User talk:KetinPorta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Jugopedia
2 License tagging for Image:Animalvegetablemineralman.jpg
3 License tagging for Image:Mento01.jpg
4 License tagging for Image:Misterjones.jpg
5 Doom Patrol images
6 Image Tagging for Image:Beastboy01.jpg
7 Image Tagging for Image:Generalimmortus01.jpg

[edit] Jugopedia

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Please see our guideline at WP:WEB for articles on websites. The existence of Jugopedia isn't in question, it's its notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So, what are the levels of notability for ranking in your magnanimous opinion?

Did you read the link I provided? And please don't be snarky. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So if I remove the "jugopedia" name and rename it "Jugo" and rearrange the content, it does change. In our site we don't care about the site, instead, we care about the "jugo".

How would you do that? How would you create an article about "Jugo" which is not just a Spanish language version of Juice? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read the content of the article you wanna delete, you'll find out that "jugo" is not about the extract of certain fruits, but a different concept, and it deserves the non-translated "jugo" because its wide usage as a colloquialism in Chile.

What's the notoriety of this wikipedia allowed article? [1] Kamelopedia

We frequently hear arguments along the lines of "Why do you want to delete this? It's not the worse article here, look at these other ones." Experienced editors don't tend to find such arguments compelling- one bad article does not justify another. That said, if there are other websites that don't look verifiable or significant, feel free to nominate them for deletion. A good rule of thumb is, if reliable third-party sources are not discussing it, it's not a topic we can include in the encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Then now I can publish it again, because a third party (you) is discusing the matter. Deleting only some articles violates the NPOV. KetinPorta 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not it at all- I am not a reliable source. Take a look at WP:V- this explains "verifiability", a key concept here. My talking about it on a talk page is not at all a third party reliable source. We specifically do not use usenet or forum posts as sources, nor do we use personal websites. It is possible to introduce bias by giving some topics coverage where others lack it, but the issue here seems to be verifiability and significance. There's one kind of bias that we have on purpose- we are biased toward topics that are covered in reliable sources. This is an inescapable part of being an encyclopedia, so it's not a bias that we try to overcome. Friday (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait a week for the editors to delete the articles of the Kamelopedia and the Wickerpedia. I understand the matter of notoriety, but I find the lack of NPOV a personal offense. If you take responsability in edit the Wikipedia, you can't overlook some articles in the same category of the one you deleted.

That's a nice theory, but in practice, we edit one article at a time. Wikipedia isn't consistant, as much as we might like it to be. Friday (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody forced you to take the responsability. The articles that I mention were older than mine.

[edit] License tagging for Image:Animalvegetablemineralman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Animalvegetablemineralman.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.