Jump to content

Talk:James Nicoll

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

Cribhouse?

[edit]

What is a cribhouse? Ewlyahoocom 04:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary says "d. slang (chiefly U.S.). A saloon, ‘low dive’, or brothel." 121a0012 02:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death-defying situations

[edit]

Let's list them! All I know is that he had a car accident once...

Injury stories

[edit]

Oh, you wouldn't want that. Well, maybe you would, but I've been collecting Nicoll stories for the past several years; I've got something over 4000 lines (at 72 chars a line) of them. Admittedly, the last half or so is mostly about cats, because his cats (did I mention he's allergic to cats, and has nine of them, almost all rescued ferals?) keep doing odd things, but once he's told his past injury stories, they kind of slow down to a few a year. Anyway, there are a lot of injury stories, all told in a dry, understated, tone.

Here's one of them:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/msg/0119c50b5ba0819d?dmode=source

Note the casual mention near the end of how "when I was a kid I was always excessively cautious, especially after the dog mauling and the fatal car crash."

I've considered putting my collection up on the web, but if I were to do it I'd want to do it right, with cross-referencing and indices and all, and a) I'm HTML incompetant, and b) I'm lazy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.17.22.215 (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

For those tagging this article

[edit]

Please review the history of this article before Tagging it again. Continually having this article tagged and cleared is tedious and an unnecessary waste of everybody's time. -- Anton P. Nym 216.191.213.114 16:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article has to assert the subject's notability. That means the article itself has to say why the subject is notable, not for people to hum it to themselves as they remove the {{Notability}} tag. See Wikipedia:Notability for the basics. I'm looking through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James D. Nicoll which keeps getting invoked as the notability tag is removed, and I don't see a single instance of someone invoking a third-party reference that asserts his notability; it's just people saying they've heard of him. (But AfDs are not votes; after all, how many people in the world haven't heard of him?) This isn't a question of whether or not his article should be deleted, or whether people who didn't want his article to be deleted had heard of him; I've heard of him too. It's that the article needs to assert the subject's notability before the tag saying, "Hey, this article needs to assert the subject's notability!" can be removed. Him being quoted by one author (Kemmer) doesn't qualify; does everyone who's ever been quoted, ever, deserve their own biography page in an encyclopedia? This lack of sourcing with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is why Wikipedia is having problems as of late. (I am not the one who added the tag, by the way, but you can't just remove the tag because you feel like it.) Xihr 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. The decision made by the AfD to keep connotes notability on the subject. He also has been quoted by more than just Kemmer. Should we include a reference to every time someone is quoted? Furthermore, other quotes of Nicoll's are available by clicking on the Wikiquotes link on the page.
And citing Usenet as a source is definitely permissable for an individual who is notable, in part, due to his participation on Usenet. Shsilver 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in my edit, the issue was raised in the prior AfD and settled in favour of KEEP. Continuous disputes of this nature do more to undermine Wikipedia's reputation than any failure to emulate the policies of Encyclopedia Brittanica. -- Anton P. Nym 64.201.173.189 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That the article survived a previous AfD does not "connote" anything other than that he passed an AfD. The issue at hand here is that the article does not currently cite third-party sources asserting his notability, which is what currenty Wikipedia policies and guidelines require. The only sources that have been given are random people quoting him, or saying that they know him (which is great but hardly addresses the issue of third-party sourcing), or random isolated Usenet articles or his own words, which are inappropriate sourcing according to Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources, the latter being a policy, not a guideline. Xihr 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating Notability, which is not a policy, and verifiability, which is. In point of fact, nothing in an article has to state notability, although it is generally a good idea. Verifiability is a completely different issue. Shsilver 22:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, as I've pointed out several times now, is that the article exhibits neither notability nor verifiability. And suggesting that notability is totally irrelevant to biographical articles is completely silly. They're both certainly relevant, otherwise you'd be suggesting that there should be a biographical article on Wikipedia for every person who has ever lived. Obviously only the notable people get biographical articles, and those articles must include verifiable third-party sources as to their their notability. Xihr 22:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you'll note additional verifiable (print) sources have been added.Shsilver 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder it wasn't noticable when it was nominated for deletion again, since the people supporting its deletion first did their best to prune the article into incoherence. That does not smack of fair behaviour. --Martin Wisse 04:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influence on SF writer Lawrence Watt-Evans

