User talk:Guarddog2

Hello, Guarddog2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been reverted for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of deletion, you might like to draft your article before submission, then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Caution: Editing Gilgamesh in the Outback

Hello. This is not any sort of warning from anyone official on Wikipedia. I'm just another regular editor with some advice. You've noted on the talk page for Heroes in Hell that you are Janet Morris. You have also been making edits related to your own works. This is a generally discouraged practice on Wikipedia, which you can read more on here. If you can improve your own work in a neutral way that most editors would agree with, by all means, please do so. However, your current edits do appear to do so.

I realize you are trying to contend with Hullaballo Wolfowitz's claims that it was first published in the Heroes in Hell series before it was reprinted in the magazine. I read over your edits on Gilgamesh in the Outback, and it seems you provided a source to address this. However, that link was faulty (I tried to follow the address, but it didn't lead me to anything). Therefore, like Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, I could not verify your claim about where the story was first published. Could you provide that source and ensure that the link is proper? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

Jethrobot, I have made no edits on my own works, if you take the stance that Gilgamesh in the Outback is a reprint. If you take the stance that Gilgamesh in the Outback is "my" work, then I suppose I did, but fixing a factual error seemed appropriate, whoever did it. I have no interest in becoming a Wikipedia editor so my understanding of your process is cursory. I set up that account at Guarddog2 specifically and only to deal with this confusion over the wording on Gilgamesh in the Outback but these people are very unpleasant. I have been monitoring the other bad behavior by OrangeMike and his cronies for some time and I don't need an account to do so; I'm just building a file.

It is possible to refute someone and be polite. People who use terms such as "skanky" and "low rent series" are surely in violation of your conflict of interest and neutral point of view rules, one thinks. Now Wolfowitz has decided I am not me. So be it. I assure you I will not touch Gilgamesh in the Outback again, and I will not do anything else on the Hell books -- as a matter of fact, have never done anything on them, even though someone just wiped the Rebels in Hell page without bothering to save its information, as you did on the other pages.

I found that link to the Locus on line review with just a minute or two search. I'll try to find it again when I have time. The lack of civility of these proceedings has, frankly, shocked me, so I doubt I'll do much more.

Here is some fact for you, if you want it: a "reprint" is not a "first serial." These Silverberg stories, and at least one of the Benford stories, were allowed by me/Baen to appear in magazines as first serials. If the wording was changed to "first serialized," I wouldn't have a problem with it. Wolfowitz IS correct that there was a third Sberg story. When he finished the third story and said he was going to sell a novelization outside the franchise, I almost did not publish the third story, which in my opinion was not up to the standard of the other two in any case. I had forgotten that we did in the end accept that story.

I have little or no idea how to function on Wikipedia and don't have the time or inclination to learn. If you think it inappropriate that I tried to fix the inaccuracies -- and that is what they are -- on the Gilgamesh in the Outback Piece, then I apologize. Wolfowitz has decided that Guarddog2 is not me, in any case. So I may either let him continue to aver that position, in which case Guarddog2 is not me, and there is no problem, or once again say I am me and try again to explain that that a first serial is not a reprint. The fact that non-professionals intermingle these terms doesn't change the reality.

Thank you for being civil, it's a rare quality on Wikipedia, evidently. And if WP wants to kill the Guarddog2 account, they are welcome to do so.

jem Guarddog2 (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Link to Locus Online review as requested

Jethrobot, Locus Online Reviews including comment citing Heroes in Hell as the original source for two SILverberg stories in "To The Land of the Living." As I said I would, I found another link to the Locus Online Review that includes the citation to Heroes in Hell as the original source of the first two Silverberg Heroes in Hell Stories, including Gilgamesh in the Outback and Fascination of the Abomination. http://www.locusmag.com/2001/Reviews/Lalumiere12.html. I am also including the entire relevant portion of the quotation here for your use, since posting the entire review would violate Lalumiere's copyright: Given the synopsis Lalumiere relates, there is no question that first of these two stories (actually, there were three Silverberg HIH stories incorporated into this novel) mentioned by Lalumiere is "Gilgamesh in the Outback."

Quote:

Gilgamesh, by Robert Silverberg [....] To the Land of the Living, a mosaic adapted from two novellas that originally appeared in the Heroes in Hell anthology series, is a much lighter affair, but thoroughly enjoyable. Dead, Gilgamesh roams the underworld in search of Enkidu, the friend he loves more than life. Along the way, he encounters Robert E. Howard, the creator of Conan the Barbarian, who mistakes the Sumerian king for the hero of his repressed homoerotic fantasies.

Although I doubt providing this quote will solve any problems, you know have both the entire quote and what I believe is a working link to New Worlds of Epic Fantasy by Claude Lalumière, where the entire review appears among reviews of other books (scroll down until you find it). JEM98.23.59.186 (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Golly, a reviewer writing fifteen years after the story's first appearance makes a mistake, and despite the fact that the review includes another, undeniable error, that quite a few reliable sources, including the bibliography authorized by Robert Silverberg himself, to say nothing of the plainly dated original publications and the well-regarded reference work Contemporary Authors, contradict, you're insistent that the obvious error be treated as fact, What next? Will Ms. Morris and her coterie, citing the original version of this New York Times commentary [1], insist that our article on Hamlet be revised to assert that the Prince of Denmark was the product of an incestuous brother-sister royal marriage?

If that review is accurate, Ms. Morris, there are two Silverberg stories which "originally appeared" in your anthology series. Even if on was to admit that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was not first published elsewhere, what's the second? Is it "Gilgamesh in Uruk", which appeared in IASFM six months before the relevantanthology appeared [2]? Or "The Fascination of the Abomination", which ran in IASFM merely three months earlier than the anthology [3]?

And as long as I'm here, do you really claim to "flat own the copyrights" to "Newton Sleep" and Gilgamesh in the Outback", as your associate Julie Cochrane indicates you do? If so, why do the copyrights permissions pages for the subsequent reprint appearances of those stories, including SFWA's Nebula anthology, say otherwise, and cit the magazine publications rather than the anthology appearances? See my post here [4] for citations, including Google scans of the relevant texts. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

* * *

I will assume good faith and try to answer your questions about my creation, the Heroes in Hell(TM) (HIH) series.

