Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I haven't read the whole of this thread but I find it ironic that a mechanism such as videoblogging, which due to it's low barrier to entry means people can bypass msm, requires msm to define/reference it on wikipedia so that it's definition becomes validated. perhaps all the info on the page should be deleted and a few links to selected examples of videoblog posts be added so if someone wants to know about vb, they can watch the videos to work it out. but then there'd be fights over which vids to show to represent vb... ;) kath [snip thread] -- http://www.aliak.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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. Jay, I know you want to do the right thing and be the peace keeper. It's the exact same way I was when I came in on a dispute between Pat and Richard BF... as it turns out my neutrality in that debate was improper, I wish I would have sided with Richard BF. I just want you to understand that that's coming from not only a guy that has deleted at least every edit to the vb article once, but the guy who went through my contributions history and attempted to delete past contribs and three articles. Just be aware you're discussing merits of the material with a guy who thinks absolutely nothing has merit and has questionable merit himself. I did not make this about him. HE made it about him. He made it about him when he appointed himselve the authority on the merit of every contribution. Just be aware that it's not ok for someone to have the authority to approve or deny 100% of edits... and especially not ok when they reject 100% of edits. He would have you believe those edits I was adding back in were mine... they absolutely are not. I believe he'll suck you in as he sucked in Michael Verdi, Richard BF, myself and many others... which is to pretend that he really wants to collaborate when in fact he either doesn't know the meaning of the term or even worse is spending our energies out of spite. As proof that he's still lying I submit the book refences for the four books on vidoeblogging. They now sit in the article just as i had added them. He deleted them as irrelevant no less then a half dozen times before finally relenting. Quite the contrary to his I never once deleted any of your information that was properly cited. Even still his argument is irrelevant, as he fails to acknowlege how out of the standard editing policy his actions of deleting edits are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Perfection is not required Nor is a lack of citation a reasonable reason for deleting an edit and that is the real issue here. Noone else can collaborate, noone can source each others material when he automatically deletes every edit. His dominance and persistence with the delete button disrupts all other attempts by editors to work on wikipedia. But please... if you so desire continue to attempt to collaborate on him with this article. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong with an article with more than 2-3 items in the timeline, an article that's more than a 500 word stub. 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. Hmm... Pat, you never nominated it... just wanted to know I'm listening... I must go back and review... not that it changes anything but if i accused you of nominating it and you didn't I'll be sure to appologize. 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/
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
The response to Mmeiser's ban request: *Looks like a content dispute to me. You'll probably find **dispute resolution* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR* more productive than requesting a ban, have you tried mediation? If you really believe there's abuse here, you're going to have to provide some diffs. Removing unsourced information is not a negative action, content must be **verifiable*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V * and **reliably sourced* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS*. ** Seraphimblade* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade* Talk to mehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC) * On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/2/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] jay.dedman%40gmail.com 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. Jay, I know you want to do the right thing and be the peace keeper. It's the exact same way I was when I came in on a dispute between Pat and Richard BF... as it turns out my neutrality in that debate was improper, I wish I would have sided with Richard BF. I just want you to understand that that's coming from not only a guy that has deleted at least every edit to the vb article once, but the guy who went through my contributions history and attempted to delete past contribs and three articles. Just be aware you're discussing merits of the material with a guy who thinks absolutely nothing has merit and has questionable merit himself. I did not make this about him. HE made it about him. He made it about him when he appointed himselve the authority on the merit of every contribution. Just be aware that it's not ok for someone to have the authority to approve or deny 100% of edits... and especially not ok when they reject 100% of edits. He would have you believe those edits I was adding back in were mine... they absolutely are not. I believe he'll suck you in as he sucked in Michael Verdi, Richard BF, myself and many others... which is to pretend that he really wants to collaborate when in fact he either doesn't know the meaning of the term or even worse is spending our energies out of spite. As proof that he's still lying I submit the book refences for the four books on vidoeblogging. They now sit in the article just as i had added them. He deleted them as irrelevant no less then a half dozen times before finally relenting. Quite the contrary to his I never once deleted any of your information that was properly cited. Even still his argument is irrelevant, as he fails to acknowlege how out of the standard editing policy his actions of deleting edits are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Perfection is not required Nor is a lack of citation a reasonable reason for deleting an edit and that is the real issue here. Noone else can collaborate, noone can source each others material when he automatically deletes every edit. His dominance and persistence with the delete button disrupts all other attempts by editors to work on wikipedia. But please... if you so desire continue to attempt to collaborate on him with this article. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong with an article with more than 2-3 items in the timeline, an article that's more than a 500 word stub. 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. Hmm... Pat, you never nominated it... just wanted to know I'm listening... I must go back and review... not that it changes anything but if i accused you of nominating it and you didn't I'll be sure to appologize. 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