[edit]

Isn't Nicoll responsible for the existence of Lawrence Watt-Evans's most recent Ethshar novels? By saying that he would pay good money for LWE to write new Ethshar novels, this led so many other people to agree with him that LWE offered to write The Spriggan Mirror according to the Street Performer Protocol... and this worked so well that LWE has now written a second novel this way, and is preparing a third one. DS 22:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if there are WP:RS reliable sources taht can confirm this, it would be a good addition to the article to help support claims of Nicoll's notabilty in the SF genre.207.69.137.27 15:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James Nicoll here: I mentioned the above assertion in a review, as well as the fact I do not recall playing such a role. Watt-Evans popped in to say "It wasn't James Nicoll who said he'd pay good money for another Ethshar book. Unfortunately, I don't remember for sure who it actually was -- Dan Goodman, maybe? Someone active in rec.arts.sf.written on Usenet at the time." 104.193.58.214 (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No vandalism

[edit]

Claims of vandalism on my edits are truly unfounded. Every edit has been clearly justified. Citations must accurately reflect what the source material say. Weasel words must be accounted for by proper attributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.7 (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Eater

[edit]

'Brain eater' is a cute little neologism - however you need to provide a source for the definition. None of the citations so far have identified WHAT 'brain eater' are, and to do so without sources is ORIGINAL RESEARCH and not alloweed in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.7 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hogan refs: http://www.bookcase.com/~claudia/mt/archives/000650.html http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/3a74db29a378558b http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/da7b1358279384f0 I don't have time to make them look nice so I'm dumping them here. not just Hogan: http://www.steelypips.org/library/0703.html http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/sf/laith.htm http://greatsfandf.com/from-listed.php http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/1b63f4d25313724f http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/b6db4da9e15673e1 (which gets into actual definition) Enjoy. -- Mindstalk 22:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the point at which I should note that the IP-address user who doesn't sign their posts has been repeatedly banned from editing Wikipedia for bad behavior. Invoking "original research" rather than actually looking at the cited sources is not helpful to our goal of creating an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicki Rosenzweig (talk • contribs) 22:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am working from an Earthlink IP, so any 'repeated bans' have been to any of the multiple multiple Earthlink subscribers. Secondly I HAVE read the sources that were in the article at the time and made edits according to WHAT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE ARTICLES - surprise surprise. Just because I choose not to work from an account doesnt mean you can make false accusations against me. If you review the edit history, you will see that the person who accused me of vandalising this article, upon review REVERTED to my original edits with a 'whoops' apology. (There is another user who has 'warned' me of 'vandalism' because I am requiring him to provide citations for claims in an article..... hmmm seems familiar)207.69.137.43 23:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not choose to work from an account" is a convenient handwave, given that the IP address you're coming in from has a bad reputation here, and you could easily dis-associate yourself from it by getting an account.
Point of informationEVERY Earthlink IP has been used by hundreds or thousands of people and EVERY Earthlink IP has a 'bad reputation' - Using the logic above to question motivation of any particular anonymous IP editor is jumping way past WP:good faithSavingJDNfromthefilk 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
W.r.t. the brain-eater, actual usage of words doesn't normally come with definitions. Here is one "about 593" Google hits (ignoring those that cite Wikipedia, because that could be circular): " Orson’s lost it. He’s written a few good books in the past, a lot more stinkers more recently but he’s now decided to dispense with plot and story and simply write America-uber-alles wankfests and get people to buy them.
"The SF community calls this phenomenon “The Brain Eater”. Heinlein succumbed to it eventually. There are a few others — James P. Hogan has turned anti-Semitic and Velikovskian recently, for example, and there’s also Dan Brown from the technothriller end of the spectrum. Once the Brain Eater has started chowing down on that tasty ol’ grey matter it’s time to cross the author off the “must-buy” list as there seems to be no cure, sorry to say."
That's at http://sadlyno.com/archives/4424.html Vicki Rosenzweig 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't YOU add that to the article instead of reverting my request for a citation and identifying it vandalism?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.39 (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoll Events

