Talk:Tom Swift

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Well, any ideas? 2 Site that violates copyright 3 Soon-To-Be-Deleted Note on Copyright, Links, and Deletions 4 Year Links 5 Larger-Scale Changes 6 Cover Art Samples, etc. 7 Unexplained Characterization of Edit 8 Why some recent changes? 9 Comment on article development 10 Edit and addition suggested 11 Discuss link deletion, please 12 Explanation of edits 13 Where it stands 14 Predecessors section 15 See Also 16 Justification for Predecessors section, Links, etc. 17 Other articles with Doxmyth edits 18 Call for further comment and input 19 Re: the question of influence 20 Discussion of further edit work by Scott Dickerson 21 Assume Good Faith 22 Inconvenient facts 23 Thank you 24 Edisonade 25 Antaeus Feldspar 26 Thank You? 27 Fwdixon/MookiesDad/SuperDuperMan/71.125.234.14 28 While the page is protected 28.1 Discussion of fan activity 29 On Consensus 30 TASER

[edit] Well, any ideas?

I certainly never expected an administrator to respond to "repeated IP vandalism" by locking on the vandal's version. And having just faced a threat of blocking for trying to preserve the consensus version, I am wondering if there is any damned point to all of this. It simply points up a key flaw in the Wikipedia model: despite all that is said about the content being determined by consensus, what the software really rewards is a refusal to play by the rules. Anyone think there's any point anymore? Or do we just chalk this article up as a failure of Wikipedia? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected. Any established editor can make any appropriate changes. -Will Beback 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

... wow. Big blunder on my part. okay, um... just ignore everything I said above? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC) (not feeling all that hot)

Not to worry. It's a good rant and you might be able to use it on some other occasion. -Will Beback 21:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, the entry on The_Hardy_Boys was also the target of the person waging the edit war, but they drew him (or her) into a discussion and they achieved consensus on retaining the external link. The anon agreed that the link could stay on the main page of each series- I'm not sure, then, why the Tom Swift entry is still being attacked.

[edit] Site that violates copyright

An editor removed this external link:

• Tom Swift fan fiction rewrites of some and some new stories

with the edit summary:

• remove link to site that violates copyright

Could the editor please explain how copyrights are violated at the site? It appears to be original fan fiction. -Will Beback 21:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• In both series, Tom's father is named Thomas Swift, Sr., and is the chief executive of Swift Enterprises. Tom III is a descendant of the first and second Tom Swifts, and Tom IV's father is likely the second, having built Jr.-type rockets in his youth. Inside jokes, such as allusions to Tom Swift, Jr.'s Lake Carlopa, indicate that the fourth series's writers were at least passingly familiar with Tom Swift's earlier incarnations.
• In both series, Tom's father is named Thomas Swift, and is the chief executive of Swift Enterprises. Allusions to Tom Swift, Jr.'s Lake Carlopa, indicate that the fourth series' publisher was at least passingly familiar with Tom Swift's earlier incarnations.

An anon changed the text from the top version to the bottom. Why? -Will Beback 21:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soon-To-Be-Deleted Note on Copyright, Links, and Deletions

I am the person responsible for the Tom Swift Lives fanfic site, and I thank Mr. Beback (who isn't me) and others for trying to make available a convenient link to it. The site explicitly credits the holder of copyright; and (as a "transformative work" identified as "parody") fully complies with statutory regulations and court precedent. Scott Dickerson

Hello to all "Tom Swift". I offer apology as I do not wish to aggrieve but comments not within applied channels on personal negative comments are deleted. Permit me to say that one should argue facts and not speak about personalities. This is very bad form. Matters respecting personal grievance with another are not for this column. Wossan Kau of Malaysia batanol

[edit] Year Links

I feel the links to the years (ex.1935) are valid and helpful to put things in perspective. As such, I think they should remain. After all, they certainly aren't hurting anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.236.54.99 (talk • contribs) .

Could you please create a username to make it easier to communicate with you? FYI, communications from other users are appearing on your IP user talk pages, but your IP address changes so you are probably not reading their comments. For example, see User talk:4.236.54.52 --Slowmover 18:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:CONTEXT to see why others may disagree. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, years appear so frequently in articles that the cumulative effect in 1 million plus articles is to place a significant burden on the WP servers. This would be worth it if the years in question actually pointed to something relevant to the article, but this is rarely the case. Cluttering the page with links that add no information about the current topic doesn't serve the reader, it just makes it harder to find links that do point to a meaningful association. Slowmover 15:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larger-Scale Changes

Always controversial, and no denigration of previous efforts is intended. I've added some info and tried to give a better "flow" and some parallel formatting. I concur that the year links are unnecessary and more distracting than useful, though I haven't taken the time to de-link them. Someone might consider adding a few pix, especially to the Tom Jr. section; the Graham Kaye covers are classics. -Scott Dickerson

[edit] Cover Art Samples, etc.

Not sure why the cover sample for "Tom Swift and His Motor Cycle" was removed by someone, but these covers are not under copyright and are surely relevant. I'd urge one for each series.

Someone might like to give parallel character lists for the series lacking them. And I believe there is now some detail available on TSV.

Mr. Kau's comments above are well-taken. -Scott Dickerson

[edit] Unexplained Characterization of Edit

Of a full paragraph acknowledging Wossan Kau's comments on the appropriate tenor for this discussion page, he has chosen to remove all but one sentence (above), and has characterized the rest as a "diatribe." I find this confusing, as I presumed I was merely expressing agreement with his stated recommendation and noting that (considering his experiences re the "Tom Swift community," which were shared with me in some detail at the time, with appropriate documentation) his attitude was all the more praiseworthy. I also am confused by the discrepancy between the attitude expressed in his comments on the reason for his deletion (viewable in "history"), and the principles he enunciated not long ago on his blog-site. But rather than go back and forth on it, I'll contact you, Wossan, by your e-mail for some mutual clarification. I gather this sort of "working it out" is the preferred Wiki process.

Lest it be forgot, the original relevance of these matters to the discussion of the Tom Swift article was to challenge the editing practices of one individual, whose identity is well-known and much commented upon despite his attempts at self-concealment. I don't regard the justifications he has repeatedly given as adequate. My understanding is that Wikipedia is for information and usefulness. Issues of "who should really get the credit" are basically private disputes: what counts is making the information available. Any disagreement on that?

Separately from Mr. Kau's comments, I'll state what I presume is unobjectionable: that honest, signed, above-board discussion is preferable to anonymous, pseudonymous, or puppeted contributions. Like Mr. Kau, I provide my (real) name in connection with any and all my contributions to Wiki. I hope those who choose otherwise will permit a civil question: why?--67.101.86.15 02:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Scott Dickerson

[edit] Why some recent changes?

Have we a Phyllis Newton fan amongst us? Okay--"and nothing more" was too much a personal opinion (and a bit snide). But I will ask for an explanation of the change to my characterization of "Miss Trent" in the TSII section. The point is that she is given essentially no personal characteristics other than "efficient," is the only Swift Enterprises recurring female employee, and has a very-50's stereotyped role. I'm not criticizing the series on that basis, just bidding those who seek out the article to consider in a bit of depth what a "boys series" of the era incorporates. (But I may be jumping to conclusions as to your rationale.)-Scott Dickerson --67.101.86.15 16:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on article development

I'll see if I can track down the TASER and Wozniac cites: first is from my memory of a news article, second is "somewhere" in Google-land.

This is now a sterling article! Well done. The Toms would be proud. -Scott Dickerson --72.245.1.234 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit and addition suggested

I'd be bold, but here's something I am unequipped to do. Rather than having the MOTOR CYCLE cover twice, how about replacing the first one with another (AIR SHIP is neat)?

Also--how about a cover sample and character list for those series lacking same? Yes, even TSV. -Scott Dickerson --72.245.1.234 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing those covers are still under copyright - as are some of the covers that already appear in the article. You seem pretty eager for other people to do your work for you too! MookiesDad 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I just noticed this comment, after I made the response down below. Thank you for pointing out the copyright issue. As you note, this hasn't prevented the posting of said covers--surely to the benefit of this article. Do you feel said covers should be removed? As to your last comment, you've made clear that you disapprove of my participation here for some reason, but I'm surely within my rights to suggest things that I myself am not in a position to do. Wiki is a collaborative process, as I understand it. Now: how 'bout we honor our friend from Malaysia and focus on the specifics of this article, its content, and its presentation to the public. -Scott Dickerson 67.101.111.81 17:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• • How about you stick to your Tom Swift fan fiction and leave the article to those who have researched the topic and don't just want to make vandalizing wholesale cosmetic changes to it? MookiesDad 19:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss link deletion, please

I won't be a jerk and just revert. Please tell me why the link to a new juvenile series discussion group--which so far consists almost entirely of Tom Swift threads--is irrelevant. -Scott Dickerson --67.101.86.72 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The board in question is not specifically a Tom Swift board and therefore is not relevant to this entry.