I do not claim and have never claimed to "flat own the copyrights to Newton Sleep, Gods of the Gap, Gilgamesh in the Outback, the Fascination of the Abomination, or Gilgamesh in Uruk." (see below) Julie Cocherane means well but her familiarity with the Heroes in Hell(TM) (HIH) series does not extend to the details of the series volumes produced in the 20th century. She is not my "associate" in that we have no current fiduciary relationship; I have never bought a story from her; I have met her once; I don't believe I even have her phone number, though I may. She was recommended to me and she asked and was allowed to prepare a story for submission and consideration for an upcoming volume of my HIH series. I have yet to receive a finished story from her. As is my requirement, she submitted a synopsis and character list, had that synopsis and character list approved by me. She accepted the general terms and conditions I provide each writer hoping to have a story published in the 21st century volumes of the Heroes in Hell(TM) series; if she writes a story that I accept, she will be provided a contract that details those terms and conditions for writing in my HIH series and milieu. She is currently part of a working group of over forty writers hoping to have a story selected for an upcoming HIH volume. All writers in the working group will not have their stories accepted by me. Her understanding of the HIH contracts, though she has never signed one, is based on the 21st Century HIH contract requirements: in the new 21st century HIH volumes, I do own all rights in perpetuity to all the works selected for each volume. Julie is correct about the terms and conditions for participation in the 21st Century volumes of HIH.

In both the 20th century and the 21st century HIH volumes, I own the Heroes in Hell(TM) franchise and the milieu in which the Heroes in Hell series was/is set. The basic premise and storyline and character list for all stories for Heroes in Hell were/are developed by me in conjunction with each writer IN ADVANCE of the story being written. Each story is based on my milieu, time line, general plot lines and concept, and participation in my HIH universe is by invitation only. In the 20th Century HIH volumes, I discussed each story with each writer, provided context and guidance and background (milieu), approved character and storyline proposed by each writer, and each acceptable story was created and purchased by me as an "original" for each HIH volume. I own the copyright to each volume (see front matter copyright page of any volume). In order to allow writers to secure first serials, in the 20th Century volumes I ran an individual copyright line on the first page of each author's story.

When a story or book is nominated for an award such as the Nebula and there is more than one publication of that work, the author can specify which publication to list with the work's nomination. Sometimes this is done because of publication dates, sometimes for other reasons individual to each author. The Heroes in Hell series volumes up to and including Prophets in Hell have a different contract than do the new HIH volumes of the 21st century. This new contract does not allow individual authors to control any rights to works created for my HIH series.

In the 20th century, the magazines running the various first serials for the HIH series may have indicated that the works were first serials by putting on the copyright line for each work that each work would be published in whatever volume of the Heroes in Hell series. I don't have the first serializations on my bookshelf. However, not to have this or some similar attribution would have been necessary for the magazine to be compliant with practice and law; not to do so would have violated my book copyright and ownership of milieu and franchise for each/any volume in question, since the milieu used in these stories was created and specified by me and then used by each author in their creation of each work. This holds true whether or not the main character of any story had been used outside the HIH universe by the author in question. Both Silverberg and Benford asked and were allowed to bring to my HIH universe characters they had previously created. If any works appearing in any volume of Heroes in Hell(TM) had been independently created by the author and not created as a commissioned work under my guidance and oversight in a 'shared universe' series where the milieu belongs to me, then I, Baen Books, and by extension Simon & Schuster would have been required by law to seek and print on that copyright page in the front matter of any volume a permission for the use of any independently and previously-created work, stating that said work had been "previously published in X, and is used by permission." Such permission citations are not on the copyright page of any Heroes in Hell(TM) volume's front matter because no independently-created work by any author (that is, no work not specifically commissioned by me from each author in advance of the work's creation for the HIH series) has ever been "reprinted" in Heroes in Hell(TM).

One hopes this clarifies matters.

Janet Morris

Jethrobot, I saw your latest position, as of 10PM EDT on 11 09 15. Since I cannot participate in this debate but seem too often to be the subject of it, I suggest that this site: http://www.asja.org/pubtips/wmfh01.php may be helpful. I can find several more reputable on-line publishing language tutorials, or you can find any number of them: type "first serial rights in publishing" into the web and take your pick. Also, an "anthology" is not a "collection." See ASJA site (above) for definitions, since mine will be suspect. Heroes in Hell(TM) is a "shared universe" and the first book, Heroes in Hell(TM) is referred to on its cover by the publisher as "The Greatest Braided Meganovel Of Them All." WP considers me a compromised source because of self-interest, yet self-interest requires me to go on record when accusations or statements are made on WP that may damage me or my work. I object to many of Wolfowitz's characterizations, assertions, and speculations. How could giving WP any additional documentation such as business-proprietary contracts be useful if that documentation comes from me and you are discounting primary sources such as myself as inadmissible? Is there a precedent for such information being provided or being deemed acceptable? Even if possible, I will not provide a legal contract to laymen not materially involved. Wolfowitz's comments about what my contract is, contains, can assure, and how and whether it may hold are inappropriate, objectionable and necessarily speculative. I am disappointed that you changed your earlier position. By the way, WP labels "Gilgamesh in the Outback" as science fiction and Rebels in Hell/Gilgamesh in the Outback as fantasy: which is it? WP also says Janet Morris is series editor. This is incorrect: Janet Morris and Chris Morris are both 'series editors' on Lawyers in Hell. JEM

• You are allowed to participate in the debate, and I encourage you to. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Jethrobot, I can participate? Won't Wolfowitz and the others discount anything I say based on self-interest. Perhaps I will post a couple references that define first serial, collection, anthology. And as for the comment saying you've referred to first-serials as being 'reprinted' later, are you telling me the WP rule is "We've always been wrong, so now wrong is right. Consistency is more important than correctness"? You seem quite reasonable. Thank you for clarifying matters. I will consider what you've said. JEM
    • Wanted to add something else. Looking at these definitions, both on the page you provided and the page that Wolfowitz has provided, I'm still not seeing a problem with the current wording on the page that states that the stories were originally published in those magazines. Here is what FIRST NORTH AMERICAN SERIAL RIGHTS reads on your page:

Under a FNASR contract, the publisher licenses a one-time right to publish the article first in the North American market. The author retains all other rights to his work, including the right to re-license its use as a reprint...

If we avoid the usage of "reprint," (which the Heroes in Hell article does currently) and merely state that the story was initially published in IASFM, I think that avoids the issues of the copyright status or the issue of detailing first serial rights to everyday users. The current language only serves to convey the temporal order in which the story was published. If there is some other concern, then you can call me confused, and let me know what your stance is to clarify this.