[edit]

I am sure that Nicoll Events are a lot of fun. However, without a source to describing them, they are ORIGINAL RESEARCH and not allowed in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.7 (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A source like reference 16, Cally Soukup's list? -- Mindstalk 22:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Did YOU read the source? Other than the collection of stories themselves, the information on the site consists of:

James Nicoll is a blogger, denizen of rec.arts.sf.written, game and book reviewer, cat rescuer, and all-around swell person living in Kitchener Ontario. He is story prone, and has a very nice style of relating those stories (IMHO, naturally). These are some of the stories.

To claim 'dry wit', 'by-word in fandom' from this cite is clearly Original Research.

Since none of you were willing to actually read and reference the site, I have used the source provided to bring the section out from under charges of Original Research.207.69.137.43 23:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

[edit]

Now really, how many of you would actually consider turning in a college research paper (or even a high school paper) claiming postings from Google Groups as a source????? And if you did, what kind of grade do you think you would get?4.158.222.216 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is pretty sad. It's very borderline when it's used to identify the subject's own words; but it's completely inappropriate when it's used to try to indicate its notability. I've removed the more blatantly inappropriate cases. Xihr 01:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I grant the second case absolutely, but it's not at all borderline in the first case: if Usenet is where he said the words in question then Google Groups is the best source possible. It's a primary source so shouldn't form the basis for an entire article, but there are plenty of occasions when primary sources are perfectly appropriate for citing individual claims within an article - or a college research paper. --Zeborah 10:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using Google Groups in this context is exactly parallel to using the New York Times archive to back up statements about material published in that newspaper. Vicki Rosenzweig 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure 'what context' you are talking about, but the NYT is considered a reliable source because it has an editorial board while individual posters on the Google Group archive do not go through editorial board or peer review. I agree with Zeborah that a Nicoll statement drawn from the archive is a valid primary source FOR THAT NICOLL QUOTE, but wikipedia also requires reliable secondary sources, and Google Groups archives are not.207.69.137.10 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Frankly, it's time for you to start offering reasons for your suggested deletions, not challenging every single statement about someone who, as far as I can tell, you know nothing about. I say "as far as I can tell" because you're not giving your name, but your entire position is the argument from ignorance. Vicki Rosenzweig 15:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
every edit other than some minor typos have been justified in the edit history. Reverting to versions that ACTIVELY misreprent the purported sources is VANDALISM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.27 (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More comment - I dont HAVE to personally know the subject of the article to make edits. (Otherwise we could not have articles on George Washington Carver, Queen Elizabeth or Abraham Lincoln.) Wikipedia is a collection of notable and verifiable material collected from reliable (mostly) secondary sources. (Articles based on primary sources only would generally be Original Research). As such, any claims within an article must be shown through outside sources, not just your claim that he 'has a dry wit' and 'is a byword in fandom' - those statements must be proven by outside sources, preferably those that have peer review process or editorial board.207.69.137.10 17:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what argument from ignorance means; if you don't know it, see the article.
Point of clarification my claiming the right to edit articles about people I don't personally know was in response to your "about someone who, as far as I can tell, you know nothing about". I was not responding to: argument from ignorance, which is not a Wikipedia Poilicy or even guideline, as far as I know. 207.69.137.39 05:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeatedly saying things like "I don't see a dictionary source" rather than making any effort to find all the places where a term is used. Furthermore, demanding a "peer review process or editorial board" for biographical articles is disingenuous--most real information outside the sciences doesn't go through scientific-journal-style peer review.
Have you considered actually finding and adding information? Or are you just going to try wearing down anyone who wants to create an encyclopedia article by deleting material for not being sourced, then deleting it because you don't like that the source was online, then deleting it because the compilation was by someone working alone? Vicki Rosenzweig 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my responsibility to find and include information. It is the job of those who think the subject of the article is notable to provide such information. I am fairly certain I did not delete any information that was sourced whether or not I found the source reliable (go back and check the edit history) - I did specify within the article who the sources were so that readers could easily decide how much weight they wanted to give each statement without having to look up the information. I also restructured the article in a way that additional information could be added that would bolster the notability of the article. The automatic reverts to versions that misquote the alleged sources and accusations of vandalism when requesting sources do not have a feeling of good faith. Biographic writing may not go through 'peer review', but reliable sources have seen some type of editorial oversight and are not just random claims.207.69.137.10 18:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan page

