Talk:John Linton Roberson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]


An individual covered in this article, John Linton Roberson, has edited Wikipedia as
Gilesgoat (talk • contribs).

Contents

[edit] You've got to be kidding

This guy doesn't deserve an article in Wikipedia! [flame deleted] Warhol's prophecy is coming true, I guess, thanks to the Internet.

Yes, I'm not convinced he does either, but then I'm not convinced he doesn't. Steve block talk 08:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title Formats (and links)

A bunch of the titles in the first draft of this article were in all CAPS. I changed them to italics to match Wikipedia style.

I also removed the linking brackets from two of the titles because articles for them did not yet exist but something else with that name already has an article. An example was Plastic, which is both a material and apparently the name of one of Robertson's works.

Instead of having a confusing link, it seems best to wait until genuine content is created directly related to the work and then choose a name for the article at that time.

It would be preferable if the article was not named using all CAPS.

There appear to be a few offshoot articles from this one...I'm fixing the italics/CAPS formatting for titles in as many as I can find. Tobycat 05:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy up

I removed everything that I couldn't reference or seemed to be vanity. I can find prior examples of acomic anthologies published in e-book format, and I don't think the claim the first benefit comic book published in e-book format is notable. Steve block talk 07:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Target

This article has been a frequent target for vandalism and should be watched for that carefully.

lulujannings talk 06:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This individual is not a noteworthy blogger, south carolinian, or agnostic. Therefore he should not be categorized as such. [how is the above comment vandalism?] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.175.27.94 (talk • contribs).

The category is "blogger", "agnostic" and "People from South Carolina." I see proof of the first and last categories, but have removed "agnostic" because I see no citation regarding that, nor mention of it in the article. Also, you have already shown yourself to be posting through more than one IP address, as you continued comments on one revert from one IP name to another. I suspect you're a certain registered user in the history who, I see, already got warned about his vandalism. You have repeatedly vandalized this page (I really cannot see how any of your changes could be called "substantiative"), from what I can see, merely to continue that, and so:

This message is to alert you to the fact that you have been reported to the Administrator Intervention against Vandalism (AIV) page so that your case can be reviewed by an Administrator. They may then impose a block for a period of time on your IP to prevent you from editing in the future. If you wish to contest the merits of the report, please post it under the actual report on the AIV page. Do not remove the initial report, as this will probably not help you in trying to prove you are not a vandal.

You might also consider registering, if you actually do intend to contribute rather than ruin others' work. Or, if you're interested in satirizing the subject, maybe you should go to Uncyclopedia, which is the place for that.

I do not understand why there are people so interested in vandalizing this particular cartoonist's page. Nevertheless, I have it on my watchlist. lulujannings talk

   at last, a reply to the substance of my edit rather than trolling by reverting. Despite your malicious tactic of accusing people with whom you disagree of vandalsim, I will engage the substance ofyourargument here. John Roberson is not a notable South Carolinan, nor is his blog of notability. Should any individual from South Carolina be included in the Category:People from South Carolina category?

Should any schlub with a blog be included in the Category:American Bloggers category? Clearly no. As Mr. Roberson has no accomplishments of note as a South Carolinan nor as a blogger, he should not be mentioned to either category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.175.27.94 (talk • contribs).

This is all POV on your part, and the facts have citations and are docymented. The issue of his notability was already settled; see above. I simply disagree with you and so have reverted the page to the way it was before this very weird vandalism began.

lulujannings talk

Despite your alleged docymentation, there is no reason this person belogns in a category of South Carolinans or Bloggers. As I said above, as Mr. Roberson has no accomplishments of note as a South Carolinan nor as a blogger, he should not be mentioned to either category. He is listed on wikipedia as a (marginal) cartoonist, and nothing else regarding notability has been setteld.


