant, possibly defamatory (although this is hopefully moot given policy and my other reasons), and driven by personal interests and the intrigue of gossip.

I am willing to hear what objections ColScott has to my statement here, and am eager to pursue civil dialogue regarding the additions in question. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---It is not an objection to your statement or to your civil dialogue. As you can see from me and Maynard and others on the site, we believe the most interesting thing about Niles IS his untrustworthiness. His comic book accomplishments are minimal. The fact that he leaves psychotic messages for film producers and for artists after he steals their girlfriends IS notable and important for any Wikipedia users. You continue to try to insist that this is some made up controversy. It has been reported and commented upon by news sites
  1. http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=2467
  2. http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=2526
  3. http://kudgoddess.livejournal.com/155442.html
  4. http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/05/steve_niles_stole_my_girlfrien.html
These links if you take the time to read them (and maybe include them) confirm the story.
These links are to news sites that cover comic books. They even interview Niles and the parties involved.
According to your seeming definition of encyclopedix, we would not mention that this Karr clown claimed to have been there when JonBenet died. I am sorry and wish to remain civil. I am not a vandal. This scandal happened and this and the fact that Niles is a plagiarist are the two most interesting things about him really.
ColScott (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you have strong feelings about Steve Niles. The problem, though, is that this is inconsequential to the requirement of neutrality and factuality on this site. Going back to the premise of reliable sources, I can say without much research that these aren't acceptable as proof — they are not news sources, but opinion columns. This has already been addressed above in quite sufficient detail by ifwagba, who even included quotes from one of the given websites to highlight its writer's interest in commentary over strict factuality (which is fine for a good read, but not when used as sources on Wikipedia).
Also, from your fourth link:

A lot of people seem to think this is a hoax, but it's not that far out there.

— from http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/05/steve_niles_stole_my_girlfrien.html
With all respect, that's not the kind of thing you want conspicuously placed at the top of one of your sources. With your permission, I am just going to skip over the Livejournal link, for what I believe are obvious reasons.
I think I understand your offering of the Karr/Ramsey scenario in this discussion, but there are reasons that it is notable that this "scandal", if you wish, cannot likewise claim. The JonBenét Ramsey story, for example, is of worldwide scope, concerns high-profile murder (and, I suppose, sociological issues), and is a source of much controversy. Although there are a lot of sides to it, there is an ongoing search for truth by the proper authorities.
Turning back to the Steve Niles situation, we have a series of claims that, while possibly factual, cannot reliably be proven as such, and whose sources come complete with hoax warnings. The Livejournal link you supplied even provides the following quote that the truth of this matter has been distorted:

The posts made by Matt Busch on May 15th and May 22nd served their purpose: to drag my name through the dirt and make me pay for leaving him. In the process of trying to hurt me, he laid blame to Steve Niles and skewed the truth with everything he wrote about.

— from http://kudgoddess.livejournal.com/155442.html
How can we, as a factual encyclopedia with a clause that "unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page" [9] be expected to keep material that is largely a statement of opinion (and, it would seem, revenge) intact? We can't verify it, because no one reliably has. I hope you won't take it personally when I also point out that you do have a clear bias against the subject, and thus factuality may be of a lesser concern to you in adding this content to the article. Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for airing out personal issues. I feel it prudent to quote here once again Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:
This is really the point I'm trying to drive home. These aren't news sources nor statements of fact — they are he-said-she-saids of a personal quarrel. We are only interested in facts, not what may or may not have happened, and especially not how much of a jerk he is or how he may or may not have plagiarized. Until there is a good source, such as the text of a lawsuit posted online that states how Steve Niles is being sued for doing bad things, which might prove that these accusations deserve the benefit of a doubt, they simply don't belong here.
I realize people give Wikipedia a bad rap for being only as factual as people allow it to be, and that's not completely undeserved. However, just because I don't like someone doesn't mean I can offer personal "beefs" and crimes of passion as documented by editorials as fact. And even if it is fact, it doesn't belong here — first because of WP:LIVING, and second, in the case of this article, as per WP:RS.
Because of the very clear, decisive nature of the biographies of living persons clause, I am removing the section in question from the main part of the article for now. This does not mean it cannot be replaced, but if you decide to do so, please rationalize it first. I am honestly not removing this section because I want to appear to be "right", but because of the consequences of not doing so. Lastly, these quotes seem the most relevant to our discussion:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

— Jimmy Wales [10]

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

— Jimmy Wales [11]
Please feel free to offer any more questions or comments here. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Basically your point of view is that THE BEAT - a recognized news column- and From The Gutters- a recognized news column- are not news columns. With that in mind there is no argument with you except to say that other users disagree with you and for better or worse will continue to revert the article. I agree with and support them in so doing. I further take respectful disagreement with your take that there is personal bias. Steve Niles is a bad person like Karr is a bad person like Himmler was a bad person. These are objective standards not subjective ones. Anyway, you can't WIN this argument anymore than I can convince you that a news source is a news source. Anymore than I can help you learn to read (the Beat article states that the story is so outrageous it is hard to believe it is true- then establishes that it is.) Good luck to you in life- you'll need it. ColScott 06:45, 29 August 2006

No, actually, "Steve Niles is a bad person" is not an objective standard. Also, blog columns aren't news articles (as has been stated over and over), and WP:LIVING takes precedence over any amount of semi-credibility the links you post may have. I will continue to revert as well, content in knowing that I have policy on my side while you have only speculation and confusion between fact and opinion on yours. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Other users", by the way, seems to be only Maynard2k, who seems to have taken the high road and left this page alone. If you give this talk page a thorough read, you'll find that there are actually more people in opposition to your edits than mine. Either way, Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a democracy. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor, oddly a dictatorship where lonesome boys get off on meaningless power trips. ColScott 15:26, 29 August 2006

"Meaningless" also accurately describes repetitive addition of libel despite numerous reminders of policy and the obvious precedent of removal. You're welcome to go the personal attacks route (again [12] [13] [14]) at your own risk, though. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shows so well my point about power trips. Are you a jury? Because only a jury can determine libel. Did Niles sue Busch for his entry? Did he sue Murphy? No. Wonder why? Because the truth is an absolute defense to libel. As far as threatening me ("my own risk") does that jollify you? Like somehow you matter? Just wondering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColScott (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting into a "tiff" with you over a straw man. If the content is re-added, I will proceed with the actions recommended at WP:LIVING and WP:BP#Biographies of living persons. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay I was gonna challenge you to a battle of the wits but I don't fight unarmed men. Just repeat after me- I AM A MODERATOR FOR WIKIPEDIA AND I MATTER —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColScott (talk • contribs) 17:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But I'm not a moderator. Do I not matter at all now? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The code to sign posts is ~~~~. [[ColScott]] links to a nonexistent article in the mainspace. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Reverted vandelism for the podcast link.ifwagba 11:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film adaptations

[edit]

There have been numerous studios that have acquired rights to comic books written by Steve Niles, so there's been a lot of announcements made about what films are in the making. Since it's too crystal ball-ish to create articles for each one, I suggest mentioning the announced films (and its relevant information) in its own section in this article. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 15:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Niles' Requests

[edit]

Made up news cites is not actual "news".

Protect?

[edit]

Would it be worth protecting the article so that anonymous IPs can't edit it? Quite a lot of the material added recently is not just vandalism but bordering on libel and slander. Anyway just an option I thought I'd throw in. (Emperor (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Steve Niles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Steve Niles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Steve Niles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Niles&oldid=1208400881"