[edit] Explanation of edits

Most are just for better "flow". I delinked all years (except the first for each titles list), as they promise greater specific relevance than they actually provide. Still recommend changing first Tom Swift cover pic.-Scott Dickerson 67.101.86.72 17:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted this as there was no consensus reached (and I happen to think the year links are useful!) MookiesDad 20:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• All right. So let's discuss and reach a consensus. (1) I've stated my reasoning regarding the year links. What do you regard as their value? (2) Your reverting also swept away a lot of other things. Do you object to any/all of them? If so, why? (3) What's with calling my edits "vandalism"? So I'll understand where you're coming from.-Scott Dickerson 67.101.86.72 22:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The years links allow readers to put the stories in perspective with their historical milieu, and anyway, how are they hurting you? As far as I'm concerned, the sweeping deletions that you make to this page without any consensus ARE vandalism. This isn't your private site where you would be free to do as you please. As to anything that you posted that has gone missing (which you stated were "minor changes;years delinked;article link added-SD" - hardly "a lot" as you stated) since I reverted your vandalism, you can always add it again - but leave those years alone, dagnabbit! MookiesDad 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I won't touch the year links pending some further discussion. I'd like to point out that, whereas consensus is desirable, it's not something that Wiki requires. And in fact, I'm not sure what you mean by it in this sort of case. Whose "consensus"? How is it to be determined? I'm rather new to Wiki, but I know that the stated Wiki "philosophy" includes "BE BOLD"--basically, make the changes and let others respond if they feel so inclined or object. Do you disagree with that interpretation of how Wiki works? To call it "vandalism" imputes bad motives without justification. Chiding me to remember that this isn't my "private site" is also flamey. I'm participating in the Wiki process openly, using my real name. Join me, woncha? -Scott Dickerson 67.101.111.81 15:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Being "BOLD" doesn't mean making wholesale deletions of the work of others. If you have something new to contribute, please do so. On the other hand, if all you want to do is massage the article so that it looks the way YOU want it, please don't - that's what personal web pages are for. MookiesDad 22:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• I understand your words,MD, and now I'd like to understand your point of view. The arrangement and flow of an article are a part of its ability to communicate--wouldn't you agree? Someone set it up a certain way; now someone is advancing some changes. If that's not within the Wiki paradigm, please give me a cite. Please do clarify what you are referring to by "wholesale deletions" (the year-link matter is understood and not a current question). What's been deleted? All I've done is put the title lists under the sections that discuss the series they refer to. What content has been deleted? Maybe it's just what I'm reading into your choice of words, but you seem to be taking this rather personally. I don't even know who you are, remember, and I haven't researched any other contributions you might have made to Wiki. This business of "this isn't your private site to play with" isn't useful to our discussion--I know it, I contend I'm not doing it, and it has a chiding tone that over-personalizes things. Can we discuss the utility of these particular changes, not whether I have the "right" to make them (which is a question for Wiki admin to determine)? At any rate, I do appreciate and acknowledge your willingness to discuss your concerns. My participation here is out of enthusiasm for the subject; I don't mean to come across as disparaging your own contribution. -Scott Dickerson 67.101.111.81 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You keep going on about "flow", which I think is double-talk for "I want it to look my way and screw everyone else!". Why don't you try researching some new information instead of constantly cosmetically massaging the article? You have a "right" to make changes, I have the "right" to revert your vandalism and will do so every time you butcher up the article. MookiesDad 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • And for heaven's sake, stop presenting speculation and supposition as fact as in the "predecessors" section you keep trying to foist on the article! MookiesDad 19:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • And furthermore, if you want to be such a good Wikipedian, why don't you set up a Wiki account. Why are you afraid to have a discussion page under your name? Whether you know it or not, please be aware that you come across as extremely arrogant and condescending. You think you, and only you, know what's best. Get off your high horse! MookiesDad 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where it stands

Perhaps I was naive to take seriously the call for "consensus." I've offered to discuss specifics, but I gather you're more interested in peripheral things--like my personality--than in issues relative to page content, MD. I'll only take the time to respond to questions regarding various changes, or objections that are more than "shut up and get lost." I choose to take this seriously, not as some sort of competition. At any rate, I'm in touch with administrators on these matters. Meanwhile, I guess we're going to waste time going back and forth until the page is blocked for editing. But it seems that's the process. Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 01:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Are you going to tell your mommy too? What a petulant little whining crybaby you are! WHy is it that you think you're the only one whose opinion should matter? I'm really beginning to dislike you intensely! MookiesDad 21:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please point out where you were told to "shut up and get lost". I removed your vandalistic "predecessors" paragraph AGAIN because if is completely irrelevant. Your last post just proves my point on how arrogant and conceited you are. No wonder Ippolito threw you out of his group! MookiesDad 11:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop referring to that paragraph as "vandalism". Without making a judgment on whether it does or does not belong in this article, it is clearly an attempt to improve the article and it does not meet the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Doxmyth continues to insert a paragraph that is entirely speculative, without citations and, IMHO, is based entirely on personal opinion. He has also deleted titles from the Tom Sr. list. I do NOT believe these are good faith efforts. I DO believe this is a subtle form of vandalism. Doxmyth has no knowledge of the series and has contributed NOTHING other than to change the appearance of the article (not for the better IMHO) to his liking and insert personal opinion, speculation and supposition in place of fact. MookiesDad 12:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What you have just told me, MookiesDad, confirms that you are acting inappropriately. Even if you were entirely correct that the paragraph you keep deleting was "based entirely on personal opinion", that would make it original research and poor content, not vandalism. Do you understand that? You can not just hurl accusations of "vandalism" because you disagree whether something is good content -- if the edits "do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit", to quote Wikipedia:Vandalism, they are not vandalism. Your decision to treat Wikipedia:Assume good faith as if it were an optional policy does not change the situation; you cannot simply say "I do NOT believe these are good faith efforts" and thus make them vandalism. Your personal attacks on Doxmyth, judging that he "has no knowledge of the series", are also prohibited; see Wikipedia:no personal attacks.

MookiesDad, cool off the personal attacks and back away from your conviction that anything that comes from Doxmyth must be in bad faith and bad content. Doxmyth, the material you added might in fact be considered original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. I think it's obvious that there's a similarity between Frank Reade and Tom Swift -- both inventors who were heroes of children's literature -- and that's enough for me to put Frank Reade in the "See also" section of the article. If you have an acceptable source which draws a connection between Frank Reade and Tom Swift (by "acceptable", generally anything which is professionally published will do) then it's not original research, and can be added into the article with citations. The both of you, stop edit warring. I gather the two of you have some sort of history with each other outside Wikipedia. Guess what -- that's outside Wikipedia. The first one to bring the fight here loses. And so does the second. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "(by "acceptable", generally anything which is professionally published will do)". By that standard, "Mein Kampf" would be acceptable for inclusion as a history of Judaism. Merely because someone gets something published does not make it a fact or worthy of citation, as you undoubtedly know. MookiesDad 15:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did indeed write that statement. The fact that there are exceptions is why I put the qualifier "generally" in there. There are very few statements one can make which cannot be challenged with counter-examples. However, people who have a sense of proportion and are acting in good faith would rather see a basic idea communicated, with refinements coming later, rather than say "Oh, no -- I will accuse the person I have a grudge against of not having any idea what requirements he has to meet with his edits, but that doesn't mean I actually want him to get that idea. I will obstruct any attempt to communicate to him how he could make edits that are acceptable." MookiesDad, you have made no secret of your beliefs, in fact you've been very rude about those beliefs, that Doxmyth's edits are a problem. But there's an old saying: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Exactly how have you been part of the solution? Merely by being rude and insulting at every turn and finding fault wherever you can? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate which of my edits, available in History, deleted titles from the Tom Swift Sr. list. Thank you. -Scott Dickerson 67.101.111.81 15:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

01:30, 8 September 2006 Doxmyth (Talk | contribs) (Repair of unjustified deletions, unhelpful links-SD) was when you vandalized the list of TS Sr. books by deleting Tom Swift & His Motorcycle in your insane spree of self-righteousness. Just so you know, I consider your "Predecessors" paragraph to be entirely conjectural and therefore inappropriate for Wiki and will continue to remove it every time you try and put it back in. Plus I don't like you! MookiesDad 19:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Predecessors section