Why is it POV on my part if his listing in these categories was long before I came in? You ought to take it up with them, as they seemed to think it approriate. So I have returned the categories until this is settled. All of it is cited and, as the article once mentioned needing citation, I have already found and updated citations for other stuff mentioned in it. He certainly has a blog, as you can see the link right at the bottom of the article, and according to its archives it's been very active for three years, and according to his interview linked to the article, he was born in South Carolina(and, it appears, isn't proud of it). Seems that settles it.

lulujannings talk

Simply having been born in South Carolinais not sufficient to be included in that category. Likewise blogging -- there are millions of bloggers. Your reversions are simply unjustifiable, and you refuse to discuss the merits, making accusations of vandalism instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.175.27.94 (talk • contribs).

You refuse to sign your posts, and I have provided ample argument in favor of the categories, whereas your answer is simply that you don't like them. I repeat my suggestion to look in the hostory and take it up with those who added the categories, and to take the suggestion you just received, as I did, from the administrator to stop this stupid edit war. The contributions were from otyers. Respect them unless you can provide a convincing reason why not. lulujannings talk

Update: The anonymous user has added weird and belligerent rants to back up his claims on my own talk page. I think that there are few merits to discuss here.

lulujannings talk

I have returned the citation that I contributed to this article regarding the theatre company that his stage comedy premiered with. The article once asked for claims to be cited, and I did this; it seems, given the anonymous user is so obsessed with "notability," that to remove citations backing up facts in the article is to undermine said facts and for no other purpose, and given his general argument, to do so seems not exactly kosher. So it's back in.Lulu Jannings 04:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous vandal continues despite being warned to, and agreeing to, cut it out. I have not reverted the edit because I am abiding by the warning. I suggest the admins talk to this user and tell them to abide by it themselves. But then, given he's unregistered, he can continue as he likes with no fear of being banned, so I guess that's pointless. The unsigned are the ones with the power here, it appears.Lulu Jannings 01:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time out!! All parties to neutral corners!!

I've tried to explain this once to at least two of you, but apparently I didn't get the message across clearly - so here it is again:

  • What is going on here is NOT vandalism. This is a content dispute. Content disputes over who does or does not belong in Category Z are bad, but the parties are not vandals. Stop the name-calling, because it's pointless.
  • Likewise, stop the edit warring. I have this page on my watchlist and I will report violations of the three revert rule to AN3 with only one warning, because I have warned all of you individually at least one time in the past. Repeated violations of the 3RR can result in suspension or banishment from editing.
  • This entry survived an deletion vote by this community - the record of which can be accessed above - which means the community has decided this entry should stay. (I did not participate in that vote.) All of you who think this entry should go had your chance during that vote. If you want to resubmit it to AfD, feel free - but whining that the subject of this article isn't notable and doesn't belong here isn't constructive. Other online comics artists and bloggers have articles here, so I really don't understand what the fuss is about. OTOH, I am somewhat of a deletionist and I understand calls for deletion of non-notable subjects. However, since this article has already gone through the AfD process, it has earned its place here and is going to stay.
  • Let me repeat that: Unless someone submits this article again to AfD and the community votes to delete it, the article stays. We as a community have already decided that Roberson is notable because this article survived an AfD vote. Complaints to the contrary, that Roberson is not notable and does not "deserve to be" here or in a certain category, are baseless.
  • Rightly or wrongly, registered users have more privileges, more available features, and more rights here at Wikipedia (such as voting in polls, a watchlist, and so forth) than unregistered users. I strongly encourage those of you who have not registered to do so today, so we can settle this person to person. Hiding behind anonymity does not serve your arguments well.

As a neutral third party, I am replacing the Category:People from South Carolina and Category:American bloggers because it's apparent to me that Roberson was indeed born in South Carolina and does indeed have a blog and is indeed American. Those are the sole criteria for inclusion in these two categories, not notability. If there are cogent arguments to the contrary - such as that Roberson was not born in South Carolina or that his blog is a figment of the imagination - speak now or hold your peace.

Let me repeat myself again: Arguing notability is useless. Arguing that only 'notable' people belong in a certain category is pointless because the community has already decided that the subject of this article is notable. If you have other arguments, list them now, but don't bother complaining about any degree of notability. The issue has been decided already.

