In a message dated 6/27/2007 1:21:00 AM Central Daylight Time,
cunctator(a)gmail.com writes:
It's not good practice to criticize others without making specific
reference to back up your criticism.
Not necessarily, because I was generalizing and including myself. I felt
there was no need to escalate things and go on tangents when I was just making a
mere comment. But, if you want specific examples, I'll name one in the
e-mail that is following this one.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 6/27/2007 12:06:58 AM Central Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
That requires making the dangerous assumption that we already know how.
It's a condescending attitude that makes no allowance for the
possibility that a newbie might have good ideas.
I don't get it. They can still present them. We have policies and guidelines
about how to do everything. So we should scrap those because a newbie might
have good ideas? Fiction shouldn't be an exception.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
This notability guideline rewrite does two things:
1.) It establishes the fact that fiction articles are only notable if there
is out-of-universe infomration available
2.) Provides ways of dealing with non-notable topics and organizating
notable-topics
In essense, many of the "list of vehicles from XXX" would be moved to
another Wiki or whatever, because they fail to establish notability. ANYTHING is
better than the current version, which is basically just tips to defend against
huge tidal waves of fancruft. Most of the nonsense that people try to cleanup
would be shipped out (or parts would be reorganized).
Newcomers especially need a place to go to understand that creating articles
on their favorite mecha are non-notable unless they can provide significant
out-of-universe information. WAF then provides details on out-of-universe
sources as well as writing from an out-of-universe perspective. The key is to
unite the two concepts of notability and writing about fiction.
Taking away a notability guideline would be seen to newbies as "anything
in-universe is fair game".
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 6/26/2007 4:15:02 PM Central Daylight Time,
cunctator(a)gmail.com writes:
You have confirmed my fears that the result of this proposal would be
to grossly reduce the utility of Wikipedia's entries by merging and
cutting them.
Please read my response (and others) at the bottom of
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28fiction%29#Secti…
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Section_br…) . You'll be
surprised that we're not bad people.
In response to another comment, the terminology meaning is changing. We're
using the term "notability" to TRANCEND deletionism, to the point where the
WP:FICT rewirte actually DISCOURAGES deletion. There are many other solutions
to keep people happy. Once again, I recommend people read the rewrite
([[User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction)]]).
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
On 26 Jun 2007 at 14:35:29 -0400, "The Cunctator"
<cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/25/07, Kamryn Matika <kamrynmatika(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/26/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
> > >
> > > The wikidrama continued in the [[Essjay controversy]] article over
> > > the last 24 hours. First, various people edit-warred over the
[snipped a lot of stuff... we all should do some quote-trimming so
things don't get out of hand]
> > i suspect that your continued rantings and overuse of sarcasm & targetting
> > of various editors is going to do more to harm your cause than help it.
>
> I believe the only editor he targeted was you. Oh, and MONGO. I don't
> think two editors == various editors.
Actually, it seems I've mentioned at least four editors...
[[User:KamrynMatika]], [[User:ElinorD]], [[User:MichaelLinnear]], and
[[User:MONGO]]... well, five if you count [[User:Essjay]], and maybe
even six (didn't [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]] show up herself as an
editor?). Of course, I wasn't actually "targeting" all of them; I
was favorable or neutral to some of them.
> > you would be much better off spending your time making reasonable, rational
> > arguments presented in a calm, non-accusatory manner and attempting to
> > engage the editors you disagree with in proper discussion as opposed to
> > bitching about them on the mailing list
>
> I get the impression he's tried engaging with editors like you and
> MONGO and is now quite exasperated.
>
> Maybe you should defend your decision to block an editor who was
> properly sourcing an article. Which seems pretty indefensible to me,
> but I have a limited imagination.
Ummm... wait a minute, ElinorD was the one who did the block.
User:KamrynMatika, who you're replying to, was the one who *got*
blocked. Big difference!
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Mangoe [mailto:the.mangoe@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 02:32 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troll, troll, troll
>
>On 6/25/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/25/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Of course, "troll" often means "person who insists on bringing up
>> > something I'm doing wrong even though I keep trying to dismiss him."
>
>> It's an accurate use of the term if it's describing someone who keeps
>> resurrecting an issue with a view to causing trouble around it.
>
>That is assuming bad faith, in spades.
Not assuming, Slim Virgin speaks from experience.
Fred