User talk:Avt tor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Avt tor, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --DarkEvil 02:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 02:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second-person and point of view

Thank you for contributing to the different articles on second-person narration. It is very much needed with some qualified help on this issue! I see that you have added an eample of "Jonathan Garg's New Moon" to the point of view article. Who is this Jonathan Garg? I have never heard about him and I have not been able to find anything on him, and the link that you have added seems to lead to a website that does not quote its sources whatsoever!? Thanks again! Jeppebarnwell 10:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to help. Actually, all I did was try to clean up the confusion between Point of view (literature) and Narrator. A lot of POV material was in the Narrator article, so I just cut and paste and tried to make that somewhat coherent. I didn't evalutate the content as such. I'm not the source of the reference to Jonathan Garg. Part of my purpose was to add clarity so that it would be easier to research some of the details. When I discovered the subordinate articles, it seemed to me that a lot of the detailed material could go into the subordinate pages, so there's still work to be done. But when I saw the debate about merging going back months, untangling the pages looked like a soluble first step. Avt tor 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lieberman

Agree with your edits to the lead, but I think it would be better to correct problems (mentioning Jewish in the opening line, dropping phrase "anti-Palestinian") without characterizing them in the summary line as anti-Semitic.

It is important to Lieberman's bio that he is Jewish, more important than noting Dodd's religion, whatever it may be. I think we can agree though, that it does not belong up top, without resorting to charges of anti-Semitism. Likewise, he is one of the most anti-Palestinian legislators in Washington. But we agree that the use of that phrase (instead of pro-Israel) is inflammatory. Toning down rhetoric is a good thing. It would be just as good to talk about toning down rhetoric instead of characterizing factually accurate but inappropriately placed comments as anti-Semitic.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Jd2718 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Singling out public figures for being Jewish, in a way that isn't applied to other public figures, is a method used by anti-Semitic groups to isolate and marginalize Jewish personalities. It's not harmless or neutral, regardless of how factual it is. There is a way to put relevant background in context. Someone keeps injecting this material back in, and their agenda should be exposed. Avt tor 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there are two problems here. We don't know the editor. And as much as you dislike the edits or I think they are inappropriate, we do not know the editor's motivation. By labeling them anti-Semitic you may be in violation of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. And while the violation may be minor, it is worth reading the policy.
Second, there is a need for editors to revert anti-Semitic editing on Wikipedia. But I am talking about the real thing (try Holocaust or Jew for lots of examples. I would not count these edits in the same category. Jd2718 01:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll take your word about those other articles. I don't think I can edit my earlier reason, but I won't phrase the objection that way in the future. Avt tor 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fandom guideline

Your heart is in the right place, but I hope you're ready for a serious battle. I went through a tremendous amount of conflict when I wrote the notability guideline for royalty, and that's nothing compared with the number of editors that will show up to tear this one apart. Fans of Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, Dragon Ball Z, World of Warcraft, Pokemon, and pretty much every other pop culture genre are going to be all over this.

I have two suggestions to make this easier. First, try to make everyone happy (within reason) even if it means ruining the guideline. If it can't hold together after massive changes, it wasn't meant to be. Second, answer questions and requests for a few weeks, just to get the ball rolling, then bow out. Just take it off your watch list and let the changes go on without you. Check back once in a while to see how things are shaping up, but don't drive yourself crazy trying to defend it for months on end. If it's been turned into a good guideline, other people will step up to defend it for you. If not, then the people have spoken.

It would take a serious miracle to get this one to fly, but if you can keep your sanity then at least it will make for some interesting discussion and a good learning experience. Good luck! Kafziel Talk 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I need a guideline to help me in editing other pages. I'm not interested in imposing my will on the community, I'm asking for opinions as to where the lines should be drawn. There are pages for people whose major accomplishment seems to be posting to other people's blogs or having some cute schtick at cons. If the bar is lowered that much, it would call for hundreds or thousands of pages to be created, which IMO would overstate the importance of fandom, and in practice would mean that people who have friends who edit Wikipedia would be overstated in importance relative to others of greater note. I hope you're right that many people will have opinions; that should help make this useful to people. It's not the media stuff that needs to be fixed, as the existing guidelines work fairly well for content related to TV shows. Avt tor 17:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong - it looks like you're doing well so far. But things are just getting warmed up. I just wanted to give you a couple of pointers, as one of the most recent editors to have gone through the process. Some won't like it the way it is, some won't like the fact that it exists at all, and some will say it's already covered by a different guideline and should be deleted. Don't lose sight of WP:OWN and you should do fine. Kafziel Talk 17:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to worry, I barely own things that actually are published commercially under my own name. :) The purpose of this, from my perspective, is to ask the community where we should be drawing the line. I proposed this because the existing guidelines don't clearly cover the situations I'm seeing, or rather, the existing guidelines seem to lead toward deletion and I want consensus in the grey areas before doing anything like that. In most cases I am at least slightly personally acquainted with the people in question and I wish to be extra careful. Avt tor 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/v/t/User_talk%7EAvt_tor_9590.html"