This [personal attack removed, please read as 'editor' instead] continues to insert his "predecessors" section despite the fact that there is a) no connection whatsoever to Tom Swift, b) is entirely made up of conjecture, supposition, surmise and opinion which is directly contraindicated by all Wiki guidelines and c) is irrelevant. Additionally, he continues to promote his Tom Swift fan fiction site in the External Links section despite the fact that the site contains absolutely NO information on any of the various series. Furthermore Mr. Dickerson refuses to log in under his purported user name (Doxmyth) so that his "edits" can be tracked. IMHO this bad faith editing is a subtle form of vandalism and I ask Mr. Dickerson to cease and desist. MookiesDad 00:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

MookiesDad, you used a first-level header for your newly created section. If I assume good faith, I assume you made a mistake. If I refuse to assume good faith, as you refuse to assume it of Doxmyth, I assume that you violated policy deliberately and with malign intent. Which do you think I should do, and if I grant you an assumption of good faith why should I deny it to Doxmyth? Once again, stop the personal attacks, and stop using phrases such as "a subtle form of vandalism" which have no meaning in the context. This is a content dispute, not vandalism on either side. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Doxmyth continually violates every Wiki guideline as to NPOV and presenting fact, not opinion. He continues to insert his irrelevant "predecessors" section despite all attempts to reason with him. He continually links to his site that has absolutely no information about Tom Swift. Furthermore a mistake in header levels can hardly be equated with Doxmyth's continual reversions and link spamming. MookiesDad 01:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

On headers - I quote from Wiki guidlines "Headings are hierarchical, so you should start with == Header == and follow it with === Subheader ===, ==== Subsubheader ====, and so forth. The 'second-level' == Header == is overly large in some browsers, but that can be fixed for individual viewers with a style sheet more easily than a nonhierarchical article structure can be fixed (see help:User style)." Please note the word "should" is used not "must". Frankly I think using bold headers under the fainter but larger top level header makes the article harder to read. If you have any evidence that the way I set up the headers is a violation of any Wiki rule instead of your personal opinion, I'd sure like to see it. MookiesDad 02:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See Also

Why was this section restored? It contains nothing but a dead link to a person not even remotely connected to the Tom Swift books. MookiesDad 02:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justification for Predecessors section, Links, etc.

The section on "predecessors" asserts three things: (1) That Jules Verne wrote popular invention fiction in the 19th Century; (2) That Luis Senarens wrote such fiction, in the form of popular boys' series, in America in the 19th Century; (3) That some titles of the Senarens books, and the continuation of his Frank Reade stories under the "Jr." rubric, foreshadowed the Tom Swift series. To substantiate #1, see the Wikipedia article on Jules Verne. For #'s 2 and 3, please refer to: "Explorers of The Infinite" by Sam Moskowitz (Meridian Books, 1963; LCCCN#63-8778), Chapter 7; see also "Tom Swift & Co." by John T. Dizer, Jr., Ph.D. (McFarland & Co., Inc., 1982; ISBN 0-89950-024-2), in toto but specifically Chapter 10, Stratemeyer and Science Fiction, which references Senarens and the Frank Reade stories (and similar boys' series of the era).

As to the question of relevance, this will always be somewhat subjective, of course. In my opinion as an editor, the Tom Swift books and character are significant in their keeping alive the tradition of "invention fiction" that originated in the 19th Century. As indicated by the references to Wozniak and the TASER, this is a phenomenon that gives the books a certain distinction, as compared to, say, The Rover Boys or Frank Merriwell (or Harry Potter). The facts may be more aptly expressed--which is what Wiki editing strives to do--but I would argue that the section is truthful, noncontroversial, informative, pertinent to the article--and brief.

I await the counterargument to these justifications.

Regarding the link to my fan fiction site (first placed in the article by someone else without my knowledge), I have added a brief sentence noting the existence of net groups and activity, including the existence of "some" fan fiction, to make clear that the link is tied-in to the general subject (which does include various mentions of the popularity of the books/character, further substantiated by the existence of such groups and sites). As we link to dedicated information sites and discussion groups, a link to the only Swift FanFic group of which I am aware seems not out of place, and is a convenience for the reader/inquirer. (The site does not give my name, does not sell anything, and does not track or "capture" visitors in any way.)

I apologize for the accidental deletion of the one title. Good it was caught.

I yield the floor to MookiesDad. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 02:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact: You have presented not one iota of evidence that Edward Stratemeyer, his Syndicate or any of the ghostwriters hired by the Syndicate to write Swift books were ever in any way influenced by the predecessors you cite. Therefore the section is immaterial to the article.

Furthermore Tom Swift fan fiction is non-canonical, usually bad, possibly illegal and, once again, immaterial to this article. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your non-informational web site, regardless of how good your intentions are. The body of the article exists to present the reader with fact, not opinion, conjecture, speculation or surmise (that oughta cover it) and your section is all that. Sure Stratemeyer may have been influenced by the people and things you mention but have you done any research into whether or not that actually is true? If so please list your citations. Quoting the venerable John Dizer's speculation does not a fact make. MookiesDad 02:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the "venerable" John Dizer's opinion is an opinion, not a fact. However, it is appears to be a published and thus verifiable opinion from John T. Dizer, Jr., Ph.D., published by McFarland & Co., which I would say makes it a reliable source -- and that verifiable opinion from a reliable source is better than MookiesDad's personal opinion that there is no connection and the section is "immaterial to the article". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have the book in question and nowhere does it say there is a direct link as Doxmyth seems to imply. Furthmore, as much as I respect John's work, it was done in an era when finding info on the Syndicate was neigh on impossible. Now researchers have access to the Stratemeyer archives in the NYPL 5th Ave branch, were I have spent many a pleasant day researching the Syndicate's boy stories like Rover Boys, Tom Swift and Hardy Boys. While I haven't searched every document of course, I have yet to see any proof that the Syndicate was influenced by either Verne or Reade. Anyhoooo, I feel very strongly about including the aforemention "predecessors" section until the writer can provide some modern citations of the veracity. MookiesDad 03:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how this works. If Dizer is a respected authority on the field, which it sounds like no one disputes, and his opinion is that there is a connection worthy of mention, it is not appropriate for you to surpress any mention of that until you receive "proof". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, scholars are reexamining Mr. Dizer's work in light of the torrent of new evidence which became available after he wrote his book and new facts have turned up to dispute some of his suppositions. If "rescpected authority" write "Black is white and white is red" that simply doesn't make it so. I have no desire to disparage Mr Dizer's wrok, which was fine for its time. But later scholars are far more cognizant of the workings of the Syndicate. And anyway, as I stated earlier - I have John's book and he makes no claim that Verne or Reade had a direct influence on Tom Swift. ANd that, after all, is the point. MookiesDad 03:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify the exact subject, the disputed paragraph nowhere claims "influence". The intent is to very briefly provide the setting in which the "invention story" developed, no particular theories being advanced. To note that something "foreshadows" is not to advance a causal hypothesis, but merely to point to a precedent similarity that may prove relevant. It's not clear to me how this section can be "read" as deprecating the work of more recent investigators. If you're contending that current scholarship renders even the modest assertions of the paragraph questionable, MookiesDad, here's your chance to present that data--as you urge, factual data, not opinion, with suitable citations from published works (as I understand that Wiki does not allow the use of unpublished materials).

A second question: to what degree, and in what way, are the "workings of the Syndicate" an important element to the improving of this article? Your take on this, MookiesDad.

My case for the relevance of fan fiction to this article was advanced in the couple sentences MookiesDad has removed from the overview section. The heading for the article is "TOM SWIFT", and I see no obvious restriction on the scope of content to the published books. There is also the character, and what the character (specifically) may represent in culture, society, and history. Is it not informative (rather than disinformative) to present and substantiate the idea that the Tom Swift character--older versions as well as the newest--does have a certain "fandom" in existence? The existence of informational sites, discussion groups, and fan fiction are evidence thereof: the last especially, I would argue. In an earlier edit I characterized the extent of TS fandom as "small," but that's only a widely-held impression, not something I can substantiate. I'm content to see that comment dropped.

This is separate from the question of whether there should be a link to my own fanfic website. As I'm obviously biased in its favor, and MookiesDad has expressed, above, strongly negative views on fan fiction in general, someone more neutral might like to weigh in.

I do think "promote" is a misleading way to describe the rather bland inclusion of a link.

I'll take a moment here to apologize to MookiesDad and others: my rapid-fire restorations added fuel to a developing edit war, contrary to Wiki guidelines. I misunderstood "revert" as referring to whole-article reverting. I'll make no further article edits until others have had a chance to discuss.

