User talk:Ganiman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] FFxIclopedia

Part of the reason this site is up for deletion is that it is recreated deleted content. The article was discussed (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FFXIclopedia) and deleted (see [1]).In order to revive the content, a deletion review should have been requested. The fact that this article was re-created without one is actually ground for Speedy Deletion. However seeing as the nomination was a year ago, I decided to give it the full AfD listing.

The primary reason I have put the article up for AfD, however, is that it appears to fail WP:WEB, notability guidelines for websites. I recommend reading the full criteria, but basically they say the website has to meet one of the following criteria:

  1. It has to be written about in some major source (website, newspaper, etc). Forums the like don't count towards this
  2. It has to have won some kind of major award

(there is a third criteria, but it applies to articles about content itself, so doesn't apply here)

Check out those criteria, and see if you can find ways to make the article meet these criteria. If you can do this, the article won't be deleted. --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia has cited FFXIclopedia doesn't count towards fulfilling the WP:RS criteria. If it would, then anyone could just seed many articles with reference to their website and then say "see? My site's talked about at Wikipedia." Wikipedia itself is excluded from consideration when determining if a major source has covered a topic.
Now, regarding the comparison between WoWWiki and FFXIclopedia, check out this similar Google search: [2]. While the Google search you provided came up with 791 total hits (155 unique), this wowwiki search produced 102,000 total (563 unique). Additionally, please refer to these 2 Alexa results: [3] [4]. Though Alexa isn't 100% scientific, it does provide fairly good insight into a site's popularity. Wowwiki has over 8 times the traffic ranking (lower numbers represent higher popularity).
However, even considering the above, I acknowledge that wowwiki itself may not merit an article here either. I simply haven't reviewed Wowwiki as closely as I have FFXIclopedia, partly because the 2 searches above hint to me that Wowwiki is simply more notable. I nominated FFXIclopedia because it seemed much more of an open-and-shut case than Wowwiki would be. However this shouldn't stop anyone from taking an independent look at Wowwiki and determining whether it's notable too.
I hope this explains the "method behind my madness" so to speak. Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote what I feel is the right interpretation of the policy and guidelines set by Wikipedia. No need to thank me for that. Havok (T/C/c) 15:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userified autobiography

I've moved the contents of Ganiman to User:Ganiman, a more appropriate location for autobiographical information. -- Scientizzle 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FFXIclopedia and Final Fantasy XI character classes

I saw your comment on the talk page of FFXIclopedia that asserted that Wikipedia has "borrowed" content from FFXIclopedia, and citing Final Fantasy XI character classes as an example. I'm personally responsible for almost all of the content of that article as it currently stands, and I can say definitively that I took none of it from FFXIclopedia. Could you please point out to me specific places in FFXIclopedia that contains the same content as that article? I'm very curious about it. Thank you. -RaCha'ar 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

In regards to the message you posted at User talk:Peephole, please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I left a warning about personal attacks for all parties involved. I don't believe anyone is excluded from the rules that govern the project.
Frankly, i'm sorry to hear that you see any of this as a "battle" as you describe it. AfD is a place for discussion about an article, where the consensus determines the outcome. FFXIclopedia was kept after the second AfD not because there was a consensus to keep it, but because there was no consensus, and the default in such an instance is "keep". Had there been an overwhelming response from regular Wikipedia editors to keep it, I likely would have abstained from this AfD.
You say that I "continue to cite guidelines and not policy". This is incorrect. WP:V is policy. I've said this in the AfD, and I'm not sure how much cleared I can be. Articles that fail WP:V are subject to removal. It's policy, and it's as simple as that.
Trust me that I agree with you that there are many (did I emphasize many enough?) articles that fail policy. WoWWiki is one of them, I believe, and I will likely vote as such this evening on the AfD you began.
Although others have refered to Alexa rankings as a reason to delete the article, you may notice that I did not do this on this 3rd AfD, and in fact stated that Alexa is not a reliable source. It's not - it can serve as a useful indicator of the standings of a particular site, but it shouldn't be used as the sole criteria to keep or discard an article. That's because Alexa relies on users who have Alexa toolbars, plugs-ins, etc. installed on their system -- thus it's not an accurate representation of true Internet traffic.
Ganiman, I can understand how the processes and procedures of Wikipedia can seem foreign and strange to you. As you are the administrator/owner of FFXIclopedia, you have the ability to run the place however you see fit. The rules no doubt are more flexible and likely err on the side of inclusion. For these and other reasons, the criteria for keeping articles there I'm sure is quite different than ours. Here at Wikipedia, the criteria for inclusion is not truth but verifiability. This may seem strange to a new/newer editor, but something can be completely true, but without ample proof, it should not remain. Such proof needs to come from reliable sources -- after all, anyone can create a website and make any claim they wish, and then use themselves as a source for their article.
The other guidelines, such as WP:WEB all for the most part have this non-negotiable policy WP:V at their heart. If a website isn't notable enough to garner attention from a reliable source, it fails WP:WEB because it also fails the core policy WP:V. This is the heart of the arguments that have led to the deletion of the article.
I truly hope that after reading this you will have a better understanding of how Wikipedia operates. I also hope (moreso) that you don't take this deletion too much to heart, and that you decide to stay and contribute to Wikipedia. Believe it or not, I would like nothing more than to see you contribute to Wikipedia some of your knowledge of FF (according to guidelines and policy), along with your experience in any other topic we have articles for.
If you would like to discuss this matter any further, don't hesitate to leave another message on my talk page --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


You posted this on my talkpage:

"Funny how you say that, because "that mess above" is a direct cut and paste of what you wrote on the FFXIclopedia AfD, only changing every "FFXIclopedia" to "WoWWiki". It's also amusing you claim to have put in the notability tag, when I was the one who tried to get them to clean up the article at least a week before you got there on [July 13th]. Amazing how you are able to trash your own words and then take credit for trying to get them to clean up their article. You are so richeous. --Ganiman 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)"

Oh please, do you really think I'm some kind of idiot that didn't know you copied my afd? When is was calling your post a mess it's because 1. You were making a WP:POINT and 2. you didn't execute the afd procedure correctly. And are you really saying I didn't slap a notability tag on the article? [5]--Peephole 00:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Peephole, it seems by the time these deletes are over Wikipedia will just be full of articles you can find everywhere else. I seriously think they need to reconsider what constitutes a notable website. Going by what I've seen so far, more than half the sites listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Websites will be deleted. I actually found a lot of good bittorrent sites, wikis, RPGs, and fansites on Wikipedia, many of which now have been deleted. Ganiman, I think we need a video game Wiki, since our articles aren't welcome here. I already made a Wiki for Speculative Fiction, but that subject matter may still be too broad. What are your thoughts? --Ariadoss 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FFXIclopedia and personal attacks redux

You guys are not happy about the FFXIclopedia article being deleted. Believe me, you've made your stance quite clear on that. Now you guys really need to pay attention to policy. One of them is not to engage in personal attacks. Ganiman, you've already been warned about this here on your talk page. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/n/User_talk%7EGaniman_9aff.html"