David Fuchs (talk | contribs) |
Tagishsimon (talk | contribs) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube cat abuse incident |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
:::::::That may be so, but there is no deadline to get it right. Anyways if you suggest a merge on the talk page and no-one responds within a week or so, then its like anything else - you just be bold and merge it. Problem solved right there, and without the contentiousness of an AfD. [[User:AfD hero|AfD hero]] ([[User talk:AfD hero#top|talk]]) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
:::::::That may be so, but there is no deadline to get it right. Anyways if you suggest a merge on the talk page and no-one responds within a week or so, then its like anything else - you just be bold and merge it. Problem solved right there, and without the contentiousness of an AfD. [[User:AfD hero|AfD hero]] ([[User talk:AfD hero#top|talk]]) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::::::If only that simple--it's often when the article is merged that people come out of the woodwork screaming. Such is the wiki, I suppose. --<font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 00:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
::::::::If only that simple--it's often when the article is merged that people come out of the woodwork screaming. Such is the wiki, I suppose. --<font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 00:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube cat abuse incident== |
|||
I take strong exception to your posting on the above page. Mentions of 4chan in users responses at that page were roughly evenly associated with keep and delete comments. Your poorly spelled accusation of hypocrisy was unjust, unwarranted and reflects little more than (I presume) the poor assumptions under which you labour. I respectfully counsel you to keep comments on your views on other editors under much better control than you managed to do on this occasion, and to start respecting that others may hold views that differ from yours without there being some flaw in the personalities of those others. On no account does wikipedia exist to support the publication of views such as you expressed. You should be ashamed. --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 20:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:44, 27 February 2009
Welcome!
Hello, AfD hero, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! TomStar81 (Talk) 10:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Hi. I would just like to clarify my comments in the RfA. I am aware of that not every rule should be written down, as there is a need to avoid instruction creep. I did acknowledge this in question 6 of my last RfA. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thankspam
Thanks for your !vote in support of me. It sounds like you think a lot like I do. Love the name, too. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right. If this guy did English language stuff he probably wouldn't have been up for deletion, because people would've been able to find sources about the guy themselves. If you want to save the article, providing a few references is going to be more effective than just complaining about perceived bias. - Mgm|(talk) 16:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- In notability discussions, it is important to consider not only what sources can be found, but also the probability that sources exist. Systematic bias is a real problem, I hope you will take it seriously. AfD hero (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Arborscuplture
As there is a dispute about what photos should be allow represent Arborscuplture. I've undone the addition of the photo that you added. Blackash (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hold on, I disagree at the moment, where can we discuss your major change to the arborsculpture page ? Reames (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Tree_Shaping is probably the best place for discussion. I understand you advocate the term Arbosculpture, whereas Blackash advocates different terms. In wikipedia, it is of the utmost importance to take a Neutral Point of View. This means we simply catalog all sides of the issue, mention the controversy over naming, and leave it at that. We do not enforce one side over another. Since, as far as I can tell, the term "arbosculpture" is not universally agreed upon in the tree-shaping community or the media, I moved the page to the more generic name "tree shaping". I think this is solid reasoning, but I would also like to hear your side of the story. But first lets take this to the Tree Shaping talk page. AfD hero (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Thank you for the recommendations, I made the changes as you suggested except this one below.