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Oh MY!! Wikipedia is being invaded by uncited articles! Quick Delete these too, they are unverifiable!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scone_%28bread%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choli http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemonade Someone save us!!! On 5/2/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The response to Mmeiser's ban request: *Looks like a content dispute to me. You'll probably find **dispute resolution* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR* more productive than requesting a ban, have you tried mediation? If you really believe there's abuse here, you're going to have to provide some diffs. Removing unsourced information is not a negative action, content must be **verifiable*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V * and **reliably sourced* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS*. ** Seraphimblade* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade* Talk to mehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC) * On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com wrote: On 5/2/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] jay.dedman%40gmail.com jay.dedman%40gmail.com 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. Jay, I know you want to do the right thing and be the peace keeper. It's the exact same way I was when I came in on a dispute between Pat and Richard BF... as it turns out my neutrality in that debate was improper, I wish I would have sided with Richard BF. I just want you to understand that that's coming from not only a guy that has deleted at least every edit to the vb article once, but the guy who went through my contributions history and attempted to delete past contribs and three articles. Just be aware you're discussing merits of the material with a guy who thinks absolutely nothing has merit and has questionable merit himself. I did not make this about him. HE made it about him. He made it about him when he appointed himselve the authority on the merit of every contribution. Just be aware that it's not ok for someone to have the authority to approve or deny 100% of edits... and especially not ok when they reject 100% of edits. He would have you believe those edits I was adding back in were mine... they absolutely are not. I believe he'll suck you in as he sucked in Michael Verdi, Richard BF, myself and many others... which is to pretend that he really wants to collaborate when in fact he either doesn't know the meaning of the term or even worse is spending our energies out of spite. As proof that he's still lying I submit the book refences for the four books on vidoeblogging. They now sit in the article just as i had added them. He deleted them as irrelevant no less then a half dozen times before finally relenting. Quite the contrary to his I never once deleted any of your information that was properly cited. Even still his argument is irrelevant, as he fails to acknowlege how out of the standard editing policy his actions of deleting edits are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Perfection is not required Nor is a lack of citation a reasonable reason for deleting an edit and that is the real issue here. Noone else can collaborate, noone can source each others material when he automatically deletes every edit. His dominance and persistence with the delete button disrupts all other attempts by editors to work on wikipedia. But please... if you so desire continue to attempt to collaborate on him with this article. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong with an article with more than 2-3 items in the timeline, an article that's more than a 500 word stub. 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. Hmm... Pat, you never nominated it... just wanted to know I'm listening... I must go back and review... not that it changes anything but if i accused you of nominating it and you didn't I'll be sure to appologize. 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
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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 2006http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=prevoldid=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 2006http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=prevoldid=73057667, Edit Summary: (wikified the reference to steve, woohoo, sources!) - I searched and found a better source for the definition - 7 September 2006http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=nextoldid=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 2007http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=prevoldid=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 (diffhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=125619809oldid=125614324) - added sourced timeline event (diffhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=127273488oldid=127209338) - added sources to the timeline (diffhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=127470918oldid=127407533) - added source to timeline (diffhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=127476477oldid=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]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
lol, who knew lemonade was so controversial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lemonade On 5/2/07, Josh Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh MY!! Wikipedia is being invaded by uncited articles! Quick Delete these too, they are unverifiable!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scone_%28bread%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choli http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemonade Someone save us!!! On 5/2/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: The response to Mmeiser's ban request: *Looks like a content dispute to me. You'll probably find **dispute resolution* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR* more productive than requesting a ban, have you tried mediation? If you really believe there's abuse here, you're going to have to provide some diffs. Removing unsourced information is not a negative action, content must be **verifiable*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V * and **reliably sourced* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS*. ** Seraphimblade* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade* Talk to mehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC) * On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com wrote: On 5/2/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] jay.dedman%40gmail.com jay.dedman%40gmail.com jay.dedman%40gmail.com 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. Jay, I know you want to do the right thing and be the peace keeper. It's the exact same way I was when I came in on a dispute between Pat and Richard BF... as it turns out my neutrality in that debate was improper, I wish I would have sided with Richard BF. I just want you to understand that that's coming from not only a guy that has deleted at least every edit to the vb article once, but the guy who went through my contributions history and attempted to delete past contribs and three articles. Just be aware you're discussing merits of the material with a guy who thinks absolutely nothing has merit and has questionable merit himself. I did not make this about him. HE made it about him. He made it about him when he appointed himselve the authority on the merit of every contribution. Just be aware that it's not ok for someone to have the authority to approve or deny 100% of edits... and especially not ok when they reject 100% of edits. He would have you believe those edits I was adding back in were mine... they absolutely are not. I believe he'll suck you in as he sucked in Michael Verdi, Richard BF, myself and many others... which is to pretend that he really wants to collaborate when in fact he either doesn't know the meaning of the term or even worse is spending our energies out of spite. As proof that he's still lying I submit the book refences for the four books on vidoeblogging. They now sit in the article just as i had added them. He deleted them as irrelevant no less then a half dozen times before finally relenting. Quite the contrary to his I never once deleted any of your information that was properly cited. Even still his argument is irrelevant, as he fails to acknowlege how out of the standard editing policy his actions of deleting edits are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Perfection is not required Nor is a lack of citation a reasonable reason for deleting an edit and that is the real issue here. Noone else can collaborate, noone can source each others material when he automatically deletes every edit. His dominance and persistence with the delete button disrupts all other attempts by editors to work on wikipedia. But please... if you so desire continue to attempt to collaborate on him with this article. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong with an article with more than 2-3 items in the timeline, an article that's more than a 500 word stub. 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. Hmm... Pat, you never nominated it... just wanted to know I'm listening... I must go back and review... not that it changes anything but if i accused you of nominating it and you didn't I'll
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
