User talk:Nicer1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Proposed deletion

Looking at the statement on your user page, I get the impression you don't really understand the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process. Any editor who disagrees with your proposed deletion is under no obligation to change or improve the article, and can remove the tag to indicate that they disagree with the deletion. Speedy deletion criteria are even tighter, and it's unlikely that you can get an article deleted in this way if it does not clearly meet the criteria for speedy deletion.

Now, using this account you've tried to delete three adult magazines, and from an anonymous IP 75.5.35.126, you've added {{prod}} tags to 15 adult and gay magazines. You give your reasoning as notability concerns, but this pattern of only targetting adult magazines makes it looks like a campaign against such material. Sorry if I've misunderstood you, but that's how it looks. Please remember Wikipedia is not censored. --Canley 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The article nominations came about because I ran across the List of pornographic magazines and was clicking on the titles of some with which I was unfamiliar. I have been a subscriber to porn magazines in the past, and most likely will be again in the future; my actions have nothing to do with "censorship". If you'll notice, one of the links from the page was to 30 Something, which I also {{prod}}ed, and removed the link from the magazine page with the edit summary comment that the article wasn't about the magazine.
All of the articles I nominated/tagged don't, in my opinion, currently contain content that needs to be, or should be, included in an encyclopedia. They may be important/notable magazines; that's just not evident from the articles.
Have a look at Bizarre (fetish magazine), for example. Review the article and, given the current content of the article, ask yourself what makes the publication important enough to have an entry in an encyclopedia. What content asserts or demonstrates importance?
  • The magazine wasn't regularly published ?
  • The magazine issues apparently were published out of order ?
  • The magazine included many photographs ?
  • Many of the photographs were of the publisher's wife ?
  • The publisher was accused of forging letters from readers ?
I would imagine, given that the publisher Taschen has published two books about the magazine, that it is important; that's just not evident from the article itself. John Willie's bondage artwork is iconic in the field, I would think that his publication could be better described. I've set forth more information regarding the importance of the magazine in this one paragraph than is contained in the entire article.
As a side note, I own some Taschen publications; I enjoy their high-quality work and the subjects they cover in their publications. I assume these publications must be profitable for them; I can't imagine that either of the books on Bizarre was published just for the heck of it.
Even though I feel the articles meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Articles criterion 7, I began by adding {{prod}} tags to the articles in the hopes that they would be improved.
As for understanding the proposed deletion process, the {{prod}} tag reads:

"If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.