The year-links remain an unresolved subject for discussion.

A possible route to compromise, MookiesDad. What if we agree to include a "predecessors" section, but with you writing the content?

Overall, and despite my edits, this is a good and informative article. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 16:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

1) fan fiction - the text you mention that you added was entirely self-serving and a clear attempt to validate a link to your site. Fan fiction is non-canonical and irrelevant to this article. You should create a Wiki "fan fiction" page and link to your site from that, if you must promote your site.

2) The "years" links certainly aren't hurting anything and can be helpful, No reason at all to delete them

3) Predecessors - If you can find anything with a proven connection as an influence on Tom Swift otherwise the section is so pointless as to be completely useless. MookiesDad 01:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

With reference to MookiesDad's three points, above-- (1) The text removed from the Series Overview section, provided here for easier reference, was: "Continuing to present there have been several internet discussion group sites devoted to, or specifically including, the several Tom Swift series, and some Tom Swift fan fiction has appeared." I presume there is no question as to the factuality of this statement. The question appears to be its relevance. I have given my justification above. Disagreement has been presented, but no counter-argument to date. (2) Two arguments against the year-links have been made, by SlowMover on 1 June 06, and by me ("...they promise greater specific relevance than they actually provide..."). No counter-arguments have been offered to date. I'll now add a third consideration respecting the linking. Whereas I do think milieu and historical/social background is relevant in a general sense, the relevance of a specific year to the title next to which it appears seems questionable. The stories were not necessarily written during the year of publication, and some relevant "milieu" elements may stretch back several years. It follows that this sort of linkage may be more confusing than helpful. (3) Again, no theory of influence is asserted in the disputed "Predecessors" text. I have provided my reasoning, and two citations, above. There has been a reassertion of disagreement but no specific rejoinder to date. It is my defeasible claim that in Wiki articles Usefulness=Relevance: whatever is useful to the specific inquirer is therefore relevant, and whatever is relevant to the specific inquirer is therefore useful. In other words, I'm suggesting that MookiesDad's definition of subject-relevance is too narrowly drawn and constrictive. You've made clear that you find it to be of no use to you individually. Please clarify why you judge it to be of no use at all to the likely typical inquirer--someone who has run across references to Tom Swift and wants to know more. Thank you for continuing to participate in the discussion. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's pointless to try to reason with you, every time I do, you dismiss it as argument. You have provided no reason for the "years" links to be removed; no justification for link-spamming the site with a link to your site (and the self-serving commentary that brings the subject up) and reject my point of view that any "predecessor" must have some relevance to TS. You seem hell bent on changing the article to your liking regardless of anyone else's opinion, your specious reasoning notwithstanding.MookiesDad 20:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other articles with Doxmyth edits

A question was raised above about where else I have edited. I have participated in not only this article, but also the following: Tom Swift, Jr., Rick Brant, Time Dilation, and Frank Reade. I don't recall whether I made any edits to the TSIII or TSIV articles; but if I did, I think they were minor. Most of this was prior to my registering with Wiki, though I did state my name, Scott Dickerson (SD). I don't necessarily endorse my earliest edits made as a newbie, and assume some have been subsequently reworked. Doxmyth 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for further comment and input

Before I engage in further editing of this article, I'd like to solicit input from any others who may be interested in the various unresolved issues: (1) utility and appropriateness of the links to individual years; (2) utility and appropriateness of the "Predecessors" section (text available in History page for this article); (3) utility and appropriateness of the sentence removed the from "Series Overview" concerning Tom Swift fandom, as quoted above; (4) utility and appropriateness of a link to the "Tom Swift Lives!" fan fiction site. It would be particularly useful if persons wishing to add comment would look over the discussion page above, as various relevant points have been presented. Thanks all. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

a) Why are you so adamant about removing the "year" links? They certainly aren't hurting anything and can be helpful. You've given no reason for their removal other than you don't like the way they look. b) If you MUST link to your fanfic site, the link more properly belongs on the fan fiction page. c) Predecessors should be those that have a direct influence on Tom Swift. WIKI is not a place for speculation. MookiesDad 12:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: the question of influence

My proposed and disputed Predecessors paragraph merely offers a few factual statements and does not touch upon any theory of "influence". However--and relevant to the discussion of having a link in this article to Frank Reade--I did run across the opinion of a noted private Tom Swift researcher, Thomas R. Ippolito, which he published in a small booklet call Blueprint (June, 2002--Issue Number 5). In an article entitled A Blueprint for Tom Swift, he states: "...several of Stratemeyer's most popular series are strikingly reminiscent of ones that appeared before the turn of the century. Tom Swift is no exception. Stratemeyer was not the first to introduce, or even popularize, the 'boy inventor' theme. In fact, by the time his first science and invention story...was published, the series that undoubtedly served as the inspiration for Tom Swift, Frank Reade Jr. had been in print for nine years." As this constitutes original research, it cannot be used as formal substantiation for a discussion of influences in the article, should anyone care to insert one. But Mr. Ippolito is well-known for his studies of the Stratemeyer Syndicate, and I thought his comment interesting enough to quote here in the article talk page. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence of a connection between Frank Reade and the Tom Swift series, let alone anything that would support this claim! You may find Ippolito's opinion "interesting", but that's all it is –- OPINION. Pak434 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of further edit work by Scott Dickerson

As the solicitation of outside input and comment (at Wiki Request for Comment as well as here) has produced no result to date, I have resumed editing this article. In deference to objections and concerns, I have modified my edits to clarify their purpose, and to make certain that no claim of influence is suggested. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 18:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You continue to add self-promoting text in an attempt to justify adding a link to your TS site. I suggest this is so biased as to be in total violation of every WIKI rule. WIKI is about facts, not fiction. Your site adds absolutely nothing to increase knowledge about Tom Swift. It is a vanity site and your continued attempts to promote it on WIKI despite numerous attempts to reason with you is extremely puzzling. - 71.125.234.14 22:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. The text Doxmyth inserts into the article is a patently obvious blind used to justify linking to his fan fiction site. Why he insists on doing this after being reverted by numerous editors indicates that, while he like to quote Wiki rules, he doesn't like to play by them. I'm not going to pass judgement on the merits (or lack thereof) of his fan fiction but I will say that the link doesn't belong here. SuperDuperMan 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As the recent reverter, Noumenes, has not provided here his reasons, I have restored the deleted material, my own reasons being amply covered above. To address the last two comments preceding this one: (a) I have no issue with removing the fan fiction link, but need more of a sense of the views of the Wiki community before I acquiesce, as I think it useful to those who seek out this page for a comprehensive view of what is available in the contemporary Tom Swift "world"; (b) referring now not to the link, but just to the language in the text that mentions sites and fan fiction, you have discussed your opinions of my presumed motives, but not whether the text itself is useful, accurate, and relevant; (c) such phrasing as "attempt to justify," "total violation," "vanity site," "doesn't like to play by them," "merits (or lack thereof)" are uncivil, personally abusive, and fall short of Wiki's asume good faith policy. I do not regard "reverted by numerous editors" to be an accurate characterization. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 18:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This text has been inserted numerous times over the objection of other editors. Stubbornly reinserting it again and again invites edit warring and flies in the face of an emerging consensus that none of it belongs in this article. The mention of discussion groups and the text dealing with the so-called invention-story milieu is redundant. Links exist to a fan forum, Edisonades and Frank Reade at the end of the article. Mention of fan fiction is more appropriate for the Wiki fan fiction article. I agree with the other editors that it appears to be an excuse to promote your fan fiction web site. This is why Wiki rules indicate that links to a website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines imply they can be linked to, should be avoided. Pak434 19:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Doxmyth - Numerous attempts have been made to reason with you in the past. Your basic reaction is that you deem any comment about you and your edits to be uncivil, personally abusive. Wiki's "good faith" policy most assuredly does NOT extend to your repeated attempts to promote your off-topic fan fiction site. Even if a link to your site was helpful (which I think it is NOT, since your site contains no factual information), it STILL wouldn't belong here since it about Tom Swift Jr, a subject which has its own page on Wiki. The consensus here is that your repeated attempts are inappropriate and self-promoting. Add me to the list of editors who will revert your attempts to force your version upon the Wiki community. SuperDuperMan 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Scott Dickerson (aka Doxmyth) continues to indulge in shameless self-promotion of his fan fiction site despite numerous reversions by multiple editors, myself included. Additionaly he makes anononymous edits further promoting his site and POV about Tom Swift. He rejects any opinion against his edits as personal abuse, going so far as to harass users on the Wiki "pain" page, rather than to accept the valid criticism that his edits engender. He seems to feel he is the only one to be allowed to follow the Wiki mandate of "be bold". I suggest that he cease and desist from his non-neutral promotion of his site, or at least promote it in the proper forum (e.g. the Wiki fan fiction page). SuperDuperMan 02:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You wrote you have discussed your opinions of my presumed motives, but not whether the text itself is useful, accurate, and relevant. Leaving the issue of whether it is self-promotional on a back burner for the moment, I'd say the information isn't useful; since it expresses opinion, it is inapropriate, and is irrelevant in the context in which you place it. Readers of this page can very easily see the external links in the article without an introductory paragraph from you. SuperDuperMan 02:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Doxmyth appears to be incorrigible. He views any comments about his edits as personal attacks rather than accepting them as constructive criticism. IMHO the text he inserts about fan fiction is a transparent blind to justify his adding a link to his fan-fic site. Count me among the editors who will keep a close eye on Mr. Dickerson's self-promoting edits. FWDixon 12:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A consensus has been reached that Doxmyth's repeated attempts to add a link to his web site and the lead-in text about fandom and fan fiction to the Tom Swift and Tom Swift Jr. articles should stop. However one editor appears to be using a number of sock puppets in an attempt to make this consensus seem even broader. The following Wiki user IDs all appear to be the same person: 71.125.234.14, SuperDuperMan, MookiesDad, FWDixon This should stop too.

