User talk:Joyous!

Talk Archives

• 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10

I don't get it

Why are all my articles being deleted, even ones I only edited, and why are all you users making so many inaccurate assumptions about my articles? I am brand new to wikipedia, and you have sucked all the motivation and enthusiasm from me. I didn't realize when I added Garbasail (an article I DID NOT create) to the "Sailing" category, that it would lead to you gathering your troops, and wiping me off this site completely. How can I possibly defend myself, not even understanding the process? How can I defend myself to multiple experienced users who have already made their extremely closed minds up? I don't know why you chose me to pick on, but you have succeeded, and it is unfair. I would add to the discussion if I could find any discussion. When users say merely "Vanity", "Original Research", or "Complete Bollocks", I can not sense any discussion. I also did not realize that the number of hits on google can make a definition credible, it seems to me like this is a VERY flawed system. I will likely just give up, because I don't have an army like you. Thanks for giving me the equivalent of a punch in the stomach. I apologize if I come across at all argumentative, it is not my intention, I am just seriously offended by the organized effort to attack my articles directly. - Ronsonmanchild 12:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if it seems as though there's an organized effort to go after you or the articles you've created. I haven't gathered my troops together, nor am I interested in driving you from this site. When you placed the link for Garbasail, it caught my attention because I have "sailing" on a list of articles that I keep an eye on. When I looked at the article, nothing there persuaded me that it is a practice carried out by more than a very few people. Wikipedia has set some standards of notability for inclusion of articles here. It did not appear to me that garbasail met those standards. That's what prompted the discussion about the possible deletion. When other editors noticed the discussion, they looked at the related articles, and came to the conclusion on their own that they might not be suitable for Wikipedia. Really, no one is picking on you specifically: it's just that you've written and contributed to several articles that seem to be teetering on the edge of being publicity-gathering devices. Wikipedia tries to avoid being the vehicle for establishing popularity and "well-knownness," preferring to document recognition rather than establish it in the first place. Joyous | Talk 17:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your sincere response. I'm sure I over reacted somewhat, but I still feel as though I'm on an uneven playing field. I can see now that you did not instigate all of this deletion activity, only that regarding the Garbasail page. I also understand that Wikipedia has these policies, and I don't necessarily claim as a blanket rule that all the pages I contributed to meet the confines of these policies. I wish I had the time to both address the comments I do not agree with, and edit the articles that I believe DO fall within... what do you call it? Wikipediavilleness? Wikivization? I am not looking to gather publicity for myself or anyone else, these are known, established, and previously published concepts that are actively pushing the boundaries of public / environmental art. How much time do I have to re-write the articles, and / or contribute to the "discussion"? - Ronsonmanchild 18:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note here, I could go along with all of these projects going into a single Josh Levine (environmental artist) article, but only if there's some evidence of notability. Such evidence might include major newspaper, magazine, or TV coverage of these art projects. In any case I don't think each project alone needs a separate article. There are also many Josh Levines who appear to be as or more notable including another artist, so the article would have to be named something like Josh Levine (environmental artist). Is there enough verifiable third-party coverage of these projects to make a go of it? Thanks, KleenupKrew 00:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and suggestion. I could see this happening the way you've described, but I truly believe Garbasail is more noteworthy than is perceived, it is not some kind of joke, not vanity, not original research, and not "a bunch of guys messing around"... still, I am aware that none of this supporting evidence has been presented thus far, and no major edits have taken place to help address these concerns. I do agree that some of the other terms related to Josh Levine may have been improperly placed here, by me, due only to my lack of experience on wikipedia. Garbasail, however is a relevant topic I did not create, and I say this now only after reading all of the policies that users like you have drawn my attention to. I will attempt to both make my arguments for the term Garbasail, and re-write and attempt to wikify the somewhat incorrect description currently available. I will also attempt to re-write Josh Levine in the manner you've suggested, and then I will vote to merge some of the other topics into that new description. The only thing I'm not totally clear on is how much time a word spends in "delete limbo"? - Ronsonmanchild 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Greensboro Massacre

You're an Admin, right? Even if not, maybe you can help with this. On the page noted in the heading, I got into a tussle with this one guy who kept posting a website that is essentially an ad for a documentary film that his brother made, about the 1979 Greensboro incident. I kept reverting it as spam, and he kept re-reverting it on the grounds that it has free clips on it. I think he was sufficiently chastened, but I advised him to find an Admin because I could be wrong about this. Wahkeenah 00:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hey Joy. I'm the guy that apparently got into a "tussle" with Wahkeenah. Look, I'm not going to press on with this -- this experience has pretty much frustrated me from participating in Wikipedia moving forward -- but I do want to give you a bit of context. Funny, I'm writing this post directly following the Beyond Broadcast conference at Berkman, where we spent two days attempting to pursuade old media to embrace new media approaches such as social tagging, open API's and wiki's...

