User talk:Rcehoppe

Regarding your edit to The Imaginary Theatre Association:[edit]

Your recent edit to The Imaginary Theatre Association (diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a shared IP address to add email addresses, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, or forum links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to The Imaginary Theatre Association[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Rcehoppe! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, and try to reinsert the link again. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 05:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:ITALOGO 06 02.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:ITALOGO 06 02.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:ItaLOGO 06.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:ItaLOGO 06.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

HEY HEY, and Hello Rcehoppe here! And welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. Again, welcome! Rcehoppe 07:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for help[edit]

I encourage you to continue editing here on wikipedia, but unfortunately, your article on the ITA was deleted, and this is on permenant record here. If you try to recreate the page, it will be speedily deleted. The only way you can hope to get the page recreated is to bring it through Deletion review. I suggest you check out What wikipedia is not and see if the policies there apply to your article. For instance, Wikipedia is not a free web host : articles must have the proper notability in order to be included. If applicable, you could add it List of role-playing games by name ( I see you tried something simliar before), but beware that any spam type links will be removed (see WP:SPAM). I hope this helps. Danski14 00:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, next time you need help, check out Wikipedia:Help desk. Or post a comment on the relevant talk page if you have a specific concern about a particular article. Or, feel free to post on my talk page User talk:Danski14. Danski14 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I moved the talk that was on your user page onto your discussion page. You want people to post here so you get notifications when they do. Danski14 00:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danski14[edit]

hi there! Thank you very much for your post, overall the first time that i started to post here, i really didn't understand on how things worked on wikipedia, and that is my fault. I am still trying to understand on how wikipedia works which i find really confusing and frustrating. Because for the most part, i have a learning disability which hampers my understanding of things in general from time to time, and i do get really frustrated when i start to work on EDITORIAL work, but i do what i can. And before i start this again ( as in just giving it an other shot.) I am looking for those who really know that they are doing when it comes to wikipedia. Within with my own experience (on line that is) and with dealing with "others" i have found that peaple like to hit on my weakness, ether allow it to be directly or indirectly , I really really find it frustrating to deal with, and that is putting it mildly.

HOWEVER, i (again) do what i can to deal with myself. The reason that i don't just give up, is i find my work to be very important especially with the world and how it is and starting to become. In short i am trying to contribute back in a positive way, threw the games that i ran/ or a part of, thus the ITA and my other work that is do.

As time goes on and on i really finding it more more important to keep doing what i have been doing...I do apologize if that sounds like a little epic in stature.

So get back to this, here is a link of the thoughts on the Delectation of the last work that was posted (http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/rants/wikipedia-delete.html) with the person who help out.

anyways, to give you a littel bit of in sight on my learning disability, it has taking over 3 hours to write and to put together. in short i i still find wikipedia to be a grate place to be and overall i really could use some help in this together.

What do we need to do?

Thank you for your time in this matter

-RCEHoppe. Rcehoppe 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think there is much you can do. I posted a comment on the blog discussing the issue. The main problem with your article is it does not assert why it is notable... see my comment for more details : [1]. When I did a google search for the Imaginary Theatre Association, I found your article here: [2], although I don't known if it will stay there very long.

Danski14 21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

i see..well to help you out, here is the *** to your post.

Dan at 13:40 Jan 30, 2007 A simple test for notability is this : search for it on google. A search for "Imaginary Theatre Association" returns nothing at all that lends any sense of notability to the association: only a crappy looking MSN Group, and the wiki article you created. There are not even any official (dedicated) websites.

You see, in order for an article to be notable, it must ASSERT it's notability, either with relevant weblinks or references to books, magazines, or other published information on the subject. Your article did none. It just appeared to be a plug to what appears to be one tiny website among billions.

How many people visit your site?? How many members are there?? Check Alexa statistics. Policies have been worked out to deal with this kind of thing. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:N... for discussions on this. The fact is, Wikipedia is NOT a free webhost or advertising tool, and to maintain it's integrity standards need to be laid down by the encyclopedists.

So, I hope this helps you understand the process better. If you truly think it is notable and can survive on Wikipedia, then you can try to bring it through deletion review and get the article undeleted, and possibly your work restored.

Also, consider putting your page on a different wiki project, such as those at wikia.com There are all sorts of specialized wikis there that are easy to contribute to.

Dan at 13:53 Jan 30, 2007 anyone else interested in wikipedia policy should check out "What Wikipedia is Not" here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT

Dan at 13:56 Jan 30, 2007 I will also note that wikipedia's goals are Long Term. In other words, wikipedia should not be biased to today's pop culture. Articles should be notable a ten, twenty, fifty, and a hundred years from now. Simliarily, there are projects to make wikipedia has all the information contained in older encyclopedias so that important people from centuries ago are included. These projects help counteract and systemic bias inherent in the system.

Alan De Smet at 17:24 Jan 30, 2007 Dan: Did you really read my rant? You've apparently overlooked a key part of it:

Prior to the article appearing in Wikipedia I had never heard of the "Imaginary Theatre Association." I don't ever anticipate meeting anyone involved in the group. I think I'm a reasonably neutral party on the matter.

