User talk:Dragonfiend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Repeated editing of Webcomics

Hi, Can you give a valid reason why you and your friends from Comixpedia continue to edit out an example of a 3d webcomic? That comic happens to be a 3d comic and I noticed there were no examples in the article. I added it as an example of a 3d webcomic. I would hate to think you are all claiming ownership over an article in Wikipedia which is open to edits and improvements. I might feel the need to consider reporting your over edits as abuse of wikipedia.org User:141.155.205.74 05:41, November 7, 2005

  • Hi, first let me say that I'm not one of the people who reverted your edits of the webcomics article; the revert I made was from the edits of User:201.124.131.79 not you, User:141.155.205.74. Also, I am not in any way affiliated with Comixpedia, nor am I friends with any of the other Wikipedia editors except in perhaps the very loosest use of the term (we share some common goals but often disagree on how to best reach them; I've never met any of them offline nor even traded any e-mails with them). I do, however, agree with the recent reverts that User:Nifboy and User:Kiba have made to the webcomics article. I don't believe that the addition of a plot summary of a single webcomic has a place in an article on the general topic of webcomics. I also don't believe that this webcomic you refer to is notable enough for a mention in an article that is this general -- all of the webcomics in a general webcomics article ought to be major works. There has been an attempt to mention major works of differing styles and genres (popular video game comic strips like Penny Arcade and 8-Bit Theater vs. more experimental comics like Cuentos De La Frontera and Fetus-X). Keep in mind that Wikipedia is built upon consensus; I hope that you can take the opinons of three different editors as an indication of such a consensus behind the idea that your addition is innapropriate to this article. If you think that there ought to be a couple examples listed of 3D webcomics, perhaps you could find some more notable examples -- like maybe the webcomics of Modern Tales and American Splendor artist Joe Zabel. For more information on webcomics and notability, see WP:WEB. And I know that seeing your edits changed to reflect the consensus of the community can be hard, but that's the nature of Wikipedia. Everyone here has their articles edited by everyone else. Dragonfiend 02:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi, Thank you for your polite response. I apologize if I came off rude. I was just confused as to why an example of a 3d comic was being constantly removed. I addressed kiba on his page about the whole vanity thing as I was sure he was confusing my additions to the article with something else for some reason or other. Regardless, I hope that perhaps he can address the questions I have regarding the group of individuals who currently monitor and control the webcomics article. I happen to enjoy webcomics as well and it seems to me that to it seems odd to state "everyone has their articles edited by everyone else" in one breath, yet when someone does edit kiba's articles - they are reverted back to kiba's original article as if he is above edits. Like I said, I'm new to this so forgive me if I'm failing to see why it's not ok to edit kiba's articles but others can be edited. Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.User:141.155.205.74 05:41, November 8, 2005

[edit] Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages. You may also want to check out Wikipedia:Merge, for information about merging, renaming and moving pages. The Wikipedia directory is also quite useful. In addition, you might want to add yourself to the new user log; if you made any edits before getting an account, you may wish to assign those to your username.

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Finally, here are some open tasks:

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

Other links for reference: Wikipedia:Wikiquette, image copyright tags, Wikipedia:Merge

Hope to see you around the Wiki! Remember to be Bold! with your edits, and if you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

∞Who?¿? 03:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JDizzle Comics

Hello, you voted on this VfD which I had accidentlally pasted Gillian Slovo instead of JDizzle Comics. I cleared all votes in order to remove any bias because of my stupidity so please vote again knowing that it is about JDizzle Comics. Sorry and thanks. gren グレン 21:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight

As a member of WikiProject Comics, I thought you might be interested in the Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight we have set up. Please feel free to vote on the articles listed, although bear in mind that a vote for a particular article means you are pledging to help improve the article. The goal of the collaboration is to improve articles to Featured Article status, as we feel Comics is under-represented in that area. Thanks for your help. Steve block talk 15:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

User:Snowspinner has opened up a RFC over my general behaviour. You have been commenting on various afds that I have started, and so should have a general overview of my behaviour on those threads. I'm sure you can provide some decent balanced commentary on the affair. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hahnchen - Hahnchen 17:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out to me -- I left my comments over there. Dragonfiend 02:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC for Hahnchen

Over at Wikipedia Webomics, Hahnchen is being put on an RfC debate due to his recent purge of the webcomics section. You seem to be knowledgable Throw in your two cents Requests_for_comment/Hahnchen

Also, I took the liberty of adding 8 1/2 by Eleven and Able and Baker to the deleted list on your userpage. Hope you don't mind... wanted to keep it up to date Tedzsee 23:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I just left a comment onn the RfC. Thanks also for helping keep my list up to date -- feel free to make other additions or updates. Dragonfiend 02:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible compromise

Take a look at Tedzee's compromise proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Websites#A_modest_webcomic_proposal. I'd like to request your support for it, in principle, as a way out of this mess that addresses the potential conflict-of-interest issues. I'd also like to suggest not arguing with Snowspinner's rseponse; let his views on a compromise proposed by someone who's actively working to expand webcomic coverage stand for themselves. -- SCZenz 21:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC) (P.S. Sorry again about the pronoun.)

I just posted my support for the proposal. No problemn with the pronouns -- it's not the first time it's ever happenned. And I'm starting to think that Snowspinner has no idea what "conflict of interest" even means. Dragonfiend 03:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
It is worth nothing I also support this proposal. See? We're capable of being on the same side of an issue. Honestly. ;) Eric Burns 18:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT

I am concerned that your nomination of Checkerboard Nightmare for deletion could readily be taken as disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Perhaps it was just a lapse of research or judgment on your part - I certainly hope so. But in the future, please try to be more attentive before nominating articles for deletion. Phil Sandifer 02:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You have given no basis for your concern that this AfD violates WP:POINT. Your concern is wholly unfounded and far outside of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I nominated an article for deletion based on the clearly stated reasoning I gave; the only point I was making was that I thought the article ought to be considered for deletion. Reasonable editors can explain their disagreement on an AfD without resorting to personal attacks. Please use wikipedia to discuss the contents of articles, not your ill feelings towards other wikipedia editors. Please familiarize yourself with the policies of Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility. Dragonfiend 03:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Checkerboard Nightmare

I don't know how else to put this, so I hope you will forgive my bluntness. Your nomination sucked. It was one of the worst and most inappropriate AfD nominations I have ever seen. This, coupled with your insane claims about conflict of interest and insistence that your ignorant perspective needs to count just as much as that of experts combine to make it so that, in my view, your AfD nominations regarding webcomics ought be opposed on sight. Aside from the vast number of notability reasons that had been expressed, that was my primary reason for wanting to keep the article - because you specifically should never nominate another webcomic for deletion again. Phil Sandifer 02:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

  • It is important that we discuss wikipedia articles, guidelines, and policy with civility. Accusations of "insane claims" and "ignorant perspective" are innapropriate. See Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility. Please keep your assumptions and accusations regarding my webcomics expertise and sanity off of wikipedia. I find your continued personal attacks to be innappropriate. Please stop. Dragonfiend 04:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics

How exactly did you think that Checkerboard Nightmare, a webcomic that's been in both Keenspot and Blank Label, 2 of the 4 examples of syndicates listed as indicators of notability was non-notable?

Anyway, some constructive criticism: having the Alexa rankings, which are unreliable, and often changing, on your page. It really creates the impression you've got something against webcomics. Plus Alexa is decidedly skewed against feed readers, non-IE/netscape and non-windows users. Not to mention those who use anti-spyware, which is decidedly a lot people.