[1]
Recommendation: "Artist Peter Cook sitting on a tree sculpture"
I've change it to Artist Peter Cook sitting on a tree shaping. Maybe it would better to say Artist Peter Cook is sitting on a shaped tree? The reason I don't like sculpture, is it translates poorly and if you look it up in the dictionary it means to carve or carve away. The word sculpture originates from the Latin word sculpere, which means "to carve". So to minimise confusion I think it would be better to leave tree sculpture out of the page. Blackash (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Latin roots aside, sculpture has come to mean more than just carved things in current language. For example, a lot of sculptures in modernism art are constructions of objects rather than carvings. Its not a big deal though, and your wording (tree shaping) looks good. AfD hero (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm still learning about how to word things and appreciate your help. Blackash (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought I read that it was considered bad form to solicit outside Wikipedia for opinions, but I can't seam to find it. Clarification of policy please. I will be contributing to the tree shaping page but wanted to learn more about the guidelines first. Reames (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Canvassing is the term you describe, and can be either good or bad depending on how it's done. On one end of the spectrum, soliciting the opinion of an expert is fine and perhaps even encouraged (if done in an unbiased manner). On the other end of the spectrum, getting a bunch of your friends to all vote a certain way is meatpuppetry which is frowned upon. I would highly discourage you from going around accusing people of meatpuppetry, as it is not constructive and only serves to inflame a situation. AfD hero (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes "meatpuppetry" does sound extremely inflammatory, it's just curious to me that three new opinions of people (who I highly regard and respect and know personally) who have no contrabutions to Wikipedia, just arrived at the discussion as if they were "cherry picked" for their opinions that do not align with mine. I hope that is not considered an accusation, but more like a observation.Reames (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's pretty clear to everyone what happened, but don't worry about it. Just assume good faith and act accordingly. AfD hero (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Umm I thought I'd make a comment about this idea. When we first starting the discussion on the Arborsculpture talk page we send out a email to people that had subscribed to pooktre (about 500), we stated that we had issue with the branding of Arborsculpture and where we would be talking about it. So that anyone on our list was free to follow the discussion and comment as they wished. Blackash (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Tree Shaping
Hi, Some advice please. I've done a citation on the tree shaping page. When giving the reference for the information that has had a citation asked for, how much information do I need to give. I've given the title, author and page no, in a reference No. Is that all? or something else? Thanks Blackash (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- The particular form of the citation is not really very important. The basic principle is to put in enough information so that an interested reader could find the source if they wanted to. The exact style guide is here: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles. You could also look at some featured articles to see how they do things there. This is all really unimportant, however. The point of the tag is that 1) some parts of the article are not backed up by a reference, and 2) it would be good to have more references in general. The style issues are secondary. AfD hero (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
THANK YOU
AfD hero, thank you for taking the time to comment on the request for comment Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. I am happy that you also see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. I agree with you, SoWhy, Smarshall, MichaelQSchmidt, and Townlake that it is more needless "bureaucracy". Ikip (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've watched over the years, mostly anonymously, as the project devolved, one guideline at a time, one AfD at a time, into the bureaucratic political mess that it is now. I look at what's going on and I see little kids running around kicking over the new kid's sandcastle. Wikipedia is probably too far gone to save at this point, which is really sad because I actually remember the feeling of collaboration in building something great, which everyone had when the project first started. AfD hero (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Its too late to save wikipedia, but it is sure fun being david among goliaths, and slicing off giant toes!
- See our fight at: Wikipedia_talk:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Journalists, notice how so many journalists universally agree with you!
- In fact, the absolute best piece on wikipedia is excerpted here, and quotes you almost verbatium:
- In the fall of 2006, groups of editors went around getting rid of articles on webcomic artists—some of the most original and articulate people on the Net. They would tag an article as nonnotable and then crowd in to vote it down. One openly called it the "web-comic articles purge of 2006." A victim, Trev-Mun, author of a comic called Ragnarok Wisdom, wrote: "I got the impression that they enjoyed this kind of thing as a kid enjoys kicking down others' sand castles." Another artist, Howard Tayler, said: "'Notability purges' are being executed throughout Wikipedia by empire-building, wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors." Rob Balder, author of a webcomic called PartiallyClips, likened the organized deleters to book burners, and he said: "Your words are polite, yeah, but your actions are obscene. Every word in every valid article you've destroyed should be converted to profanity and screamed in your face."[1]
- Ironically, the book that this author is reviewing, Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, I fought in the Articles for deletion argument. Ikip (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also see: User:Ikip/AfD on average day showing that the majority of articles which are deleted were created by new users. I am going to expand this a lot. Ikip (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- The issue of notability has caused a lot of harm to wikipedia, but it is only a side-effect of a growing culture of bureaucracy and mindless rule following that has crept into the project. There are rules and tests for every contingency in every subject. People can go vote in an AfD without doing the slightest research to figure out what the article is even about; without making an honest evaluation about whether it adds or detracts from wikipedia on the whole. Just zone out and see if it meets a few checkboxes. And people actually think this is a good thing. Deletion should not be easy. It should be a painful and messy process where everyone considers every possible aspect.
