Talk:Harlan Ellison/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

re recent short story collections

An editor is wanting to remove the following entries from the short stories collection of the Works section and is insisting, so let's talk about this. The challenged material is:

If I understand correctly (I could be wrong) the removal is because this material is not sourced. If the material is false and there are no such books that's different of course. But a spot check on Honorable Whoredom at a Penny a Word shows references to the work -- here for instance, and Google gives others.

So I guess the objection is to the entries not being sourced, based on the edit summaries removing them. But little or none of the other material is the Short-stories collection subsection, and indeed in the entire Works section is sourced, at least with inline citations. So by that standard we should blank the entire Works section and it's inconsistent to pick just some items. And there's a lot material in the Wikipedia that isn't sourced and if we removed it all just for that reason we'd be removing an awful lot of material. All material should be sourced eventually of course, but when an editor comes across material that isn't sourced but is otherwise appropriate for inclusion (it's not defamatory or misleading or undue weight or otherwise problematical) and there's no reason to believe that it's not true, the recommended procedure is:

  1. Source it.
  2. And if you don't want to do that, tag it and wait a couple years or so and see if someone else will.
  3. And if you're not willing to do that, then leave it alone.

So I restored the material but this puts me at 2RR so I've fouled out. The burden is on the editor to come here and make his case why this particular material needs to be removed. Herostratus (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:V says that inline citations are mandatory after information has been challenged, Herostratus. WP:BURDEN is absolutely unequivocal: it is the responsibility of the editor restoring the information to provide the citation. No one else's. That makes it yours. Not mine. Not anyone else's. Yours. So go to it. Add the citation, and never restore information that has been challenged without providing an inline citation again.—Kww(talk) 15:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I think you're misunderstanding the situation. The burden is on me if the material is challenged as false (or as there being a reasonable suspicion that it's false, or if there are other problematic aspects, such as that it's defamatory or misleading or gives undue weight to some unimportant material and so forth). Simply noting that a passage is unsourced is not a challenge to the material itself. If you're saying that the material is false or might be or it's trivia or there's some other problem and it's unsourced, fine; that's different, and make your case on that basis.
But no, you cannot go through the Wikipedia and remove material only because it's not sourced (unless it's been tagged for a good long while with no response) and lay it on other editors to stop what they're doing and go and get sources. You could remove over half the material in the Wikipedia in one stroke if this was allowed. Apparently you really really think this material needs to be sourced and it's important to you, so go source it. My time is not necessarily less valuable than yours. If you're not willing to do that, why is my problem? If you don't want to do that, then tag it and wait a good while. Otherwise, move along.
I don't know the details of all the various rules here (some if which contradict each other), and it may be that you are being mislead by reading a rule that is not an accurate description of how things are done in practice. Don't worry about it, we are not rulebound here. Use common sense. Herostratus (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It certainly is legitimate to remove unverified material. I'm sorry that you think you have the right to decide when a removal of unsourced material is legitimate or not. You don't. WP:BURDEN makes no exception for "I disagree with the reason for it's removal" or "I found a source but didn't feel like adding myself, so I just restored the material without providing a citation". A list of redlinks is most certainly material that is "likely to be challenged", so, if you want it to be present, find the supporting citations before adding it back. —Kww(talk) 01:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN makes plenty of exceptions. You're not reading it correctly. It says several times some variation of "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source" (and the bolding is in the original in at least one place. It does not say "Attribute all quotations and any material to a reliable, published source". See the difference? It could have been written with just "any material" rather than any "any material challenged or likely to be challenged". Maybe it should have been written that way. But it wasn't. If you want to go to WP:BURDEN and make a case there for changing the rule, do that.
So what is meant by "any material challenged or likely to be challenged"? It doesn't mean just "challenged as unsourced". Because if that was what is meant there's no need for the clause.
It also says this: "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