  • Hello. I do not have anything against webcomics. I love webcomics. Please don't assume that just because I nominated a webcomic for deletion it means that I have never heard of the comic before I saw its wikipedia article, that I know nothing about the comic other than what's in its article, or even that I don't like the webcomic myself. I've been reading webcomics for almost ten years, I was one of Modern Tales' first subscribers, I read comixpedia regularly, etc. Yet while I love hundreds of webcomics, I recognize that not every webcomic that I love belongs in an encyclopedia because the usefulness of an encyclopedia is hurt by articles on non-notable topics. You specifically asked about "2 of the 4 examples of syndicates" -- that proposed guideline was not part of WP:WEB when I made the nomination (it was just added at 02:40, 21 November 2005). The issue of syndicates was not in the guidelines because, among other reasons, consensus was that membership in a notable group did not automatically make every member of that group notable. For example, the webcomic "Big Dick's Ball" is not notable even though it was once part of Graphic Smash. Also, I know Alexa is not a perfect system, but the reason I made the list on my user page was to see just how accurate it was; the reason I kept it was because it seems extremely accurate and I found it helpful to have all the Alexa rankings in one place. There's no question that if we had the logs to each site we'd probably find that comics 1-50 are somewhat out of order, but I don't think we'd find that the order is so bad that a comic that's ranked 100th really ought to be in the top ten. And, as I've stated on my user page, as I've stated on the Checkerboard AfD, and as it's stated in the WP:WEB guidelines, Alexa is only one thing to be considered. Dragonfiend 05:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'm sorry for everything that's gone in your direction about this, you do seem like you have genuinely made a mistake. I just saw the fact that your page featured a list of "webcomics articles deleted so far", which, along with this nomination and your abrupt tone made me think you were going over the top on this. Websnark's been rather annoyed about wikipedia's deletion policy of late, and seeing this made me think it was too far. I said some stupid things, but I'm sorry for anything bad I've caused. J•A•K 16:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I appreciate and accept your apology. Dragonfiend 17:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Given the current and ongoing debate over what constitutes a level of relevancy needed for a webcomic to have a Wikipedia entry, I would suggest a moritorium on deletions until the community can settle on a more coherent standard. There are of course obvious exceptions, as some of the more frivolous articles can be easily spotted (comics with less than one year of archives, Megaman sprite comics, and so forth). However it can be argued that Wikipedia is going through growing pains regarding the relevancy of wecomics in specific and websites in general. --Rosicrucian 16:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your general suck-itude

Appears to have gone up seven degrees with the nomination of this last webcomic. Congrats! I'm at a loss as to exactly what it is that you've done so wrong, but perhaps I simply can't see the FNORDs.
I've added a "socks beware" notice to the top of the page, put contribution information on most of the users, and am generally watching this page now. I've also asked a few others to have a look and see what they think of the discussion to date. Regardless of the outcome of this nomination, I'd imagine that re-listing wouldn't be out of line as the process is pretty contaminated. Often things go cleanly the second time around, when passions have cooled a little, e.g. LeveL. Always fun, when things like WP:V seem to be just too hard...
brenneman(t)(c) 06:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there is some confusion as to the google results, have you mis-pasted the search you used?
brenneman(t)(c) 06:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh2, I'd move that list on the main page to User:Dragonfiend/Comics or something, it does give the appearance of a purge...
brenneman(t)(c) 06:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for helping civilize that AfD. I've clarified my Google search on the AfD -- I was looking at unique sites rather than total pages. I've also moved the Alexa ranking list. It's ironic that Comixpedia keeps their own Alexa rank charts [1] but mine is Exhibit A for how I totally suck and don't know anything about webcomics. Dragonfiend 07:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Did you look at the page you linked to? It's on Comixpedia, the magazine, not Comixpedia, the wiki. Those are two separate sites. Factitious 21:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm very aware of the differences between the dot-com and dot-org Comixpedia. I've been reading Comixpedia (the online zine) for years, which is why I still refer to it as just "Comixpedia" as opposed to "The Comixpedia Wiki." Dragonfiend 02:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I went from being angry to mildly amused by the whole thing; the webcomic fandom absolutely loves CxN, anyone outside it is completely clueless. That's basically the deletionist/inclusionist battleline right there. Nifboy 10:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia's Image

Other people have already gone over the absurdity of thinking that Checkerboard Nightmare isn't notable. I'm more concerned with how your deletion attempts are affecting the way Wikipedia as a whole is viewed. Have you seen this recent Websnark post? Trying to delete important webcomics sends the message that deletion at Wikipedia is horribly broken, and that as a result, we can no longer be trusted to provide information. I'm a Wikipedian, and I'm also someone who cares about webcomics. In the past, I've tried to ensure that Wikipedia has useful information about webcomics. Now that the webcomics community is getting disgusted with Wikipedia, I feel like we've failed them. I don't know if it's too late or not, but could you please put more care into your deletion nominations? Perhaps you could even stop trying to delete webcomics altogether, now that you know you aren't able to judge them accurately. Factitious 21:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, indeed