About your other concerns, discussion pages are not "off-limits," and neither are articles pages about yourself or your work provided the changes you are making are not controversial. Your disappointment in my "change in position" is understood, but I only do so because Wolfowitz has gone through the effort of following the general Wikipedia policy that claims must be verifiable. Again, I do not say this because I do not believe you, but because there are no independent sources that have directly addressed the claims about the copyright status of the story and its relation to the book from you or other editors. The contract would be one such source. This case is exceptional, and if you would want the wording changed (though I don't think this is necessary as I said above), the contract would no doubt help your case. Sources not available online or that come from someone in your position are not inherently invalid (see WP:OFFLINE about how we use offline sources). We can invite other editors besides the ones involved to look the contract over to reach a fair consensus. Finally, rectifying science fiction and fantasy categorizations of the novels is an entirely separate issue here. I would say, leave this in the hands of other editors who are more familiar with your work. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I have opened a dispute resolution page regarding Heroes in Hell and Gilgamesh in the Outback where your conduct has been mentioned. You can find the page here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, Jethrobot. I still have concerns about participating, due to the notice I got when opening this page from a senior WP official about not getting involved in contentious issues related to my work. I will monitor the debate and if I think it necessary I will try to clarify. Looking at the synopsis of the situation as you detailed it, I see that some confusion does exist. I own the volume copyrights to Heroes and Rebels, and bought certain rights from each author. It may be that the intricacies of publishing do not need to be detailed here, but I do not believe that WP should be involving itself in evaluating contractual relationships or the rights owned by a book's copyright holder or creator. The edits you made to the HIH page and the GITO page improved the situation. Perhaps asking F&SF to explain why they listed the copyright attribution as they did in the front matter of the volume containing the Benford story will solve this for you, if WP continues to insist that it must intrude into copyright-related issues. Thank you for your prodigious efforts to resolve this situation. JEM

• Jethrobot, can you possibly reinstate the page for Rebels in Hell, which survived the candidate for deletion debate and was present on the page until Wolfowitz or someone else wiped it or hid it or redirected it(with no warning and no discussion), but the Rebels in Hell page never got the "merger" treatment that you gave the other volumes, because it was not discussed as a candidate for deletion. Not only is the cover on that page, but all the information that was on the page relevant to the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" story, copyright discussion, and any reviews are no longer available to any WP newbie such as myself. I would like the page, at worst, permanently counted among the "merger" volumes and treated as the others you saved the information for when you merged. Someone familiar with WP says that such information as the cover cannot be deleted based on WP: Move, but this disappearance of the Rebels in Hell page was unheralded and based on no notification of which I am aware. Immediately, I would like access to the information on the Rebels in Hell page. My assumption is that Wolfowitz did this when he changed the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" page, but I can't tell.

Additionally: how much time do I have to respond to the copyright discussion on Gilgamesh in the Outback before the discussion is closed or the page disappears?

Thank you for your evenhandedness and your patience. JEM Guarddog2 (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Jethrobot, what a brilliant fix on Gilgamesh in the Outback. If your edit stands, it avoids all the complex problems that have concerned me, except whether or not the Rebels in Hell page will come back (Grin). Thank you for figuring out a solution. JEMGuarddog2 (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I've tried really hard to find something that works for everyone here. If you are content with those changes, I encourage you to say so at the dispute resolution page.

You can find the edit history and original content for Rebels here. I completely understand that it is hard to find-- I actually do not know how to search for those pages myself. As for the amount of time you have to respond before it is closed, you have time until consensus has been achieved. Likely there will be some neutral clerk who will ask questions and propose solutions to the issue(s) at hand. The discussion will be open until the clerk has achieved some consensus for all parties involved. If no consensus is achieved, this problem may go into mediation.

Also, keep in mind that decisions made on dispute resolutions are not "the final say" on what goes or doesn't go into the article. They are recommendations from neutral parties based on presented sources, editor opinions, and Wikipedia policy. Clerks are also not a position of any particular authority (and to be clear, I am also not any particular authority on Wikipedia). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Contacting me

If you need to let me know of something directly, it's generally easier for me if you leave a comment on my talk page rather than here. That being said, I am watching your page, so if you leave something here, that's fine too. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

While I have your attention...

Ms Morris:

Firstly, let me say that I enjoyed the Heroes in Hell series (and if it wasn't for this imbroglio, I wouldn't have learned of the existence of Book #13, so at least some good came out of it!).

Secondly, I think that the problem may have originated with an incorrect-or-ambiguous document having been published at some point in the past twenty-five years. As to which document was incorrect and/or ambiguous, I couldn't venture to guess, but I think the mess begins to resolve once considered from that angle.

On behalf of everyone here, I do apologize for the hurt feelings that were caused; please accept that we are sincerely trying to do our best. DS (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I've approached HW and asked him to read the comment you left on my talk page, specifically so that he can see what you are saying when you're in a non-hostile situation. That said, however, I would like to address your comment about how HW 'has some agenda'. Attributing "some agenda" to another person is never wise unless you are a telepath, and can lead to miscommunications and feelings of hostility. With that in mind, I politely but strongly suggest that you redact the 16 words beginning with "but this Wolfowitz"; this can be done by enclosing them within <s> </s>, which is causes them to be struck through. DS (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try that on your page. Perhaps you can mediate. I am also concerned about the characterization of my company M2, and wondered if there were citations for Mr. Wolfowitz's characterization of M2's motives from tertiary sources for those comments, or those comments were assumptions by Wikipedians.

Oops, I guess I didn't explain that quite as clearly as I could have! The thing is, the 'nowiki' tag turns off wikicode for all text that follows, until a "/nowiki" code is added. That way, you can mention wikicode (like the strikethrough tag) without activating it. DS (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

DS, thanks for the clarification. I eventually did learn how to do the strikeout, as I hope you saw on your page. If a new and more collegial attitude could prevail in the WP discussions, I would be relieved. So many have come to my defense, I feel responsible to see this matter throguh to an acceptable conclusion despite the fact that it is taking far too much time. I so appreciate your polite, even friendly, comments and any assistance you might provide in reaching an equitable solution. Thank you again. JEM Guarddog2 (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that today review copies of books must be received by reviewing entities such as Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, at least 3 months prior to publication date. (I have somthing from PW that says this requirement.) I don't know if this exact lead time was the practice in the 1980s, but I suspect the reviewing entities then also needed the book in advance by at least that long. It might be possible to check with any reviewing entities of RIH to find out what their current, and perhaps their 1980s requirement was for lead-time that publishers had to follow in hopes of reviews. I believe some of the individual books (and I think Rebels in Hell, with GITO included) had Locus reviews and/or other reviews, but the RIH page has been redirected so it is difficult to check: (I would have to find I, Jethrobot's generous guidance as to how to find the missing page). My point being that, if we MUST continue to try to identify first publication, this could be a valid line of investigation. I went today to the Robert Silverberg web page and looked at how he listed the IASFM and Rebels in Hell publications. I must have misundestood what Mr. Wolfowitz said, because both titles are there and listed alphabetically without any differentiation between "first" or second publication. It simply lists each, in alphabtical order for the first two published in the same year, and the publication dates (both July, 1986), and also does this for subsequent publications of this story and the other Silverberg stories published in hell volumes.