However, we've been making progress on the article since this group discussion has started what you seem to be missing is that an effort by the community (including those who LITTERALLY wrote the book(s) on the topic, and the HUNDREDS who have been with this thing for the past three years) has attempted to be a part of a collaborative effort ... only to have all of those attempts summarily deleted WITHIN MINUTES. you have not shown an interest in working with the true community ... only in acting as the sole and sadly misguided gate keeper to a topic you do not have absolute knowledge on. I've seen MANY documents on wikipedia with notes that say 'there is some disagreement on this' or 'warning: needs citation' ... if you were interested in working with the community you would have added such notes to the page and asked for discussion at wikipedia ... not sheppard the converation into email after 2 years of delete-ask-questions-later. zero credability for wanting to work collaborativly on this. On 5/1/07, Patrick Delongchamp [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 actualy respond to the encyclopedic reasoning for my edits. i.e. I'm not even going to respond to the suggestion that I have only contributed one sourced thing because this isn't about me. I never once deleted your cited contribution. Nor do I get pleasure from removing your unsourced personal research from the article. 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. 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. Patrick On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not Mike. I submite the star trek fan made productions article and related star trek articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions The fact that said projects exists, and that they are noteworthy and being on wikipedia is in no way determined by the amount of mainstream articles on them. These articles are made possible by the small contribution of hundreds of editors working together as you can see on the history page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_fan_productionsaction=history When one editor dominates the discussion, particularly in deleting all contributions, discussion and collaboration fundamentally cannot happen. To put it quite simply... this is not a problem with original researcha and sources it's a problem with trolling. Make no mistake about it. If wikipedia has a fault it's that it doesn't have enough protections from trolling, specifically delete trolling. There are two things we can do about this. 1) persue banning of the troll... am working on it, and I encourage others to talk to wikipedia admins and others of experience on how to get the ball rolling on this 2) move the wikipedia article to pbwiki or some other place where we can protect it from trolling. I am waiting on this until we first take action with point #1. Peace, -Mike On 5/1/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]michael%40michaelverdi.com wrote: On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] jay.dedman%40gmail.com wrote: Im answering my own question after researching wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability I guess the main editors at Wikipedia feel that if the major press doesnt cover a story/eventthen its probably not worth doing a wikipedia entry about. am i reading this correctly? seems weird that we have a completely new art form that has developed...and we're having difficulty providing information and the backstory. Jay This is so maddening. If this is really the way it works I'd rather request that all articles about videoblogging be removed. To have to wait for traditional media to call
RE: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Unsourced statements call for immediate deletion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_statem ents I quit counting after 1000. I was still only up to the articles beginning with the letter A.
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article 'Crowdfunding'. and yes, meiser has been battling for months. fucking wikipedia. i dont have the time nor patience for such games. On 4/29/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] jannie.jan%40gmail.com wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Sull, It may seem discouraging to have your content deleted but I've had conversations with you in the past on the importance of verifiability. Yes, I nominated 'Crowdfunding' for deletion. However, other editors voted and agreed that it should not be a wikipedia article. It didn't contain any sources, the topic was non notable by Wikipedia standards and the article consisted entirely of original research. (A violation of Wikipedia's core content policies) See the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding You also failed to mention that the 'Crowdfunding' article has been deleted on 2 other occasions in which I had no involvement or knowledge of. Yes, Mmeiser and I have been in an edit war over the Video blog article's content for many of the same reasons. For months I have tried to discuss the encyclopedic reasons for removing original research, indiscriminate links, and the need to cite content from the article. As responses, I received long, ranting, personal attacks and he refused to address my encyclopedic reasoning. What hasn't been mentioned yet is how Mmeiser recently sought the help of a Wikipedia Administrator. The result was not surprising. a) The administrator did not reinstate the content. b) On the contrary, the administrator cited the important of verifiability and suggested to Mmeiser that he try editing content on a separate page and have me look it over and give him suggestions before he place it into the article. (an extreme I still don't think is necessary as long as he uses citations when making contributions) I tried to extend an olive branch and asked that we work together constructively to reintroduce the content with sources. (what i had been trying to do all along) He, once again, wrote a long rant, made personal attacks, and announced he was through contributing to the Video blog article. To date, Mmeiser has contributed a total of one verifiable piece of content to the article. (which i have never deleted) It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group members earlier. Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic content. Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people contribute encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and myself. For the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after we've done some work on it. Patrick On 5/1/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article 'Crowdfunding'. and yes, meiser has been battling for months. fucking wikipedia. i dont have the time nor patience for such games. On 4/29/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]michael%40michaelverdi.com wrote: This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]jannie.jan%40gmail.com jannie.jan%40gmail.com wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group members earlier. Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic content. Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people contribute encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and myself. For the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after we've done some work on it. hey Patrick-- thanks for replying. here's some questions I have to better understand this ongoing process. --when you say the need to cite contentmust the sources be traditional media? or can they come from blogs? --also, from your user history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pdelongchamp), it looks like the Vlog entry is the only one you are working with? Maybe you could explain a bit of your background so we know where you're coming from. You are obviously very interested in defining the subject of videoblogging. I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this group since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a traditional newspaper that may have to one of usin order to add to the Vlog entry. So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the best wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing points of view? jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