If you'd only stop nominating things with fully explained, carefully linked paragraphs that support your reasoning, all of us whom love web-comics could stop foaming at the mouth. Please don't let your good sense disrupt our attempt to create a compendium of all human webcruft that anyone can edit. I'm going to make entries at websnark, dogg, and adultmatchmaker with links to this page. After all, the weight of an argument is directly proportional to the number of people making it, right?
brenneman(t)(c) 01:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I really think you're taking the wrong viewpoint on this. I mean, you suggested a comic for deletion, people were made aware of it, and reacted mostly in favor of keeping it. Just because the original proposal was well-linked doesn't mean it has to be correct. If enough people think it's worth keeping, I don't see why you think it's a loss to be kept. Bobulus 03:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not a loss that it was kept. It's a loss that in the current climate we're unable to have calm reasoned discourse among people for whom their myopic self-interest takes a backseat to larger goals. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Looking at your and Dragonfiend's edit list, you guys seem to be targeting mostly webcomics. Don't you think that's a little hypocritical to say that the 'keep' people are only interested for personal reasons in that light? I would argue that your attitude is much of the reason things flared up as much as they did. That's not a personal attack, that's just my opinion. You're calling for citing when, other than the original Dragonfiend evidence, you don't provide any yourself. You recruit people to help you out in a deletion effort while deriding people on the other side who point out the article. I understand the need to remove self-promoting, advertising articles, but other than that, I see no advantage to a deleting campaign. I would say you're only hurting the system. Bobulus 04:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm totally fine with whatever consensus is formed during a civil, thoughtful AfD discussion. I don't expect everyone is going to agree with me all the time, I don't expect that I'm never going to make a mistake, but I do expect people who disagree with me to explain why they disagree in a civil manner that is supported by verifiable facts. That's how people with differing opinions carry on intelligent, respectful discussion in order to reach common ground and consensus. That's what all of wikipedia is based on, and that's why I (when I'm not the target of an organized smear campaign) love it. I am not at all fine, however, with other wikipedians posting personal attacks both here in wikipedia and in their blogs about me over the perceived crisis of an AfD discussion that was (with 2 deletes, 1 merge, and 1 keep) headed for a "no consensus"-type keep already before the big meat puppet attack was called in. I am not fine with some webcomics boy's club vandalizing my user page to make fun of me because I'm a girl, or throwing a Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Megatokyo tantrum. I am not fine with people assuming that, because they disagree with me in one single instance of trying to decide the sometimes blurry line between what is and isn't encyclopedic, that I must be a complete idiot when it comes to webcomics rather than someone who has been reading webcomics since I discovered "Raunchy Roach" back in 1996. I was one of the first people to subscribe to Modern Tales. I've been reading Comixpedia since it started. Right before you and your friends showed up to tell me how I don't know anything about webcomics, I was creating the article on When I Am King between adding "T.H.E. Fox" to the history Webcomics and making every edit but one to Girlamatic. I'm not sure who you and your friends think hands out the secret membership cards for the "webcomics community," but I'm not at all fine with your assumption that I don't get one. And I'm not at all fine with having to lay awake at night wondering whether someone like User:Snowspinner is going to follow through on his posts to User:Eric Burns's blog about how webcomic deletion on wikipedia makes him "really feel" "like killing" while you and your buddies all sit around and have a good laugh and accuse me of being the one that's being disruptive and making wikipedia look bad. Maybe it makes you feel like a bunch of tough guys to try to gang up and bully me just because, while trying to help make a good encyclopedia, I may have disrespected a comic that you like, but surely you can understand that this behaviour violates Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility. As well as, you know, just basic human decency. Dragonfiend 05:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
          1. Flowers and kittens for creating the When I Am King article, I was appaled to see it was a red link when I used it as an example in the discussions at WP:WEB.
          2. You're a girl? Ewww.
            brenneman(t)(c) 05:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I am trying to be civil here, despite what you seem to be reading from my intentions. I have no affiliation with people like this Snowspinner or the guy who (quite incorrectly) tried to use a deletion of Megatokyo to prove a point. While I don't have a great deal of edits to my name (and, just for the record, many of those that I do, I just don't bother to log in for), I do look at Wikipedia as a source of information, and not as a method of endorsing or advertising something I enjoy. I have absolutely no concerns about your gender, and have not used any personal attacks. I have tried, in the deletion thread and in this section, to concisely state why I disagreed with your position on this topic and provide evidence when necessary. That said, I am trying to say that your 'meatpuppet' argument does not seem entirely reasonable. While I have used Checkerboard Nightmare's page this week, if I had, I would have seen the deletion notice and posted in the deletion area about it. The fact that I came here when someone linked it, rather than finding it myself should not invalidate my opinion. If sufficient people are finding an article helpful, it shouldn't matter where they're coming from. Finally, it's clear we have different tastes in webcomics. That's fine. There's enough room out there for people of all tastes. All I'm asking is for you to see the other side of the issue. Bobulus 05:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes, I see, yet don't agree, with the other side(s) of the issue, including the ideas that an encyclopedia should cover all webcomics with 100 comics, one year of updates, membership in a "syndicate," and/or participation in a Comicon panel. But really, after that train-wreck of personal attacks, vandalism, meat-puppetry and wikipedia disruption that was that AfD, you find yourself most troubled by the idea that I might not be seeing "the other side of the issue"? Are you going to the talk pages of all the users who made personal attacks or committed vandalism, and helping them to see my side of the issue? Are you posting on User:Eric Burns blog to help him and his meat-puppet friends see my side of the issue? If you're not, then I think you've made your affiliation pretty clear. Dragonfiend 08:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Here's the thing I think you fail to understand, more than anything else. Your actions come across like you're coming out and purging the webcomics entries over here. You have lists, you seem to take pride in the numbers of webcomics you delete, and you reject arguments for differing criteria for inclusion out of hand. You continue to cling to the Alexa model -- a model which at the very least the webcomics community is strongly against due to its lack of serious statistical validity (polling those Microsoft Windows users who use Internet Explorer and happened to download Alexa as a representative sample of the internet, sans Firefox, Mozilla, the entire Macintosh platform, the entire Linux/free software community or sans anyone who never actually thought or wanted to use Alexa yields questionable results at best), and you have taken it upon yourself to clean up Dodge City. Is it any wonder that you're seen as representative of the core problem -- the application of uninformed and fallacious reasons to delete entries in Wikipedia as non-notable? The reason that we all -- myself most visibly -- reacted so strongly to this is because it seemed wholly absurd to even be having the discussion. Checkerboard Nightmare is a webcomic that has had profound impact on other webcomics. It practically defined metacomics on the web, at least in the time period it existed. It was Kris Straub's mouthpiece during many years of Webcomics and Internet drama, and it strongly influenced both webcomics and webcomics commentary during that time. (The fact that you claim to be a regular reader of Comixpedia magazine -- a magazine that publishes a monthly column by Straub on the strength of his significance, born wholly at the time he got the gig of Checkerboard Nightmare -- would seem to indicate you should already know this stuff). So, yes. When you so publicly draw battle lines and cling to models that the very community you're trying to separate into the notable and the non-notable have rejected, you get a whole lot of webcomics fans and creators lining up against you. You get a lot of people thinking that you just don't get it. You don't get the concept of artistic significance. You don't get the idea that notability is not simply a measure of popularity, and that a small idiosyncratic population does not act as a decent measure of said popularity. And you convince people who care about webcomics and want to see a decent reference work that Wikipedia as a whole just isn't worth it. It's not worth it to devote our time and energy trying to make the process better, or the entries better. It's easier by far to simply develop a resource of our own. And that might be the most important thing for you to realize -- if you look at my post, I don't say "this guy Dragonfiend is a jerk! Look at his jerk thing!" It says that Checkerboard Nightmare -- an obviously significant webcomic within the community -- has to have its inclusion in Wikipedia defended. On top of many other defenses in recent months. And that therefore, Wikipedia -- at least as a webcomics reference -- is broken. Go elsewhere for reference material. In other words, your actions are tarring Wikipedia as a whole, and tainting public perception of it. I'm truly sorry if you're offended by our offense, but if your ultimate goal is to improve Wikipedia, it's time you go about it a different way.Eric Burns 18:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
                • Actually, rereading that screed of mine I should have made it more clear that when I say "You get a lot of people thinking that you just don't get it. You don't get the concept of artistic significance. You don't get the idea that notability is not simply a measure of popularity, and that a small idiosyncratic population does not act as a decent measure of said popularity" it sounds like I'm stating that you don't actually understand artistic significance, et al. My intent was that you appear not to understand such things, when you act in this way, not that you don't actually understand them. It seemed I should cop to the error straightaway. Eric Burns 18:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • There are some basic principles that it appears you don't understand, and that those who participated in the mugging of an AfD also seem to fail to understand, and those are WP:V and WP:CITE. I've purposefully used the shorthand there to force you to go and look them up. It's fine to claim "artistic significance" but unless it can be demonstrated than it is just a claim. In most instances when people claim that "wholly absurd to even be having the discussion" it is because they lack a substantative argument. If this comic is, as you claim, part of some cannon of meta-comics, wouldn't it have been simpler just to provide the evidence and skip the mob-rule?
                    brenneman(t)(c) 23:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
                    • Checkerboard Nightmare has had significant discourse written about it on Comixpedia, Websnark and the Webcomics Examiner. Further, its messageboard has always been lively and has included significant participation by many other webcartoonists, such that it can be shown that Chex has had direct impact on other webcomics, which in turn shows it to be significant to the artistic evolution of the medium. A significance which would in particular cause newcomers to or researchers in the field to want to get additional information about it, which is honestly exactly what Wikipedia is for. And it's why a slash and burn style purging of webcomics is more destructive to Wikipedia than anything else -- the less people who become interested in webcomics feel that Wikipedia can give them decent information, the less useful Wikipedia actually is. As for the "mob rule," I will confess I made an error in letting my annoyance color my Keep vote. It was a straw that broke my back, seeing a strip that quite honestly everyone in webcomics knows about -- a touchstone for both controversy and discussion -- thrown up for deletion because of its Alexa rating. It was the culmination of months of disappointment and frustration and attempted reform finally seeming to be reduced to irrelevance. Dragonfiend deserved better than the tone of my no vote. However, I think Wikipedia deserves better than these fallacious calls for deletion at the same time. And while I do apologize for the tone, I do not apologize for the impulse, the vote, or the discussion on my own site.Eric Burns 16:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
                        • It seems you are saying that you think I nominated this webcomic for deletion based solely on its extremely high Alexa ranking. I looked at five different criteria to try to find any small amount of verifiable notability for this webcomic, and found none. I did a Google test for unique sites, I did a Google test for major media coverage, I checked Amazon for demand of any printed books, I checked Alexa's rankings, and I checked for any newspapers that print the comic. And while I appreciate your apology here for the tone of your vote, I feel that you owe me an apology for the content of your personal attacks against me as well. You have written that, "Clearly, whoever put this up for deletion doesn't understand even the most cursory elements of the artistic field [s]he's trying to 'edit.'" You've also written that "There are people -- and Dragonfiend is clearly one of them -- who are clearly going through Wikipedia looking for articles that should be weeded out as non-notable. and they're doing it in fields they clearly -- I mean, clearly -- have no interest, experience or knowledge." Besides being incorrect, those are personal attacks, plain and simple, for which I think you owe me an apology as public as the attacks you've made, not simply something buried here on my talk page. Dragonfiend 17:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
                          • You also searched for mass media coverage? Maybe Wikipedia should cut its losses and delete all webcomic entries. They can't stand up to these tests. ("When I discovered that Melonpool didn't win any Emmys, I immediately nominated it for deletion.") DrHot 07:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
                            • You can read about Same Difference in The Village voice [2], Hutch Owen in Time Magazine [3], American Elf in the Boston Globe [4], Get Your War On in the LA Weekly [5], When I Am King and Cuentos de la Frontera in Wired [6], Svetlana Chmakova in USA Today [7], Perry Bible Fellowship in The Guardian [8], Magic Whistle artist Sam Henderson was nominated for an Emmy for his work on SpongeBob Squarepants, etc. [9] Dragonfiend 09:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
                    • Wouldn't any and all discussion of webcomics fall under original research? It's not like webcomics have an unbiased trade review journal to cite. Where does the burden of proof lie? This webcomic was nominated for deletion because it was "non-notable." No proof was offered as to why it was considered non-notable. When evidence was brought in to say that the author was notable in the webcomics community (via panel appearances, reference and mutual respect among his peers and so forth), and that he was made notable because of his webcomic, it was largely discounted as unverifiable. Why was the original claim of non-notability instantly verifiable? --DrHot 13:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
                        • Plenty of verifiable information was used in the AfD nomination. For example, I cited that the comic's print collection has no reviews and a sales ranking of "none" on Amazon [10]. If you'd like, you can compare that to other webcomics print collections, such as American Elf ([11], or Narbonic [12], Van Von Hunter, [13], Get Your War On [14], or Girlamatic artist Svetlana Chmakova's Dramacon [15](with a sales rank of 29,856, review by Publisher's Weekly and 5 reader reviews since the book came out in October). I also cited a low number of unique sites found in a Google test, the lack of any sort of media coverage found in a Google test, the web site's extremely high Alexa ranking, and no newspapers printing the comic except a 17,000 circulation student newspaper six yeats ago. The idea that I cited no verifiable sources is incorrect. Dragonfiend 16:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
                          • Are you serious? The print collection does not yet exist. Amazon's sales rank information for it is meaningless. Factitious 23:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
                            • A book with a non-trivial print run and good sales is an indicator of notability per WP:WEB. Amazon lists only one Checkerboard Nightmare book, it was scheduled for release on September 30, 2005, and it has a sales rank of none. It doesn't matter whether this means that the book came out on time and no one ever bought it, or the book never came out and no one ever pre-ordered it -- the conclusion is the same: This webcomic does not appear in a book with a non-trivial print run and decent sales. And, no, sales ranks are not meaningless before a book is released. They are actually quite meaningful in determining the demand for a book, since they show people buying the book before it's even out yet. For a webcomics-related example, see Girlamatic artist Raina Telgemeier's Baby Sitter's Club graphic novel which is due out in April of 2006 and already has an Amazon sales rank. [16] Dragonfiend 10:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD behaviour