http://www.majipoor.com/work.php?id=377 Gilgamesh in Uruk http://www.majipoor.com/work.php?id=378

Since Mr. Wolfowitz has cited SLiverberg's website previously in the discussions, perhaps he will accept this simple solution used on that site as precedent. Thus the two titles, IASFM and RIH, both with July pub dates, can be treated simply and are on the website of Silverberg treated thus. Thank you for opening a communications channel, DS. Guarddog2 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.majipoor.com/work.php?id=377

Gilgamesh in Uruk http://www.majipoor.com/work.php?id=378 Guarddog2 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation notice

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1, I have opened the old Harmonia1 case with your username listed as a possible sockpuppet of Harmonia1. Please feel free to give your viewpoint on the matter. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to be misunderstanding the sock-puppetry case, allow me to simplify: there are basically two separate questions. The first is whether or not you are the same editor as User:Harmonia1. In other words, did you previously edit under that user name? The other question, which is basically dependent on the first, is, if you in fact edited as Harmonia1, did you substantially organize the activities of other people off-wiki to obtain a particular result on certain articles? So, perhaps that's the first question is the best place to start--have you ever previously edited Wikipedia under a different user name? If not, what did you mean when you said, "The issues surrounding my connection to Harmonia"? In what way were you connected to that issue? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, am I supposed to answer here? I will assume so. I am going on travel and my time and facilities will be very limited; I will be unavailable after the end of this evening except for a few minutes tomorrow. If you want long discussion, please wait until next week. Your question one: no. Your question three: "The issues surrounding my connection to Harmonia" were that my husband and others others were involved in that dispute that I acknowledge did occur. You ask "in what way were you connected to that issue." I answer: by marriage. I will not comment on whether I think the dispute resolution was equitable or on specifics of the dispute. I acknowledged that WP made its decision; there is a record of what occurred, one assumes. I don't want to comment further on a subject of which I have a very hazy recollection. What I was really saying (repeatedly) is "I don't want to comment further." I think it better not to reopen old arguments on which I am not qualified to comment and that are closed, beyond acknowledging that WP made its decision and that decision is available to anyone who wanted to look at it. I think if you do your "check" procedure you will find that I am who I say I am, and no more. Thank you again for trying to clarify. All these kinds of puppets and socks and meats are quite beyond me. Guarddog2 (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is fine. So are you saying that you never edited Wikipedia before, but simply had a family member who did? Basically, the underlying question is whether or not you have ever edited Wikipedia under any other username--if you could answer that, it would be helpful. I should say, that's the first "underlying question"; the other one (about meat-puppetry, which means organizing a group of editors to make articles read a certain way) is probably going to be out of the scope of the SPI. Qwyrxian (talk)

Yes I am saying that my husband has edited WP previously. Answer to your "underlying question" query, Qwyrxian, is "no." Thank you for trying to help clarify. Do run your check-thingy if you wish, to corroborate. Got to run. I appreciate your efforts. JEMGuarddog2 (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will relay that message to the SPI page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Just remember what Heinlein might have said: Don't let the bastards get you down. This woeful discussion I was canvassed into inspecting, is exactly the kind of Sh_T that made me stop contributing regularly here several years ago. So shrug it off, and if the muse moves ya, make the fiddle-diddle doodles as needed. You can hardly do worst than someone like your accuser! When in doubt, remember WP:IAR, which is POLICY, not just wimpy rules and which far too many (especially YOUNG) editors don't understand! You were ambushed by one. Consider the source, and go on.

Perhaps YOU could write the experience up- 'Being Roasted on a Rail because I was Married to one guy in a debate on Wikipedia... (OK, not so good a title, but did i at least get a smile? You can readily perceive, I hope, why I'm NOT a professional writer! <bseg>)

Best regards // FrankB 14:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering that UrbanTerrorist was blocked (at least partially) for comments about writing a book, if you do decide to write one, I suggest you avoid mentioning it on-wiki. You're free to write it, of course, but unless it's actually relevant to a discussion it's best to avoid misunderstandings. Apologies if I sound kinda' harsh here, I don't mean to. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As the admin who blocked Urbanterrorist, I agree. Fabartus, if you want to talk about writing a book about Wikipedia, please do so off of the site. Doing it here can sound threatening. Also, I'll point out that 2 editors (myself and I, Jethrobot) both supported Guarddog2 against the sockpuppetry case; yes one editor was overreaching, and yes, there do seem to be dispute problems at a group of articles, but not everyone was "roasting" guarddog. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Further developments

