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 me<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade>08:39, 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 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/ > > > > Webvideo festival this June!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > -- > Josh Leo > > www.JoshLeo.com > www.WanderingWestMichigan.com > www.SlowLorisMedia.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