How was the AfD mugged, per se? It was brought in, a claim dragonfiend made in error was misconstrued, sources were cited, new evidence brought, and as a result of the increased interest in the discussion, others commented on it, bringing a wider range of views, which is surely for the better of the wiki. The reason Eric's been reluctant to cite sources on this is that it's been made clear to him that any webcomics analysis from webcomics, or blogs and zines, like the ones he contributes to, are not of use to him. Since the webcomics community is thus not citable, he doesn't cite them. J•A•K 00:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  • New users were being sent to disrupt wikipedia by a bloggers' post about how "Wikipedia is officially worthless," "who the fuck cares what wikipedia thinks," and personal attacks against a wikipedia editor (me) based on the assumption that I don't know anything about webcomics, that I'm not a member of the webcomics community, and that "Dragonfiend [is editing] fields [in which she] clearly -- I mean clearly -- have no interest, expereience, or knowledge." Predictably, people who think wikipedia is worthless, don't care about wikipedia, and assume Wikipedia editors are unknowlegable then did everything imaginable to disrupt Wikipedia. The AfD nomination was vandalised at least twice, my user page was vandalised at least 3 times, numerous personal attacks were made on the AfD, people tried to disrupt wikipedia by nominating Megatokyo for deletion, etc. This is not the way Wikipedians are expected to operate. See WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:ATTACK, etc. -- Dragonfiend 19:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Siwangmu's comments

(I tried to count the stars correctly so that this is a response to Dragonfiend) Dear Dragonfiend, I wanted very much to communicate something to you, but I fear strongly that I am going to do something wrong in doing so, as my technical experience in wikipedia has extended only to a handful of unregistered minor edits when I ran across articles that could use clear tweaking. I hope that you will try to overlook this and let me know if I am doing anything inappropriate. In addition, I'm not familiar enough with the system to followup and gather all the data here, it seems--for instance, I have not yet managed to find for myself where you were made fun of for being a girl, but I hope whatever blackguards are responsible, I don't know, have something bad happen to them. I also find it very concerning that you feel physically threatened by any of the reaction to this; I couldn't find the "really feel" "like killing" comments anywhere in the discussion on websnark (which is where I came from, I'm sure you can infer by this point), but I will hopefully track them down, because that sort of effect is the opposite of everything the commenters at websnark stand for and, well, shouldn't be stood for. I am sorry that you've been made to feel so victimized and attacked in this situation. I will be honest: when I first read that Checkerboard Nightmare was being considered for deletion, I did in fact assume that whoever was nominating must be ignorant of webcomics. The fact that I was clearly wrong to assume that any webcomics fan would share that perspective is significant, but I think that the immediacy of my reaction, as someone who was never a regular CXN reader but was nonetheless well aware of the comic (by dint of critical discourse and the participations of the author in various other outlets like comixpedia and so on as Eric referencs below) and really neither has nor has ever had any personal antagonism towards you should be as significant to you as your different sphere of knowledge is significant to me. And you reference being accused of making wikipedia look bad: I'm sorry to say it, as you are clearly devoted to the site and I believe acted with good intentions, but it is objective fact that your action did make wikipedia look bad to me and I believe others. I make no claim of how much you really need to care about that, but I thought it might b ehelpful to provide as much of this information/confirmation as I could in a way that is, I hope, non-aggressive and civil. I don't know if you meant Websnark when you referred to a webcomics boys' club; I assure that if it were, they wouldn't let me post on there, nor would I particularly want to except to, you know, flame them for being chauvinist jerks (I was going to say something else but I realized I'm not certain of the rules for cursing here). You said above, "Maybe it makes you feel like a bunch of tough guys to try to gang up and bully me just because, while trying to help make a good encyclopedia, I may have disrespected a comic that you like." I can't be certain who is meant by "you," exactly--I was certainly among the vocal opposition over at websnark, so I'm guessing I am included, and therefore would like to point out again that I was definitely not hoping to be a better tough guy. In fact, I think the very heatedness and inflammator..iality of the responses, which if I were you I would certainly be having trouble overlooking, nonetheless could help persuade you that the responses could equally realistically have been the sincere immediate reactions of a group of people who frequently "meet" online to discuss webcomics, all (or nearly all, I can't say exactly) considered Checkerboard to be obviously note-worthy, and therefore erroneously assumed that it was likely that others as involved in webcomics would, if not necessarily think Checkerboard essential, be very unlikely to dismiss it as a non-notable comic. I realize that the length of this comment has grown quite unwieldy, but unfortunately other than asking if you would come over to websnark (which you probably wouldn't think a very appealing offer) where I feel free to ramble on for pages on end, I don't know how best to communicate with you on this issue. Finally, on the issue of Citation, Verifiability and Notability: as we all admit, notability is subjective. However, citations from sources like Comixpedia or, dare I suggest it, Websnark, would not seem to be considered legitimate (well, I know that the citation page specifically forbids blogs and blog commentary, at least), although as far as I can tell they are the closest equivalents to the music media in that medium, coverage in which is actually specific grounds for the inclusion of artists and works. How can we cite and provide verifiability for the critical notability of any webcomic by these standards? Again, I'm very sorry if I am inconveniencing you by posting this very long, er, communication (I almost said "missive"--this is what happens when I've been watching Jane Austen films), but I very much wanted to communciate all of this to you and, I hope, hear your response. I will admit that I was probably pushed over the edge to registering and going through with this by my need to make sure you either didn't mean or now do not believe that websnark is a boys' club, because, well, I would hate getting targeted by such even more than I would hate being cast as the bad guy in such a huge miscommunication. Finally, I said above that you probably don't particularly want to come to websnark, but I thought I would say that we have been having much very intense debate with many disagreeing viewpoints expressed over there about the principles behind notability and other such things, so, well, I just thought I would mention it in case you might be interested. There was, however, never a meat puppet attack called in, at least not from websnark. Talking about current events and webcomics is, quite frequently, what we do there, and it insults our intelligence to assume and imply that those of us who agree with Eric on something are doing so because the puppetmaster commands it. EDITED TO ADD: I have just discovered that meatpuppets is a technical term that refers to new accounts created for the purpose of weighing in on, say, a deletion discussion. While I think the idea is problematic in some ways and was applied a little strangely in this case with regard to some users who didn't fit the "brand-new, single-purpose" part of the definition, I do understand much better what you meant by meatpuppet attack. END OF EDIT On another small matter, there is a difference between a targeted smear campaign and dropping a fact (such as "this has been put up for deletion) into a highly biased atmosphere (such as a group of people under the more or less collective impression that Checkerboard Nightmare was self-evidently notable). Blame us for our many individuals leaps to conclusion on that one. In checking previews, I realize I've no idea how to make this look right, so I hope you will forgive the clumsiness of my formatting on top of everything else.Siwangmu 06:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi Siwangmu, thank you for your comments. There's a lot in there to respond to, but this holiday weekend will be very busy for me. I just wanted to leave you a quick note so you don't think you're being ignored. Dragonfiend 19:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notability: Why?