So you you think it would not be possible to find out whether or not the book Honorable Whoredom at a Penny a Word written by Harlan Ellison and published in 2013 does or does not exist? Did you try? I didn't have any trouble finding it. Generally speaking, the existence or non-existence of a book is easy to determine because most books are commercial commodities and so there's usually someone wanting to sell it and generally on the web. "If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it".
(BTW commercially published books are among the entries least needing verification, because the reader can most likely verify whether or not the book exists (and was written by the author we say it was and so forth) by going to amazon.com or someplace like that. An inline citation is just going to point to amazon probably, so there's no great practical benefit.)
Anyway, you then say "A list of redlinks is most certainly material that is likely to be challenged", and now we're getting somewhere. You have an objection to including those entries to the list because there are not articles about them. That's fine! That's a reasonable position: "In a list this long, let's pare it down only to those works which are notable, with 'has a Wikipedia article' being a fair (and easily ascertained) standard for which are notable". People might or might not agree with that, but it's a reasonable proposition. This explains why you are wanting to delete just those entries and not the entire list, which also lacks inline citations.
But then you should say that. If you object to some material, you should take the time to figure out where your real objection lies and communicate that. Don't use "unsourced" when you mean "not encyclopedic" or "trivial". Herostratus (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
All of the above is the absolute Poster child of the reasons I left Wikipedia years ago after having initiated and written a couple of hundred articles in the relatively early days of the project. Gar! Hayford Peirce (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You want me to be a jerk and remove the entire list? I could do that. I recognize that sloppy article writers frequently use blue links as substitutes for citations, so I didn't remove unsourced, blue-linked material. As for tags, : "editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step". I've considered the idea of adding tags, and reject it. Now, you object. Fine. So find the citations, add them, and everyone is happay and everyone has followed policy. I notice that you seem to have located a source for one, you just seem to think it's reasonable to restore the material without using it. It isn't. Consider the material formally challenged. I don't think any of those redlinks actually exists. Go find a set of inline citations that supports their existence, and do so before adding the material back to the article. I'll give you a couple of days to correct your WP:BURDEN violation before removing them again.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you're mistaking me for your employee. It's not my fault if you're too lazy to do the work yourself. I could do it, but as a matter of principle I'm not gonna be your errand boy, especially since you haven't been particularly friendly. You have the problem, you fix the problem. "I've considered the idea of adding tags, and reject it". Really.
It says "consider" the idea of adding tags because we generally soften our rules with terminology like that because our rules are supposed to be leavened with a good helping of common sense. We say "consider adding adding a tag" rather than just "add a tag" because the latter is overly strict and could be read as "add a tag, in all circumstances and all cases with no exceptions" and we just don't roll like that. If the material is problematical, fine, maybe you shouldn't add a tag but remove it instead. If there's reason to believe that tag will never be acted on, like if it's an extremely obscure and unvisited article, fine, then maybe you shouldn't add a tag but remove it instead. If there's good reason to believe that nobody will ever be able find any references, fine, then maybe you shouldn't add a tag but remove it instead. Or whatever. However, "I just don't feel like it" is not, I think, one of the intended exceptions.
One of the reasons your general attitude is annoying, and one of the reasons all this gets my back up, is that it's very unwelcoming and unhelpful to new editors. In fact that material was added by user 24.205.40.74 as her fifth edit. Well of course it's not sourced. It was her fifth edit. Deleting perfectly good contributions by new editors, rather then building on them by sourcing them yourself if it's so all-fired important or else tagging them so that someone else can build on them, is not the way to make new editors feel that their contributions are valued.
Heh, you cannot say "Consider the material formally challenged" for no reason. You have to have a reason. So then you say "I don't think any of those redlinks actually exists". But that's not true. You don't have any reason to believe they don't exist. I know this because you would have brought it up before if you did. So you not only have to have reason, you have to have a reason that is an actual reason that you actually believe.