[edit]

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a fan page. Wikipedia is a collection of notable material that is drawn from reliable verifiable sources. The material within a wikipedia article must be accuarately sourced and NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.27 (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Nicoll Events Over the years Nicoll has had without additional citations showing the authenticity of each event, the proper wording supported by the source would be Nicoll relates

a number of life-and-or-limb-threatening accidents happen to him, which he has told and retold on various science fiction fandom related newsgroups. He gained such a reputation for these accidents that regular posters in rec.arts.sf.written and rec.arts.sf.fandom term any serious accident in which the poster lives to tell the tale a "Nicoll Event"; <that claim requires some type of evidence to support it or it is merely WP:OR

and the terminology has spilled over to other portions of the Internet. <That claim is even more in need of a source

Over the years these events have also been collected into a canonical <beware use of WP:Peacock words list called Cally Soukup's List of Nicoll events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.11 (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never edited the page for anything but content and watching for BLP issues...because I can tell you that many, MANY of the events are true. I've known James since I was 13 (ever been to a game store, and there's one kid who hangs out in the place ALL THE TIME? That was me, in James' store, but fortunately, he liked me, I wasn't *too* snotnosed, and we're still friends now, 23 years later). What I'm wondering is whether my own blog entries telling some of the stories I or my friends were involved in from our points of view might be corroborative. I am *very* wary of hitting a COI or possible OR, so I've never posted them here, but I could dig them up and provide links for people to decide if they are usable. (Last year at Arisia, after a panel turned into 'Thespian tells people about the times cars have hit her without causing damage' (though they often make me late for work), someone's hand fired into the air and out of nowhere (we're 1000 miles from where I grew up and saw James daily), she said, "Have you ever heard of James Nicoll?") The issue is the verifiability, which is harder to pinpoint, as James is basically a tale-beside-the-pickle-barrel-in-the-general-store sort of storyteller. --Thespian 05:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your offer, however, I do not really see any need to cite the veracity of each and every accident when a simple rephrasing to: "Nicoll recounts stories of ..." would be verified by the current source. My edit to do just that, however was reverted as 'vandalism'.SavingJDNfromthefilk 07:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now have an account for you to claim is 'vandalising' the article and to block from editing

[edit]

Having reviewed every Earthink Anon edit to the article since 10/21/2007 I proudly claim that I have made each one. Over 90% have relevant information about the change in the edit history and each and every one is a valid application of Wikipedia Guidelines and Policies.

So now you have an account to block the next time I request a citation from a reliable source for an unsupported claim. - oops that may be violating WP:Good faith. You gonna report me for that?SavingJDNfromthefilk 06:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reviewed the edit history of this page and cannot claim all edits to this pageSavingJDNfromthefilk 06:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<smug> feeling rather vindicated</smug> Thank you for reviewing the charges of vandalism, JForget. SavingJDNfromthefilk 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a post on Google Groups"

[edit]