Pak434 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I can only say I am me, not anyone else. How do we know you're not Doxmyth? SuperDuperMan 17:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I did make the comment listed as "71.125.234.14" by neglecting to log in. Speculation to the contrary notwithstanding, I edit only under my FWDixon name, and then very rarely anymore. The antics that go on here make it likely that it will be a long time before I edit again too! FWDixon 21:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You also neglected to log in on 02:02, 19 October 2006 (→Discussion of further edit work by Scott Dickerson) when you added to previous comments made by MookiesDad on 01:52, 18 October 2006 (→Further edit work by Scott Dickerson). You changed the signature to SuperDuperMan. Pak434 04:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also on 6 October 2006 as MookiesDad you removed text from a number of individual Hardy Boys pages that you claimed was copied from “your” (FWDixon’s) web site. In summary, Colonel Muster called and told me to tell you to get a Clue. The jig is up. Pak434 11:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume Good Faith

Doxmyth continues to complain that other editors should "assume good faith" about his repeated insertion of this link and the lead-in text in the body of the article. To quote from a Wiki essay on this topic, "the more a given user invokes assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user is acting in good faith." Assuming good faith does not mean that edits cannot be criticized. Doxmyth's complaints about incivility are not credible. Other editors are not required to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary, such as someone insisting on inserting a link to a web site that he owns and maintains, which is discouraged by Wiki. Pak434 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"...a link to a web site that he owns and maintains, which is discouraged by Wiki." So who owns and maintains the several informational sites and discussion-group sites linked at the bottom of the page? Not me. Shall we accede to Wiki discouragements and remove them? I don't care to. But be bold, Pak434. You brought it up. Doxmyth 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Boohoohoo, nobody thinks my link is valid. I'll show 'em - I'll remove ALL the links! I'm doing this in good faith! I'm being bold! I'm a good Wikipedian! - There you have Doxmyth in a nutshell. SuperDuperMan 02:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a very persuasive argument. There has been no objection to the other external links from this article and no indication that they were added by the owners of those web sites. I understand your difficulty in holding a neutral point of view on whether your website should be linked from the article. This is exactly why Wiki rules discourage editors from adding a link to a website that you own or maintain. Again, please refrain from stubbornly reinserting it, and the text dealing with the so-called invention-story milieu, as you are instigating an edit war by doing so. A consensus has been reached that none of it belongs in the article. Pak434 01:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconvenient facts

As the newly converted are often more eloquent than anyone else, I'd like to urge those with concerns about the appearance of a link to the Tom Swift Lives! site to have a discussion with MookiesDad, previously a staunch opponent of the link to have a discussion with MookiesDad, previously a staunch opponent of the link. Now you can see, at The Hardy Boys, the following text: The stories have inspired some authors to create their own Hardy Boys fan fiction. This, a near quote of my own attempted edit, was inserted by-- MookiesDad. On 23 September 2006. In other words (if the point is obscure), he's doing on one page the exact same thing he's decrying here, in terms of (irrelevant? self-serving?) references to fan fiction. (Also note that he has tolerated the link to Hardy Detective Agency Fanfiction for quite some time, despite his not infrequent visits to the page for editing.) And as we're told above, with authority, that all these consensus-agglomerating editors are in fact the same person (that equals 1, if you're counting), a person who now endorses and promotes fan fiction on boys book series pages, it seems the opposition has dissolved.

Which leaves the Wiki-issue raised above by "Pak434". Namely the use of sockpuppets to attempt to subvert the Wiki process. As so abundantly demonstrated herein. Doxmyth 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself" US poet (1819 - 1892) SuperDuperMan 02:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that sockpuppetry has been used to make the consensus seem broader does not mean there one doesn't exist. I have objected to the repeated insertion of the "invention-story milieu" text, the text about fandom and fan fiction in the body of the article that you are using to justify the link to your website, and the link itself. The editor using sock puppets has objected to the same things, as has Noumenes. This is three editors opposed vs. one editor in favor. Your argument about similar external links or text that has been "tolerated" on other articles does not "dissolve" the consensus reached here. Pak434 01:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Doxmyth writes "And as we're told above, with authority, that all these consensus-agglomerating editors are in fact the same person ". What authority? One person makes a suggestion and it becomes fact? Is it so incomprehensible to you that your repeated edits are self-serving? SuperDuperMan 02:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Another otherwise uninvolved editor (me) who came on this page by semi-accident (and read lots of Tom Swift as a kid) says: leave out the fan fiction. Not relevant. jesup 03:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

You've now provided the detailed information I need. - Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 17:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a site with some "detailed information" you really need: www.nmha.org SuperDuperMan 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is some detailed information that you really need, Super Duper Man:

• WP:CIVIL
• WP:NPA

-- Antaeus Feldspar 00:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You should follow your own advice Feldspar. You violate Wiki rules constantly. Like Doxmyth, you like to quote Wiki rules but not follow them. SuperDuperMan 00:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you under the false impression that, even if your allegation were true, it would somehow make the personal attacks you committed here acceptable? It does not; a tu quoque argument rarely works. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You have repeatedly left insulting and untrue comments when making your edits - a violation of Wiki rules, Furthermore you repeatedly insert the "See Also" section without justification. You refuse to discuss the issue, merely wishing to engage in an edit war - again violating the Wiki rules you claim to hold sacrosanct. Let me make myself clear - as long as I live I will remove the "See Also" section that points to Edisonade or Frank Reade - neither topic having the slightest connection to Tom Swift except, of course, in your imagination. SuperDuperMan 00:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edisonade

According to Wiki's own article on the subject, Edisonade is a product of the Victorian and Edwardian eras. King Edward died in the spring of 1910, before or at the very beginning of the relase of the original TS series. Few writers on the subject would claim Tom Swift as being a science-fiction series (unlike the Stratemeyer Syndicate's "Great Marvel" series which has definite elements of sci-fi). It is primarily an adventure series, with the adventure invariably tied in to Tom's latest invention. By all the criteria specified in the Wiki Edisonade article, Tom Swift does NOT qualify as Edisonade, therefore including that in a "See Also" section is not credible. SuperDuperMan 01:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, Tom Swift is referenced in numerous places as either Edisonade or closely descended from it so far as I can tell. See [1] and [2]:

Ah, the edisonade, that most basic and American sub-genre, in which a (usually) young, (always) American inventor uses his (never her) ingenuity to save his country, and the world if necessary, from alien invaders, evil superscientists, Chinese dacoits, women of loose morals, and anything else the author can think of to throw at him. The Skylark books by Doc Smith are edisonades, as are, of course, the Tom Swift books.