Well anyway, we sure do seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot here. It's too bad. As a pro tip, engaging editors on the level of "never contradict me again" is maybe not the best way to get things going in a collegial manner... just a thought. It would be shame to continue in this manner. So why don't you do the right thing and source the friggin' items, tag them, or move on to more fruitful pastures. Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Good grief. In just five minutes, I found all four of the redlinked texts on Amazon. Do I need to cite every single one of them? Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Heh. You could. Kww isn't gonna and I'm not gonna, strictly because we've got our backs up. I'm trying to help Kww to get more relaxed and more collegial about this sort of thing (probably not doing a very good job cos I'm getting kind of mad) and if you do add the cites he might learn the wrong lesson about how helpful trying to order other editors to do his work is going to work out for him in the long run. On the other hand it sure would end the conflict which I guess is getting kind of sterile, so if you're up for it, go for it. Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not a matter of ordering other people to "do my bidding". I'm perfectly happy to have Wikipedia be missing those items. What I'm not happy with is random collections of unsourced material pretending to be articles, and yes, Herostratus, intentionally violating clear policy as you did is disruptive. As a "pro tip", intentionally violating policy and then giving an admin as sanctimonious lecture about how confused he must be is also not a good way to get anywhere. When material is challenged, it can't come back until there are inline citations. Completely unambiguous, black-letter policy. Your perspective has been argued on the talk page of WP:V numerous times, where editors have attempted to make tagging mandatory and have tried to set minimum thresholds of implausibility before material is removed. They've lost the debate every single time.—Kww(talk) 05:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not perfectly happy to have Wikipedia be missing those items. (I'm reasonably contented to have Wikipedia missing these items since there's a reasonable argument that they don't belong on the merits, although a better solution IMO would be keep them but explain what they are rather than just listing them, which again would be building on the previous editor's work... but all that is tangential to the discussion we're having here about sourcing.)
"random collections of unsourced material pretending to be articles"... again, to me it sounds like we are mixing together two things. Whether a thing is part of a random collection has nothing do to with whether it is unsourced material. "What I'm not happy with is random collections of unsourced material pretending to be articles" is different from "What I'm not happy with is unsourced material, period" which is your actual point, so why not be clear, especially since the construction you used could be interpreted by the unkind or suspicious to devolve to "What I'm not happy with is random collections of material pretending to be articles, and playing the 'unsourced' card allows me to get my way without tedious interference with people who have a different vision" which of course you wouldn't want people to misinterpret you in that manner.
Maybe I'm missing something though, and anyway I've said this before so rather than go round in circles let's see what other people think, so let's meet at the WP:V talk page presently. According to you it's all cut-and-dried and so there I will presently be corrected, and if that's so then problem solved.
(By the way, there's a error in your entry above. You wrote "giving an admin a sanctimonious lecture about how confused he must be is also not a good way to get anywhere" when you ought to have written "giving an editor a sanctimonious lecture about how confused he must be is also not a good way to get anywhere". All editors, admins or not, are equally protected from (or subject to) sanctimonious lectures.) Herostratus (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Herostratus here that the original deletion of the material was unnecessary, as there were several more reasonable options (which Hero. listed) that could have been used and that would have avoided this entire argument. Material should not be simply deleted unless it looks implausible, like "Ellison went to dinner with Toni Morrison once and she said he was hot"--> That kind of edit is something I would delete immediately. But to delete plausible sounding book titles -- especially when you yourself could have verified their reality in 2 minutes using Google -- was too rash an edit. And then, once you made that edit, you can demand that the remaining rules about sourcing reverted edits be followed. Next time, I advise you to choose a simpler path when you see unsourced material unless it it seems highly unlikely to be legit, especially when dealing with book lists, which are in my experience rarely sourced in the first place and which--once again--take all of 30 seconds to verify thanks to the magic of Google and/or Amazon. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Harlan Ellison. 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 07:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Controversies

