User talk:Yeago

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Genesis

66.81.68.28 was rambling. According to most religious POVs he inserted some anachronisms (why would the Author of Genesis try to incorporate the later-to-develop Greek worldview?) Moreover, he linked to nonexistent articles using questionable link texts (Western and Greek philosophy are very much different). When this is coming from an anonymous editor and the POV is not clearly discernible, I revert for the sake of readability. If he wants this view represented, he'd better make some stylistic improvements. JFW | T@lk 08:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lilith

Absent-mindedly, I answered to your question on my on page: User_talk:Oop#Lilitu. Sorry. (Btw: if it's not secret, who's your professor? Just asking.) --Oop 19:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Jesus

In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, Mpolo has opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but Mpolo thinks the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) CheeseDreams 17:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the invite! You will definitely see my name again. I would start by simplifying the article to a state which everyone can agree upon, and letting it grow again. All those stub sections would be where I'd start my pruning. Yeago 18:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its not clear which article you are referring to. If it is the "Historicity" article, then I am currently working on it on a different page whilst it is locked (I did try to sort it out before others started a revert war resulting in the locking). A response would be better also on the Wikiproject talk page, as the others will notice. Im glad you are willing to take part. CheeseDreams 18:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Inventions of War

duct_tape

[edit] Easter egg link

Hi there. Would you mind explaining why you reverted my change to John Conyers? Don't worry—I'm not particularly worried about the revert, and won't change it back again, but I am curious. The reason I changed it is that, as things stand and stood, "runaway bride" does not link to an article on the concept of runaway bride. "Jennifer Wilbanks" may invoke the concept of runaway bride for Americans, and maybe always will (if no other famous Jennifer Wilbanks comes along), but "runaway bride" does not invoke Jennifer Wilbanks for a non-American, and I doubt it will for anyone in a few years' time (we are trying to avoid statements that will date quickly). Putting the name of the reference in brackets enables a reader to understand to what "runaway bride" refers, and he or she can follow that link if interested.

—John Mark Williams <⌂|☎> 2 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

[edit] Hugh Johnson

Hi, you're perfectly right - that page should be a disambig page leading to the various articles of the several guys with that name. When I stumbled upon the page, I did not realize it was meant as a disambig page...I only read the first two entries and wrongly assumed it was an inferior article on Hugh Samuel Johnson. I'll undo my change and turn the page into a proper dismabig page. Do you have any more information on the wine connossieur? I have no doubt he is a notable person by himself, but it would be nice to write a bit more about him than just a single sentence... -- Ferkelparade π 00:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi. Can you explain to me what the deal was with this edit on Madagascar? --Hottentot 00:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A shameful prank. I believe I was framed. I really loved that film! Yeago 19:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Leroy disguise garb.jpg

Please verify and fix the source, as i'm unable to access the page. feydey 01:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have put the image to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2005_December_27 since its not a promotional photo and the page is copyrighted (©2003 Associazione culturale Delos Books). See Wikipedia:Fair_use and Wikipedia:Publicity photos for clarification so you are able to upload correct images in the future. feydey 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As one of the editors recently involved in the collaborative effort to remove POV within the JT LeRoy article, I'd also like to protest to the recent changes you made to the article. Many of the changes have introduced new POV issues that weren't there before your edits. I do not object to the inclusion of a photo (provided, as feydey has pointed out, it is not a Copyvio), but the caption in particular is very POV, and the photo should be moved to the top of the article as well. I'll be editing the article again to maintain NPOV. Please do not make further changes without first introducing them on the talk page. Thanks. --Animated Cascade ^talk 20:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "People indicted under the Nazi justice system"

That would be a significant improvement over the current title. Suggest it at the deletion discussion. — Feb. 17, '06 [07:42] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I have, however, like many things CfD'd, the discussion quickly turns into "delete or keep". I was hoping to encourage you to consider the above improvement and then return to the discussion, as I think it would be a shame of this article was deleted.

To be honest, I think your introduction ("where do I even begin with this one?") and CfDing were made very hastily. I hope you will consider using the NPOV tag in the future, as I don't think this was a hard title to defuse. Thank you so much for responding.Yeago 07:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Documenting inappropriate WP editing

It looks like the "interested" category is going down in flames, to my mind correctly. However, I think I might be able to suggest an approach to your goal that is more defensible: Create a new article called something like Use of Wikipedia for propoganda (maybe you can come up with a better title).