As such, a healthy chuck of your comment is totally off topic. I don't care that if it's included. If I felt it had gotten a fair consideration, I would have no problem with the deletion. My complaint is about the behavior of certain holier-than-thou editors who are more interested in procedure and destruction than actually creating something good.

Wikipedia is great. I use it frequently for reference, perhaps daily. I've been doing so do many years. That's why I started contributing several years ago; I have a desire to give back to such a useful resource. Check my edit history and seriously suggest that I've even once made edits in bad faith, to promote a particular site or POV. I understand Wikipedia's goals just fine, thank you. You're telling me nothing new. You're not helping me understand anything. You are annoying me.

Maybe it's just bad timing, but for the last few months of my editing I've spend increasing amounts of time bumping into editors more interested in rules and destruction than actually improving Wikipedia. I'm frustrated with the editors who are rules obsessed and love erroneously declaring a guideline a policy and hard-and-fast rule, ignoring the limited charter of guidelines, that many guidelines are disputed, and Wikipedia's actual policies. I'm frustrated at editors who are so in love with destroying information that they'll swoop into a field they're clearly unfamiliar with and try to delete articles instead of understanding and possibly improving them. I'm frustrated at editors involved in AfD disputes just do a quick Google search and pronounce the case closed. I'm frustrated by editors who vote something as non-notable, without saying a single word to the claims of notability put forth. I'm frustrated by editors who claim that Wikipedia is for the ages, that we must not let trivial things in, but are too cowardly to do the god-damn article-per-Pokemon purge, or perhaps the article-per-episode-of-a-crappy-sci-fi-show purge; their puritan zeal disappears in the face of mass opposition.

These people completely ignore why Wikipedia grew in just a few short years from nothing to the single most cited online reference. Yes, the English language Wikipedia needs a heck of a lot more citations. But the solution is improvement and cautious deletion, not a draconian system. Those in favor of a draconian system are prone to drive off the sometimes contributors, turning Wikipedia into a insular community of people with too much free time on their hands. Such a community will produce less content, have less peer review, and be more prone to letting bias slip into article. Ultimately it will create a slow moving system that may be very safe, but has completely failed to provide something truly new and wonderful over traditional encylopedias. It sickens me to my stomach to know that these short-sighted would-be-lawyers may destroy such a wonderful resource.

Peter Keller at 20:20 Jan 30, 2007 While notability rules could be argued for compliance in this case, I do think Dan's comment about "wikipedia should not be biased to today's pop culture" is disingenuous at best, and blind at worst.

A prime example is the Yu-Gi-Oh! trading card game entry in Wikipedia. Do you really think, Dan, that this game will be so monstrously popular in 100 years that it needs such a detailed entry? The entry should have been just this (gotten from the entry for this in Wikipedia):

The Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game is a collectible card game based on Duel Monsters, which appears as the main plot device in the popular Japanese manga Yu-Gi-Oh! and Toei's Yu-Gi-Oh! series and NAS's Yu-Gi-Oh! series. In its fictional contexts, the game is sometimes referred to as Magic and Wizards or M&W in the original Japanese manga.

Distributed by Konami (as Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters: Official Card Game) in Asian countries and Upper Deck Entertainment everywhere else, it was inspired by the game in the manga and anime series; however, the rules are adhered more strictly and are comparatively more consistent and balanced than the game represented in its fictional contexts.

I mean really, that's it. That's all it should have been. Anything else is honestly extraneous to what the card game is in the context of the world as a whole.

And, using point 7 from the what wikipedia is not link, I would have a righteous field day extricating the innumerable plot summaries and universe descriptions detailed for the X-Men universe which has also permeated the wikipedia website. Concerning X-Men, sure, there could be plenty of articles about how the comic evolved from some guy drawing it on paper to a multinational comic, how its distribution systems work, who worked on it, etc, etc, etc. But those things are actual facts in the world. What aren't facts are the 15 different plot lines and in 4 of them Professor X dies in some excruciating way which turned out to be a dream all along and that Jean Gray is the Phoenix, but maybe not.... etc.

Why does the plot summary and universe description (one outrightly denied by wikipedia's very own rules, the other not even facts in this world) get to stay, but Imaginary Theatre Association's ~10 links to real world examples of them have to go?

Examination of that contradiction will be enlightening.

I have to agree there, this is very very -enlightening- need les to say.

Thank you for your time, and Have a nice Day! -RCEHoppe.

Rcehoppe 14:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITA repost[edit]

A tag has been placed on The Imaginary Theatre Association, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted in a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how The Imaginary Theatre Association is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:The Imaginary Theatre Association saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions. -- Ben (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Imaginary Theatre Association has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Please also note that articles must be on notable subjects and should cite to reliable sources which verify their content. Please only repost the article in a form that meets these standards. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dloh cierekim 15:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:ITALOGO.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ITALOGO.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]