This article is totally unbalanced... I'm not an expert on Ellison but I know enough that we can do a lot better than an article 3/4ths of which consists of a list of quarrels he's had with people. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is totally balanced - he's at least as well known for his quarrels as he is for his writing. In fact, much of his non-fiction writing is about his quarrels. There isn't even any mention in the article of the infamous gopher incident:

DID HARLAN REALLY MAIL A DEAD GOPHER TO AN EDITOR?
Nope. It was the comptroller of a certain publishing house that bound
a cigarette ad into one of Harlan's paperbacks, breaking a stipulation in
Harlan's contract. Although better related in Harlan's essay "Driving in
the Spikes", suffice to say that after trying nicely to get the book
rights reverted back to him, as per his contract, and getting blown off,
Harlan mailed 213 bricks postage due to the man (this was back when the US
Postal Service would mail anything postage-free, making the recipient
pay up), had a Luthuanian hit man friend of his have a talk with him, and
then mailed the dead gopher, along with Ted Cogswell's recipe for braised
gopher stew, fourth class mail, where it stank up the mailing room for quite
a while.

(from http://harlanellison.com/text/newsfaq.txt ) Enon (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


The entire "gopher incident" is told in great detail by Ellison himself on the CD On the Road with Ellison Volume 1 --Powerofshark (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

is this worth adding to this section?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Time_(film)#Plagiarism_suit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.209.241 (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


The entire Ellison article is unbalanced due to the controversies being ahead of his work and awards. Yes, within a certain community Harlan is certainly known for being Harlen but in the larger world he is known for his fiction. I will need to check the statement that most of his nonfiction works are about controversies. The controversies are also unbalanced as they all make Harlen look like the bad person, not that he had some reason for suing. There is no mention of Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, for which he's done a tremendous amount of work.

Overall there needs to be a balance between the person and the author. I'll this article to my copious spare time list. Kovar (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

bias in description of the Hugo event

The minute Harlan heard the reaction he saw his actions from that point of view, realized how very wrong he'd been, and issued a full and detailed apology. It was ripped apart as being a non-apology. To say "and complained that Willis had not called him to discuss the matter" is a perfect example. What he actually said was -

"For me to grab Connie's breast is in excusable, indefensible, gauche, and properly offensive to any observers or those who heard of it later.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I've called Connie. Haven't heard back from her yet. Maybe I never will."

Several days later he reverted to his 'Harlan Ellison' persona, I expect as a result of the way his personal apology was taken. I in no way approve of his actions but this section needs to be entirely re-written.

--Kovar (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Except that it really *was* a non-apology. Your quote is from an email (also posted on his website) to a journalist (or blogger, if you want to distinguish the two) who had contacted him.

Nowhere did he write "I'm sorry", or "I apologize". He wrote that he had called Willis and left a message, with no information about what the message said.

Further, he closed out his email to the blogger with sarcastic, over-the-top silliness about "With genuine thanks for the post, and celestial affection, I remain, puckishly, Yr. pal, Harlan".

Not exactly apology of the year. :-/

Also, the incident has been removed completely from the article at least twice since your comments. Seems someone is "santizing" it.

60.248.2.163 (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


I hadn't realized that the incident had been removed but I only just now glanced at the article because of some work I'm doing. It should be included especially so that it can be told without the bias resulting from the flamewar.
But this does not change the fact that the apology was actually an apology. Unfortunately his personality is such it wasn't read that way, and the flamewar overwhelmed the internet so quickly that there was no chance of successfully changing the mistake. Instead it was ripped apart, selectively. Your starting out with the fact that my quote is from an email that was then posted to his website, for example. I can't see how that makes what he wrote any less of an apology.
In the same vein a great deal was left out of the analysis, such as the work he'd done for the ERA. A caveat is that it's possible that people are unaware that there was an Equal Rights Amendment nor the battles to get it added to the Constitution. It was a while ago. And lost. I'll need to check if the signature to the post was in fact sarcastic. Unfortunately your list didn't include something relevant and specific, which is that I didn't provide a link to what he said. If I had people could form their own opinions. And I could easily look it up.
Just in case: No, I'm not being sarcastic when I say that I should have provided a link and why.

Kovar (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A minor correction

Silverberg wrote Revolt on Alpha C, Not Bradbury.