Hullabaloo Wolfowitz gave some more information on the prior editing behavior of Harmonia1, and the evidence is a little stronger than I had understood. Specifically, HW points out that Harmonia1 was indicated to be female by other users (who claimed to know her in real life); a sockpuppet of Harmonia1 (that is Harmonia1 editing under a different username against policy) once identified herself as the owner of M2 Technologies, and, most importantly, that Harmonia1 once provided a profile description that is almost unmistakeably that of Janet Morris (see [5]). Furthermore, a different user (User:Ubter_ self-identified as your husband, Chris Morris. Thus, since you (Guarddog2) have openly admitted to being Janet Morris, and the evidence that Harmonia1 was almost certainly Janet Morris, seems to indicate that, in fact, you did edit Wikipedia as Harmonia1. Could you please explain this discrepancy? I know you're out for the week, so reply whenever you're available, but I'm finding it difficult to reconcile your story here with the other evidence surrounding Harmonia1. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, are the other users named also being accused of being Janet? Being listed in the sockpuppet investigation, is there anything I (or the others, for that matter) need to defend ourselves over or at this point is it obvious enough that we're separate people? (My understanding is that Janet is very much out of pocket right now on other life stuff and cannot answer). Are any other accounts than Guarddog2 being accused of being this Harmonia1? Bluewillow991967 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No one other than Guarddog2 is listed in the sockpuppet investigation (that's the report found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1). The lot of you are being discussed in the thread on WP:ANI, but that's a broader matter--that ANI instead alleges close coordination, possibly to the level that would constitute meat-puppetry, among a large number of different people. I see that you've already commented there; you may continue to do so if you like. I don't believe that anyone has moved for any specific sanctions against the other editors HW named, but that may still happen (in part, the problem is that we got sidetracked with the more specific issue being raised here). You probably should not comment in the sock puppet investigation unless you have specific information that would indicate that Guarddog2 is or is not Harmonia1 (though be careful that you don't OUT other editors in the process--that is, reveal the identity of any editor who has not revealed their own identity on Wikipedia already). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't make further comment. I don't think there is a defense possible, the way the accusation has been phrased, other than the Harmonia1 user outing himself or herself, and I find that disturbing. But something I can't do anything about, so neither here nor there. As to "close coordination," I'll have to wait for any specific allegations against me specifically before I can comment. I will note that someone has shown up and said they're one of my readers--I have had no contact with that user regarding this matter and don't even know who he or she is. I say this because he or she mentions being "canvassed." If so, not by me. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The defense, if Janet Morris has opened both the Harmonia1 and the Guarddog2 accounts, is for her to allow the Guarddog2 account to be closed forever as a sockpuppet and to pursue an unblock for the Harmonia1 account, laying all her cards on the table and letting the admins decide whether to allow her to edit constructively. She has recently shown the ability to edit within Wikipedia's guidelines, and she may be able to convince the admins that she has learned not to form a posse of supporters. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but since Harmonia1 isn't her, if they decide (mistakenly) that it is, what's she supposed to do? Unless whoever Harmonia1 is outs himself or herself, Janet's SoL. I think calling someone's real name account a "sock puppet" is a misuse of the term sock puppet---and I mean a misuse in the internet sense of the term "sock puppet," not whatever WP may or may not be using as a definition. As I said, they've created a situation in which the only viable defense of a current editor forces some former WP editor who got banned (who may or may not even know this dispute exists) to show back up and "out" himself or herself. (I have no idea of Harmonia1's identity, male, female, or other.) Bluewillow991967 (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Harmonia1 is almost certainly female, since other editors who claimed to know her personally called her "she". Furthermore, a number of other things point to Morris being the owner of the Harmonia1 account. And, of course, there is Harmonia1's self description that matches up extremely closely with the real world description of Janet Morris. Of course, there's nothing definitive--it could have been some sort of elaborate fraud perpetrated to make "the real" Morris look bad. For that matter, since, as far as I know, OTRS has not been contacted, we don't even know for a fact that Guarddog2 is Janet Morris. But what I would like Guarddog2 to provide her reasoning/explanation for why it appears that Harmonia1 was also Janet Morris and thus should also be her account. If she has none, then, fine, it will be up to the rest of the community to decide whether or not the evidence itself is sufficient to draw the connection. But, because I want to be fair, I want to give her a chance to respond to these more specific pieces of evidence that seem to suggest a connection that is not the same as the one she herself stated above. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Or, it could be what it really is---whoever the heck Harmonia1 was could have similar interests and background to Janet by coincidence. No conspiracy. You do realize that the area around DC, where the defense contractors generally live, is also horse country, right? It's not that unusual that some "beltway bandit" would live here in Virginia (I live in Virginia, Morris doesn't) and would also own a horse farm. Rich DC contracting "players" and horses go together like water and wet. It's also no stretch that someone in the horsey set would share those listed interests. The profile part, at least, could quite easily be coincidental. I know it doesn't necessarily sound like it, but being surprised rich contractors own horses is like being surprised that Paris Hilton owns a Prada bag or that emo girls own silly bandz. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason for you and I to argue about this. I only posted the request to give Guarddog2 a chance to explain the evidence from her perspective (or state that she doesn't have any explanation beyond it being some sort of big hoax, fraud, or misunderstanding). Ultimately, neither you nor I will render a judgment in this case, though we may provide our opinions in the proper forums. I am simply saying that if we take Guarddog2 at her word, then she's not a sophisticated WP user, and I wanted to make it easier for her to respond here by pointing out the specific concern being raised about a potential connection to a prior account. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Page histories for Heroes in Hell merged books

I remember you had requested these a few days back, and I had forgotten. They are tough to get to, but if you look at the merger list on the Heroes in Hell discussion page, there are links to the original talk pages for the merged books. Below are the page histories for each merged book; you can see the page in all of its previous states before they were merged by clicking on the date/time or "diff" for any given revision:

• Heroes in Hell
• Gates of Hell
• Rebels in Hell
• Kings in Hell
• Crusaders in Hell
• Legions of Hell
• Angels in Hell
• Masters in Hell
• The Little Helliad
• War in Hell
• Prophets in Hell
• Explorers in Hell
• Lawyers in Hell

Let me know if you need anything else. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification as requested by Qwyrxian

Qwyrxian, you say: Specifically, HW points out that Harmonia1 was indicated to be female by other users (who claimed to know her in real life); a sockpuppet of Harmonia1 (that is Harmonia1 editing under a different username against policy) once identified herself as the owner of M2 Technologies, and, most importantly, that Harmonia1 once provided a profile description that is almost unmistakeably that of Janet Morris (see [6]).

Unfortunately, since I was not involved directly in the Harmonia debate, much of what I can say will be speculation, but then, most of this "evidence" is speculation and interpretation and unsupportable assertion.

I am not responsible for what Harmonia or any others said on that debate. I was not involved. I am not responsible for whatever Harmonia put on that editor's talk or description page. I never saw it and did not approve it. I can only speculate that because Harmonia is the patron goddess of Thebes in mythology that editor would naturally would be referred to as female. People who work for a company like ours (I am not the sole owner of M2, so if someone claimed that I am, this is incorrect) often refer to that company as if it were their own: it is the way we run our business.

You say: Furthermore, a different user (User:Ubter_ self-identified as your husband, Chris Morris.

I asked my husband and he says this is incorrect, or a misstatement by Ubter or a misread by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Neither my husband nor myself know who Ubter is. I now see that Ubter did some early edits on the Morris pages, most of which seem harmless or actually helpful. Someone, perhaps he, took "Jane Stump" off my husband's page, whom WP insisted was Chris's writing partner: Jane Stump another person whose identity is unknown to us but, because of that misstatement in Wikipedia (or elsewhere), we often see Jane Stump's name associated with ours as Chris's writing partner. Were there three dependable citations on this "Jane Stump" being Chris's writing partner? This misinformation has been an annoyance through the years.

You say: Thus, since you (Guarddog2) have openly admitted to being Janet Morris, and the evidence that Harmonia1 was almost certainly Janet Morris, seems to indicate that, in fact, you did edit Wikipedia as Harmonia1. Could you please explain this discrepancy?