One thing I've not understood while watching this whole cXn debate (and similar, less dramatic ones popping up all over the community) from the sidelines is why notability is an issue when it comes to topics like webcomics. I understand deleting vanity articles written simply to promote a topic, but why should we reject well written and otherwise encyclopedic articles simply because they're not particularly exciting or well known? My basic question is: Why is notability a requirement with merit for our encyclopedia? I can see topics of little notability being excluded from 1.0, but why do articles on minor topics interfere with Wikipedia as a whole? TastemyHouse 20:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

May I also add that, if general notability is a requirement for webcomics, then 99.9% of webcomics should be deleted from Wikipedia. Even a webcomic like PVP is non-notable to the vast majority of the population. --DrHot 13:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Nobody here is claiming that general notability is required for Wikipedia. Look at all the good articles we have on mathematical theorems, for instance. Factitious 23:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I want to make clear that my statement was meant as an actual question. I'm not a fan of using this talk page as a general place to bitch about OMG CHECKERBOARD NIGHTMARE IS BEING DELETED -- What i personally think is irrelevant. While I'm technically on the "side" of the people above, I don't like their tone. Dragonfiend, i'm asking YOU: whats your opinion on notability? This whole discussion has gotten very personal, and i think everyone needs to take a breather. =) TastemyHouse 10:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
To me "Notable" is basically a good shorthand for a combination of the concepts that, per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," and that, per WP:V, "The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors ... One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher." (bolding not mine) -- Dragonfiend 20:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that Notability and Verifiability are orthogonal concepts. It is possable for something to be Verifiable but not Noteable, for example its Verifiable that "Mr. Gaffar Bhai Memon" worked as a Miscellaneous Crewmember on the movie Naam, but I don't think anyone would feel that bit of triva would be Notable. Likewise Notable but unVerifiable facts are possable. Dformosa 00:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you mostly. You've made some enemies =/. I hope that this all works out best for you. Good Luck TastemyHouse 01:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom

Dispute resolution
Negotiation
Requests for comment
Third opinion
Mediation
Mediation Committee
Requests for mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee
Requests for arbitration
Probation
Article probation
Mentorship
Member groups
Members' Advocates
Mediation Cabal
v • d • e

Arbitration has been requested regarding you. Phil Sandifer 16:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll at least provide you with a link - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Regarding_webcomics_deletion. I'd strongly recomend that you not buy into this. Snowspinner does not appear to have attempted to resolve any dispute with you, has ignored every attempt I've made at talking this over, has not filed an RfC, has not filed a RfM, and probably skipped a few other steps that I'm forgetting. This is not a matter for arbitration, and the best thing to do is probably to politely say, "Thanks, but no thanks."
brenneman(t)(c) 21:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, this is a bit of a suprise. I'm going to continue to ignore it, although the temptation to scrounge up the most worthless webcomic on wikipedia and AfD it has been hard to resist. (Note defendant waives his Miranda warning, as this comment should have simply been pasted into Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence.)
brenneman(t)(c) 02:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whew!

Glad to see that you're still around, and I liked the evidence you presented at the struggle session. I was considering adding you to the arbcom as evidence that "Snowspinner's failure to use the appropiate dispute resolution process is driving off contributors and adding to global warming".
I notice that you haven't weighed in at WP:WEB for a while, not to mention Greeneyes AfD. C'mon, put your back into it, I can't commit an ideologically driven purge all on my own!
brenneman(t)(c) 22:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • That's actually not far off -- my enthusiasm for Wikipedia has greatly dwindled after the recent events. But you're right, I shouldn't let it get me down. Since I'm incapable of making reasonable judgements, I'll probably be sharing more of my insane claims and ignorant perspective over at the Arbitration shortly. Dragonfiend 02:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WEB

Seems to actually be moving in a reasonable direction. Merry Christmas! - brenneman(t)(c) 22:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You're ruining my gig!

Heh. The actual plan was to get them to agree in principle, then to use this logic to crush them where they stood, thus satisfying my burning desire to crush everything webcomic related and salt the earth.

Two actual comments:

  • I just noticed that my favorite webcomic doesn't have a page: Stoopid Pigeon [www.stoopidpigeon.com] [17].
  • There are lots of external links at List of webcomics. I'm thinking of axing them all.
  • What about this line at WP:WEB - These guidelines are primarily designed to prevent the multitude of new or unencyclopedic web comics from using Wikipedia as free promotion. Do you support this? We don't have an analog on WP:MUSIC, for instance?

brenneman(t)(c) 03:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Quote: The actual plan was to get them to agree in principle, then to use this logic to crush them where they stood, thus satisfying my burning desire to crush everything webcomic related and salt the earth. /quote. I actually think this might be true, unfortunately. Why Wikipedia feels that it must pass the buck to Comic Genesis and Comixpedia is a tragedy, as there have been many comics that have been rejected here. Notability fails for webcomics in general. Perhaps it would be better to remove all the articles on webcomics on this site and leave that to CG and Comixpedia, since it's obvious that it causes too much debate. This was true in November, and it's true now. Even better, let's do it tomorrow!
    • Changing the process of article removal hasn't changed anything, and it is a bigger tragedy that I live within FIVE miles of the headquarters of this heartless company. Yes, I'm one of those that believes that every webcomic with a certain level of activity, such as the 70 comics in 18 months example (for a weekly), should have an article here. Either a suitable standard which doesn't include Alexa searches and notability (really, very few webcomics ARE notable) should be posted, or they should ALL go.
    • I also thought it was a little ironic that the PD and RFD nominator has the username: Dragonfiend. As in, someone ready to pounce on all webcomics that have Dragon in the title (which isn't the case). --65.32.81.3 12:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (websites)

Hi, I've rewritten Wikipedia:Notability (websites), leaning heavily on Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) for insiration. I've tried to make the guidelines broader so that they can be applied to any form of web content, rather than focusing on specifics. The goal shouldn't be to set bars to take account of particular examples, but rather to outline existing policy and consensus at various places. As someone who has expressed an opinion on the guidelines in the past, I hope you will read the new version and comment on the talk page. Steve block talk 12:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Image:WikiThanks.png My apologies again, in person, for being completely dense in this matter. Sometimes I become intractably locked into a position and it takes me a while to see the flaws. I also wanted to extend my high regard for the way you conducted yourself during the debate. I look forward to working with you on other articles again in the future. Steve block talk 18:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Taylor

I noticed that you redirected the Paul "Pablo" Taylor, without discussing it. Since you have some criticism of the article, I was hoping you could offer advice on how to improve it. Please note that I don't plan on reverting your change, but I do intend to remove the redirect when I have a much improved article in place. Thanks for your time! Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 07:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Great work organizing the webcomics articles

Thanks. I knew there would be tons of articles that hadn't been fully tagged, but I didn't really grok just how many until I looked up and it was 5 am. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics RfAr closed

The Webcomics RfAr has been closed. Aaron Brenneman is admonished to be respectful of consensus in creating and altering Wikipedia policy. While boldness in editing is valuable on Wikipedia, it is no use to Wikipedia to have written policies that create dissent. Aaron Brenneman, Dragonfiend, Snowspinner, and Tony Sidaway are all cautioned to remain civil even in stressful discussions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Badmash

I updated the badmash article a bit. I will keep adding more stuff whenever I get a chance. In its current shape, it should not get nominated for AFD anymore. :) I added references and all. - Ganeshk (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Oh give me a break. That's about as uncivil as a small puppy. Phil Sandifer 06:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who voted on an AfD about an article I wrote. And I have trouble figuring out how to be more cautious than, you know, not being uncivil. Phil Sandifer 06:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Sarcasm is not incivility, and I hesitate to point out that you are the one who came to my talk page to make frivolous complaints. Phil Sandifer 06:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Your sarcasm is rude. It is also belittling. Rudeness = Incivility. Belittling = Incivility. Please, just leave me alone. Your history of personal attacks, incivility and death threats creeps me out. -- Dragonfiend 06:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh give me a break. A very, very celibate break. As I would hate to be incivil. Phil Sandifer 08:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that the AC has in the past regarded this sort of pretense of oversensitivity whilst responding in kind very dimly indeed. Particularly things like claims of death threats. What the fucking fuck? - David Gerard 16:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Please, David, familiarize yourself with the policies of Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility. Your use of profanity towards me is inappropriate. A simple "which death threat?" would have gotten you the same link to [18] without making wikipedia a more hostile environment. -- Dragonfiend 17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
What, the off-handed comment I made totally off the Wikipedia? And read the policies yourself - you're completely misapplying them to try to raise bullshit complaints about anything that's pointed out to you that you don't like. (And that's not a personal attack either, just in case you're keeping score). Phil Sandifer 04:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that comment about killing people, which was part of what the ArbCom found to be an example of your incivility.[19] Now, for about the fourth time, please just leave me alone. -- Dragonfiend 05:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

Thank you, Dragonfiend, for your welcome.. I appreciate it, and of course harassment from a select group of people doesn't make me think any different of Wiki! There's always that bunch, hehe.. hope to see you around, I believe that in the past few days I have gotten hooked to even the mere idea of improving an article! LissaExplains 17:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venom

Hey,

I found your name on the Wikiproject Comics page. I was wondering if you could weigh in on a discussion going on at [20]. I don't have a lot of background knowledge on this stuff, and it seems like I'm standing between two editors, neither of whom really want to give.

