User talk:DanielZimmerman/Archives/Archive2

Your Mediation Committee Nomination

I am sorry to say that your nomination to become a member of the Mediation Committee has failed per the two oppose rule. We appreciate your desire to help out, and the opposes indicate that there is no prejudice to a future nomination after you have been active on Wikipedia for awhile. You might also consider joining the Mediation Cabal. Happy editing! — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability

You are right that the page is tagged as a guideline and not as policy. My wording may have been infelicitous but it was not arbitrarily chosen. I used the word policy partly to make the distinction between it and the subguidelines clear (regardless of the tags) and also because I think that its ubiquitous usage makes it a de facto policy and I support this status. I don't believe that the current tagging of pages is as important as how they are used in practice, but appreciate the desire for precision. My intention was not to misrepresent the status of the page but rather to make a point about its reletive importance. Eluchil404 15:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that notability is being given too much importance than it deserves. Who defines what is "notable"? What one person thinks is notable, another person might not have heard of. It is way to subjective to be used as a criteria in an encyclopedia that is not paper. DanielZimmerman 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Jindal supports copayments in medicaid.

I'm not disputing this line. It's on the page twice, so I simply deleted the redundancy. Then you put it back in. Please read the entire content of "Positions on selected issues" on the page and you'll see what I'm talking about. --Austinfidel 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divisive

There's two things here. First, a template does not in general need an associated category; in particular there has been some effort to remove categories from userboxes, because of the sentiment that we have too many categories as it is. Second, if you object to some policy or guideline, then stating so on your userpage really doesn't do anything. Instead you can make a {{proposal}} to change it, that would be more productive. Otherwise, we'd get a group of blocked users in a Category:Users who think the blocking policy is unfair, that doesn't accomplish anything either. "Mergism" is not a policy/guideline, so that's entirely different (although you can put it on CFD if you really want). HTH! >Radiant< 09:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First: A template may not need an associated category. However, the template that you have on your page is associated with a category. If it is ok for an admin to have a userbox on his/her page that links to a non-admin related category page then why shouldn't it be ok for a plain ole user like me to have a userbox on my page that on my page that links me to a category as well?

Second: Mergism is a philosophy on how things should work on wikipedia. You believe that certain elements are "notable" enough to be on wikipedia but those things are not deserving their own page. So unlike inclusionists who would keep such things in articles and unlike deletionists who would just delete them, you support the idea of merging them into related articles where applicable. Being against notability as an inclusion criteria is also a philosphy on how wikipedia should work. If its ok to have one group, it should be ok to have the other.

Third: You may not think that it accomplishes much by having a userbox that links to a category on a userpage but that doesn't mean that you are correct. My purpose in creating the category was to find like minded people so we could work together in finding alternatives (if needed) to the current notability guidelines. I find working together in solving a problem to be more productive than working seperately.

Fourth: You deleted the category because you felt it was divisive, not because of what such a category may or may not accomplish. There was absolutely nothing in that category that was divisive, and your assumption of bad faith on my part in creating it (by calling it divisive) was unfair. Your deleting it without talking to me first as to why I created the category was also unfair.

Look, I feel that the wikipedia guideline on notability does not belong, for many reasons. I want to work to change it. I feel that it would be helpful to me to have a category where users (like myself) can find each other and work together to make sure that we come up with reasonable proposals that will gain a consensus. The best way to group such users would be in that catagory I created. So could you please reconsider the idea that the category is divisive and help me to restore that category (or at least promise to not delete it again). DanielZimmerman 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Bobby Jindal Article

Regarding your recent revert on the article in question, you indicated that the reason was a lack of a talk page justification. I'd just point out that while comments are desirable (at least edit summaries) they are not essential. The merits of the edit were sound, and edits should be evaluated on that basis, rather than on the formalities involved. Perhaps a quibble, and I've appreciated your contributions. Best, Gabrielthursday 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability!

Hi, I just came back from an 8 month hiatus and noticed that there's another anti-notability box out there! Thought I'd say hi. -- Chris is me _{(user/review/talk)} 05:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jindal

Thanks for your note. I've got it watchlisted.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]