I openly admitted to being Janet Morris and clearly limited the dog-guard page to the single issue of Heroes in Hell. Please scroll up and read the start of this page for detail. If I read the above request for clarification correctly, it centers on further documenting that I am not Harmonia, which I cannot do conclusively. What the editor Harmonia or others said in that debate or elsewhere on WP is a matter of record but not necessarily true. How the WP judges chose to construe that investigation is a matter of record. My husband vehemently disagrees with WP's findings. I trust his assessment, but I don't want to discuss the Harmonia debate further since I was not involved and there is too much interpretation and speculation taken for true in the WP process as I have come to understand it. However, I will remind you that anyone can edit WP. Anyone can claim anything they please, seemingly, about who they are or where they live or what they do or whether another person is honest or neutral in point of view. Whatever Harmonia said which you construe to be "self-identifying" that editor as me is not true and not my responsibility: I did not say that. And misconstrual or selective quotation by HW not unusual for HW on issues (see vast amount of created text on in various HIH disputes). The editor Harmonia claimed a background similar to mine: any WP editor can use any background desired -- there is no fact checking. I did look at the Harmonia1 self-description and several details there are incorrect for me: where I live, number of horses, etc. If that text were my creation, I would never have said where I live. I think in general WP has more info about me than I would prefer and more than I would have allowed if I had created the personal pages for me or for my husband. To say any more about what Harmonia said about self-description could only be additional speculation on my part. Since the equation of Ubter to my husband is wrong by my husband's statement, then it can equally be said that equating Harmonia to me is wrong by people who actually know what the truth is, not people who are speculating.

Most of what I say from here on can necessarily only be supposition, since I was not involved in the Harmonia issue. I have purposely not read the Harmonia debate and do not intend to do so but I am trying to be cooperative. Wolfowitz and others previously accused me of not being Janet Morris, and Wolfowitz "proved" it using the same selective quotation and supposition tactics being used here. These accusations seem frivolous and endless, designed to run out the clock and chase away people who in good faith wanted to create separate pages for this series, which is much less in volume than the 33 pages and 8 series pages for Turtledove, who has very few citations beyond his own webpage -- far less than the inclusion criteria used to forcibly merge the HIH pages.

Let's go at this a different way: if I were Harmonia, would I not have fixed the badly inadequate bibliography of Janet Morris on WP? Yes, I would. If I were Harmonia, would I have added Janet Morris/Chris Morris characters from spin-off novels to the Thieves' World character list page, when the inclusion of them there further muddies complex rights issues? No, I would not. As you should see from those examples, I never controlled Harmonia. I assure you, were I Harmonia, the bibliography of my work would not so incomplete, and those additional characters who were not in the original Thieves' World character list would be taken off the WP TW page and the page reverted to the original list which included none of my characters.

Also, if I were Harmonia, I would then be the primary author of the extremely good WP page "The Sacred Band of Stepsons" and have the skills necessary to create such a page. If I claimed to be Harmonia, I would be taking credit for work done by someone else: unlike some, I would never claim another's work. And that Sacred Band of Stepsons page has been made into a "book" by some German publisher who steals good WP pages and binds them and sells them; if I were Harmonia, I would protest the hijacking of my work. I do know who Harmonia is and have worked with that person and competed against that person previously and may again. Like many other people I know, Harmonia is a military, history and ancient cavalry expert and horse person. Harmonia had read an early copy of TSB (which was circulating in the military history and horse communities as early as 2009) and loved the SBS series and offered to do a series page for WP. I agreed to answer questions as necessary and provide resources, but I had very few reviews to give since I don't keep them. OrangeMike sent a backchannel e-mail to Harmonia that Harmonia forwarded to me. OrangeMike's email to Harmonia said that I had tried to boycott (?) some organization based on something OrangeMike had written and OrangeMike expressed hostility to the Tempus character. I don't have the text in front of me but somewhere I have a copy from Harmonia of the email from OrangeMike. I suggested that Harmonia put that OrangeMike text on WP to make it a matter of record, since the tone was hostile, so you can probably find the email text on WP somewhere. Now, that is my relationship to Harmonia. I did not participate in the article that spawned the Harmonia investigation -- which was, actually, quite like this one in that an experienced editor with many friends(that one with a proclaimed agenda of changing the name of the page) -- decided to get rid of knowledgeable people who opposed him. I don't even know what happened to that troubled page.

In summary: I was not involved in the Harmonia sock-puppet thing. I am not responsible for Harmonia's bio or any similarities to my own. As for similarities to the current issue: when new books are written for venerable series, interest increases. When an author returns after a quarter century, it further renews interest. Because of the OrangeMike WP episode, when people later came to me, asking why more of my titles weren't on WP and offering to add more of my books, I said I assumed it was because I had at least one enemy on WP. I told people to be careful if they wanted to put pages on WP for my books. And if you look at the "discussion" on the Tempus novel page, and what OrangeMike said to jaywalker when jaywalker started the page, you can see that there was at least one attempt to have a chilling effect on someone trying to add a book page or pages for my work. There may be more, or a history of this behavior, yet I am not attacking anyone. Tempus alone has over 1100 Facebook friends ; Sacred Band has a Facebook page; Hell has Facebook pages. Does that make all these people my associates? Lawyers in Hell has a Facebook page. Any of these people may choose to edit WP, as I understand the rules. If people from Facebook talk about what they are doing on WP, would that be something you think I should try to control or limit? I cannot. Lawyers in Hell has a large working group (over 40, presently) of people who hope to write for the series. Some of those people wanted to expand not only the Janet Morris presence but expand HIH on WP. It's understandable: they're excited; they like the books; they know the subject; some are readers, some writers. Some have stories in LIH, some do not. I asked the ones who had stories in LIH to declare themselves to WP, and a WP editor said those people could still write short synopses of their stories for the LIH page and the series page (which of course would require citations). I assure you, if all or any of those people were my sock-puppets, the text on the HIH pages would read very differently than it does today. These people (some new and some experienced WP editors) are deciding what to do on their own and are not my sock-puppets. I have not directed or edited their proposed comments or seen their proposed contributions before they make them. I did, however, at one point on Facebook ask people NOT to exacerbate this debate. And that didn't help. They don't take direction from me. They are writers and individuals.

