Hey Jay
Just wanted to make a quick reply.
Regarding the Star Trek article, there is a lot of discussion on the
article's talk page over notability and sources. (just to say it's still an
issue even if it doesn't appear to be at first) The fan made productions
seem to be notable as they have reliable sources in the main articles and
each item seems to somehow show that it's notable. Considering the
discussions going on, there's definitely an ongoing group that assures
everything is in the article for a reason.
Regarding my contribution here are some of the links to content i've added
to the vlog article:
- I created the references section and sourced the definition:
- 17 August
2006<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=prev&oldid=70288801>,
Edit Summary: (corrected and sourced the definition, cleaned up and
corrected the name section. videoblog is not a portemanteau of video and
log.)
- Asked Steve to source his Timeline event then helped him properly
reference it in the article
- 31 August
2006<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=prev&oldid=73057667>,
Edit Summary: (wikified the reference to steve, woohoo, sources!)
- I searched and found a better source for the definition
- 7 September
2006<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=next&oldid=74314034>,
Edit Summary: (rv def back to stevegarfield's edit - not sure why it was
replaced, the other source didn't relate to the text)
- I researched the use of the term vlog and initiated the request to
have the article be renamed to Video blog
- 21 February
2007<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=prev&oldid=109695626>,
Edit Summary by GTBacchus: (moved Vlog to Video blog: per move
request; see
talk page for discussion)
- Added an explanation of vlog with source
(diff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=125619809&oldid=125614324>)
- added sourced timeline event
(diff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=127273488&oldid=127209338>)
- added sources to the timeline
(diff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=127470918&oldid=127407533>)
- added source to timeline
(diff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=127476477&oldid=127470918>)
On 5/2/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking
> about
> > in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather
> > make personal attacks than to actually respond to the encyclopedic
> reasoning
> > for my edits.
>
> yeah...lets keep personal attacks out of this.
> id like to explore the encyclopedic reasoning.
>
> > I never nominated the Video blog article for deletion though I did
> initially
> > vote in favour of deletion after it was nominated because I agreed with
> the
> > reasoning. That was until I decided to do a clean up of the article and
> > source the definition. In the end, the voting result was to keep the
> > article.
> > This was the initial reason for deleting it:
> > "Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that does
> not
> > support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists
> of a
> > series of admitted dictionary definitions, followed by a timeline that
> does
> > not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that
> consists
> > of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to
> web
> > syndication."
>
> remember too that this deletion was proposed a while ago...when
> videoblogging was still really underground. I think by now...few
> people could say that a Videoblog was not an artform in itself.
> lets put this to rest.
>
> > It's unfortunate that these are pretty much the same problems that still
> > plague the article. However, we've been making progress on the article
> > since this group discussion has started and I think that if you were to
> > start contributing again and assume good faith that we can get back to
> the
> > issues on the article's talk page continue to improve the content.
>
> so before we move on, Id like to get your take on this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions
> Is this page valid to you?
> it has no mainstream citations, but seems neutral, valid, and is
> extremely useful.
> would you delete this page?
>
> I think if anything, we could at least document the debate...that i
> think we can agree on.
> Patrick, id like to see what you're contributing to the article. we
> got to start somewhere.
>
> Jay
>
> --
> Here I am....
> http://jaydedman.com
>
> Check out the latest project:
> http://pixelodeonfest.com/
> Webvideo festival this June!!!!
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