Thanks for your time. Please work together to improve the article instead of bashing at each other with clubs. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

--I'm speechless.

No wonder wikipedia breaks down so often and has zero credibility, with the likes of User:BaseballBaby mediating.

BaseballBaby, have you even made the effort of looking at 24.175.27.94's record? Apparently not, else it would be blindingly obvious that this is a vandal and troll of the worst kind. I know, because I've been the victim of his puerile and vicious vandalism.

You speak as though there were a moral equivalency between 24.175.27.94 andlulujannings. There isn't. Lulujannings is trying to improve wikipedia, 24.175.27.94 is trying to destroy it.

A neutral point of view is fine for articles, but disastrous for when it comes to protecting wikipedia. Your attitude brings to mind Yeats' words from his poem, 'The Second Coming':

'The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are filled with a passionate intensity"

Choose your side. I realise you are acting in good faith, but in this case you are blithely facilitating a vandal who is determined to harm Wikipedia as much as possible.

Incidentally, I don't know if you are an admin; if you are, I recommend checking 24.175.27.94 against User:Tedgauthier and User:DannyHellman.. That would be a more useful expense of your energy than scolding editors such as .lulujannings who try to defend Wikipedia from its enemies.

Rhinoracer 20:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate BaseballBaby's rational and fair response. I would contrast this with the anonymous user, who falls back again on belligerence in lack of any argument, and recommend the checking Rhinoracer(who seems to know this situation a lot better than me) suggests be done, as I believe too--given the evidence I already found that there are those who, for whatever reason, have a grudge against Roberson and the two mentioned are definitely at or near the core of that, and user: TedGauthier already has been called on vandalism to the page.

Whether he or the other mentioned(who, it appears, has been banned from Wikipedia and is cited even in his article as a "prankster") are the anonymous user is not up to me to say, but I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a connection, given that plotting this was the main subject at a nerdy online message board at a famous comics site all week. (which I won't revisit; wow, some people really have nothing in their lives but hate) The more I look at this situation the more it stinks.

That being said, I think BaseballBaby's attitude is the right one and I'm sorry if I got over the top at any time, but this is just weird. Why not just egg someone's house or something? It takes less time. But I am glad to be aboard as I've found many other articles to contribute to and even made a few stubs!Lulu Jannings 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're speechless? I'm sitting here taking time out of a vacation only to get smacked around by a rhino. Or a racer. Or a rhinoracer, whatever that is. ;-) (It takes quite a bit to upset me about Wikipedia, so if you're cool, so am I. :-D)
Let's see here... I told the editors who are removing these categories to put up or shut up (which Lulujannings asked me to do and I chose to do here rather than on talk pages of anon IP editors) - check. I added the categories in question back to the article - check. It's on my watchlist, as it seems to be on yours and others - check. That's pretty much the extent of my capability. What more do you want?
Yes, I did look at the edit histories of the parties and of this page. The same edits are being made over and over by more than one IP address, with edit summaries like "not a noteworthy south carolinian, blogger, or agnostic" and "not a notable blogger or agnostic". That spells content dispute, not just simple vandalism. It needs to be discussed here, so here it is. I'm a big fan of airing differences, so let's get it all out. Again, if the editors who keep deleting these categories have concrete evidence to justify their edits, speak up. If not, they should leave the page alone or face the processes already laid out by our community. There are at least three editors now ready to keep it straight, and I do RC patrol most nights with the exception of the vacation I'm on now.
If you want to ask for checkuser against 24.xxx.xx.xx, go for it. I only got into this mess because I saw an imminent 3RR violation while on RC patrol and I wanted to stop the madness before it got that far - and I did so, for almost 24 hours. I just wanted to help and I'll still try to help, but I probably won't be online again (after tonight) until I get home. I'll leave the page in your capable hands until then. Play nice, keep your elbows off the table, and try not to kill each other. ;-) Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And you are totally awesome....please give me a big, wet kiss! Rhinoracer 08:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Linton_Roberson_3f4b.html"