In this article, you might describe in full prose form, exactly who did what and why it is contrary to encyclopedic goals. And more specifically, you can include citations to external sources that discuss and document this behavior (ideally, editors here aren't the ones judging what is "nice" and "interested" editing, but can simply point out that, e.g. "The Washington Post describes these edits as..."). One problem with categories is that they lack much nuance. Each item either is or is not in a category. Annotated lists can be a little better, but even so the list form is fairly stereotyped. An regular (non-list) article is better for this: you could have subsections like "The Adam Curry/Podcasting dispute" or "Representative Marty Meehan's staffers", and explain why each thing is notable.

Something along those lines, if done in a sufficiently WP:NPOV and WP:V manner is something I would vote "keep" on. Such an article certainly has room for expansion over time, but you could start by describing the four things you currently put into the category. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Werd. Tell me if you like this Wikipedia and public opinion. It was after I typed this up that I had the idea to make a category out of it (because I felt that propagandists, while Notable, were not Wikipedians). Maybe I'll just stick to the article, link it well and get it rockin'. Yeago 04:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems workable. Could use a bit of cleanup, but the concept seems sound. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Alcoholics

The result of the debate was: 8 delete votes 3 keeps or in other words, 62% delete. After reading the comments posted, specifically: what criteria one would use for inclusion into the category, or removal, (N)POV stances, as well as the category/term as a whole being subjective, I felt 62% was a good enough majority. Of course your recourse is always WP:DRV if you still feel this as innappropriate. Thanks. —akghetto ^talk 20:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is an interesting subject, and I hope you can find some way to address the concerns raised. If you do end up taking it to appeal, I'd appreciate if you could drop me a note just so I could follow it (I personally wouldn't vote, just want to watch). Thanks again! —akghetto ^talk 22:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifying vote

I would recommend you indicate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia and public opinion that you are explicitly voting "keep" (or "delete", if that is how you feel, despite creating the page yourself). "Agree" is a bit hard to parse on an AfD, since it's not one of the votes (but it might tend to read like "agree with deletion nomination"). Moreover, it possibly matters that your vote is clear fairly early... I think a lot of AfD/CfD voters "go with the flow": if they think it's getting deleted, they agree; if they think it's getting kept, likewise. So a couple "keep" votes up front at least makes editors take a closer look rather than responding instinctively. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unwarranted personal attack re JT LeRoy

Hello. You seem to have accused me in several places of being a sock puppet of Laura Albert and/or user Grilledcheese in connection with my edits to the JT LeRoy article last fall. Please refrain from spreading this totally unwarranted accusation any further. Note that I have deliberately recused myself from Wikipedia for several months to allow others to work out a fair solution and to avoid any appearance of undue influence. IslandGyrl 02:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It was suggested by someone before I ever came to the article. Sorry about that.Yeago 02:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for disruption, due to the personal attacks you made at WP:MC, as well as the history of personal attacks demonstrated by the other messages on this page. Personal attacks will not be tolerated; further attacks will result in further blocks, up to and including indefinite blocking. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your email. It has lead me to an important realization: Twenty four hours was not long enough for you to read and grasp the full meaning of no personal attacks. As such, I've granted you an additional forty-eight hours to read and reflect on it. If you find that forty-eight hours still isn't long enough, I'll be happy to give you a week; I want to be sure you have fully grasped the policy, in particular, these lines: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Urbanism category

Thanks for your comments on Category talk:New Urbanism. I've responded there. --Singkong2005 14:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halliburton

Thanks for your message about Halliburton. Yes - as you say, I certainly didn't intend anything to be homeless. On the contrary, I was tracking down a number of homeless business ethical issues and assigning these to categories, as well as cleaning up some rather redundant ones. It might be that some of my changes were (partly) reversed by others, but I don't have time to track down things like that - or perhaps I screwed up... The whole area of business ethical issues is rather a mess of categories at the moment. The "anti-corporate activism" category is one of the few categories that is established and healthy, so it seemed logical to put some lost and poorly categorised things into it.

