User talk:CorsairSanglot

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, CorsairSanglot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Isabell121 (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of You Know Me Al

A tag has been placed on You Know Me Al requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TN‑X-Man 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding links to The Fiction Circus in other articles' external links

With no proof of editorial oversight or acknowledgment of expertise in the industry, The Fiction Circus is not considered a reliable source per WP:RS. As such, it is not a professional reviewer. Continually and irrelevantly adding it to the external links of other articles is hence frowned upon per WP:EL and can be considered as spam postings (WP:SPAM). Continuation of this behavior can result in either your blocking or the site's blacklisting (WP:BLACKLIST). Jappalang (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you deleted all of the links submitted, and not just those in your area of expertise, which happens to be "video games." In fact, the Fiction Circus is a critical and accredited body, and are professional reviewers, and these are professional, refereed reviews -- in some cases the ONLY reviews for certain kinds of literature and video games, because the books are new, or the reviews are part of a nested, controversial series.

For more on "The Fiction Circus," here is their "Poets & Writers" page. You can research more if you want to, by doing a very minimal amount of online sleuthing. I recommend starting with "n+1" and moving on to "Bat Segundo":

http://www.pw.org/content/fiction_circus

Even if you do not believe "The Fiction Circus" to be a sufficient authority to judge the merits of certain video games which are precious to you, I posit that you do not have the sufficient critical background to judge the merits of the rest of their posts. Please restore the links for the literature reviews you have deleted, or I will do it, and then you can submit "The Fiction Circus" for blacklisting, and we will see what happens. "The Fiction Circus" is actually a far superior critical agency than either IMDB or MobyGames, which are both for-profit, unethical clearinghouses for their respective industries.

I am sorry you did not like the review you happened upon. Please do not let personal opinions influence your editorial decisions and drive you to actions of spite and animosity. In the future, please inquire with the poster first before taking unilateral action. It is unpleasant, and unkind, to ruin a day's work, especially without reviewing or understanding the work in question.

I bear no feelings towards your linked reviews. I am following the policies and guidelines. Getting linked on "Poets & Writers" is not a recognition of expertise, you should instead show articles from established sources explicitly stating "The Fiction Circus" as a reliable site for criticism of literature. In particular, please go through WP:RS and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches on the methods of proving a reliable source. The key thing going against "The Fiction Circus" is that it does not have any editorial oversight over its articles, [1] and the expertise of their contributors is suspect. Alternatively, you can submit the site to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get a wider range of comments on its reliability.

IMDb and MobyGames can qualify as external links as they provide additional information that are not suitable for Wikipedia due to the third reason spelt in WP:ELYES and WP:VG/EL. Even so, they are not blindly included in every video game article. It is inaccurate to compare their use as ELs with "The Fiction Circus". Jappalang (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am arguing is that I do not feel that you are qualified to judge what is a valid source of criticism of literature and what is not. With all due respect, I have absolutely no problem with these links being removed by someone who understands the nature of literary magazines, their online incarnation, and their slow emergence into mainstream credibility. No question; someone should make this decision, but it should come from those who are invested in editing reviews of literature here, and not video games. This is a new and scary time for those who deeply believe in the sacred power of print to judge, collate, and maintain the gates of the literary world, and this website clearly has guidelines for its fiction submissions (to which it keeps, and which you have pointed out. Did you realize that the "submissions" page you linked to was for "submissions" of fiction to the journal, and not submissions of articles, which are exclusively written by the editors of the publication? The point of the journal is the publication of fiction. The original stories it publishes can be found in the right hand column). Can you prove that you have an understanding of the editorial vicissitudes of an online literary magazine, or are able to judge the expertise of those reviewing the matter in question?

For instance, consider this article:

http://fictioncircus.com/news.php?id=100&mode=one

And then consider the response to it by the target in question:

http://keithgessen.tumblr.com/post/40752965/writers-and-the-underground

Do you care about these topics or in any way feel that you are able to discourse about them or judge them in a way that is meaningful and valid? Your request is prima facie impossible: prove that the writers of an underground website devoted to critiquing literature and culture from the point of view of artists without capital -- who are choosing to remove their credentials from discussions of the validity of the work they judge -- are "experts." They are experts if their work is judged to be expert by the community they serve. It is.

If it could be proved that the writers of the articles are "experts" at literature (as perhaps it can be), then the magazine would not be what it is.