--MikeJ9919 22:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks much for the star! I've been playing mortician over webcomic articles more than anything lately, but I have to admit we did need a spring cleaning. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web source for science fiction and / or short stories

locusmag put its index to SF and Fantasy short stories at: http://www.locusmag.com/index/s346.html You'll find the short stories of Lea Hernandez listed in there and you'll also find quite a few other science fiction and/or fantasy authors. But you won't find all of what Lea Hernandez (and others) wrote in there. On the other hand the library of Comgress catalog does have her two books so while I'm at it I'm putting them in the article also, in a new bibliography section. By the way, there is nothing bad about erasing from your own talk page those vulgar expletives the uncultured have written on it a few lines above. Or erasing all traces of them. It's like painting over your garage door after vandals wrote things on it. The edit history of the page will serve as a record of the despoilment anyway. And if you fear the edit history will be tampered with you could print and do screen dumps beforehand. --AlainV 03:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long overdue

I should've said this a long time ago, but I never think to hand out barnstars and I guess I wouldn't cut it in Esperanza. I just wanted to say that even though I disagree with your inclusion criteria, I believe you are a superb contributor. You are conscientious and thorough, which is what this project (especially comics) badly needs. And, for the record, I actually find the keep brigade more frustrating. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dramacon

I noticed you've worked on the Svetlana Chmakova article, so I'm wondering if you could take a look at Dramacon. I found it after chasing down yet another WP:LIVING violator who'd gotten pissy over a forum spat. It's got some serious NPOV problems, but I'm not familiar enough with the material to actually fix it. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • In general I favor merges when the subject of the merged-in article is unlikely to ever be anything more than a stub. The Jin Wicked article was a good example. After visiting her site, it looks like she didn't want a Wikipedia article about her anyway. (She was almost certainly the one who blanked her article the other day; the IP was for a Houston ISP.) For Dramacon, I think a merge will work, but don't be surprised if it's temporary. I'm a little out of my element here since the only dead tree comic I read these days is Concrete, but it looks like Dramacon has a fan base. They may eventually push for a split. That's okay, though. Merging will work since it'll solve the current problem, and will put you in a better position to insist on a better article if the need arises. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hah! Minor webcomics, eh? I think even I've been tempted to do that. Of course, I've also been tempted to turn every webcomic in existence into a protected stub just to get it over with. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi

Hi, thanks for your note. I have reviewed this again, especially your discussion with Xuanwu, and I agree that the issue of verifiability has not been fully addressed. I think that the discussion would benefit from further input, so I have relisted it. I hope that you find this a satisfactory solution, but please let me know if you have any further concerns. Cheers TigerShark 17:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What qualifies a Webcomic to stay?

I was just wondering if there was supposed to be a completely objective qualification criteria/criterion for Webcomics to qualify as non-vanity/non stubbed entries? Who does someone have to kill around here? Just kidding. Some webcomics are being painted out as being Vanity and that's not the case, in my scanning. Some of these comics are simply being prtrayed as they are, to explain their content. Personally, I think the main criteria is that the information isn't just there to talk up the site so that they can get more hits. That's a bit weak. Especially if the comic in question has just released books of their comics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lincalinca (talk • contribs).

  • WP:VANITY and WP:AB should give you some idea of what vanity articles are, as well as some of the problems with them. Basically, if a webcomic article is created and/or heavily edited by a creator of the webcomic, it is probably a vanity article. The problem with such an article is that the author is biased about themselves, and they'll include information that they feel is important about themselves or that they wish were true about themselves when in fact the information is neither important nor true. For example, someone might write "Jane Doe is the funniest character because of her sarcasm." Who has determined that Jane Doe is funny, let alone the funniest? Who has determined that the author's intention of having her be sarcastic has succeeded? Who has determined that this webcomic is even worth writing about out of the tens of thousands of webcomics out there? In the case of a vanity article, it's the webcomic's author, which might be appropriate for the author's diary or blog or press release, but it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
An encyclopedia has to be based on reliable sources, otherwise we have an unreliable encyclopedia, which is worthless. For a webcomic, I don't think about creating a stub article until I've got at least two sources (reliable sources with a repuattion for fact-checking and accuracy, not fan blogs or webcomics ranking sites) outside of the comic. Which is a pretty low standard -- my junior high school English teacher wouldn't let me write a research paper without three sources, and an encyclopedia ought to have higher standards then my junior high school research papers. For example, if you take a look at the webcomics articles I've created and worked on, such as Raina Telgemeier, Nowhere Girl, Fetus-X, Get Your War On and Narbonic, you'll see that even the stubbiest of them has at least two references to newspapers, magazines, or television. That is, I don't decide if When I Am King displays "wit and artistic virtuosity"; but I'll quote Wired magazine saying so. I don't decide if a webcomic is important; I require that at least two major publications think it's important. Basically, as per long-standing official wikipedia policy, a webcomic or any other topic must receive sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research.
Does that answer your question? Is there a particular webcomic article you are asking about? Was the article created and/or heavily edited by the webcomic's creator? Is the article based on references to third-party reliable sources, or is it the original research and opinions of the webcomic's creator or its fans? -- Dragonfiend 18:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Your comments here do answer my questions. In particular, my questions were relating to your comments on the Webcomic Joe Loves Crappy Movies. I admit that I am responsible for the majority of the details provided in the article. This is because I am a junior editor of two local newspapers and that I am also an enthusiast in the comic itself. Personally, I couldn't care less about a large number of webcomics, but I do think everything deserves its chance to shine. Not every comic is PvP or Penny Arcade. I'm well aware of that. But I also think each comic should be equally exhaustive of the information provided within in order to fully explain the context of the subject matter.
I'd be happy for the articles I've edited here to be hacked apart and ripped to pieces. It doesn't bother me. I do have a problem with it when people inexplicably hack apart details without even a comment in the discussion page. I'm not (intending to) imply that you are responsible for this, though I wouldn't know. I'm not a huge thrasher. I look at some pages taht I think need improving and go to town. Cars (Original Soundtrack) is probably a good example of where I've taken something from uninformative to being an informative, verifiable and pleasant looking page that has sufficient links to the essential entities, both within Wiki and beyond the borders.
Anyway, ultimatly, I'd like constructive editing and criticism for the pages I go to, not just blatant crushing of info.
But thank you for your comments. I'll try to make sure anything that I note from now on is highly verifiable. Just as a point of note, JLCM has had comments made in a few different places (magazines, newspapers etc). Right now, I can't pinpoint any, but I know I have them at home (I'm at work) so I'll pop something onto the page there that may be used as a verifiable source. I always avoid the use of allegory or subjectivity on Wiki. It's too volatile and leads to too much debate and argument. I'd rather use purely factual information that can be easily verified 100%. I think you'll find this trend in the pages I've edited (well, recently, as I've grown to learn the trend of what's common or acceptable around here).
Lincalinca 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re : AFD/Outsider (comic) (2nd nomination)

Thanks for your message. I've looked again, and think there is really no consensus on this one. I didn't know how many votes are there until you informed me, and I thought those who are for keeping did have a point on the WCCA. If you still disagree though, consider submitting a deletion review. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics Nation

Ah, didn't notice the difference. There - restored. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vice Faction

It's a flash cartoon. I almost made a comment on the AfD about it not being a webcomic, but by then the discussion was already advanced and I doubt it would have been noticed. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Inner Workings of Keenspot

Hello, I'm the author of the webcomic Sorcery 101 and I was reading through the AfD for Sorcery 101. I just noted that you don't think Keenspot is independent of the comics it hosts. And you posted "If you have verifiable information on Keenspot's business practices and decision-making which suggests that they are in most cases or in this case independent of the artists they publish,..." Well, what they post in the FAQ on how to get on Keenspot is rather misleading. Under how do I become a memberit pretty much says if they like you enough they will let you in no matter what. However, they get hundreds of aplications a day so that rarely happens. Since, they are selling add space to make a profit, it most comes down to page veiws. I applied to Keenspot roughly 4 times with no information changing except the number of readers. It wasn't until Sorcery 101 had over 5000 readers that it was accepted (and after checking the stats or the other newly added comics it looks like the same deal). They sent me an invite and after I told them I was still interested, they send me a contract (which if you want I could email it to you since I'm fairly certian they don't want their contract public). To sum it up though it says I won't put Sorcery 101 up anyways else on the web, I still own Sorcery 101, I'll put their banner and Ads on my site, any merchandise I want to make I should run by them first to see if they want to fund it, and if I wish to leave Keenspot I will give them a heads up 3 months in advanced. Also, other than dealling with promoting, hosting, and tech work they don't deal with Sorcery 101. Just letting you know since it was brought up. --Kell Hound

[edit] Re: Webcomics, as usual

This is one of those times where I wish I could invite my fellow Wikipedians to do lunch and hash it out. I know it sounds corny, but it usually works better than a talk page. I don't have time to answer you in full, but suffice to say we clearly attach different priorities to some issues. Keeping an unsourced article, so long as it appears to be reasonably accurate, is considerably less offensive to me than wasting time arguing over it on AfD. The deletion process is necessary, but it's frequently misused as a hammer, and far too often it sounds like the transcript from a David Spade show. I was particularly incensed by the Sorcery 101 AfD because it was submitted by an anon who didn't even bother to fill out the nomination. The {{afd}} is not a toy and shouldn't be played with by neophyte or anonymous contributors. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference added to Yiff