If "anti-corporate activism" is intended to mean activists and not issues and cases, then the title should be changed. A category is surely open to any Wikipedian to use, so its title should clearly say what it is (or a message should be posted clearly where additional explanation is necessary). The problem I see here is that there a lot of articles on Wikipedia which are critical of corporations, and which for complex reasons are not suitable for the more academic category of "business ethics". For example, in the case of Halliburton, I see it more as an issue of current political activism than general ethics because a lot of attention focuses around the current US administration and its links with Halliburton. It would only become a general ethical issue if history continued to focus on the case long after Cheney has gone and if the case raises deeper issues. Rather than a proliferation of badly organised sub-categories with partisan titles (which had been growing sort of by itself), it would perhaps be more sensible for a few Wikipedians to try and clean up this area and identify established categories which are suitable to receive such articles. In other words, we need an "anti-corporate activism" category that allows issues and cases as well as individuals - so should 2 categories be created, or is the current one still small enough to accept a wider range?

Do you vaguely see what I'm getting at?

Caravaca 06:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vaguely. =)

I think it was a good thing. Hopefully the categories will reform with a little more cogency. *Shrug*. I think you were a bit hasty but its not the end of Wikipedia.Yeago 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your User Page?

• I don't have a clue who you are on Wikipedia. This offensive message (Meant for your Discussion page?)" Were you vandalized?. I am from Massachusetts, and met Marty Meehan a while ago. I am neutral on the subject, and wrote an article on his discussion page to that effect. I wanted you to see it. Merlinus (talk)

Read it. Not sure what I'm looking for but thanks for the read.Yeago 05:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mumford

I should probably tweak what I wrote, I may have overstated it. I was just eager to get his lit. crit. work up there. I know him primarily as a Melville scholar. Read the bio from the Notre Dame prof. that I added link to at the bottom of the entry.Asedzie 01:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I appreciate the kind words on the additions to the entry. Thanks!Asedzie 02:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Urban restoration"

'You misunderstand the meaning of "urban restoration" Google it or something. Has nothing to do with "white people moving in." This has been a good overhaul.'

I understand the term "urban restoration" to mean something broader than just the refubishment of buildings; it suggests overall positive change to an urban area. And yes, I understand that the term doesn't connote white people moving in. "Gentrification" in many contexts does (although that was too snarky a characterization; apologies). I don't like the term "urban restoration" in this context because it suggests a positive change overall. While I believe that is often the case during gentrification, this is not a matter of consensus among urban planners, sociologists, economists, activists, or any other group of experts with whom I am familiar. Everyone agrees that gentrification produces desirable physical/infrastructural changes; reasonable, informed people disagree over whether these changes produce an overall positive change/restoration, or whether instead destroy working-class and mixed-income neighborhoods in the interests of yuppiefication.

Is there a more neutral term we can use that is non-awkward? I did google "urban restoration" and haven't seen anything to suggest that the term is confined to the established area of agreement about what gentrification does. I like "physical restoration" but would be happy to hear any objections.

Thanks for your edits, by the way -- I was pretty unhappy with the intro before.

Thanks,

--Rocketfairy 01:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Heya. I suppose I hadn't thought to expand the meaning to include anything but urban infrastructure--intangible and 'physical'. I certainly don't read it to infer a value judgment on the Gentrification issue. I happen to be wearing blue jeans, a brown shirt and matching brown converse (aaand I visited Bedford Ave in the past 24 hours), so I can tell you what side of the issue I am (statistically) on. I suppose there's just something displeasing about saying "physical restoration" because there are a few intangibles--such as expansion of services. If you think it will read like a racial (or something) stab then please, omit it. No other phrase comes to mind without being needlessly wordy, which was, after all, the main sin of that section.

Yeago 07:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King of class

I have had Coleman in my watchlist for a long time and I reverted before 172 ever approached me about it. I would suggest you moderate your language and approach. --TJive 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A simple comparison of the timestamp of 172s beggary compared to your revert cheerleading proves your statement is, well, BULLSHIT. Way to flop that one, buddyboy. What's sadder than watching you comply to be nothing better than a sockpuppet is watching you try to flail out of it with easily deflowered lies. (and then go on to tell me how to behave. hahaha.) Yeago 09:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? Let's look at that again. My first revert came a matter of 50 minutes before 172's message. Unless you are speculating that 172's message was a public front for private correspondence, which is not true and for which you have no more evidence than your laughable 3RR report, I would suggest that we have here not a question of fecal matter protruding from my lips. Care to show otherwise? --TJive 20:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeago You are more likely to attract bees with honey than vinegar. Wise advise, that i rarely follow. If I followed this advice more often, I wouldn't have been infinetly banned last month. Calling someone's comments Bullshit just makes you enemies. I have often taken your approach, and our approach is almost always more work. When I am a dick, I eventually still get the same end results, but I have to invest much more time, effort, and emotional energy to get my end results. Try to be a diplomat, give TJive a compliment, apologize to him, explain to him how you want to build a better wikipedia. It is much less work and hassle in the long wrong. If I recall correctly, TJive and I have butted heads before. I usually take your approach, basically saying what TJive says is BULLSHIT. It doesn't work. Try honey.