As I feared, this is far too long. I hope I have answered your concerns and we can make an end to this seemingly endless series of attacks (three or four, now, I think). Please feel free to delete guarddog's page since I self-limited to HIH-related issues and I assure you, after this, I have no aspirations to become a WP editor. I will, however, remain cognizant of the treatment given my work on WP and will continue to try to provide fact when asked. Thank you for your patience. As Crowley said, "Do as thou wilt." 98.23.17.210 (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your long and detailed response, Janet/Guarddog2. As a side note, until this point I've very much on purpose not looked at the articles themselves, as I've been trying to avoid being involved in anything other than this SPI so that I can be more "fair". I am not familiar with the HIH series, though I have read a bit of Thieves World, and I've heard some SF/F authors talk about how the actual people (authors, editors, etc.) behind shared worlds sometimes don't play nice, either with each other or others in the "real" world. I can actually believe that Harmonia1 is a different person who spoofed your identity, though, as you point out, its pretty much impossible for us to prove either way. Based on the evidence raised at ANI, there does still seem to be a problem with a collection of people (whether they're the actual authors, fans, or even enemies) behaving badly on Wikipedia w.r.t this series, it seems to me that the problem has to be judged independently of those that occurred around Harmonia1. As such, I recommend that you and anyone else you actually have influence over who does intend to edit here be sure that you're fully aware of all of our policies--most especially, in this case, WP:NPOV (requiring neutrality); WP:COI (regarding editing with a conflict of interest), and WP:MEATPUPPET (regarding editing together as a team coordinated off-wiki). Arbcom, our highest "authority" for behavioral issues, has ruled before that since in many cases it is impossible for us to distinguish true off-wiki coordination and/or sockpuppetry from a group of people editing with shared interests, in order to protect the encyclopedia we sometimes have to paint with broad strokes to eliminate attempts to bias the encyclopedia or promote particular interests; this can result in us having to block groups of editors who are clearly working towards the same improper goals, even if its not certain that they are coordinating their efforts. Again, I hear you when you say that you don't actually want to be a WP editor, and I certainly know that you don't actually have authority over those involved with these books, but any input you can give them will be helpful. Having said all of that, I'm still just one admin/editor, so the community may still draw a different conclusion regarding your remarks here and the identities of people involved; I'll try to communicate with some of those involved later today. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • Qwyrxian, thank you for the civil and cogent response. To an outsider, this process often feels like "Guilty until proven innocent" and since close friends of our family were subjected to the McCarthy hearings (not that this is remotely at that level), we tend to be sensitive about rights issue. Guarddog2 seems to have lost its WP editor name, and now I am known by the ip number. That's okay: it was a single purpose account. I want to clarify one thing: if I try to give input to potential WP contributors or wave off people from commenting or commenting heatedly, is that not still meat puppeting? I am very confused. Until someone explains to me (perhaps you, since you are polite and patient)how I can say anything premeditated or designed to evoke a particular response to the friends of Heroes in Hell, I will be content to say nothing. Offensive and/or misleading statements on the pages will draw comment I can't stop, because there is no "group" that coordinates or is controllable. This problem could be solved by an ARTICLE on each page with a neutral point of view that sticks to the topic at hand: for example, there are over 120 stories in the HIH series, and singling out one inordinately is not npov. I will add that I am distressed by the selective quotes from Silverberg being now used on the GITO and HIH page. I thought using either Silverberg or me as source quotations was discussed and rejected on the HIH discussion page. Here's a quote from that discussion page:

"Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claims Silverberg's personal web page is accurate, but that anything Morris says is questionable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should recuse himself or herself for WP:COI. OK. Well, the fair thing to do is not use either of those sources because Silverberg is a primary source and Morris is not independent. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)"

Since I'm sure the best thing for me to do is stay off these pages, I am doing that. SHould have done, in retrospect, from the outset. I don't know if you will get this since I am no longer identified as guarddog2, and have been assigned some alternate or something, but WP works in mysterious ways its wonders to perform.

And thank you again for showing me that reasonable people are involved in this activity. 98.23.17.210 (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You're still associated with Guarddog2; you just need to log in again--if you look on the very upper right of your window, you should see a "Log in" link; following that will prompt you for your name and a password. Wikipedia automatically logs you out after 30 days; it can happen sooner if your cookies get cleared, you get a new version of your browser, or similar events.

Meatpuppetry is a fine line. In an ideal world, we'd all have all of our discussions here on Wikipedia, with no outside canvassing of editors, supporters, etc. This is not an ideal world, and sometimes off wiki collaboration is appropriate and acceptable, though some times it is not. A lot of it has to do with intent and context. For example, if you (or anyone) made a blog that talked about Wikipedia, that's fine. If you explained the way dispute resolution works, or recommending that people follow our policies on neutral editing, or describing how complex the whole process can be for a new user, that would also be fine. Even making a blog post about a particular article is fine (lots of major website or website aggregators talk about our articles from time to time, including by people who have known accounts here). The line gets crossed when someone makes a blog post (or has a personal conversation, or discusses at a convention, or whatever) and says, "There's this thing happening on Wikipedia, and we should all go on to try to stop/change/support it." So, for example, if Perseid Publishing/Kerlak Enterprises had a staff meeting where it was explained to everyone that the book just launched, and that Wikipedia is open to everyone to edit, and it would be great if the series had a larger Wikipedia presence, that's crossing the line.

Of course, the problem is that we (inside Wikipedia) don't actually see all of the blog posts in the world, or, for that matter, sit in on Perseid Publishing staff meetings. So, all we can do is guess. One thing we look for is what appears to be coordination. If one person adds something, especially a new editor, and that gets reverted by someone else, and then suddenly 2 or 3 more people show up to support the original edition, well, that seems pretty fishy. If a group of people are all adding similar information across a variety of articles, that's also a problem. The problem becomesespecially apparent in aspect of WP that resemble voting, like when we have deletion discussions. Ultimately, ArbCom has ruled that, if the pattern of editing and/or other evidence suggests that either one person is using multiple accounts to disrupt WP, or if multiple people are all acting in a way that makes it look like they're being controlled by a single person, we can treat both situations the same (which often leads to a group of people being blocked from editing). As an example (though I can't find a link to verify it), I'm pretty sure that all internet addresses that were verified to owned by the Church of Scientology were summarily blocked from Wikipedia, because people showed pretty conclusively that the Church was running an organized campaign to bolster its own image and slander that of its opponents. Of course, I am not suggesting that is what is happening in connection to HIH; I'm just trying to show an example of what can happen.

So, what does that mean for the advice I gave you? Well, if you go to your family/colleagues, and say "Hey, it's fine if we all edit wikipedia, but we have to do it according to their rules", not only is that not a problem, we'd welcome it. As long as what you are advising is not designed to disrupt Wikipedia processes and behavioral guidelines, there's no problem. The problem is when people think they're smart enough to push an agenda anyway and just argue their way out of consequences. That can work in the short term, but it rarely works in the long term; in part because Wikipedia processes are designed (though they do not always succeed) to be free of the bureaucratic rule structure required for such type of argumentation.

