Just as a heads up, while you were indulging in the usual masturbatory discussions of whether AfD is deeply flawed again that seem to follow every time I point this out, Dragonfiend put the recently concluded Checkerboard Nightmare on AfD. His nomination was, as far too many nominations in far too many fields are, borne of out and out ignorance - nobody who is remotely knowledgable about webcomics would even think to propose Checkerboard Nightmare for deletion. But, of course, the votes of people who know what they're talking about continue to have active voice with the people who have decided that ridding Wikipedia of the scourge of webcomics (or blogs) (or whatever) is their mission in life.
The article isn't going to get deleted, so don't rush off to find it and vote to keep - it's fine. But go ahead and have a look at http:// www.websnark.com/archives/2005/11/however_the_ent.html so you can see Wikipedia take another prominent hit from an important member of the webcomics community. Compare that to http://www.websnark.com/archives/ 2004/11/a_modest_webcom.html a year ago. In the past year, we have taken someone who was strongly pro-Wikipedia and turned him into someone who thinks we suck. Someone prominent, influential, and, frankly, damn respectable.
So, yeah. AfD? Still broken. Still driving people away. Still generating ill will, bad faith, and bad decisions.
Carry on your fiddling. I'm gonna go get front row seats for when the Colosseum ignites.
-Phil
On 11/21/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Just as a heads up, while you were indulging in the usual masturbatory discussions of whether AfD is deeply flawed again that seem to follow every time I point this out, Dragonfiend put the recently concluded Checkerboard Nightmare on AfD. His nomination was, as far too many nominations in far too many fields are, borne of out and out ignorance - nobody who is remotely knowledgable about webcomics would even think to propose Checkerboard Nightmare for deletion. But, of course, the votes of people who know what they're talking about continue to have active voice with the people who have decided that ridding Wikipedia of the scourge of webcomics (or blogs) (or whatever) is their mission in life.
You can't stop people from listing stuff on afd. You can make a solid enough case to prevent something from being deleted. It's one of the effects of wikipedia being a wiki
The article isn't going to get deleted, so don't rush off to find it and vote to keep - it's fine. But go ahead and have a look at http:// www.websnark.com/archives/2005/11/however_the_ent.html so you can see Wikipedia take another prominent hit from an important member of the webcomics community. Compare that to http://www.websnark.com/archives/ 2004/11/a_modest_webcom.html a year ago. In the past year, we have taken someone who was strongly pro-Wikipedia and turned him into someone who thinks we suck. Someone prominent, influential, and, frankly, damn respectable.
So some people have fragile egos and rush to judgment. Somehow I don't think we are going to be able to change basic human traints. Checkerboard Nightmare was never really in any danger of deletion. This reminds of that australian jewidh group laying into us because one of our articles got vandalised. Yes it happens but if people are going to judge wikipedia by the actions of one person I don't think there is away way we are going to be able to keep them happy.
So, yeah. AfD? Still broken. Still driving people away. Still generating ill will, bad faith, and bad decisions.
Evidence that this person was contibuteing to wikipedia in the first place? Even a basic understanding of procedures would have allowed the person to understand that being listed on AFD doesn't mean much.
Carry on your fiddling. I'm gonna go get front row seats for when the Colosseum ignites.
-Phil
You will exuse me while I dowse the front row seats in petrol?
-- geni
On 11/21/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Now now. You've derailed enough discussions of the problems on AfD with your bad faith and personal attacks. Leave this one to the grown ups please.
-Phil
Please back that acusation or withdraw it. In this case you appear to have run into my strange sense of humor (I mean come on if we are going to have chaos we might as well go for total chaos).
-- geni
On Nov 20, 2005, at 10:16 PM, geni wrote:
On 11/21/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Now now. You've derailed enough discussions of the problems on AfD with your bad faith and personal attacks. Leave this one to the grown ups please.
-Phil
Please back that acusation or withdraw it. In this case you appear to have run into my strange sense of humor (I mean come on if we are going to have chaos we might as well go for total chaos).
I am, regrettably, on a laptop for the next week on which I do not have much of Wiki-EN archived, making finding the posts in which you made clear your lack of faith and strong disdain for other contributors. In light of this, I withdraw the accusation for now.
-Phil
geni wrote:
On 11/21/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Now now. You've derailed enough discussions of the problems on AfD with your bad faith and personal attacks. Leave this one to the grown ups please.
Please back that acusation or withdraw it. In this case you appear to have run into my strange sense of humor (I mean come on if we are going to have chaos we might as well go for total chaos).
You've already *asserted* your bad faith outright, when you proudly declared you were systematically removing content from articles. It's a bit odd you now claim you're entitled to a fresh assumption of good faith.
- d.
On 11/21/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
You've already *asserted* your bad faith outright, when you proudly declared you were systematically removing content from articles.
Systematically? Prove it (and with permission images don't count). You can't my edits are rarely if ever systematic. We refure to wikipedians as editors not authors. Editing does from time mean removeing material. Material can lose its function within an article if previously it's only function is to pad the article out.
It's a bit odd you now claim you're entitled to a fresh assumption of good faith.
- d.
Yes and no. If we follow the logic that if a person committs one act of bad faith from then on AGF does not apply to them we run into the problem of practicaly formaliseing grudge matches. While this wouldn't really worry me on a personal level I don't think it would produce the kind of community atmosphere people are aiming for. Of course I could be wrong since I'm not aware of any real research into this area.
-- geni
On Nov 21, 2005, at 12:51 PM, geni wrote:
On 11/21/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
You've already *asserted* your bad faith outright, when you proudly declared you were systematically removing content from articles.
Systematically? Prove it (and with permission images don't count). You can't my edits are rarely if ever systematic. We refure to wikipedians as editors not authors. Editing does from time mean removeing material. Material can lose its function within an article if previously it's only function is to pad the article out.
He is referring, I believe, to your advocacy of removing well- referenced "in popular culture" sections from articles.
-Phil
On 11/21/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
He is referring, I believe, to your advocacy of removing well- referenced "in popular culture" sections from articles.
-Phil
I know. But he can't show I have systematically done so (that would suggest I care way more about the subject than I really do).
In an ideal world articles such as [[Nuclear weapons in popular culture]] would be the way to go however if I'm looking to reduce article size cuting and pasteing the section to the talk page is a short term solution.
There are of course other issues with the trivia section. For example [[Checkerboard Nightmare]] does not currently include the one resason I've herd of the comic, the Kestrel/something posertive incerdent. Does this deserve a mention in the article? I don't know that is why I left a comment on the talk page but I could just have easy added it to a trivia section. As a result over time these sections tend to pick up a lot of stuff that doesn't really matter. The important stuff gets incoperated into the article and the rest gets left to rot.
Still it appears people object to the removal of these sections so I wont. I do however reserve the right to argue that the GWB article does not need a trivia section.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 11/21/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
He is referring, I believe, to your advocacy of removing well- referenced "in popular culture" sections from articles.
I know. But he can't show I have systematically done so (that would suggest I care way more about the subject than I really do).
WTF? "I know I proudly declared it, but you didn't prove I was lying!"?
Still it appears people object to the removal of these sections so I wont.
Good. Thank you.
I do however reserve the right to argue that the GWB article does not need a trivia section.
Oh Ghod no.
I must confess I started a popular culture section today, on [[Xenu]]. I maintain it was relevant to the topic and not just a list!
- d.