The tags were removed without any of the actions described in the notice being taken: the article wasn't improved, edited, etc., and the message was removed with no explanation as to why other than an edit summary that said "prank?".
In my mind, what's not understood here is what constitutes material suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
Quite frankly, I don't care to argue the points any further. If the articles survive, fine. I hope that someone will bring them up to the quality that articles in an encyclopedia should have.Nicer1 05:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for explaining. Like I said, I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreted your actions and motives, it looks like I have! However, I still think your undestanding of the deletion process needs some work. Regards, --Canley 08:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If you honestly believe an article's subject is notable but the artilce itself doesn't contain a proper assertion of notability then proposing them for deletion is not the way to improve those articles. I don't know if you are just hoping that other editors will do the grunt work for you or you simply just don't care. I must admit your reasonings seem a little strange but I don't want to come off as hostile. I would recommend that when you see an article lacking in an area it shouldn't be you take the time and improve the artilce, not just nom it for deletion. That's being a good editor. Regardless, welcome to wikipedia! NeoFreak 11:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
First, I don't know if all the articles are notable. Second, why shouldn't I "hope other editors will do the grunt work"? I didn't write the articles, I don't know enough about the topics to make appropriate edits, and I shouldn't have to do the research to do so. I can still recognize a poorly written article lacking in substantive material and want to have it improved. I was attempting to use the {{prod}} tag to call attention to the article needing attention; that hasn't seemed to work out the way I intended, but good intentions often don't turn out as expected. I've also tried comments on talk pages in the past without success, I decided to try something a bit stronger this time. Thanks for the welcome, but I've been here awhile.Nicer1 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally I am highly suspicious of any user who (a) admits to only having created an account in order to do deletions and (b) only proposes a certain type of article for deletion. Looks like someone on a mission, to me. At least the RFDs are failing. --SandyDancer 17:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
a) creating an account is a requirement in order to create an article; I tried to use {{prod}} and you kept removing the tags; since I strongly feel the articles need work, I went to the bother of creating an account in order to escalate the articles to the next level, still in hopes that the articles would be improved. If I could have made the AfD nomination without creating an account, I would have.
b) if you've bothered to read my explanation above as to how and why I wound up tagging these articles, it would be very easy to see this comment as a slight personal attack; it certainly illustrates that you doubt that I acted in good faith.
I'll try to assume that you've acted in good faith and just didn't bother to read the information above.
As for the AfDs failing, there have been few changes to the articles themselves, so my intentions were apaprently in vain and the articles are still substandard (in my opinion, which I'm entitled to); I note that I'm not alone in that opinion.Nicer1 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't go as far as to say I don't think you "acted in good faith" - in that, I am not suggesting there is "bad faith" here. I do have suspicions that you have an issue with pornography per se as this appears to have been a concerted effort to delete articles about such material. --SandyDancer 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not any such thing; read the explanation above and stop accusing me of something I didn't do! Your continued refusal to accept my explanation is tantamount to calling me a liar, which is a form of personal attack. Withdraw your comments and provide an apology, please.Nicer1 17:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I have not called you a liar, I am not implying you are one. I do not doubt the truth of any of what you have said about why you proposed the individual articles for deletion. For the record, I don't agree with your reasoning and as User:Canley said above, you seem to misunderstand the deletion process. What I am saying is that notwithstanding your arguments for deletion, I think it may not be a coincidence that you have only nominated pornographic magazines - and exclusively Paul Raymond ones, at that - for deletion. So perhaps at worst I am saying you have additional motivations, aside from those you express above. That does not mean I am saying you are being dishonest - I am not. No apology is deserved so none will be given. --SandyDancer 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not accepting my explanation as to why the articles were nominated, and continuing to say that there was another motive, is calling me a liar, pure and simple. I've explained that my nominations had nothing to do with the subject matter; take a look at the history of 30 Something.Nicer1 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh come off it. I have not said you a liar. I do not think you are lying. It seems as if you want to make a big issue out of this. I am perfectly entitled to express my misgivings about the fact you seem to have chosen clearly non-viable deletion candidates (as evidenced by people's reactions in the deletion debates) and that they are all of one type. I am beginning to suspect you are trying to get me into trouble! It won't work. --SandyDancer 18:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the third opinion below, you have not acted inappropriately. While I disagree with that conclusion, I will apologize for my apparent miscategorization of your comments, the same error that I believe you have made regarding mine. Thanks.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion vs. Cleanup

A brief glance at your user and talk pages suggests that, rather then tagging articles on subjects that you think are notable but which are badly-written for deletion in the hopes that they will improve, you would benefit from a link to Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Those are clean-up messages, and they are useful in such cases. It also might be useful to list some articles at Wikipedia:Cleanup, or send them to Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 18:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:Knave (magazine). I have adopted a different approach from what I was doing; I thank you for the suggestion.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

While third opinion isn't generally used for disputes between users, I did have a read. It does not appear to me that User:SandyDancer was out of line at all here-the concerns are sincere and put civilly, even if they are indeed genuinely mistaken. WP:AGF does not mean "never question" or "accept everything at face value". No accusations of lying or similar breaches of civility occurred that I can see, only a lot of questions-and that's how we clarify things. Seraphimblade 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Withdrawing AfDs

Could you please take a look at the following two nominations?

I made the nominations and am withdrawing them in favor of a different approach to get these articles improved; I'd appreciate if the AfDs could be closed and the outcome noted as Withdrawn.

I am also awaiting responses of one of the two editors who made Delete recommendations for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 26#Club International to my request to withdraw their recommendations. (One editor has already done so.) That being the case, could you also monitor that article for a bit to see if the editor agrees to the withdrawal and if so, close that AfD as well?

Thanks.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've closed these AFDs:
—Quarl (talk) 2006-11-29 02:57Z
Thanks for your assistance.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


As the rubric states that no amends are to be made to the AfD, I am unable to comply. In any event, I would not have been willing to change my opinion, since I am satisfied that the subject has notability, merely not that the notability is adequately sourced. --Simon Cursitor 07:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chidom

On your user page you state "I'm a long-term anonymous Wikipedia user". But am I correct in thinking you are User:Chidom? If so I think you should have been explicit about it. --SandyDancer 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/i/c/User_talk%7ENicer1_4645.html"