I came to your page because of your comments here I have no idea if those comments are directed at me or the user. Please clarify.

And BTW who the hell is Coleman and why should I care? More important why do you and everyone else give a sh**? It makes me laugh how everyone is so uptight about this trivial issue. Makes me realize how unimportant wikipedia truly is.

The internet in general is a stomping ground for these little testosterone wars over nothing. I think in a sense I embrace its nature. For the time being I prefer it slightly to the condescendingly complimentary, WP:LAW citing diplomats in disguise, who use the "wikipedia a better place" rhetoric. I go back and forth on this one, hwvr.Yeago 17:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Signed:Travb (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your words, Travb, and its funny because I've given the same speech too, not failing to add that its advice I rarely follow. I suppose I just have a very sharp curve of patience.

I agree, it is more work and magnetizes more resistance to do things in this way. The best wishes to both of us in following this advice. While I can't compliment a bullshitter for being a bullshitter, I appreciate your encouragement, and will continue to do my best--at the end of the day--to keep in mind there are humans at the other sides of these things.

And no, that stab was not at you.

Yeago 17:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

The rudeness with which you speak to and of User:172 on Talk:Norm Coleman is breathtaking,[1] and you're none too civil to other people either.[2] Several people have already asked you to stop making personal attacks. Now I tell you that you're likely to find yourself blocked for disruption if you keep poisoning the working climate on that talkpage. (This does not mean that it's OK to do it other places.) Bishonen | talk 20:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC).

I can see your problem with the first one although I don't see it as being as sinister as you interpret it to be. I am wondering, though, what bothered you about the second one, specifically? I thought it pretty much summed up the current direction of the whole debate, and made several valid points. It didn't refer to anyone in particular, so I'm not quite sure who you think I was attacking in that one. I think its easy to demonize people who show a little color in their argumentation--especially when, as you say, "Several people" complain. Its far short of namecalling. Yeago 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not, really? The trouble with the second one is that you assume abysmal bad faith. "What's funny is that if they thought this line of reasoning had any weight at all they would have..." "Revert cheerleadeers" is namecalling in my book. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC).

"Revert cheerleaders" is hardly attains Insidious status. Sure, it may be a rather colorful description of the practice of soliciting others in waging a revert war, but it is far from unreasonable, hateful screed ("breathtaking" as you may find it). If you think about what a cheerleader is, it is actually a very useful analogy—at least from my standpoint (and last time I checked, I was entitled to that). If you read above you'll see I actually brought this up with the cheerleader in question only to be lied to, which is indication enough of the accuracy of the classification.

I assume "Abysmal" (a very daring word) bad faith because for months I have replied to 172s contentless rhetoric and misguided understanding of the intent of WP:SELF and he has not once (1, ein, une) replied to me. I do assume bad faith because 172 keeps changing his polemic without ever bothing to explain himself. He cites WP:NOT for reasons I'm free to call "Derranged" until he actually starts partaking in thoughtful, open-ended dialogue. For now, from my standpoint, he's a pundit with an arbitrary cause and nothing more. As you can read in a conversation above, its plain that I lapse in my patience in these types of dealings. That doesn't make me a bad person, nor does it contravert my contributions to this project.

Yeago 05:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you've extended your rudeness to newcomers. I'd like to ask that you consider treating people with a modicum of respect and decency. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What newcomer are you talking about?Yeago 00:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. It seems pretty clear that you've no idea who I am, since none of what you wrote, save the bit about belonging to the "See also" section, applies to anything I've said. You mistake mockery for argumentation. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And just for fun, please help me find the sense in this reply above.

Who you are? (Who cares)

Mistook mockery? (Ayeum... where did I do that...)