--when you say the need to cite contentmust the sources be traditional media? or can they come from blogs? I agree that's it's very silly to say that the definition of a video blog should to come from traditional media. The idea is this: Wikipedia has to set a standard so how low should they set it? Wikipedia says that articles should be based on reliable, published sources because this involves a reliable publication process. i.e. if we lowered the bar to blogs, anyone could write anything and cite themselves because there's no reliable publication process. So are blogs excluded? No. Blogs can still be used but the main point should be backed up by a reliable source. That means if I want to write about how the definition is under debate, I'll have to find a reliable source to show that this debate is notable, and then i can use a blog (or other less reliable source) as a another source to give more examples. --also, from your user history it looks like the Vlog entry is the only one you are working with? Maybe you could explain a bit of your background so we know where you're coming from. You are obviously very interested in defining the subject of videoblogging. I contribute to a few articles. The Video blog article being the main one. And recently, due to this discussion, there's been a lot of progress on it and i've been working with other editors to source the timeline and hopefully this momentum will keep going. I used to have a vlog with my roommate but then I bought a condo and we both got our own places. I naturally got pretty busy after moving and never got back into it. I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this group since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a traditional newspaper that may have to one of usin order to add to the Vlog entry. So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the best wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing points of view? Well, personally I'm starting to lean towards Richard BFs definition because videoblogs seem to be a genre now more than a website structure. But that's just my opinion. I agree that the definition is changing and doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but my opinion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Ok, so reliable sources seem to say that vlogs are blogs with video. Let's take the dispute over the definition. Though the dispute may seem notable to you, me and other videobloggers in the group, Wikipedia has a policy on what is considered notable. Until a reliable source talks about the dispute, we have to assume that the general public doesn't know about it or care about it and that the dispute is, consequently, unencyclopedic. Until a reliable sources uses a different definition, the old definition is all we can use in the encyclopedia article. I think that's the issue here. People usually think that because Wikipedia is online, you can make an article about anything. What people may not realize is that wikipedia really strives to have encyclopedic content and hundreds of articles and contributions are deleted everyday. Many more than are actually kept. I had my first article deleted. I didn't agree with it at first but I came to realize that Cooking Kitty Corner wasn't exactly a notable video blog. :P I also started getting into Wikipedia a lot more and it's definitely a hobby of mine now. So should reliable sources be defined differently? Maybe. There's discussions all the time on Wikipedia policies. but as it is, we have to go with the current consensus on what is a reliable source. On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group members earlier. Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic content. Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people contribute encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and myself. For the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after we've done some work on it. hey Patrick-- thanks for replying. here's some questions I have to better understand this ongoing process. --when you say the need to cite contentmust the sources be traditional media? or can they come from blogs? --also,
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Wikipedia says that articles should be based on reliable, published sources because this involves a reliable publication process. i.e. if we lowered the bar to blogs, anyone could write anything and cite themselves because there's no reliable publication process. So are blogs excluded? No. Blogs can still be used but the main point should be backed up by a reliable source. That means if I want to write about how the definition is under debate, I'll have to find a reliable source to show that this debate is notable, and then i can use a blog (or other less reliable source) as a another source to give more examples. just so im clear...the process for citation needs to be like this: Something happens online. Mary Joe blogs about it. we wait for someone from a traditional newspaper to call Mary Joe and quote her. Once the traditional newspaper publishes the quote, it's now a reliable source. correct? this would mean that only is a reliable source (ir newspaper) comments on an event will it be notable. That's strange. I didnt know that was how wikipedia worked. Can you share the link that defines this? I contribute to a few articles. The Video blog article being the main one. And recently, due to this discussion, there's been a lot of progress on it and i've been working with other editors to source the timeline and hopefully this momentum will keep going. I used to have a vlog with my roommate but then I bought a condo and we both got our own places. I naturally got pretty busy after moving and never got back into it. http://cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com/ I remember working with you at Vloggercon. you really helped randy and jan hold down the audio and video. Well, personally I'm starting to lean towards Richard BFs definition because videoblogs seem to be a genre now more than a website structure. But that's just my opinion. I agree that the definition is changing and doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but my opinion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. but if a newspaper says that your opinion is right, then it belongs in an encyclopedia. Ok, so reliable sources seem to say that vlogs are blogs with video. Let's take the dispute over the definition. Though the dispute may seem notable to you, me and other videobloggers in the group, Wikipedia has a policy on what is considered notable. Until a reliable source talks about the dispute, we have to assume that the general public doesn't know about it or care about it and that the dispute is, consequently, unencyclopedic. Until a reliable sources uses a different definition, the old definition is all we can use in the encyclopedia article. so what youre saying iswe let newspapers define what videoblogging is because they are reliable sources. Is that where we are in the Wikipedia article? we go out and find quotes in the media...and build http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog? are industry blogs okay? Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
just so im clear...the process for citation needs to be like this: Something happens online. Mary Joe blogs about it. we wait for someone from a traditional newspaper to call Mary Joe and quote her. Once the traditional newspaper publishes the quote, it's now a reliable source. correct? this would mean that only is a reliable source (ir newspaper) comments on an event will it be notable. That's strange. I didnt know that was how wikipedia worked. Can you share the link that defines this? Im answering my own question after researching wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability I guess the main editors at Wikipedia feel that if the major press doesnt cover a story/eventthen its probably not worth doing a wikipedia entry about. am i reading this correctly? seems weird that we have a completely new art form that has developed...and we're having difficulty providing information and the backstory. Jay