• My brother and I are attempting to try a new form of storytelling. He wrote, directed and produced a documentary about the Greensboro Massacre between 1997 and 2002. We're attempting to carry the story beyond it's climax in 2002 (Andy's film helped get Kwame Cannon released from prison) by picking up the narrative just prior to the release of the first US-based Truth and Reconciliation Commission report in late May. The community (we both live in Greensboro) is already starting up a heated conversation, so Andy is going to use the blog to extend the narrative by releasing video footage of the TRC hearings, interviews in the community -- creating a part blog, part vlog, part documentary.

• Yeah, the awards he won in 2002 weren't from SXSW or Tribeca -- he spent less than $3,000 total on the project. Yeah, the blog isn't a popular one... yet, but why does any of this matter? We don't have advertising like a Boing Boing or other popular blogs and never will. We're being tagged as spam because there's an innocuous link to paypal just in case if someone wants to buy the film? I'm sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with this determination. We're serving our own community -- *ours*, we live in Greensboro! -- yet we can't link to this conversation and film from the subject matter it covers?

• The Vietnam War was a real-life event, as was the Greensboro Massacre. On the Vietnam War Wikipedia page, there's a list of 25 films, each leading to a page with a link to an *official site* of the film. The only difference between that scenario and this scenario, is that I haven't created an official Wikipedia page for Greensboro's Child and linked there from the Greensboro Massacre page.

• Please take this logical perspective into consideration. Thank you. Spcoon 06:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I advised this user what you advised that he do, i.e. to plead his case to the wiki community, which it looks like he has not done. He complained about some other items on that page being spam, and I advised him if he thought they were spam, he was free to delete those as well. At this point I have lost interest in the discussion. Wahkeenah 14:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Re: Your posting his entry on request for comment - kudos. I'll leave it alone. Maybe I made too much of it. But I've seen other cases where folks tried to promote stuff, and their main gripe was that they though they should be able to do whatever they want to. Wahkeenah 15:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

FPA

THE FPA is a small organisation started in staffordshire england to campaign for rights for people of larger stature and to make them feel better about themselves i believe we are more propductive than the family planning accosiation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Big C (talk • contribs)

I respect your views on this subject, however i feel that all organisations must start somewhere and I believe that one day the the FPA will become a world renowed organisation. I do accept that that time isnt now and the current membership is only in the region of 80 members but across staffordshire but we are growing considerably and appeared briefely in a local newspaper. What is the threshold for the number of members for us to allow the posting of our information page?The Big C 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your continuing work on the Vandalism Patrol. Rossami (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

...for the advice, the information, and for being nice. I did not know about the workspace, and I will not stress about any timeline. - Ronsonmanchild 17:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Dimitri Spanoa

Just letting you know that the creator of Dimitri Spanoa contested your prod, and I have now taken it to AfD. You can find the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitri Spanoa. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 20:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what you did...you removed other peoples posts as well...do you consider The Moth band as vanity? and what is vain about having a link connected to someone that wants to feature a moth of the week on their site...you are making a poor example of what a WIKI gnome or troll should conduct themeselves as. Instead this is nothing more than harrasment.

Hey.

I'm not vandalising or testing. I just posted a delete message on an IP talk page, forgetting to log out first. Thanks. — NathanHP ^{(T • C • W)} 00:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to message

Hi.. I'm not sure, I think the article itself was created purely with the intent of promoting Dimitri Spamoa. But as you mentioned "urban art" does return resonable results on search engines, perhaps it just needs a complete re-work? - Deathrocker 13:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that it needs a complete rewrite as well. By the way I have more than a sneaking suspicion that users User:67.190.163.11, User:Miamibreaksgirrl, User:Keodrah, and User:Darkmoth are all socks--Adrift* 14:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know enough about the topic to start a page on it, but since the current article is completely void of any citation or veracity I don't see a reason why it can't be at least tagged until someone with more knowledge about the subject decides to edit it.--Adrift* 15:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)