Applies to anything you've said? (It was a summary description though it most of it safely applies to you)Yeago 00:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll help you out a little bit. First of all, your reply to my comments was not a reply at all, but rather a summation of statements made by others. This is rather inconsiderate, as it makes it appear that you're deliberately avoiding the issue. Where you say ""Where It Belongs" (hahahahaha. a real winner.)" you're clearly attempting some kind of mockery and refusing to take my points seriously. Very little of what you said safely applies to me, but to know that you'd have to read what I've written.

Ahh. I see what you mean. I suppose I did allow the comments of others to color that comment you made, regardless of its intent. I did read over your contributions and I definitely see a difference between the condescending tone of others and yours. I am very sorry I lumped you in like that--obviously, I used your "Where It Belongs" as a prompt. I do believe everything I said there; my application was very poor. My only excuse is that I've become accustomed to people who think they get to decide Relevance for the rest of us. I will try to remain more nimble.Yeago 01:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and to address your original point: I don't suppose you care who I or anyone else here is, and I won't waste your time or mine by explaining. Your lack of respect for other people and for the policies upon which Wikipedia is evident throughout the discussion on Norm Coleman and on this talk page. Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, in fact I do care. I respect policy but only its intent. Policy is often summoned solely to justify subjective, even hidden political beliefs. Mistaken, as above. Thanks so much for the reply.Yeago 01:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marilyn Manson (person)

Since his mugshot is included in the wiki article, is there any usefulness in keeping the link to it too? -- JHunterJ 22:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures changes every week or so, so I would just leave both.Yeago 23:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Urban pioneer"

Please see talk:gentrification. However, if you looked carefully you would have noted that I made several other changes to the article which deserve more than a cursory swipe into the trashbin. Paytonc 06:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely agreed =). You used the phrase so many times, however, a revert was much easier. If it was just a matter of here and there, I would have just removed it. Sorry about that!Yeago 13:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intentional disruption

It is my belief that, in your postings to Talk:Bullshit!#Links to copyright-violating webpages, you are not really trying to deal with the issue at hand, but are actually trying to provoke heated commentary, at least from me. I have given you specific evidence, policy, and warnings about violating Wikipedia principles, and you have responded by repeating the problems identified and ignoring the evidence given. I am hereby asking you to desist from this disruptive behavior, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users, namely:

• Inserting discussions into other people's postings, against the advice of Wikipedia:Etiquette#How to avoid abuse of Talk pages, and after explicitly being asked to refrain from this confusing practice.

I follow the advice when I find it useful. You can't just block off a section of text with ALL CAP html comments and decide nobody's allowed to intersperse text. Besides, my use of this method for communication is hardly excessive (I'm doing it here a lot because its my own business).Yeago 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Refusal to back away from personal attacks, like "ego-centric nature", "deluded", "simple-minded", and "rantings and ravings".

These are observations, not personal attacks. The nature of your 'argumentation' is completely self-fulfilling and self-directed.Yeago 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Putting words into my mouth, like:
  • "'Repenting' for being a monster", when all I was doing was apologizing for my own heated words (you are the only one using the word "monster").
  • Claiming my request for mediation is "over a vandal", when I have never said anything remotely like this (and, in fact, no vandalism has been done to this article or the talk page).

Someone who inserts a link repeatedly without discussion is a vandal.Yeago 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Refusal to cite supporting evidence for your arguments, instead simply continuing to add opinions.

The issue (in my mind) doesn't require any such thing. It requires Showtime make its discomfort with the links heard, or not. Plain and simple. You're the only one who, in his desperate search to validate himself, started bringing in a whole lot of unneccesary armchair legalese.Yeago 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your repeated claims that I am mis-citing policy seem to be aimed at my practice of citing legitimate policies that cover the issues I've brought up. You, on the other hand, have failed to cite any outside policy, practices, opinions, or other supporting evidence for any of your arguments, apparently believing that your rhetoric is what counts in making progress on this content dispute.

For someone who has "bigger things in my world than this silly little link", and who considers unresolved arguments over edit wars as "the whole 3RR nonsense game", you have demonstrated a remarkable unwillingness to drop these tactics, leading me to believe that your real purpose is argue for the sake of arguing. I am asking that you stop these attacks and actually help investigate this question. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. From your statement about my supposed "very bizarre (but telling) borderline-religious comments", you seem to be under the impression that I am religious, and that such a thing is a bad thing. While I won't necessarily argue the second point, the first couldn't be more wrong. I infer from your comment that you feel I am trying to get the full-video-download link removed because I am somehow against Bullshit! and Penn and Teller. If so, this is also completely wrong. I'm a major fan of the show, and am anxiously awaiting for season 3 to come out on DVD, because I refuse to support intellectual property theft by watching the shows on the Internet. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. You have some conviction about right and wrong and you're here lobbying for it. This is no different than religiousness at its core, which was the nature of my comment. Your other assumptions about my meaning are, of course, off.