Usenet is the medium, soc.history.what-if is the channel, Google Groups is only an archive. If Gareth Wilson had used Google to post the item in question, the phrase "a post on Google Groups" would be defensible, but he evidently used the news server at ext.canterbury.ac.nz. I'd be pleased if someone would not change "soc.history.what-if" back to "Google Groups" ... again. I'd be even more pleased if Xihr had said which of my language changes constituted "problematic English" rather than simply reverting them all; my purpose was in part to improve language that I found "problematic", and I'd like to know where I went wrong. —Tamfang 08:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasinig "The term has also been applied to Orson Scott Card." is weasel word problematic, as has been stated and corrected numerous times within the edit history. WHO is making the accusation?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SavingJDNfromthefilk (talk • contribs) 12:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Applied by Mr. Nicoll, among others. I'll dig out citations later--I have paid work to get to. Vicki Rosenzweig 12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your pledge to provide sources that accurately reflect the content of the article. Revert wars could have been prevented if such action had been taken in the first place.SavingJDNfromthefilk 12:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influence on SF - expand

[edit]

The admin in the 2007 AfD cited a comment that Nicoll's influence in SF was a major reason for keep decision. Please put efforts toward proving the claim of influence by expanding this section, with reliable sources WP:RS of course. 207.69.137.35 04:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This request was made when the article HAD a section called 'Influence on SF' and the section contained the information about Charles Stross. I still recommend such a section be added and expanded, but at the risk of being labeled a vandal, I will wait for others to voice opinions.SavingJDNfromthefilk 17:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your rephrasing of the AfD closing comments is ambiguous at best. The admin didn't cite any specific arguments for the keep decision; they cited the fact that Patrick Nielsen Hayden had spoken up in the AfD, and they cited the Snowball clause. PNH had said that James Nicoll has had an influence in SF fandom. He also pointed out that much of the transactions in SF are not in sources that Wikipedia considers reliable sources: they are in blogs, usenet, and other parts of the internet (not to mention the stuff that isn't written at all, being transacted in person). I would be happy to research the question if I could use these sources; however I honestly can't be bothered wasting my time catering to your demand for such a section if anything I come up with will be challenged as not a reliable source. If you'll accept as reliable sources things written by, say, other people who already have a referenced Wikipedia article, whether written in a published book or written on their blog or written in Usenet, then I'll put it on my to-do list for this weekend.--Zeborah 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, in my initial read, I started scanning in the middle, hit "actually Patrick Nielsen Hayden's input alone is probably sufficient" and went down to that comment. Regardless of my misinterpretation of the summary, including this type of information would still be one of the better ways of clearly showing notability rather than relying on statements that "so-and-so has been attacked by a brain eater" or cat poems.SavingJDNfromthefilk 01:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So blogs and Usenet would be okay then? --Zeborah 05:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims made in Wikipedia have to be from WP:RS and need to be verifiable. Some person making a cliam on Usenet or in their blog has not gone through any editorial review and will seldom satisfy WP's reliable source requirement as as secondary source. The official blog of an editor of a major SF publishing house, or an official blog from WorldCon or GenCon would likely satisfy me as a reliable source. My blog at Ihearfilk,com would not.SavingJDNfromthefilk 12:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you grok what PNH was saying. --Zeborah 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I focused on (from the AfD): Patrick Nielsen Hayden writes "...Nicoll is an aphorist and raconteur well known to--and influential upon--several different overlapping circles of professional SF and fantasy writers. As a frequent first reader for the SF Book Club his editorial judgement has a non-trivial impact on the field as well..."

PNH goes on to imply that:

1) Members of the SF community can't/won't/don't write about themselves and traditional biographers/reasearches won't/don't either (they are too busy writing about entertainers, politicians and authors who write <looking down my nose> lit-ra-choor</being snooty>{or})

meaning that

2) There are not as many standard secondary sources reflecting members of the SF world as there are for some other people

from which one might conclude (but I don't and I hope the WP admin didn't)