Tom Hanlon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.184.31 (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Our Revolt on Alpha C article seems to confirm this and adds extra context for the reason for using Ellison's name. Changed the name, added some of that detail and provided the ref. Thank you for bringing this to attention. :) Snow let's rap 09:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"Half Hugo"

There was an episode about Harlan Ellison on a Sci-Fi Channel series called Masters of Fantasy. There he said: "(...) So they gave me the base and they counted it as a "one half" Hugo. I'm the only person ever to win a half Hugo." Is that good enough? --217.224.144.8 (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday recount is inaccurate

The text of the article claims, "[Ellison] participated in the 1965 Bloody Sunday March from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, led by Martin Luther King, Jr." However:

  1. Martin Luther King did not lead the Bloody Sunday March. According to Bloody Sunday events the march was led by John Lewis, the Reverend Hosea Williams, Bob Mants, and Albert Turner.
  2. Martin Luther King did not even attend the Bloody Sunday March (see Martin Luther King -- Bloody Sunday ).
  3. The citation provided only says "Among his exploits: ... marching to Selma with Martin Luther King"

Most likely, Mr Ellison did participate in a Selma-to-Montgomery march with Dr King. One can speculate that it was the third march, which was the largest, and took place two or three weeks after Bloody Sunday. Without a more specific citation, I think the wording should remain general. Cryptarch (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Harlan Ellison. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

A character representing 'Harlan' in popular fiction

In the recent SF movie 'War of the Worlds' there's a character, who speaks as if he may be a writer of some kind, who's named 'Harlan'. I think there's a strong possibility this character is based at least in part on Harlan Ellison.

Magicsinglez (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


In the Scooby Doo Mystery Incorporated season one episode 12 cartoon, they do send ups of HP Lovecraft, Robert E Howard and Harlan Ellison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.68.56 (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC) — More than a send-up to Ellison, he plays himself in the episode. 68.97.129.237 (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also a character named "Harlan" in the film "Miracle Mile" (1988) who is in the room during a conversation which refers to Ellison's oft-cited favorite barbecue restaurant, Dr. Hogly Wogly's Tyler Texas Barbecue in Panarama City, CA. This is confirmed by the writer/director of the movie as a reference to Ellison but is probably not significant enough to cite in the article207.221.248.253 (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I clearly recall owning as a child an early-1970s-vintage issue of a Justice League of America comic which had a story entitled something along the lines of "The Dangerous Dreams of Harle Ellis". The title character was very clearly drawn as Ellison (and an editorial note admitted as much), and of course it referenced the Dangerous Visions books. However, I have been unable to find any confirmation that it actually existed -- but as at that age I had no idea who Ellison was or what the Dangerous Visions books were, I'm quite certain I'm remembering a genuine book. Does this ring a bell for anyone else? 50.243.35.65 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Harlan Ellison. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harlan Ellison. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The 2nd wife is not mentioned in the article.

The 2nd wife is not mentioned in the article. Someone should correct this. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:3025:3261:A67A:791C (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Troll tagfest

A tag on every §, with a redundant one on the whole article? 98.4.124.117 (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

Not criticism OF him, criticism BY him. i believe his best work was his criticism, but its given short shrift in this article. im having trouble finding solid references describing his criticism and how good it was. if anyone can find a source for this, i would appreciate it. his acerbic wit in his nonfiction work pretty much saved his ass, considering how problematic he was.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)(Mercurywoodrose)

Useless tags

You know, there are two kinds of people in the world: productive people and unproductive people. All those tags requesting that somebody fix the article are completely useless. I'd like to suggest the people putting them in do a little research and improve the article themselves. Same for the comments here. Take charge, people. Don't wait for somebody else to do it. Pkeets (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Tagging is a little like spotting a hitchhiker on the highway, stopping to hang a sign around his neck saying "HEY! PICK THIS PERSON UP!" and then driving off.
Since I don't see anything on the talk page specific to the sectional tags, I don't see why they can't be removed with the same abruptness with which they were placed. Antandrus (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
People who don't know anything about him are coming here to learn more about him. Whining that they aren't picking up the fumbled ball and researching him themselves isn't helping. Frankly, this article really kinda sucked a couple days ago. The lede basically just said that he wrote a lot of SF and cited two books he edited, and the "personal life" section literally started with his third wife! I've worked on both of those problems. There's a lot more to improve. Maybe stop commenting on the commenting and get to work yourself? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed the "Rewrite section" tags. No reasons were given, and the template itself only references WP:MoS. Yes, the article isn't perfect, but the issues it has aren't WP:MoS issues. Moscow Mule (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harlan_Ellison/Archive_4&oldid=1136786654"