This explains my apparent unwillingness to "investigate this question" with you—because I very well know your kind and what you're here for and it has nothing to do with investigation. There is no loop your mind will not jump through in order to view yourself as a kind of Internet Crusader of Justice. And I'm not going to jump through these loops after you. (in this case Showtime).Yeago 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpic

Hey, could you please cite a source for any of the claims made here? I kind of doubt all of them. Avatar (icon), on the other hand, is a lovely article about the same subject. Ashibaka tock 16:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The difference between these two articles is vast in several ways. The audience discussed in Avatar represents an increasingly obscure slice of the internet. Given the popularity of social hubs such as the behemoth MySpace, the article on Userpic is more popularly relevant both in its approach and examples.

The content of Userpic does owe some of its origin to the 'Avatar'. The two are only technically similar. For example, the second sentance in 'Avatar' contains a number of popular MUDs. While you may find this lovely (indeed I do too, I've spent thousands of hours on MUDs), a MUD is not known or relevant to, I would estimate, a majority audience visiting Wikipedia.

As for source material, please use the ((source)) or ((fact)) tags. If you're going to suggest a redirect or merge, the avatar article is going to need to shift its focus to a more general audience (and I'm not sure which namespace I'd agree to either, since 'avatar' is not in universal use, or even general use in many groups). I do observe that Avatar seems to have a 'verifiability/verification' problem of its own. Just an observation.Yeago 03:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have marked all parts of the article that seem suspicious to me. (Yeah, it's overkill. My point being that the only verifiable part of this article is a dictionary definition.) Ashibaka tock 17:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I definitely understand your issue with the article. Many parts truly do not seem verifiable except through common knowledge of the group in question--but understand this isn't quite the area of society that is the subject of a lot of outside discussion and research, and so sources are rather scant for either article. Am I correct in assuming you're not a regular user of MySpace, LiveJournal, etc?

A side note: I think your emphasis on fact-tags and mistrust of 'common knowledge' appearing on WP is in part due to a kind of insecurity that has filtured through WP over the past couple of years, particularly over criticism of WP's accuracy. Obviously, in areas where knowledge is taken for granted there is potential for inaccuracy. But let's keep this article/debate in perspective: it is about internet user pictures =). Yeago 18:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually am a very frequent user of LiveJournal, but "userpics" there are hardly ever of the user and they are basically avatars. I know that everything on that page probably does apply to MySpace, but unfortunately, no matter how true it is, we have an anti-original research policy which requires us to back up all those interesting psychological statements. That's why I considered the article basically useless.

The "avatar" article, on the other hand, has been cleaned up by Y.T. and no longer has common-knowledge but unsourced claims such as this:

An avatar can mean what you want it to mean. There are no binding internet rules that state that avatars describe who you are. Oftentimes avatars are used to supplement a statement you are making to a certain forum. Maybe you are trying to brighten up peoples days, maybe you are trying to trying to rebel against an opressive figure of authority. Whatever you're trying to do, your avatar is a symbol of self-expression, and no one can take it away from you. (well they can but it'll always stay in your heart :<)

You might be saying that userpics on MySpace are different from avatars in that they are usually an actual user portrait; but there is nothing published about that phenomenon, so we will have to ignore it for now. Ashibaka tock 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we're not communicating. Consider my words about 'audience' and then read this line:

An avatar (sometimes AV, av, or avvie) is an icon or representation of a user. The term is used on MUDs, in computer role-playing games, and shared non-gaming universes such as Active Worlds, Entropia Universe, There, Second Life, and The Palace.'

As for the crusade against Original Research, I agree its neccessary in many contexts, but not to the degree that we are creating unreadable and irrelevant articles. Avatar, while verifiable, is a disgusting mess of an article.

Yeago 19:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since we have different opinions on whether the article is useful I put it up for AfD to decide: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Userpic Ashibaka tock 14:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Righto.Yeago 18:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)