3) So the SF community is special and WP rules of reliable sources shouldn't apply to US. SavingJDNfromthefilk 11:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Researchers on the history of any minority or non-mainstream community face the same problem. Women, workers, gays, people of color, genre writers: all are (or were) disdained, and they are not as well documented by the self-elected mainstream sources. SF people do write about themselves and each other, at great length; but an influential classic fanzine (what is called a "focal-point" fanzine) may have had a printing of 300-500; and unlike little magazines or academic journals, may not be preserved at all, nor available online. Some of the burden of communication within the field is now carried on in Usenet newsgroups, online forums, blogs, and e-mail lists: all of which, you gleefully inform us, are unacceptable as reliable sources. --Orange Mike 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that those fanzines have not been archived and preserved. However, like I said on your talk page a few days ago, if people want to preserve and commemorate and recognize Nicoll using sources that do not meet Wikipedia guidelines, they should do so in a place other than Wikipedia.
However, I believe that there are somewhere enough materials from sources that do fit WP:RS that would provide more substantial indication of Nicoll's influence than an internet slur and cat poems.SavingJDNfromthefilk 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd conclude that a) you're still misrepresenting what PNH actually wrote, and b) WP rules of reliable sources are not flexible enough to deal with reality; if/when Web 2.0 becomes dominant (and Wikipedia relies on the Web 2.0 mindset) it's going to fall down flat. In any case, there's no need for us to add reliable sources because we're not claiming anything in particular at the moment; you're the one asking for both more information and the sources to match. Said extra information is not necessary for the article, as there are plenty of other things in it that demonstrate his notability. So as far as I'm concerned this whole topic is moot. --Zeborah 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think we are that different in our interpretations - much of the 'evidence' that would show Nicolls influence is not in formats that WP considers reliable sources. I am just suggesting that there IS material that could be found / presented that DOES fit WP's reliable sources and would show a reader Nicolls influence is actually more substantial than calling people names. Or maybe I am wrong, and that is his only influence.SavingJDNfromthefilk 01:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

brain eaters and living persons

[edit]

Claims of 'brain eaters' appear to violate WP:BLP when applied to living persons. I have removed the reference to Card since the claim was not made by Nicoll and does not appear to be verifiable and as such is questionable material for this article.SavingJDNfromthefilk 12:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

this cite: M., Omega (2007-06-05). "Brain eater": A phrase I hate. Hatrack River Forum. Retrieved on 2007-10-30. , while outside of Usenet, is not actually a 'use' of the term outside of Usenet, but simply a criticism of the use of the term IN Usenet207.69.137.29 05:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

laser

[edit]

"While the particular concept of the Nicoll-Dyson Laser is new,[citation needed]" How does one cite the newness of an idea? Mindstalk (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A WP editor does not cite the newness of an idea. A WP editor finds a reliable secondary source that has made the claim, and the article quotes the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you in fact asserting that a published non-Wikipedia idea can't be called "new" until and unless someone off-Wikipedia explicitly uses that terminology? Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, but I can't think of any examples where it would be appropriate for a WP editor to declare an idea 'new' without having a reliable source to back it up. Do you have a specific example to dicsuss?207.69.137.35 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The poem

[edit]

I'm with Martin on this; I didn't have time to really look at the edit until today (it's been a busy week) and as mentioned, I watch this page, but try not to participate too much because of the decades of knowing him, but we're not talking about 'hey, some chick wrote a poem about him', but instead that an award-winning SF author thought the Nicoll Events (which we've had problems keeping established as a known event) were worth writing about (even in a poem). The ESU was what caught my attention; we're not inserting the poem, but we're saying 'it's a term of note in the sf community', followed by a citation and 'here's proof that well-known people have thought it significant'. It should stay. --Thespian (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that simply because 'a notable person wrote a poem' makes it somehow a reliable or notable source. If the poem itself is one that appears reliably in collections of SF poetry or if in any con or SF bookstore you start quoting the poem and people join in because they know the poem, THEN you have some basis for including it. Otherwise its basis for inclusion seems really flimsy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.10 (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my point, though. We're trying to prove that Nicoll Events are noted in the SF writing community. They were noted enough that a famous genre writer wrote about them. One doesn't need a greek chorus to confirm that not only did she write it, but it's famous, since the notability of the poem isn't the issue, it's that the notable author felt compelled to do it. Spontaneous outbreaks of poetry at cons and in SF bookstores are rather unciteable, anyways, since very few people would write third-party coverage of it, even if it was regularly happening. But if you *want* to accept random cites of people discussing Nicoll Events at cons, here's an amusing story from my own journal last January, after Arisia: http://thespian.livejournal.com/1003441.html --Thespian (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So according to that logic, ANYTHING that has had ANY poem written about it is inherrently 'notable' simply because some writer wrote a poem about it. I don't buy it.207.69.137.8 (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. The fact that someone wrote a poem about it is one piece of evidence that, combined with other pieces of evidence, demonstrates its notability. It doesn't work by itself, but no single piece of evidence works by itself, because notability requires multiple sources. It needs to be allowed to remain in order to combine. --Zeborah (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits