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im answering my own question after researching wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability I guess the main editors at Wikipedia feel that if the major press doesnt cover a story/eventthen its probably not worth doing a wikipedia entry about. am i reading this correctly? seems weird that we have a completely new art form that has developed...and we're having difficulty providing information and the backstory. Jay This is so maddening. If this is really the way it works I'd rather request that all articles about videoblogging be removed. To have to wait for traditional media to call us up and misquote us so that the fucked-up-I-just-had-48-hours-to-research-this-article-so-I-kinda-copied-that-other-article-and-made-some-shit-up version is what ends up in wikipedia is perfectly absurd. I can hardly stand talking about this anymore. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK -Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
FUCK (you missed one ;) On 5/1/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is so maddening. If this is really the way it works I'd rather request that all articles about videoblogging be removed. To have to wait for traditional media to call us up and misquote us so that the fucked-up-I-just-had-48-hours-to-research-this-article-so-I-kinda-copied-that-other-article-and-made-some-shit-up version is what ends up in wikipedia is perfectly absurd. I can hardly stand talking about this anymore. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK -Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vhttp://tinyurl.com/me4vs Recent Activity - 5 New Membershttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOGQ3bGtoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyODA1NjY2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTU1NDAyMQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMTc4MDcyNDUz Visit Your Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZm02dDd1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyODA1NjY2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTU1NDAyMQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzExNzgwNzI0NTM- SPONSORED LINKS - Individualhttp://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaWZnZGtpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzEEZ3JwSWQDMTI4MDU2NjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NTU0MDIxBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTc4MDcyNDUz?t=msk=Individualw1=Individualw2=Individual+counselingw3=Individual+health+planw4=Individual+income+taxw5=Individual+income+tax+returnc=5s=132g=2.sig=yXas2gOCx2ryEsBih067Ww - Individual counselinghttp://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbGtpY29yBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzIEZ3JwSWQDMTI4MDU2NjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NTU0MDIxBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTc4MDcyNDUz?t=msk=Individual+counselingw1=Individualw2=Individual+counselingw3=Individual+health+planw4=Individual+income+taxw5=Individual+income+tax+returnc=5s=132g=2.sig=yO-t9-v0D93UF70blMCxpA - Individual health planhttp://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZThkdGN1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzMEZ3JwSWQDMTI4MDU2NjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NTU0MDIxBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTc4MDcyNDUz?t=msk=Individual+health+planw1=Individualw2=Individual+counselingw3=Individual+health+planw4=Individual+income+taxw5=Individual+income+tax+returnc=5s=132g=2.sig=wXFwbY_BAxoq2bv9JMIluw - Individual income taxhttp://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdmdqYWY4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzQEZ3JwSWQDMTI4MDU2NjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NTU0MDIxBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTc4MDcyNDUz?t=msk=Individual+income+taxw1=Individualw2=Individual+counselingw3=Individual+health+planw4=Individual+income+taxw5=Individual+income+tax+returnc=5s=132g=2.sig=U0NxPlZ6uri1ECJoeJIcvA - Individual income tax returnhttp://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkczg2dGR1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzUEZ3JwSWQDMTI4MDU2NjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NTU0MDIxBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTc4MDcyNDUz?t=msk=Individual+income+tax+returnw1=Individualw2=Individual+counselingw3=Individual+health+planw4=Individual+income+taxw5=Individual+income+tax+returnc=5s=132g=2.sig=Jc5hlOlOftCAmUIk9lqdYg Yahoo! HotJobs What are you worth?http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12i21l2np/M=493064.9803220.10510213.8674578/D=groups/S=1705554021:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1178079653/A=3848545/R=0/SIG=111mtgddu/*http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/salary+ Find jobs that match your worth Y! GeoCities Free Blogginghttp://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12id3oq77/M=493064.9803219.10510212.8674578/D=groups/S=1705554021:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1178079653/A=3848539/R=0/SIG=12ban20bv/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42416/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/y360/?v=f Share your views with the world. Ads on Yahoo! Learn more now.http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12i099q67/M=493064.9803227.10510220.8674578/D=groups/S=1705554021:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1178079653/A=3848643/R=0/SIG=131q47hek/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/srchv2.php?o=US2005cmp=Yahooctv=Groups4s=Ys2=s3=b=50 Reach customers searching for you. . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I'm sorry Verdi. It's criminal, isn't it. Fuck. Ron Watson Pawsitive Vybe 11659 Berrigan Ave Cedar Springs, MI 49319 http://pawsitivevybe.com Personal Contact: 616.802.8923 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On May 1, 2007, at 10:20 PM, Michael Verdi wrote: On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im answering my own question after researching wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability I guess the main editors at Wikipedia feel that if the major press doesnt cover a story/eventthen its probably not worth doing a wikipedia entry about. am i reading this correctly? seems weird that we have a completely new art form that has developed...and we're having difficulty providing information and the backstory. Jay This is so maddening. If this is really the way it works I'd rather request that all articles about videoblogging be removed. To have to wait for traditional media to call us up and misquote us so that the fucked-up-I-just-had-48-hours-to-research-this-article-so-I-kinda- copied-that-other-article-and-made-some-shit-up version is what ends up in wikipedia is perfectly absurd. I can hardly stand talking about this anymore. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK -Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Reliable sources: Judith Miller Tom Friedman Tim Russert What a fucking joke. This is the stupidest conversation ever. I'd like to see the resumes of the wikipedia leadership. I wonder if it has been co-opted by corporatists. Wouldn't suprise me in the least. Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On May 1, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: --when you say the need to cite contentmust the sources be traditional media? or can they come from blogs? I agree that's it's very silly to say that the definition of a video blog should to come from traditional media. The idea is this: Wikipedia has to set a standard so how low should they set it? Wikipedia says that articles should be based on reliable, published sources because this involves a reliable publication process. i.e. if we lowered the bar to blogs, anyone could write anything and cite themselves because there's no reliable publication process. So are blogs excluded? No. Blogs can still be used but the main point should be backed up by a reliable source. That means if I want to write about how the definition is under debate, I'll have to find a reliable source to show that this debate is notable, and then i can use a blog (or other less reliable source) as a another source to give more examples. --also, from your user history it looks like the Vlog entry is the only one you are working with? Maybe you could explain a bit of your background so we know where you're coming from. You are obviously very interested in defining the subject of videoblogging. I contribute to a few articles. The Video blog article being the main one. And