Regarding the help, you're welcome. Wikipedia tries to be open to all editors, but, in fact, its quite complex and full of rules and regulations. Also, to be honest, I've been in Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's shoes--seeing what I believe is a large scale attempt to subvert some aspect of the encyclopedia, and struggling to make it "obvious" to other users. I'm fairly certain xyr heart is in the right place. If I can provide help in the future, feel free to let me know; I'll watch this page, but if you want to be sure to catch my attention, leave a note on my talk page (User talk:Qwyrxian). As a final note, HW's user talk page said on Saturday that he lives in an area effected by Hurricane Irene, and thus had no idea when he'd be available again for Wikipedia work, or have even have electric power, so it may be time before we hear from xem again. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks

Well I see they haven't blocked or banned you yet, so hope your good luck continues.

Thanks for thanking me, but 'tis truly not necessary. There are yammerheads (Per RAH) in any field of endeavor or activity and here where I've helped maintain several series sets of articles, and have experienced first hand how some zealot quoting chapter and verse of some one of WP's large maze of policies and guidelines can get in the way and/or run one over in their "righteous actions" which are narrowly focused.

e.g. History articles should be organized according to an outline A-B-C-D... G-M but there are times when other orders make for a terser, cleaner, generally better collection of clear prose. GAWD FORBID that the earnest fellow should actually have an editorial thought—you know, a commonsense judgement on what is an offsetting criteria! (To be fair, most will concede the point once you point out there are offsets in conflict.)

Around here I've learned it's best to limit your arguments and time, and generally not get emotionally involved with any particular work. So if I get changed, I'll argue its merits once but first nicely demand justification from the fellow... That seems to work at making changes stick most of the time. The thing that really gets me is the joker that "owns" a page, and discounts out of hand when someone new makes a change, so reverts it, vice perusing it to see if there was indeed and actual improvement. In any event, I gather you aren't gonna make a new career as a WP editor, and I've mostly flipped the chaotic operations around here the bird. Be well, and BTW: you aren't necessarily all that much older than me—siblings your age, I'd guess. // FrankB 04:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I endorse WP presenting only the actual facts about the Heroes in Hell(TM) series, and not Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's consistent misunderstanding and misstatements of the facts

I was hoping never to return to this debate, however, Hullabaloo Wolfowitz is now claiming I endorse positions and editions based on his positions, which are incorrect. I do not accept any statement that any story for the HIH series was "originally published" anywhere else because this is untrue and contrary to the contract between me and every writer in the series.

Here are the facts about Heroes in Hell(TM), its various volumes and stories printed elsewhere which must be correctly stated. I am aware that WP has a BLP ongoing. I prefer not to participate in any more endless debates, but to say here for the record that my rights and the rights of approximately 34 writers are being misstated by HW and potentially damaged when "originally published" is used to indicate that a story from Heroes in Hell had a first serial or promotional inclusion elsewhere.

Hereos in Hell is a shared universe series, which means certain intellectual property belongs to the series and to me as its proprietory/editor, such as milieu and characters created for the series.

The contract under which the books were written for me and my contract with Baen Books for the 20th century volumes of HIH stipulates that all stories commissioned by me and guided by me and created for my series by ALL authors are to be original and written to take place in and include the Heroes in Hell series milieu and concept, which is my intellectual property, created by me and subsequently contributed to by the various writers in full understanding of their contract terms and conditions. For this reason, the Baen Books volumes cite no permissions and no earlier publications on the copyrights pages and each clearly states that each book is a "Baen Books Original." This is legal and correct in terms that Simon & Schuster accepts and the US Copyright Law accepts because THE STORIES ARE CREATED FOR AND ORIGINAL TO the HIH series.

The placement of first serials or free promotional placement (as in the case of the story Baslieus, which I co-wrote) in magazines or other books in no way clouds or diminishes the fact that each story was commissioned by me and created under my direction as an original story for my shared universe series, or that every author signed the same contract, each author warranting that the story I commissioned and which each author delivered would be an original story. Nor does such promotional publication diminish the requirement that the Heroes in Hell characters and milieu created by me and others belongs to the series as a whole.

The Library of Congress "original" copyright date for each volume (listed under the volume and my name and thereafter including the names of the other writers) is as much as a year before the publication date. For Rebels in Hell this copyright office date is 1985. Any attempt to prove primacy based on dates of availability is immaterial and doomed to fail because of the lag time between original copyright date and publication. By US contract law and publishing law, all stories written for HIH series were required to be original to the series and one look at the volumes' rights pages proves this by the lack of permissions citations required thereon. Any "editor" should know this, whether a Wikipedia editor or any other kind of editor. If you apply the standards HW is attempting to apply to establishing GITO's "original" publication (a nonstandard term and an immaterial term in any case), every other book and story in WP should be immediately subject to the same extensive scrutiny and potential revision of their WP pages. Since in the mid-1980s it was common for portions of as-yet unpublished books to be included in other books or magazines with earlier publication dates (even including other books by other authors) in order to promote upcoming book releases, and this was often done by verbal agreement, thousands of titles would have to be re-investigated if WP wants to prove "original" publication status for each and every case.

On the WP page about Gilgamesh in the Outback (GITO), which exists because the story is Nebula Award nominated and Hugo Award winning, focus should be maintained on the version that won the award, which was the version created under my direction for Rebels in Hell and submitted to me as original and purchased by me as original, and also first-serialized in IASFM. If any Silverberg quotations are added, they should be those that explain that in order to compile his 3 HIH stories into a volume to be sold by him outside the series, he was obligated to remove the proprietary HIH material to avoid copyright violation issues. Since by doing so, the GITO story in Silverberg's resulting novel was no longer the award-winning version, discussing this novelized version of GITO on a page dedicated to the award-winning version at all is discursive.

I suggest, since all problems have solutions, that a simpler and less controversial wording be adopted, or correct publishing terminology be used. Perhaps it could be said that story X was published in magazine X AND book x, and avoid the issue of applying non-standard publishing language altogether. The sequentiality issue is the problematic one. Or use correct publishing terminology, such as "Published in X book on A date and first-serialized in Y magazine on B date.

In closing: I endorse none of HW's edits or statements or selective quotations on the topic of Heroes in Hell series and its stories, which statements and edits are at best confused and at worst misleading. Guarddog2 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus of the Heroes in Hell Merge - Did it include all of the Books and Stories?

According to my memory during the Lawyers in Hell AfD discussion about merging the Heroes in Hell articles into one large article, it was decided ALL the articles were to be merged. No mention was made of leaving any of the articles separate.

When I went to merge the one remaining article, one editor got really upset saying that the merge discussion did not include this article, Gilgamesh in the Outback. I believe that the consensus was for all articles. The admin who is currently handling the dispute was not involved at the time, and needs to see a show of hands. If you have any opinion on the issue could you please make your opinion known at Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)