See also [3], including comments on racism in Edisonade. jesup 15:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "Edisonade" is normally applied to stories in the "young inventor" genre that were written during the era of penny dreadfuls and dime novels, which is probably why one Wiki editor referred to it as an "archaic" term even though it wasn’t coined until 1993. More generally, though, the term refers to any story featuring a brilliant young inventor, modeled after Thomas Alva Edison, who conquers new frontiers and overcomes perils through invention and engineering. The first Tom Swift series fits this general description, even though it came after the heyday of the dime novel, so I agree that Edisonade is not totally out of place in the See Also section of this article. Including Frank Reade in the See Also section seems redundant because the Frank Reade and Frank Reade Jr. stories were Edisonades. Pak434 15:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Man, it is such a relief to finally have some non-crazy discussion going. Anyways -- I think that in order to be listed in a "See also" section, a link should generally meet the following criteria:

1. It should bear a simple, "one-step" relationship with the subject of the article;
2. That relationship should be one that is shared by few enough other articles that it would be theoretically feasible to include them all in a "See also" section (if this is not the case, then a "List of" article compiling subjects sharing that relationship may be a good idea and such a list may then of course be linked from the "See also" section.)

Obviously, "Edisonade" meets both criteria: The Tom Swift books are Edisonades, so it's hard to imagine a more direct relationship. That leaves the questions of a) why "Frank Reade"? and b) if "Frank Reade", why not all Edisonades? Let me go to the second question first: unless my knowledge of the field is truly lacking, there really aren't that many Edisonades -- Edisonade itself only lists seven books or series -- so we could, in fact, include all those Edisonades in the 'See also' section. (Of course, I'd never heard of Smith's Skylark books in connection with Edisonades before, so it may indeed be my knowledge that is lacking.) But let me return to the first question: what is the relationship between the Tom Swift books and the Frank Reade books? To my knowledge, they actually share a relationship unique even among Edisonades: They are not merely series of Edisonades, they are series of series of Edisonades (Frank Reade, Frank Reade Jr., Frank Reade III; Tom Swift, Tom Swift Jr., etc.) To my mind, that similarity suggests that if someone is coming to Tom Swift because they find something to be of interest regarding Tom Swift, they should be made aware of Frank Reade as well because there's a strong possibility that Frank Reade will be interesting for the same reasons. That is, after all, the very reason we have "See also" sections. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to break the edit war here by removing See Also, and working the linkage into the intro paragraph. That's better Wiki/Encyclopedia style anyways. I don't see a need to link directly to Frank Reade, since it's linked from Edisonade, and there isn't that close a linkage outside of that. The "series of series" bit should be noted there. jesup 02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC

I agree with the criteria that Antaeus Feldspar has provided for the applicability of subjects in the See Also section. Antaeus Feldspar also makes a good point that anyone interested in Tom Swift would probably also be interested in stories in the Edisonade genre in general. I recommended against including Frank Reade along with Edisonade on the basis that it is redundant; the Frank Reade and Frank Reade Jr. stories are Edisonades and examples can be found in that article. I do agree, though, that the Frank Reade and Frank Reade Jr. series bear a unique similarity to Tom Swift and might merit special inclusion in the See Also section on that basis. For other examples, the reader should refer to the Edisonade article, as jesup has suggested.

The hero in the "Skylark" series was a genius inventor and scientist. That is probably why it is mentioned in the Edisonade article, even though it gets away from the "modeled after Thomas A. Edison" criteria that is the very basis for the term "Edisonade".

I feel strongly that the body of the Tom Swift article should be limited to information on the various Tom Swift series and not include text on the so-called "invention-story milieu" text that Doxmyth has doggedly tried to insert in the body of the article over the objection of other editors, including myself. That text is more applicable to an article on Luis Senarens or the Edisonade article itself. Pak434 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after getting interested in this, I spent a while working on the Edisonade article. The original assertion in that article and repeated here, that it's limited to victorian and edwardian times, is not supported by primary or reliable sources, including several direct definitions from the person who invented the term. The Edisonade article is now much better and properly &ltref>ed. By the definition of the term, as given both by the terms inventor and numerous other references, Edisonade applies well past Edwardian times, and Tom Swift certainly falls into that category. SuperDuperMan - while Antaeus was wrong to keep trying to force it in with edit-wars; you're now equally to blame for doing the same thing to keep it out and making threats that you "will not allow" it to be added. I say: put it back, in the text (as I did it last), no See Also, no Frank Reade. IMHO. jesup 17:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Edisonade article is greatly improved. Good job jesup. I disagree though that information on Edisonades, the history of this genre, predecessors, etc should be included in the body of the article. This is superfluous and less than encyclopedic. "See Also" sections exist for this purpose. Pak434 18:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The only thing I think should be here (Tom Swift) is simply this ", of a genre recently termed Edisonade," in the intro paragraph. I think that reads better, provides some useful background, and does so in a way more in keeping with WP style (lists discouraged when prose can be written to provide the information). However, I'd be ok with it as See Also, I just think it's better in the text, and also provides more infomation there (i.e that this matches that definition, and that it's a recent definition, as opposed to an unexplained See Also). See diffs of my change. jesup 18:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

While the original Swift series may be a lineal descendent of the Edisonade genre while not actually being Edisonade in itself, there's no conceivable way the later series are even remotely connected to Edisonade other than sharing the Tom Swift name. Any remark mentioning Edisonade as relating to the entire series would be, at best, misleading. SuperDuperMan 20:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I hear your concerns, SuperDuperMan, and I'm appreciative of us starting to talk it out here. But your concerns seem to be partly based on your reading of Edisonade as being limited to an earlier era, which (as the updated Edisonade page shows and documents pretty well) is not the case. The creator of the term explicitly includes stories up through at least the mid-1930's in the genre; the term is not as limited in meaning as the earlier Wikipedia page implied. There are multiple sources (not just here) that all group Tom Swift in Edisonade, and others who include stories that have the same general subject up to the current time as being in the genre, just as you can have Robinsonade stories written today (i.e. Castaway-makes-good stories - the most recent Robinsonade listed on that page is 1994 by Umberto Eco). In general, literary genres aren't time-limited, they're based on content and plot. See also Science fiction genres and related topics jesup 21:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if one were to extend the limits of Edisonade to the 1930s (which I do not acknowledge or accept), the later Swift series (Jr./II/IV/V) STILL would not qualify as being of that genre. Lumping all the series (and IMHO any of the series) as Edisonade would be grossly misleading. SuperDuperMan 22:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the inventor of the term included that era (as is documented and cited) as do other cited users of that term, so your personal agreement is somewhat moot. And genres and sub-genre's in general do not have time limits on them per se, though they may stop being written. We call Jules Verne science fiction even though the term didn't exist then. And Robinsonade (first written in 1719, and coined as a term in the last 1700's) is used to refer to thoroughly modern books (1994). So, since the creator of the term didn't limit it, and equivalent terms that it's an obvious derivative of didn't limit it, why do you believe Edisonade must be limited?

Personally, reading the description by Clute of Edisonade and the other people who've used it since, and having read many Tom Swift Jr books (and recently given the one Tom Swift Jr I still had and the Tom Swift Motor Cycle book to my niece), I'd classify them as matching the term to a T. Not even a maybe.