recently, due to this discussion, there's been a lot of progress on it and i've been working with other editors to source the timeline and hopefully this momentum will keep going. I used to have a vlog with my roommate but then I bought a condo and we both got our own places. I naturally got pretty busy after moving and never got back into it. I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this group since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a traditional newspaper that may have to one of usin order to add to the Vlog entry. So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the best wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing points of view? Well, personally I'm starting to lean towards Richard BFs definition because videoblogs seem to be a genre now more than a website structure. But that's just my opinion. I agree that the definition is changing and doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but my opinion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Ok, so reliable sources seem to say that vlogs are blogs with video. Let's take the dispute over the definition. Though the dispute may seem notable to you, me and other videobloggers in the group, Wikipedia has a policy on what is considered notable. Until a reliable source talks about the dispute, we have to assume that the general public doesn't know about it or care about it and that the dispute is, consequently, unencyclopedic. Until a reliable sources uses a different definition, the old definition is all we can use in the encyclopedia article. I think that's the issue here. People usually think that because Wikipedia is online, you can make an article about anything. What people may not realize is that wikipedia really strives to have encyclopedic content and hundreds of articles and contributions are deleted everyday. Many more than are actually kept. I had my first article deleted. I didn't agree with it at first but I came to realize that Cooking Kitty Corner wasn't exactly a notable video blog. :P I also started getting into Wikipedia a lot more and it's definitely a hobby of mine now. So should reliable sources be defined differently? Maybe. There's discussions all the time on Wikipedia policies. but as it is, we have to go with the current consensus on what is a reliable source. On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group members earlier. Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic content. Since the yahoo group discussion began,
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Speaking of Crowdfunding though I had moved the article here for anyone interested in editing it: http://crowdfunding.pbwiki.com/ and this is a cool project that has recognized Crowdfunding and is looking for people interested in this topic to research, write and edit material. It is a joint project between Wired.com and NewAssignment.net. http://zero.newassignment.net/assignmentzero/crowdfunding Who needs wikipedia! ;) Sull On 5/1/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sull, It may seem discouraging to have your content deleted but I've had conversations with you in the past on the importance of verifiability. Yes, I nominated 'Crowdfunding' for deletion. However, other editors voted and agreed that it should not be a wikipedia article. It didn't contain any sources, the topic was non notable by Wikipedia standards and the article consisted entirely of original research. (A violation of Wikipedia's core content policies) See the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding You also failed to mention that the 'Crowdfunding' article has been deleted on 2 other occasions in which I had no involvement or knowledge of. Yes, Mmeiser and I have been in an edit war over the Video blog article's content for many of the same reasons. For months I have tried to discuss the encyclopedic reasons for removing original research, indiscriminate links, and the need to cite content from the article. As responses, I received long, ranting, personal attacks and he refused to address my encyclopedic reasoning. What hasn't been mentioned yet is how Mmeiser recently sought the help of a Wikipedia Administrator. The result was not surprising. a) The administrator did not reinstate the content. b) On the contrary, the administrator cited the important of verifiability and suggested to Mmeiser that he try editing content on a separate page and have me look it over and give him suggestions before he place it into the article. (an extreme I still don't think is necessary as long as he uses citations when making contributions) I tried to extend an olive branch and asked that we work together constructively to reintroduce the content with sources. (what i had been trying to do all along) He, once again, wrote a long rant, made personal attacks, and announced he was through contributing to the Video blog article. To date, Mmeiser has contributed a total of one verifiable piece of content to the article. (which i have never deleted) It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group members earlier. Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic content. Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people contribute encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and myself. For the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after we've done some work on it. Patrick On 5/1/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] sulleleven%40gmail.com wrote: that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article 'Crowdfunding'. and yes, meiser has been battling for months. fucking wikipedia. i dont have the time nor patience for such games. On 4/29/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]michael%40michaelverdi.com michael%40michaelverdi.com wrote: This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]jannie.jan%40gmail.com jannie.jan%40gmail.com jannie.jan%40gmail.com wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Jay, while I'm listening intently on this... I find it very ironic Pat has not cited or quoted from wikipedia on what wikipedia considers good sources and original research. It occurs to me that he's adlibing his own personal idea of what proper sources should and should not be. I would have no problem with this discussion, would indeed enjoy it, if it weren't the criteria by which he's deleted thousands of people's contributions to the videoblogging article. Pat, I would challenge you since it's the absolute basis of your argument to not give your opinion but to base your argument upon what wikipedia says. -Mike On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wikipedia says that articles should be based on reliable, published sources because this involves a reliable publication process. i.e. if we lowered the bar to blogs, anyone could write anything and cite themselves because there's no reliable publication process. So are blogs excluded? No. Blogs can still be used but the main point should be backed up by a reliable source. That means if I want to write about how the definition is under debate, I'll have to find a reliable source to show that this debate is notable, and then i can use a blog (or other less reliable source) as a another source to give more examples. just so im clear...the process for citation needs to be like this: Something happens online. Mary Joe blogs about it. we wait for someone from a traditional newspaper to call Mary Joe and quote her. Once the traditional newspaper publishes the quote, it's now a reliable source. correct? this would mean that only is a reliable source (ir newspaper) comments on an event will it be notable. That's strange. I didnt know that was how wikipedia worked. Can you share the link that defines this? I contribute to a few articles. The Video blog article being the main one. And recently, due to this discussion, there's been a lot of progress on it and i've been working with other editors to source the timeline and hopefully this momentum will keep going. I used to have a vlog with my roommate but then I bought a condo and we both got our own places. I naturally got pretty busy after moving and never got back into it. http://cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com/ I remember working with you at Vloggercon. you really helped randy and jan hold down the audio and