[edit]

I reverted edits by NeonMerlin who made the strange claim that Nicoll is in the fiction business which is clearly not true. Nicoll is known as an essayist and reviewer, not a fiction writer. Shsilver (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back

"Verifiable"

[edit]

The following text has been reverted by other editors: 

A fictional depiction of a Nicoll-Dyson Laser can be found here 
[http://eg.orionsarm.com/xcms.php?r=oaeg-view-article&egart_uid=48fe49fe47202 on the Orion's Arm website].

on the grounds of it not being a notable or verifiable reliable source. How are those relevant, here? It's a fictional concept and a fictional depiction. What's to "verify"? What's to be notable about an external link? The concept is in the Wikipage, and the OA page illustrates the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindstalk (talk • contribs) 02:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is why link? So a non-reliable source mentions this concept. What does this add to the article? Nothing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An illustration of Nicoll's concept adds nothing? And how is the source 'non-reliable'? What do you doubt? -- Mindstalk (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read about Wikipedia and original research. The material you are attempting to add is using a primary source - to show what? - that a gamer/fiction writer has used a SF concept? Sorry, but so what. If you have a reliable source / secondary source talking about how this N-D laser concept is used in many games and SF literature, then we can add that secondary source to the article. Wikipedia is different from writing term papers for school. For term papers you are encouraged to take primary source evidence and draw conclusions. That is not how wikipedia works. For Wikipedia, all conclusions/arguments must be made by published sources, not wikipedia article writers - we merely gather what others have already written and analysed.-- The Red Pen of Doom 05:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Red Pen. Seeking an illustration from a reliable, third party source is all well and good, but this just looks like something someone drew and posted on a site. The site is obviously a collaborative attempt to set up a science fictional setting, and there's no evidence at all that it's in an of itself appropriate as an external link, particularly one for images. It's a primary source, and someone's drawn something that someone else has written about. It's hard to see how that meets muster for what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines require; it doesn't establish that it's a useful, notable, reliable source publishing this primary-sourced image. It's just some guy who drew something on the collaborative equivalent of a sort of blog, which is not appropriate.  Xihr  08:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

orphan

[edit]

Hm, there are 48 incoming links but two are disambiguation, two are redirects, two are article talk pages, three are Wikipedia talk, four are User pages, twelve are User talk, and 21 are WP: — leaving two: Usenet celebrity and When Heaven Fell. Is that enough? —Tamfang (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By my understanding of the purpose of the "orphan" tag, yes. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese Newspaper

[edit]

The linguist quotation has been mentioned and explained, with proper attribution, in the independent Chinese newspaper Ming Pao. The quotation was in Dr. John Larrysson's ESL language column on 15/8/2012.

http://english.mingpao.com/cfm/database3b.cfm?File=20120815/livenlearn/c28.txt

- a newbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.185.203 (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


updating the link:

https://life.mingpao.com/eng/article?issue=20120815&nodeid=1508218686671 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.165.19 (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James Nicoll. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 10:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have verified that the Nicoll quote is present in the archived Powerpoint file created by Rong Liu, and set the "checked" parameter as requested. Beamjockey (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on James Nicoll. 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) 21:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on James Nicoll. 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) 04:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on James Nicoll. 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) 09:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Nicoll&oldid=1207813609"