- One of the great genius aspects of wikipedia is the inherently local nature of editing decisions - what works for one article frequently does not work for another article, and so editors consider each situation in context, keeping in mind only a few general guiding principles. Whereas that philosophy would never work in most traditional media, the wiki technology made it possible, and ushered in wikipedia's golden era from start to around mid 2006. The early members understood this, which is why we placed such great emphasis on ideas like "ignore all rules", "avoid instruction creep", "wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", "wiki is not paper", etc. Now with tons of global rules and strict following of guidelines, we are destroying one of the things that made wikipedia so great. AfD hero (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also see: User:Ikip/AfD on average day showing that the majority of articles which are deleted were created by new users. I am going to expand this a lot. Ikip (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Beautiful argument
I love it. Ikip (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: Improper close of Space Ghost Episodes AfD
Just because you feel the closure was the wrong one doesn't mean it actually is :) I should point out that AfD isn't a vote, and consensus is not determined by counting heads but by the strength of arguments; one good argument is worth a score crappy ones. As I noted in closing, the nominator's point that they failed to meet WP:FICT is moot, as FICT is still proposed. Thus, the episodes must meet Wikipedia:Television episodes/WP:GNG, as these episodes did not, thus qualifying them for outright deletion. I heeded the feeling that a list of episodes was at the bare minimum necessary and allowable, and as WP:LISTS is a bit nebulous I see no reason why some of the content could not exist in such a streamlined list form, in agreement with WP:ATD. You are correct, I would rather someone proposed on the talk pages to simply merge the articles into a list rather than bringing it to AfD, but that doesn't mean such decisions cannot and are not hashed out via deletion discussions. Also, I'm not seeing how I'm not impartial in this case; I have never heard of Space Ghost other than minor mentions before, and my only possible connection to the AfD (my work on crafting WP:FICT) doesn't amount to anything as it's not admissible as a guideline and I disregarded that argument. Cheers. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I somewhat agree with AfD hero. The problem in that discussion is that not all of those episodes are of the same "notability". Whereas the others on the list can arguably be considered in the same context, Baffler Meal is absolutely not in the same league as the others, because it is the first appearance of the Aqua Teen Hunger Force and even appears on additional DVD releases than the Space Coast episodes (i.e. on the Auqa Teen DVDs). That episode thus is notable in comparison to other Space Goast episodes because it is perhaps the lone Space Ghost episode to appear not just on the Space Ghost DVD release, but also on the Aqua Teen DVD release as a special feature, for being the first appeareance of characters in a franchise that spawned a video game and theatrically released movie, and as such is covered in a variety of secondary sources as a result. Thus, no real opinion on the merges for the other episodes; however, "Baffler Meal" absolutely is a stand out episode that merits its own article and that does indeed have real potential for further improvement. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yet no one brought concrete evidence of any of the episodes meeting WP:EPISODE or WP:GNG. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Had I a chance to comment in the AfD (I usually work on my arguments off-wiki before posting), I would have pointed to the Google News and Google Books results from which we can write the article in a manner that discusses its importance and reception. Further proof of why five days in insufficient on a project with no deadline. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well then spin out the proper *single* article that meets the GNG and add the references. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- This sort of thing is why editing decisions like merging are better made on the talk page than in an AfD. AfD hero (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I fully agree, but unfortunately either no one actually comments on the merge until it goes to AfD or some people just figure AfD's good enough for that role. AfD as cleanup is a longstanding issue which I don't think will ever be fixed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- That may be so, but there is no deadline to get it right. Anyways if you suggest a merge on the talk page and no-one responds within a week or so, then its like anything else - you just be bold and merge it. Problem solved right there, and without the contentiousness of an AfD. AfD hero (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- If only that simple--it's often when the article is merged that people come out of the woodwork screaming. Such is the wiki, I suppose. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- That may be so, but there is no deadline to get it right. Anyways if you suggest a merge on the talk page and no-one responds within a week or so, then its like anything else - you just be bold and merge it. Problem solved right there, and without the contentiousness of an AfD. AfD hero (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- I fully agree, but unfortunately either no one actually comments on the merge until it goes to AfD or some people just figure AfD's good enough for that role. AfD as cleanup is a longstanding issue which I don't think will ever be fixed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- This sort of thing is why editing decisions like merging are better made on the talk page than in an AfD. AfD hero (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well then spin out the proper *single* article that meets the GNG and add the references. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Had I a chance to comment in the AfD (I usually work on my arguments off-wiki before posting), I would have pointed to the Google News and Google Books results from which we can write the article in a manner that discusses its importance and reception. Further proof of why five days in insufficient on a project with no deadline. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yet no one brought concrete evidence of any of the episodes meeting WP:EPISODE or WP:GNG. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube cat abuse incident
I take strong exception to your posting on the above page. Mentions of 4chan in users responses at that page were roughly evenly associated with keep and delete comments. Your poorly spelled accusation of hypocrisy was unjust, unwarranted and reflects little more than (I presume) the poor assumptions under which you labour. I respectfully counsel you to keep comments on your views on other editors under much better control than you managed to do on this occasion, and to start respecting that others may hold views that differ from yours without there being some flaw in the personalities of those others. On no account does wikipedia exist to support the publication of views such as you expressed. You should be ashamed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)