video. Well, personally I'm starting to lean towards Richard BFs definition because videoblogs seem to be a genre now more than a website structure. But that's just my opinion. I agree that the definition is changing and doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but my opinion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. but if a newspaper says that your opinion is right, then it belongs in an encyclopedia. Ok, so reliable sources seem to say that vlogs are blogs with video. Let's take the dispute over the definition. Though the dispute may seem notable to you, me and other videobloggers in the group, Wikipedia has a policy on what is considered notable. Until a reliable source talks about the dispute, we have to assume that the general public doesn't know about it or care about it and that the dispute is, consequently, unencyclopedic. Until a reliable sources uses a different definition, the old definition is all we can use in the encyclopedia article. so what youre saying iswe let newspapers define what videoblogging is because they are reliable sources. Is that where we are in the Wikipedia article? we go out and find quotes in the media...and build http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog? are industry blogs okay? Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
To get right down to the issue of sources wikipedia states. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. There's also some good stuff here. tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/2rdnhq complete url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards#Proposed_guidelines_and_strategies And here: tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/kp8fp original: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources I cannot stress enough that these policies fall within reason of the editing policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Wether something is right or wrong if it is reasonably determined to be added in good faith then there's no excuse for outright deletion wether it needs to be sourced or not. In fact, automatically deleteing content immediately gives noone else a chance to source it. -Mike On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: just so im clear...the process for citation needs to be like this: Something happens online. Mary Joe blogs about it. we wait for someone from a traditional newspaper to call Mary Joe and quote her. Once the traditional newspaper publishes the quote, it's now a reliable source. correct? this would mean that only is a reliable source (ir newspaper) comments on an event will it be notable. That's strange. I didnt know that was how wikipedia worked. Can you share the link that defines this? Im answering my own question after researching wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability I guess the main editors at Wikipedia feel that if the major press doesnt cover a story/eventthen its probably not worth doing a wikipedia entry about. am i reading this correctly? seems weird that we have a completely new art form that has developed...and we're having difficulty providing information and the backstory. Jay Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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 actualy respond to the encyclopedic reasoning for my edits. i.e. I'm not even going to respond to the suggestion that I have only contributed one sourced thing because this isn't about me. I never once deleted your cited contribution. Nor do I get pleasure from removing your unsourced personal research from the article. 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. 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. Patrick On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not Mike. I submite the star trek fan made productions article and related star trek articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions The fact that said projects exists, and that they are noteworthy and being on wikipedia is in no way determined by the amount of mainstream articles on them. These articles are made possible by the small contribution of hundreds of editors working together as you can see on the history page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_fan_productionsaction=history When one editor dominates the discussion, particularly in deleting all contributions, discussion and collaboration fundamentally cannot happen. To put it quite simply... this is not a problem with original researcha and sources it's a problem with trolling. Make no mistake about it. If wikipedia has a fault it's that it doesn't have enough protections from trolling, specifically delete trolling. There are two things we can do about this. 1) persue banning of the troll... am working on it, and I encourage others to talk to wikipedia admins and others of experience on how to get the ball rolling on this 2) move the wikipedia article to pbwiki or some other place where we can protect it from trolling. I am waiting on this until we first take action with point #1. Peace, -Mike On 5/1/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]michael%40michaelverdi.com wrote: On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] jay.dedman%40gmail.com wrote: Im answering my own question after researching wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability I guess the main editors at Wikipedia feel that if the major press doesnt cover a story/eventthen its probably not worth doing a wikipedia entry about. am i reading this correctly? seems weird that we have a completely new art form that has developed...and we're having difficulty providing information and the backstory. Jay This is so maddening. If this is really the way it works I'd rather request that all articles about videoblogging be removed. To have to wait for traditional media to call us up and misquote us so that the fucked-up-I-just-had-48-hours-to-research-this-article-so-I-kinda-copied-that-other-article-and-made-some-shit-up version is what ends up in wikipedia is perfectly absurd. I can hardly stand talking about this anymore. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK -Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Don't use vandalism... specify delete trolling and cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy On 4/30/07, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: found it ... if we undo his undo should we mark it as Vandalism (defined as change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia) ... or what? On 4/30/07, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: wow he's already undone it all ... how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to fight the good fight) :-) - Dave On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com -- http://www.DavidMeade.com Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Simply revert his deletes by going into the history tab, clicking on the date of the lastest version before he deleted, edit that version and save. Before saving be sure to include his name and why you are reverting. I. E. Undid Pdelongchamp's deletion, citing wikipedias editing policy on imperfections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy; Or some other better reason if you have it. I guess it's to be an edit war, we really have no choice since noone can work on the article with him constantly deleting everything. -Mike On 4/30/07, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: wow he's already undone it all ... how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to fight the good fight) :-) - Dave On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
