User talk:RockerGrrrl

Page Blanking

Please do not blank pages that you created. If you wish to delete the page, add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Thank you. Panoptical 12:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Article Police

I hate the way Wikipedia 'contributers' endlessly delete stuff. Myself and a friend tried to write an article which was also called 'Redboy' about a local urban legend but they wouldn't even give us the time to finish it before they deleted it (Twice). Honestly, this place a joke, I have been blocked and unblocked since then. I was thinking that if enough of us true wikipedians band together we can change the site policy, what do you think? Johnjoecavanagh 13:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note from RockerGrrrl: Yeah, what IS up with the article police? I just edited my userpage mentioning them. Who ARE these people? And how are they that deprived of a life that they must go around deleting other people's stuff? Do these people WORK for wikipedia? Do they get PAID for this stuff? I added a few articles about some bands I know and all but one have been deleted so far. All the bands I wrote about have received *some* success, but I guess none are "notable" or "substantiated" enough to be mentioned here. I thought this was WIKIPEDIA... isn't obscure information welcome? So...tell me about the urban legend Redboy.

Its ridiculous! Obscure trivia is what this place is - anyone with a bit of common sense realises not to bother with this place for, you know, anything remotely intelligent. Anyway, its about this person who lives in Monaghan and who is intensley speculated over... Its actually a very interesting tale but myself and a friend have twice tried to create it only for one of the SS to come along and delete it. On both occassions we had barely scratched the surface and pleaded for a few days to get it up and going but they came along and deleted it anyway because in their EXPERT (pardon my laughter) opinion it was, and I repeat, 'worthless'. Who decides what is of value and what is not? Anyway, I'm going to get an online petition together, we can easily get two to three hundred signatores and we can put our case together and present it to the top dogs. Spread the word! Johnjoecavanagh 13:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC) http://www.upetitions.com/petitions/index.php?id=195[reply]

Surely it our duty to make things known, so long as there is some sort of interest in it? You may personally not know about something, which doesn't mean to say that others don't. In fact, the intense amount of knowledge a single person will never know is beyond comprehension, so notability is a moot point to begin with Johnjoecavanagh 22:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is in answer to John-Joe's comment, which has hit the metaphysical nail on the head. When one talks about a body of knowledge one does not normally mean the knowledge about a subject kept in a single head, one means the "generally accepted" body of knowledge by those conversant in the field. People publish articles and books about the things they find out about the areas that they are interested in. That provides a first-level filtering mechanism. A second level of filtering is provided by others by their criticism or acceptance (or combination) of the information originally produced. An encyclopedia is a third level mechanism which is intended to share the "generally accepted" body of knowledge by those conversant in the field. This means that it is not a mechanism for changing the unknown into the known, that is called original research. That is why, as a third level resource, Wikipedia emphasizes: verifiability, accuracy, and neutral point of view. See the first pillar of the Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." The only sense that an encyclopedia is a mechanism for changing the unknown into the known, is in the head of an individual who is not conversant in the field. Unfortunately, John-Joe has been blocked indefinitely for violation of the fourth pillar of the Wikipedia: Wikipedia's code of conduct. --Bejnar 14:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oodles of Noodles

You suggested: "I think a redirect to Top Ramen would be more appropriate" for Oodles of Noodles. As you may see, by searching for (or clicking) Top Ramen, the Top Ramen page is a redirect to Instant noodles, which article also needs work. Now I am in a quandary about whether product should take precedence over manufacturer (brand-name holder). Normally, I would say product, but Nissin's lead products are all instant noodles. What do you think? --Bejnar 14:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think re-directing it to Instant noodles might be better, considering I find that page to be more interesting than that of Nissin Foods - after all, we could always tweak the Instant noodles article together. ;) I personally enjoy it, since it mentions several points that I feel are crucial when the term Oodles of Noodles comes to mind. --RockerGrrrl 15:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hello! :) I thought you might be interested in this. Check it out and add your name under "Participants" if your interested. Have a nice day and happy editing! --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Doug Cowen

I have nominated Doug Cowen, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Cowen. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Amalthea (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]