When I first started looking, I was all ready to agree with you because Anateus (sp) was being a jerk and edit-warring with you, and I took your description (victorian and edwardian) as being correct. Then I looked at the Edisonade page, and then I went looking for references to back up my claim you were right - and I found references that say you're wrong in this case. You can say you think it's a bad term, or that you think that Clute is a moron for defining it that way, or that it should be restricted - but that's not an argument for Wikipedia, we're documenting things, not arguing for people to change the usage or definition of terms. And so I rewrote my comment before I posted it here. jesup 23:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you've reverted it once more with a comment about the term "not being used in the Tom Swift collecting community". Ok, the "community" doesn't use that name, but obviously others do use it for Tom Swift, in particular the Science Fiction community, which is where the term comes from originally. The people using the term have applied it to Tom Swift. It is certainly possible that other people for some reason don't like the term being applied or don't like the term in general, but it doesn't change the fact (per the refs cited here and in Edisonade) that the term is applied to Tom Swift by a consequential community. Let me suggest a compromise in order to avoid mediation: perhaps we could put something like this in: A recently created term for this style of invention fiction is Edisonade; its application to the Tom Swift series is disputed.(and give a reference to an RS showing the dispute - are there any?) Other people: would that comply with Wikipedia style in cases of disputes? jesup 13:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Any reference, no matter how oblique, that would indicate the term applies to the later series would be misleading. I dispute the use of the term at all, it's a made-up word by an obscure author in an equally obscure book. Merely because it exists is not a validation of it's common usage. Why there is such an insistance on using this obscure term puzzles me, especially when it has never been used by the Tom Swift collecting community. SuperDuperMan 14:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We have WP:RS as mentioned here and in Edisonade. Please provide WP:RS that disagree explicitly with the classification; your opinion that it's not Edisonade is not sufficient - see WP:NOR. For that matter, my opinion that it is Edisonade is equally irrelevant; what is relevant is whether reliable sources classify it as so, and if so, how to reflect that here. I offered a compromise that helps by indicating that it's a new term. We could add a "used in the science fiction community", though I suspect that's overly-restrictive. We could also go back and demote the reference to See Also, though I think that's a bit of a cop-out and understates the connection. If you have RS that back up your position, we can then work with them and figure out what makes the most sense. Right now, I don't see any sources other than you saying "it's not" and "Swift collectors don't use the term". jesup 16:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be understood that no single editor can impose a parochial view on an article, whether it be you, Doxmyth, or anyone else. A consensus has been reached that the Tom Swift adventures meet the general definition of the term "Edisonade" and enough evidence has been provided to support that view. I agree that the term is normally only applied to the original Tom Swift series, a genius young inventor "modeled after Thomas A. Edison", as the term was meant to imply, and not the later ones. If placing the reference in the See Also section, as initially suggested, will resolve the dispute, that is fine with me. If placing the reference in the section of the article dealing specifically with the original Tom Swift series will resolve the dispute, that is fine with me too. Either way lets end the dispute and edit-warring. No valid rationale for disputing the use of the term at all has been provided. Your most recent argument, that it is a made-up word by an obscure author in an equally obscure book, is both untrue and uninformed. This so-called "obscure" book, "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction" won a Hugo Award (aka Science Fiction Achievement Award) in 1994. Along with Peter Nicholls, Clute authored this book. Clute, who you have referred to as an "obscure" author, also co-authored "Science Fiction: The Illustrated Encyclopedia", which also won a Hugo Award. Pak434 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, let's all just make up words, put them in a Wiki entry and pretend they are real. Edisonade is a made-up term, never used by Swift fans and its inclusion here is absurd. I don't care if that fellow Clute wrote the Bible, it still does NOT give him the right to coin words and, based on that, for them to be used here. All references to Edisonade all point back to Clute, so there is NOT widespread agreement on the use of the term. SuperDuperMan 18:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(Sheesh, so many indents). He coined the term, and others have taken it up, especially in the science fiction community, as witnessed by he various references given. It's not an issue of "rights", and it's also not an issue of whether Tom Swift fans use the term. The term is in use, and as defined the term includes Tom Swift just as the term "fiction" includes it, and just as the term "science fiction" would include the Tom Swift books, even though the earlier ones predate the coining of the term. I don't understand the vehemence of your response on this issue. Is it that the term is an outgrowth of the science fiction community? And if you want to argue over the term, find some RS that say something significantly different about the meaning and use of the word. jesup 21:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO based on the definition given for Edisonade, the original Tom Swift books could, I stress could, possibly be put into that genre but the later series (Junior and up) do not meet the qualification for that genre. I freely admit that I have never heard of that term being used before, despite having been reading, researching and collecting the Swift books for almost 50 years. FWDixon 21:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not surprising you haven't heard it, since the term is relatively new (coined in 1993 - see the updated page). Read the two quotes from the person who coined it, and follow a couple of the reference links. He obviously didn't consider this time-restricted; the definition has to do with the overall type of plot and characters. People (see the refs) include things like Skylark of Space in it, Plutonian Terror, etc. What would you list as reasons the Tom Swift Jr series (which is the one I'm most experienced with anyways) doesn't match the genre? I'm interested to know. (now that I'm no longer being accused of being your sockpuppet... :-) jesup 21:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that all web references to Edisonade can be traced directly back to the Wiki article on same. This is mere bootstrapping of the first water. The term does not enjoy popular usage. In fact, outside of Wiki and articles based on Wiki, it enjoys NO usage. Why are you so adament about including it? I feel it use in the article misleads readers. SuperDuperMan 23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many references in google that are copies of Wikipedia; that's not a surprise. Not all references can be traced back to wikipedia; see the references in Edisonade. The term seems to capture a useful classification of literature; whether you apply that term to it (or invention fiction or something else), the theme is a frequently recurring one in American literature (and related to things like Johnny Quest). As I said, I was all ready to agree with you until I started looking into the issue. What I saw was that the term applies; Tom Swift fits with the sub-genre as defined. You can make an argument that it's not notable enough for inclusion here, but that hasn't (until recently) been your argument; you've been arguing that it doesn't apply, and honestly I don't agree, and the sources don't agree. jesup 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Then let me sum up my objections - a) the term Edisonade is an obscure one, not in common usage, placing it in the article is an attempt to foist it off on the reader as an accepted term. b) even if the term could be attributed to the original series (which I do not accept), it would definitely NOT apply to the subsequent series. c) virtually every online reference to Edisonade can be attributed to the Wiki article on same, thereby attempting to justify the use of the term in the Swift article is merely bootstrapping and disingenuous. SuperDuperMan 00:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

a) "Edisonade" is an accepted term in general literary discourse. You have mentioned before that you don't think it is a term used by the "Tom Swift collecting community". That is an objection which would have meaning if this was an article written solely for the Tom Swift collecting community", but it is not. b) Whether you accept the applicability of the term to the original series is not of great interest to Wikipedia, since you are not a reliable source, and your claim that the term "would definitely NOT apply to the subsequent series" seems to be founded on the inaccurate notion that the definition of Edisonade includes a requirement on the time period in which the work was produced. c) The term was in existence and in usage long before Wikipedia and in fact long before wikis, thus making any claims that using this already-existing term in Wikipedia is an attempt at "bootstrapping" unfounded and rather silly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antaeus Feldspar

This editor repeatedly inserts links in the "See Also" section that have absolutely no connection to Tom Swift. He refuses to discuss his reasons for doing so. It's clear Feldspar has never read a Tom Swift book otherwise he would not be insisting on his off-topic links. SuperDuperMan 00:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar has tried to remove this section claiming falsely that it is an attack upon him, rather than his edits. In doing so he has directly contradicted numerous chastisements he has issued to other editors regarding their editing the comments of other editors. SuperDuperMan 18:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is hair splitting. The assertion that Antaeus Feldspar has never read a Tom Swift book because he disagrees with your position is a gratuitous, unsubstantiated comment that is meant to discredit him. Pak434 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine then let him debate that point, not delete an entire section. It's my opinion that he hasn't read the Swift Sr. series otherwise he wouldn't be making the edits he does. SuperDuperMan 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the entirety of the section because the entirety of the section is a personal attack focused on the contributor and not the contributions, making it absolutely irrelevant. The only fragment of commentary that even approaches discussion of the article, which is what article talk pages are for, is your claim that the links in question "have absolutely no connection to Tom Swift", and since you have already shared that that is your opinion in other sections of the page, this section contains nothing of value. Of course, as indicated in my edit summary, if despite being informed of the existence of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL you think it is acceptable behavior to create an entire section on an article talk page for the sole purpose of making unsubstantiated accusations against other editors, I'll be quite happy to alert administrators that you take that position, and let them inform you of their position on that matter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, for the record, you make this claim: "In [removing a section irrelevant to improving the article] he has directly contradicted numerous chastisements he has issued to other editors regarding their editing the comments of other editors." No, there is no contradiction. There is a great deal of difference between removing a personal attack or removing a comment counter-productive to discussion on how to improve the article, and what Noumenes (talk • contribs) did (here, here, and here), leaving the comment in place but altering the wording so that it attributed to that person things that they had not in fact said. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is completely self-serving. You have, in fact, done the same thing which you accuse Noumenes of doing on this very page in the past: [4] -[5]. Making empty threats about "reporting" me doesn't alter any of the facts and is no doubt in violation of one of the seemingly endless rules of Wiki! SuperDuperMan 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the "seemingly endless rules of Wiki[pedia]" are really just common-sense extensions of basic policies like WP:CIVIL. As for the edit you pointed out, yes, I did indeed remove two personal attacks in the edit you mention, one from the section header and one from an editor's post. As I have previously explained, there is a difference between changing another editor's wording to make it look like they said things that they did not say, and removing personal attacks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another self-serving response. It's not for you to decide what is a personal attack and what is not. As much as you long to be one, you aren't an admin and probably never will be. I'm done with you Feldspar, you are a shameless hypocrite, a blowhard and an insufferable know-it-all. SuperDuperMan 00:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You?