Could you actually provide the link to that article. I've checked their website, this [21] one, and to start with there was no July 5th edition, there was a july 6th edition, and there doesn't seem to be a racoon story in it. --Crossmr 16:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

nevermind, I actually managed to find it now, no worries.--Crossmr 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd found it at my library, so I didn't have the URL right away. I've added it now. -- Dragonfiend 16:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goblins (webcomic)

You nominated Goblins (webcomic) for deletion via prod and it had been deleted. However, zeigfreid has contested the deletion so I have restored the article. You are free to nominate it for deletion via WP:AFD, work with zeigfreid to see if he/she can improve it to your satisfaction, or let it go. Please let me know if you have questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 19:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is Zeigfreid. Wow, well. Where to start? I've read a lot of the above, and I can see that you have a very real concern that didn't even really occur to me. I'm not a card carrying wikipedian, and I had been under the impression that wikipedia would always be improved by new content if that content was true and notable. I see, though, that your definition (and wikipedia's definition) of notable is more like the definition a print encyclopedia might use. I'm not sure what to say. Is there conciderable resistance to the deletion of webcomic articles among other wikipedians? I read the article about notability of webcomics, and it looks like that is cannon now. Should we perhaps wait until Goblins sees print and then come back? I mean, the deleted article would still exist, so if we just wait for Thunt to be more notable, would that be cool with you?
I think that I'm probably of your opinion: not every person or their every work bears mention on wikipedia, and I guess Goblins, while extrememly popular, isn't the next Dinosaur Comics. However, there are article for webcomics like xkcd and The Adventures of Dr. McNinja. Would you like all webcomics that are not notable to be removed from wikipedia, and you just haven't gotten around to these (relatively new) webcomics, or do they qualify for notability somehow (and if so, how please)? All in all, though, I think that I support your previous nomination for deletion, and feel free to nominate it for deletion again. I will go back to the Goblins forums and explain notability to them (they will take it as an insult, though). Good good.
Well, I'm off to learn more about how and when to contribute to Wikipedia. This is complicated stuff! Thanks for your time. zeigfreid
Oh! I just answered my own question by reading your "What qualifies a Webcomic to stay?" thread.

[edit] VSCA Article, Help Needed :)

Hi there! You signed my talk page a bit ago, and now I'm in need of a bit of help. I found an article which is the definition of VSCA, and it has been edited and fixed with removing all of the vanity/advertising, but the owner of the site put her URL back up there, though there were other sites registered for plugboards before the owner's.. PlugMe.net was registered in June of 2004, but Plugboard.org was registered in October 2004, and her blog site has nothing to do with the plugboard site either (even more advertising!). What are you supposed to do in that situation? It's an important article, but needs to be rewritten.. Plug_board is the article in question. I'm not around much so I'm not exactly sure how to fix it! Thank you so much for your help! LissaExplains 23:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-tech

Hi! I'm a bit new on Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you could give me a tip. I was quite impressed with how you pulled that long string of sources on the Neo Tech discussion, and was wondering where you got that from. I generally found it quite hard tout find printed sources on a subject, so any tip is useful. Thanks for the help on that one anyway!--SidiLemine 11:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I searched at my library. -- Dragonfiend 15:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Lucky the westerners, for libraries shall be theirs. Cheers. Too bad the article has already been redirected to Franck Wallace, I'll see if we can get these pieces of info recorded somwhere...--SidiLemine 16:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tsunami Channel

Hello sir/ma'am. I was wondering if you have ever looked into Xuanwu's edits of the Tsunami Channel webcomic and whether or not his mentions of his self-promoted contributions constitute violations of Wiki policy? The history and discussion page shows that he was quite adamant about reverting edits to specific characters or involving specific people with which he is connected. Would his past involvement with the webcomic also barr him from involvement with the article?--128.32.154.224 21:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hello

Hi (I love entei 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Checkerboard Nightmare

I was wondering whether you've read the following, BEFORE nominating checkerboard Nightmare for deletion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB

Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 2.The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6] 3.The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster

Both 2 and 3 are met by Checkerboard Nightmare. I understand your position, with many small and unknown webcomic pages coming out here and there, but please remember that Alexa ratings are not criteria according to wiki's own guidelines... Aside from that fiasco, keep up the good work, although please point out the "notability" guidelines when putting a webcomic page for deletion, as it helps the new ones to understand how wikipedia functions. My apologies if Ive posted this wrongly, Im not much of an expert in wiki.

User:juliocstryfe1@gmail.com 10:11, October 31, 2006

  • Hi, Julio, welcome to this encyclopedia. Why are you bringing up an AfD from almost a year ago? And then comparing it to guidelines that have changed drastically since then? Yes, not only have I read WP:WEB but I also helped everyone create it. And, yes, I remember that Alexa rankings are not a part of the current WP:WEB guidelines, but I also remember that they were part of those same guidelines a year ago when I nominated that article for deletion. Thankfully we've managed to get away from those types of arbitrary measures for webcomics and require that they adhere to our same policies on accuracy and cited sources as any other topic. But, if you're really interested in looking at wikipedia articles from a year ago, here's what that article looked like on 21:25, 15 November 2005 [22] and here's what WP:WEB looked like at the same time [23]. I think you'll note that every comment I made in that AfD [24] happened to correspond exactly to a criteria of WP:WEB that I was citing at that time. Also, looking at the current version of that article and the current WP:WEB guideline, it still looks like it fails. What exactly is it that you see in the article about having "won a won a well known and independent award" or having been "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators"? -- Dragonfiend 17:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The rules have changed since then? Thanks man, that took away the only bad thing Ive heard about wikipedia so far.. as I could never understand just why did it get listed, and why the ne posters, some who were experts, were crossed out (kudos for the discussion where it was decided that comments count by content, not edit counts).

Now about "won a won a well known and independent award" I do believe Checkerboard nightmare got a mention in a Cartoonist's Choice Awards, and a few nominations around... as for "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators" it is now distributed through comixpedia and blank label comics, the later having a permanent link at pvp online. Thanks for the quick reply man, and for clearing this little scandal up. Keep up the good work.

Pity wikipedia has changed much from the original vision of "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." but I'll see how this new wikipedia system is like.

User:juliocstryfe1@gmail.com 16:50, October 31, 2006

      • The Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are not "well known" awards, nor are Comixpedia and Blank Label Comics "well known" publishers. Blank Label Comics isn't even a publisher, it's a collective, which makes it less-than-independent of its members. As far as "sum of all human knowledge" is concerned, it sounds like you might have an idea of knowledge that includes items of trivia or rumors. We don't include those. -- Dragonfiend 03:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomic notability guidelines

Hey, could I get your feedback on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Notability guidelines? I'm trying to hash out whether hosting on Comic Genesis (Keenspot) is sufficient to meet WP:WEB #3. Thanks much. --Brad Beattie (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Side note, I very much appreciate your attempts to keep the current webcomic AFDs civil. It's much appreciated. --Brad Beattie (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please calm down

Your comments to Phil are highly incivil and in several cases could be interpreted as personal attacks. This really is not on, and I would hope that as a long-standing member of the community you will recognise that you have overstepped the boundary. Guy 09:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comments and concern. I think the level of conversation has improved. I've also suggested mediation if we can't work things out over talk pages. Thanks again. -- Dragonfiend 19:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Help Desk (webcomic)