That's Patrick Delongchamp of the old vlog cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com which stopped last June when he and his partner broke up. He used to post quite a lot on this Group, but nothing since September, so I guess he's given up interest in Vlogs... other than telling us what is a Vlog and what is not. If you want to have a reasoned discussion with him about the rights and wrongs of this, he published his email here as patnmax at gmail Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 03:03, Michael Verdi wrote: This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi Well, doesn't look like he does have the patience any more, sadly. On Meiser's Talk page on Friday, he said he's now going to give up, exhausted by Patrick Delongchamp's repeated 'delete trolling.' So Meiser has spent a long time protecting the entry from this sad little man on a power trip. Not just Meiser's own work, but the hours and hours of work of all you others who have added to and discussed the Wikipedia entry. This is what community is for. It's all about consensus and support. How can we organize to support Meiser, and persuade this troll to leave it alone? Maybe we can turn the tables and exhaust Delongchamp instead, show him that more people believe in the fuller entry than in his destructive, narcissistic little stub. I'm game. What do you reckon? This is a problem on Wikipedia, individuals who use deletion to exert a kind of tyrannical power over entries. The rule that things must be from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) can be corrupted and abused to mean that everything that is not sourced must be stripped away. It's an incredible power, to delete everyone else's entries and just leave your own. It's a terrible abuse, I think, and achieves the opposite of what NPOV intended - one view instead of many. To justify it, Patrick Delongchamp needs to be backed by a community consensus, which he is not. I didn't know this was going on. I wish I had - it's the kind of thing that should be discussed here. The wikipedia entry always *used* to be discussed here, however painfully. Usually when someone was trying to exert too much individual influence. At the moment, it's one-on-one with Meiser and this idiot. Let's not be like the townsfolk in High Noon, leaving him to tackle it alone. Let's be like the slaves in Spartacus! Rupert Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 30 Apr 2007, at 09:10, Rupert wrote: That's Patrick Delongchamp of the old vlog cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com which stopped last June when he and his partner broke up. He used to post quite a lot on this Group, but nothing since September, so I guess he's given up interest in Vlogs... other than telling us what is a Vlog and what is not. If you want to have a reasoned discussion with him about the rights and wrongs of this, he published his email here as patnmax at gmail Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 03:03, Michael Verdi wrote: This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Den 30.04.2007 kl. 10:51 skrev Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At the moment, it's one-on-one with Meiser and this idiot. Let's not be like the townsfolk in High Noon, leaving him to tackle it alone. Let's be like the slaves in Spartacus! Or like Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven. Old, bitter and generally unwilling until someone shoots your best friend dead and puts his body on display on Main Street. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
or we can ask wikipedia to lock the article. this is ridiculous. one lame guy? On 4/30/07, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Den 30.04.2007 kl. 10:51 skrev Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED]rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org : At the moment, it's one-on-one with Meiser and this idiot. Let's not be like the townsfolk in High Noon, leaving him to tackle it alone. Let's be like the slaves in Spartacus! Or like Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven. Old, bitter and generally unwilling until someone shoots your best friend dead and puts his body on display on Main Street. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
:) funny man As long as we're not being like the townsfolk in Bad Day at Black Rock. Irina, I know what you mean, but locking up the article would be a loss, too. better to try and let it stay open and persuade this Patrick Delongchamp idiot to stop wrecking it. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 10:05, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: Den 30.04.2007 kl. 10:51 skrev Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At the moment, it's one-on-one with Meiser and this idiot. Let's not be like the townsfolk in High Noon, leaving him to tackle it alone. Let's be like the slaves in Spartacus! Or like Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven. Old, bitter and generally unwilling until someone shoots your best friend dead and puts his body on display on Main Street. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Can we not ask to have this particular troll blocked from dicking with the article? Alternatively, if we - as a group - monitor and replace the proper text with enthusiasm, perhaps we can wear him down. Jan On 4/30/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :) funny man As long as we're not being like the townsfolk in Bad Day at Black Rock. Irina, I know what you mean, but locking up the article would be a loss, too. better to try and let it stay open and persuade this Patrick Delongchamp idiot to stop wrecking it. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 10:05, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: Den 30.04.2007 kl. 10:51 skrev Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At the moment, it's one-on-one with Meiser and this idiot. Let's not be like the townsfolk in High Noon, leaving him to tackle it alone. Let's be like the slaves in Spartacus! Or like Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven. Old, bitter and generally unwilling until someone shoots your best friend dead and puts his body on display on Main Street. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
This is another example why I, and a growing number of people (citation needed), don't turn to Wikipedia for information (NPOV). You never know what is going to be written at any given time. And, it's far too easy for one person with an agenda and too much time on their hands to keep messing with an article to the point where many people get caught up in trying to correct it. To me Wikipedia is like some arcane religion full of obscure terms, esoteric texts and a blind obedience to the rules. Some of the discussion pages, and the one for Vlog is a perfect example (weasel words), remind me of the arguments about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Well, they don't really remind me. I wasn't there; I'm not that old! Anyways, I have this image of crotchety old men pointing their gnarled fingers at dusty old books while arguing about whether or not the Fifth Book of Obfuscation requires a period (full stop for you British blokes) to fall inside or outside of a closing quote. All the best, Tom (who stopped editing on Wikipedia years ago) aka Irish Hermit _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jan McLaughlin Sent: Sunday, 29 April, 2007 9:25 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog .org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress. http://fauxpress.blogspot.com blogspot.com http://twitter. http://twitter.com/fauxpress com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
found it ... if we undo his undo should we mark it as Vandalism (defined as change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia) ... or what? On 4/30/07, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: wow he's already undone it all ... how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to fight the good fight) :-) - Dave On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
wow he's already undone it all ... how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to fight the good fight) :-) - Dave On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Good work. I say don't mark it vandalism. Don't give him the satisfaction of getting into long discussions, either - perhaps he's been loving the attention he's been getting from Meiser, and we need to make it boring for him. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 18:37, David Meade wrote: found it ... if we undo his undo should we mark it as Vandalism (defined as change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia) ... or what? On 4/30/07, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: wow he's already undone it all ... how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to fight the good fight) :-) - Dave On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com -- http://www.DavidMeade.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