On 19 October 2006 I called attention to the fact that user IDs 71.125.234.14, SuperDuperMan, MookiesDad, and Fwdixon all appeared to be the same person and that this person appeared to be using sockpuppets to broaden a legitimate concensus that had emerged against the insertion of a link and text that Doxmyth has wanted to place in the Tom Swift and Tom Swift Jr. articles. See 16:37, 19 October 2006 Pak434 (Talk | contribs) (→Discussion of further edit work by Scott Dickerson) . Instead of Doxmyth applauding the fact that I pointed this out in the spirit of fair play, even though I strongly oppose his repeated insertion of the disputed link and text in these articles, he has since actually placed a Socksuspect on my user page claiming that I am a sock puppet of Fwdixon et al. This defies reason. In fact, he has indiscriminately done this on the user page of everyone who has opposed his desire to link his fan fiction web site from these articles. This can only be viewed as a form of hysteria arising from the fact that a consensus has formed that he should not be permitted to use these articles to promote his web site. Pak434 18:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Doxmyth decided to report everyone who disagrees with him as Sockpuppets. This is an abuse of the whole process of Wikipedia. jesup 19:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that the good-faith interpretation is that Doxmyth suspected that some of the editors who were vehemently opposing him were sockpuppets (a suspicion in which we now know he was correct, of course) and merely guessed incorrectly as to which editors they were. I'd remind everyone that Doxmyth has been subjected to some pretty vicious personal attacks and when you're under such an assault, it can be hard to distinguish the person who's harshly criticizing your edits, but only your edits, from the person who's harshly criticizing your edits, your sanity, your integrity, etc. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Playing devil’s advocate, seeing I was among those swept up in Doxmyth’s indiscriminate allegations of sockpuppetry, it is a violation of the good-faith principle to assume that everyone who opposes your position must be a sock/meat puppet of your tormentor. This was really annoying to me seeing I was the one who brought Fwdixon’s sockpuppetry to light. The convoluted logic that Doxmyth used to explain this was: A recent (and undiscussed) revert war ostensibly between MookiesDad and Pak434 appears designed to give evidence that they are separate identities; in this spirit, "Pak434" has himself stated in Talk:Tom Swift that "MookiesDad" and several of the others appear to be sockpuppets. Both of these allegations, the one about being a sockpuppet and the one about the so-called "revert war", were completely untrue the same way as SuperDuperman’s recent allegation that I have consistently violated 3RR and am a sockpuppet of you is completely untrue. As far as I can see, if you disagree with either one of these guys you end up becoming the target of some pretty outlandish and completely unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. I see your point though and agree that the withering personal attacks and brinksmanship that has gone on here is reprehensible. Pak434 16:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fwdixon/MookiesDad/SuperDuperMan/71.125.234.14

My apology to other good faith editors for requesting admin intervention on this article but this user has been engaging in edit warring, flagrant sockpuppetry, repeated personal attacks, removal of legitimate warning messages from his various user talk pages, prank retalitory warnings on other people’s user page, and at least one 3RR violation over the past month. This demonstrated a brazen disregard for the rules of conduct governing Wikipedia and it was apparent that his disruptive behavior was not going to stop. So the edit war is over for the time being but the issue of this user’s conduct still has to be addressed. Pak434 16:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Pak434 has consistently violated the 3RR rule among other rules, also edits under the sockpuppet User:Noumenes, he has insisted on posting supposition as fact on the Tom Swift page. I suspect both edit names are sock/meat puppets of User:Antaeus_Feldspar - SuperDuperMan 19:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] While the page is protected

In my experience, some of the most productive discussion goes on when a page has been protected, so I'm not too disheartened by the current protection. Let's take this opportunity to discuss changes that we think should be made, and see if we can get consensus for some of them by the time the protection is lifted.

One that I'd like to propose to start with is removing the Moonlighting reference from the "Modern influence and references" section. Considering how many shows on TV have made "pop culture references" their main raison d'etre I really don't think the fact that Tom Swift was once referenced by one such show really measures up to having an asteroid named after you or being named as an inspiration by a computer pioneer. Especially as it doesn't seem it was even a well-targeted reference; while that point in the series was around the time I stopped watching Moonlighting, I don't remember anything indicating that the character in question was an inventor, which is what Tom Swift is famous for being. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the proposal to remove the Moonlighting reference from the "Modern influence and references" section. Pak434 01:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A majority of editors have agreed that the Edisonade reference is accurate and useful. It should remain. It's true that there is some redundant information in the article. Maybe the "Series Overview" section should be deleted. The text that appears there could be placed in the appropriate sections for each of the different series. The first sentence could be placed in the Tom Swift Jr. section, the second sentence could be placed in the section for the third Tom Swift series, etc. Also the separate article on the fourth Tom Swift series is not needed. All or most of the information in it is covered here. Pak434 14:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it, I tend to agree. Whatever we have to say that's applicable to all series is better off going in the introduction to tell what Tom Swift is, while whatever is particular to only one or two series is better off going in the sections for those series. It leaves that "Series Overview" section with no clearly defined purpose. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should also look seriously at severe trimming of the External links section. "Severe" as in, the only one I'd positively identify as deserving to stay is the Project Gutenberg link. The link to the American Heritage article should actually be converted into a reference, since it supports the claims that Swift might have been based on Glenn Curtiss and also gives some good information on who the writers behind the books were. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. The only one that merits inclusion is the Project Gutenberg link. People can surf for the others if they want to. Wiki guidelines say that external links should be kept to a minimum and that Wiki is not meant to be a web directory. The idea of converting the link to the American Heritage article to a reference makes sense. Pak434 01:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of fan activity

OK, I've made this a sub-heading because I think it needs to be addressed not just in one manifestation, but in basic principle. One seeming constant of Wikipedia is that fans think the perceptions and activities of fans are more encyclopedic than they actually are. Which is why, unless we find some truly significant fan activity to discuss, I think that at most we should have a single sentence along the lines of "Tom Swift fandom continues even today, with fans collecting the books and creating their own fanfiction for the series" and no more. And there's no need for links to anyone's fanfic site, either; in order to be fair about it, we'd need to pick a truly representative sample, the kind that would come up on a Google search. Which there's no reason for us to do, since the reader could just do that same Google search themselves. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be encyclopedic, not a search engine, link repository, nor a random website. jesup 05:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely. Wiki is not meant to be an internet guide or web directory. On the specific issue of adding text dealing with fandom, a majority of editors have opposed this. In fact, the only editor who has argued in favor is one who wants to include a link to his personal fan fiction web site. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a vehicle to promote specific web sites or fandoms. Also, in reading some of the discussion on this topic I found this comment by Doxmyth: It came to me that my insertion of the statement about TS fandom being "small" is a widely-held belief, but not substantiated. If Tom Swift fandom is that small, how can it be argued that mention of it merits inclusion in the article? Pak434 10:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems Feldspar and his meat/sock puppet Pak234 are becoming drunk with power. Further reason this article should stay protected, probably forever. There's no reason to remove the external links, they are valid by Wiki rules and point to information not found in the Wike article, They've been part of this article almost since its inception. No need to remove them now. FWDixon 14:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No evidence has been submitted to show that the fan sites listed in "External links" "point to information not found in the Wike [sic] article" or in fact add value to the article in any way whatsoever, and since Fwdixon has of course recently been unmasked as the sockpuppeteer who operates the puppets MookiesDad and SuperDuperMan, his claim that these sites (including his own) are a great part of the article is not very meaningful. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar is bootstrapping again. It has been clearly demonstarted that he is a sockpuppeteer who operates the sockpuppet Pak434 among others FWDixon 20:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What has been "clearly demonstrated" is your predilection for making baseless counterclaims whenever your misconduct on Wikipedia is challenged or brought to light. Pak434 22:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Its true that two of these links are to Fwdixon’s personal Tom Swift web site and a fan forum that he runs. In cases like this Wiki guidelines say that it is best to let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide the issue. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a vehicle to promote specific web sites or fandoms and external links are supposed to be kept to a minimum. I think each link should be considered on its own merits and a decision to retain or delete made by impartial editors with no affiliation to them. Pak434 03:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I submit that neither Antaeus Feldspar or his sock/meat puppet Pak434 can in any way be considered "impartial" or "unbiased". Anyway, it wasn't I who initially added my sites to the "External Links" section. Your compaign to remove the links merely demonstrates the unwonted vendetta you are waging against me. FWDixon 20:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Consensus

We are having a problem with the definition of "consensus". Consensus means a general agreement among a majority of the editors or agreement of most of the participants. By any other definition there would have to be unanimity and content disputes would rarely if ever be resolved. In the case of both Edisonade and fan fiction lone dissenters have refused to accept the view of a majority of editors after prolonged debate. Filibustering to this point is disruptive. Pak434 10:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TASER

The source cited for TASER being an acronym for Tom A Swift's electric rifle is incorrect. However, I emailed TASER and they did verify that as correct. (Incidenctly, the OED left out the A). Would the person who unlocks this page could please change that citation? 24.18.171.52 16:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)