What is the purpose of your "user is the one who listed Checkerboard Nightmare" comment? Is it supposed to be some sort of ad hominem personal attack? Why have you made similar comments about me when suggesting we keep the ultimately deleted webcomic articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acid Reflux (webcomic) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Dice? Are you still, as you put it when suggesting we keep the ultimately deleted webcomic article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedity, under the impression that we should disregard our content policies and keep unsourced encyclopedia articles about any webcomic that "meets the 100 comics limit and has certainly been around for long enough"? -- Dragonfiend 03:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what? It probably was. It was late and I was tired, as if that's any reason, but it was wrong for me to do so and I'm sorry that I did. Rest assured that I long since abandoned the old standards, which I naively brought up sincerely unknowing what had happened to them, and am reading up on things. The other two mentions are not comments on you, but parts of arguments, references to (what the community largely considers to be) WP:WEB giving a false positive. I should've kept my exasperation to myself and remembered that you're a fellow Narbonic reader, not an opponent. --Kizor 00:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
On reflection: unless you took issue with the word 'acerbically', which I had to look up and could have taken it to mean less than it does. It should've read 'harsh', which I have to stand by. --Kizor 01:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I just don't think it's necessary to try to dismiss another editor's comments simply because they disagreed on a previous case. You may have a different standard for content and sourcing than I do; that doesn't mean either of us will always be right or wrong. The whole Wiki and AfD process is based on the idea that there will be valid disagreements over content inclusion. -- Dragonfiend 02:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I agree with that completely and have already said I'm sorry for making that stupid comment in the first place. For what it's worth, I endeavor not to dismiss anything out of hand. We have disagreed and will continue to disagree because of the collateral damage your as such commendable efforts to decruft Wikipedia cause by my own personal standards (the Checkerboard Nightmare AfD being the clearest example of that), but I make an effort not to pick a side on the basis that you're on the other. Hey, as a clumsy gesture of reconciliation, if you do like Narbonic and are on broadband would you like the soundtrack of any of the past Narbonicons? --Kizor 17:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. Just wanted to let you know that we've had a number of webcomics go through the AFD process in the past week or two (User:BradBeattie/Pages to clean). So far it's 16 deleted, 1 kept. If that's any indication, it's probably a good idea to continue sifting through what's there. Just wanted to say thanks for participating in the AFD discussions. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dragonfiend/Sandbox/Reman_Mythology

I disabled the categories by adding a colon at the beginning of the link, so if you copy those to the new page be aware that you'll need to remove them. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nowhere Girl, webcomics and who's on first

(I did the same song and dance over at WP:WEBCOMIC, but only had 1 reply in 3 or 4 days, so I might as well ask you about it.)

The article asserts that Justine Shaw was the first webcomics artist to be nominated for an Eisner. I'm not exactly disputing this but... Jason Shiga's Fleep was serialized and won one of the categories that Justine was nominated for (wider recognition). The million dollar question: is Fleep considered a webcomic even though AsianWeek serialized it first and it was picked up by Modern Tales only after the AsianWeek deal fell through (he stopped it at #28)? shigabooks and Aaron Swartz's site still has the comic up to be read (it's not on Modern Tales anymore, my guess is that that was Jason's agreement with MT). Is Jason considered a webcomic artist, for that matter? Most of his stories can be found online. ColourBurst 02:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • When I added that info to the Nowhere Girl article, I took it from an article in the Daily Oklahoman, that reads in part "An Eisner first this year was the first nomination of a Web comic. Justine Shaw's 'Nowhere Girl' (www.nowheregirl.com) was nominated for best new series, and Shaw was nominated for talent deserving of wider recognition." My opinion is that Shiga was a print comic artist before he was a webcomic artist (he's both), and Shaw is a webcomic artist only. Her "Best New series" nomination was for a comic that has never been in print. Of course, our opinions matter little; what matters is what is published in reliable sources, right? -- Dragonfiend 07:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional texts

I'd love any input or organization you might be able to put to User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay. I'm trying to work out on broad principle some of the popular culture issues, at least as they relate to fictional texts, so that debates over them are somewhat less sterile, and so that everyone is on the same page about things like sourcing. Phil Sandifer 18:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Girly (webcomic), "SuperExpert," and the the rest

Hey DF -
Just a short note to say that you're doing good work, that you're holding up well under the assault of the "I'm an expert! Fear me!" crowd, and that your continuing efforts are appreciated.
152.91.9.144 02:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you so much for your appreciative comments. -- Dragonfiend 02:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics deletions

I just wanted to drop by and say I'm a big fan of your deletions, as well as your ability to delete and vote for deletion. Keep up the good deleting; looking forward to see what other undeleted articles you'll delete in the delete-future.

Delete, A fan

[edit] A sincere thanks

The Barnstar of Diligence
I think you're doing a fine job in the AFD discussions and I feel it's only right that you're recognized for that. Keep it up! Brad Beattie (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punks and Nerds

Read your reason for deletion and while I don't quite understand the last comment in that wikipedia is not an internet guide, I'm fairly indifferent with the article remaining up or not. I tried to get my biography article to be removed (which was stated to be not enough of a reason to delete it, so other incorrect accusations are added to get rid of it, such as prodding) because I am not famous, nor do I want to be, however I know the position of where my webcomic is and think its notable depending on who you talk to. Even though things such as comixpedia are listed as credible sites for its notably (which I read that you do not see it as a notable site), I don't supose that Wizard magazine is notable enough, something that a peer of mine was interviewed for in order to discuss an anthology that was worked on. However I do not have the information, nor do I find it appropriate to edit Punks and Nerds article too much, being as it is made mostly by the fans and can be considered egotistical to do so.

Which brings me to the point where even though I have done a lot of notable things with the work, this has all been made by the fans and the readers, many of whom are your webcomic article editing peers and I'm mostly fighting it for them. I am moving on in life, continue to follow the path of stepping stones to see what is next for me, and do not need to be referred to on wikipedia, an internet encyclopedia that even my parents go to for information. If I or my work ever do become rightfully famous, appropriate articles will be made then, even though my name will mention how it was deleted back in 2006 and once again the prodded debate might return. Who knows, I am flattered enough for people to take the time and energy to make the article what it is now and keep it up for over a year. I do not mind if it goes, but I do mind all the work can be removed because someone disagrees on the credibility against other people's beliefs, however in the end any creative outlets might be better off doing things more productive than making an article for a comic they enjoy. It's all debatable.

To play devil's advocate, Punks and Nerds is actually read with a much larger fanbase than Checkerboard Nightmare that has remained up, so if the Punks and Nerds article is deleted while others remain, it doesn't make Wikipedia look bad, but it does make the editors appear more hypocritical than anything. I do agree and see your point in that wikipedia is not a place to have a catalog of everything that can be found on the internet, and people like you are just cleaning it up so that there is not a biography of every person online who has posted everything about their high school lives on their blogs. Another note is that I have not brought up the discussion of keeping the article alive or not on the main Punks and Nerds website if anything, which can say something over the article discussion of deletion and despite not being strongly promoted to remain up, it's still getting a lot of people to say "keep."

In the end your opinion is not looked down upon and I agree with it more than anything but I still prefer "keep" because it has done a lot more than many article pages that are still around, and the readers spent a long time making it. Joshmirman 03:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Josh. My statement that "wikipedia is not an internet guide" is a reminder of what our goals are as an encyclopedia. Among them is that we don't indiscriminately catalog all information. When it comes to websites specifically, we do not simply catalog the features of a website (when it launched, who launched it, what its contents are). Instead, we only write articles on websites of some achievement or historical significance. And since we are committed to only publishing neutral articles based on verifiable information then that significance must be written about in a reputable, reliable source and not based simply on the personal opinions of wikipedia editors. This often comes as a surprise to new editors, as they assume that Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" policy means that anyone can write whatever they want on whatever topic they want. Well, they can, but it will be edited at some point to meet our guidelines, and that may mean deleting the article entirely. To give you some perspective, about 125-150 articles are nominated for deletion each day. Yes, some bad articles slip through the cracks for weeks or months or years, and I can imagine that it would be frustrating to see a worse article linger while an article about yourself is deleted. To further put things into perspective, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BuzzFlash, where an article about a website which The Washington Post reports has 2.4 million readers per month is deleted. Why? Because other than some very basic info contained in a few sentences in a few newspapers, we don't really have the sources to write a verifiable, neutral encyclopedia article. I hope that helps answer your questions. Let me know if I can be of any more help. -- Dragonfiend 08:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello. I thought that was what it meant. I understand greatly in which wikipedia must do that in order to keep its legitimacy, and I agree. I am actually not bothered by having my own things removed, I need a clean slate since my goals in life are art related, but not something that is a hobby turned into a cult sensation. I do not want to be remembered for only those things. I prefer people to remember me for making them smile or laugh every now and then, and they don't need a wikipedia article to remind them of that feeling. My only major defenses were the fact that other sites less legit than these two (punk and nerds and biography page) will remain up while my biography will finally be removed (good) and Punks and Nerds is in the air. As well as the fact that I'm an artist and know what it's like to see something that has been given so much thought and effort to be removed in a blink of an eye. Otherwise I agree with YOU and the other moderators as well as the people who chose to keep it. I'm in the middle. I do not need the articles up to feel good about myself since I know exactly what I created is something that is not revolutionary to the medium and I'm simply not that shallow to be so haunted by even reading "Afd" on the page. As of right now I'm an illustrator for children's books (quite the polar opposite of such a sexual and lampoonish comic) and who knows where the winds will take me. If in ten years I make something remarkable, then Wikipedia will rightfully talk about it. However everyone is working to create stability and order, and I appreciate and acknowledge your participation in it. -- Joshmirman 04:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/r/a/User_talk%7EDragonfiend_b5ea.html"