What CAN be proved is that the fiction provided on the site is completely new and is presented in a rather groundbreaking format:

http://thelitlife.com/2008/03/19/the-fiction-circus.aspx

The editorial oversight over the articles is provided by the editors -- ipso quadit. There are five of them, and -- while anonymous -- they are all working, paid writers living in New York and working in the publishing industry and environs. They do exist:

http://www.youtube.com/user/fictioncircus

Their anonymity allows them to publish objectionable and problematic literature, while at the same time remaining free from fatwas, stalking, and the cold, horrible hand of New York celebrity.

To sum up:

1). Editorial oversight of articles? Only the editors write articles for this magazine. The submissions you have pointed out are for submissions of fiction only. The articles are clearly "edited," although it is impossible to prove this without recourse to in-house documents of the magazine, which I do not have.

2). Prove that the writers are experts? Their peers and the targets of their criticism link to the articles that the authors write.

http://www.edrants.com/segundo/recent-segundo-shoutouts/#respond

http://www.lovedoesnot.com/

What more proof of expert status do you need? Only experts are taken seriously. And for the most part you have deleted links from the "reviews" sections and not the "external links," especially with regard to the works by Patrick O'Brian. If you wish to create a separate "reviews" section for these games and include the articles, feel free -- or perhaps I can do so.

Whatever you said does not convince me. Neither does your assertion of my qualifications. If you cannot convince a general reader that the site is a qualified professional reviewer of literature, then that speaks volume about the subject in question. Wikipedia's core policy is verifibility. There must be a form of evidence of the information we present and the reliability of its sources. Simply claiming an unknown editor to be a professional and someone qualified to review literature without evidence does not hold water here. "Groundbreaking", "new", and "against the grain" are no indications of reliablity at all. Authors linking back to the reviews also do not make them reliable (otherwise, every game review site out there is deemed to be reliable, check out the criticisms of such arguments in the WP:FAC archives. Jappalang (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, how does a new magazine become recognized as a source that can sui generis offer its own critical theories and perspectives? Tell me at what point a new magazine becomes a critical body, and the answer cannot be "as soon as it is printed." Otherwise, Slate and Salon would both be considered disreputable sources.

I am going to put these back up, and you can submit the site to be blacklisted if you want. In fact, you'd better, as long as the process will require a body of engaged, qualified agents (masters degrees in English lit or higher) to determine whether or not this magazine has critical merit. I don't even think you are a general reader. "Verifiability." "Reliability." "Speaks VOLUMES." These are pedestrian mistakes, and -- furthermore -- I do not think you are actually reading the links I am sending you.

We are not the judges. Wikipedia is not here to advocate ideas or promote someone (per WP:SOAPBOX). The idea behind Wikipedia is to refer to the judgments of sources and experts (whose credentials fulfill WP:RS, WP:SPS). I am not alone in the opinion that the site is unsuitable (other editors have also reverted your edits). Jappalang (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Desolation Island (novel). Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Thief (novel)

As you have been previously warned above, do not add links to self-published sources, like blogs. See Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a self-published source. It is an online literary magazine where I got all the information to write this article in the first place. I could delete the article, but I feel like this book needs its own page. Have you read this book or are you an expert on literature? Please stop deleting these book reviews. This is a warning.

Fiction Circus and COI editing

Hi CorsairSanglot,

Looking over your Wikipedia edits, it appears that you have the persistent habit of including reviews from the Fiction Circus, to the extent that this could be considered the primary purpose of your account. Given your attachment to this publication, I'd invite you to review our policies on conflict of interest editing in case it applies to your situation. I would also encourage you to follow the advice of many other editors on this page and refrain from adding links to this publication in the future. There are many, many qualified sources of book reviews in the world; regardless of your motives, to focus entirely on adding links to a specific publication suggests an agenda, rather than a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia's coverage. I hope you'll consider branching out in the future--your contributions will be much more appreciated! Khazar2 (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back over your edits and removed the Fiction Circus reviews that you've inserted to articles where they did not appear to me to have immediate significance. (I notice that you universally list them ahead of NYT reviews, Guardian reviews, etc., which again has a clearly self-promotional appearance; surely we can at least agree that the New York Times is the more widely known and respected publication?) What I propose is that if you feel I've done so in error on any of these articles, you leave a note on the article's talk page explaining why you consider The Fiction Circus review to be more important than any other review; if uninvolved editors are persuaded of its significance, I'll be glad to see these reinstituted on a case by case basis. That way we can know there's a clear consensus that this information being included, and it doesn't come down to just one editor with an agenda. Thanks for your contributions, Khazar2 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jeanne Thornton

Hello, CorsairSanglot. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Jeanne Thornton, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Jeanne Thornton to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Wgolf (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Seed (sculpture)

The article Seed (sculpture) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The sources do not support the content of the article. There is no evidence that the term was ever used as suggested.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]