User talk:Oicumayberight/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Creativity

Thanks for your contribution to the creativity page. I have not heard of the "negative approach" to measuring creativity before. Do you have a reference to this approach you could add? Or is there somewhere you could point me towards to check it out? Thanks --BrettRob 01:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anything. I was hoping someone else would. I know I'm not the only person thinking along those lines. I attempted to do some research here [1] but got distracted. I did coin the term "negative approach" for lack of a better word. So I guess it's just a theory or original research. Feel free to do research or delete it. For now I will put a fact check request on the post. Oicumayberight 01:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Medium Format

There's a problem with changing over medium format to medium format (film), which is that all of the photography articles that previously linked to medium format are now directed to the general format page. I don't know if there's some quicker way to amend this than by going to all the pages that link to medium format and changing them manually, but it should be done. royblumy 18:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to fix it. Oicumayberight 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Template systems

Hello Oicumayberight! I see you is a designer with good knowledges about "template systems".

We need a design expert to improve/review the Web_template_system#Separation_of_concerns topic, and the "template series" illustrations (with Talk on User_talk:Dreftymac/WebTemplateDiscussion)... Well come to the "template series"!

-- Krauss 27 November 2006

AfD Nomination: Business-to-business (disambiguation)

An editor has nominated the article Business-to-business (disambiguation) for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business-to-business (disambiguation). Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Business-to-business (disambiguation) during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 15:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Graphic image development

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Graphic image development, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.--Davémon 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Design Stubs

Hi Oicumayberight. The design stub and design stub category you made in December has come to the attn of stub committee and if you have not yet noticed we are discussing renaming it. I suggested changing the names to "graphic design stub" only (apart from auto design, fashion design, etc...) as it looks like you had only marked graphic design topics and I understand the need for graphic design. You are welcome to help us reach a consensus at the stub place over here: [[2]] Goldenrowley 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Image development (visual arts)

An editor has nominated Image development (visual arts), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Image development (visual arts) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

New proposed designer stub

Hi Oic, I just wanted you to know that I have just proposed a new stub as follows: designer-stub, the proposal is over here:[3] In addition, don't know how closely you watch the design stub categories, but I've finished the stubs for communication design, and industrial design and tagged as many articles I could.Goldenrowley 20:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I commented on it. Maybe Ronz would like to weigh in as well. Oicumayberight 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks / Image Development

You seem to be determined to misunderstand me and launch personal attacks. As fas as I can see I haven't represented the admins position in any way than he thought I should AFD it again. I made no mention of why the admin agreed I should AfD it again, meerly the fact that he did. Can I suggest it would be more constructive finding verifiable sources, and less time trying to argue with me. Seriously, it seems like you've got more interest in playing politics, airing your personal issues with me and less in actually improving the article. --Davémon 20:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Correcting an inaccurate statement is not a personal attack even if you choose to take it personally. Oicumayberight 20:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1) How is that the admin agreed I should renominate the article inaccurate? Davémon 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not an accurate statement. Oicumayberight 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Meerly restating your position doesn't make it true. The admin agreed I should AfD it again. --Davémon 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The admin never said you "should". The admin advised nominating for a "better decision". That's different from re-AfD. Oicumayberight 21:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

how so? --Davémon 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've explained it. Do you need to read it again? Oicumayberight 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, "a better decision" would have been a deletion, so obviously your logic is flawed and deeply biased to your own narrow views on the subject. --Davémon 22:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Better" may be subjective. However, in order for something to be better, it must at least be different. You are not making different arguments. You are repeating the same arguments and threatening to AfD again with those same arguments. You are rejecting community input. You are either disrupting to illustrate a point or have some other hidden agenda. But there is no need to repeat circular arguments. Oicumayberight 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Better" refers to the 'decision', not my argument against the article. The same arguments will be repeated, if not by me, then eventually by another editor who checks your 'references' against your statements. Meanwhile you can call me a troll, and get upset, but the fact remains that the article is unverified. --Davémon 11:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

2) You seem to have imagined I mentioned a motive for the renomination, I didn't, and you have naturally assumed bad faith on my part. Davémon 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's my POV. Don't take it personal. Oicumayberight 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith in the future. --Davémon 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to assume good faith when the same tired arguments are made over and over again despite rebuttal and consensus against. Oicumayberight 21:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I dispute Consensus was reached, which is why the the admin suggested I AfD again - for a better decision. If you simply provided sources which didn't actually conflict with the article, then I'd have no need to re-argue. Note, the admin didn't say he'd actually checked your 'references' - just the AfD argument. --Davémon 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is obvious. It doesn't have to be unanimous. Now you're just assuming that the admin didn't check the sources. That's borderline insulting.

Well, the admin stated he'd made his decision based on the AfD debate - not on the verification of sources. I'm just basing my position on that. I don't believe it's encumbent on an admin to read all the sources, just to gauge consensus as presented within the debate. --Davémon 22:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oicumayberight 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

3) How is "It's become your mission to defy common sense." not a personal attack? Davémon 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not an attack. Just criticism. I'm calling it as I see it. Don't take it personal. Oicumayberight 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Critism/ attack / whatever. WP:NPA: "comment on content, not on the contributor" ok. --Davémon 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The content as been commented on to exhaustion. The only argument left to dispute is the undisclosed motive that the anti-contributor has for repeating the rebutted arguments. Oicumayberight 21:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The motive is that the entire article is WP:OR. It's easy to prove it isn't, just cite sources wher I've flagged up the need for them in the article. --Davémon 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If it were OR and easy to prove as you say, there would have been consensus to delete. Oicumayberight 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already stated my reasons for not accepting consensus, in the discussion I had with the clearing administrator - do you need to read them again? --Davémon 22:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to read anything again. I don't have a problem with you or the article. You're the one who seems to need to reject community input. Oicumayberight 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps if you had read my reasons again, you'd see why I think the decision doesn't actually reflect "community input" - this was partly my fault for not being clear in my initial posting of why the article should be deleted. I'm not going to accuse you of using sock puppets, but one of the 'keeps' certainly bears the hallmarks of one. Further, none of the 'keeps' actually claimed that the articles specific content was verifiable. For those reasons, and those reasons only, I simply don't accept consensus had been reached. Personally, I'm happy to let the issue drop so long as other editors are given the opportunity to verify and correctly cite the information. --Davémon 11:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Davémon 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Oicumayberight 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way the history seems to show that are you are sole author of the page, is that correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemon (talk • contribs)

There has been other editors. Check the history. Oicumayberight 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, from what I can see, they fixed your grammar and reworded a little, but didn't actually add content. --Davémon 11:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no rule against being a sole contributor. Oicumayberight 18:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)