User talk:NetOracle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome! Sancho McCann 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HEC (html)

I think it's better to merge it to Captcha and redirect. I think this deletion is a bit too trigger happy. Electron9 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomic articles and notability

Dear NetOracle,

I understand that, in the several days since you have registered this account, you have introduced a large number of AFDs, particularly in regards to webcomics and webcomic-related articles. It would appear that you are simply putting up webcomic articles for deletion on the basis that you don't think they are notable when you, in fact, do not know whether or not they are notable. I would like to quote something Zaron commented in one such recent AFD:

Putting an article up for AfD is no replacement for a source tag, especially with a subject that meets notability standards as easily as this one.

In the future, I would appreciate it if you made a reasonable effort to determine notability before putting an AFD up on the basis of notability, or, where appropriate, simply tagged the article to indicate that the article itself does not establish notability where it should. Balancer 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not putting up articles for deletion on my personal feelings. Rather, I have taken a close look at articles which are either complete fancruft (as evidenced by the complete lack of notablility), or are the greater portion fancruft (as evidenced by their grossly disproportionate size and detail). I base my determination on existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards. This is by no means an attack against webcomics as a form of art and entertainment. My actions are motivated merely out of a desire to keep Wikipedia from becoming a directory of anything liked and recognized by at least a few dozen people. We are not DMOZ. NetOracle 21:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether your personal feelings are involved, you are putting AFDs up without making any serious attempt to verify notability or possessing the sort of familiarity with the field in which the articles fall that would allow you to make such a judgement independent of the article. Thus, you are inappropriately introducing AFDs when it would be appropriate instead to tag the article for improvement or clarification.

However, the fact that you seem to view any webcomic article, no matter how well or poorly written, as "fancruft," indicates you have a bias against webcomics in general. Balancer 01:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say with such certainty that I have not seriously tried to verify notability? I have. How do you think I determined that most of these articles are mentioned solely on a small number of blogs, forums, chatrooms, and other user-driven social pages? When an article lacks sources which meet principles includingverifiability, reliability, and encyclopedic standards, AND standard searching fails to uncover any such sources, it can be concluded that the subject is not notable. Any person should have little to no difficulty in finding solid sources on any notable subject.

Again, I have attempted to verify the notability. When I did not uncover sources to establish notability, I was forced to conclude that the article fit a pattern of rampant fancruft which has become a part of most collaborative encyclopediae. No specific subculture can own a set of articles, and the establishment of walled gardens on Wikipedia is inappropriate. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that every article should have meaning to those not familiar with its subject. Just because I don't find entertainment in webcomics, and am not familiar with the genre/subculture, does not disqualify me as having the skills and knowledge needed to judge their notability. If a person such as myself, as an outsider, can read literally dozens of articles, and fail to see proper establishment of notability through proper sources in those articles, then the articles need to be deleted. One should not have to be already familiar with the subject in order to put faith in an article's profession of notability; the profession of notability should stand on its own. NetOracle 03:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have been attempting to verify notability, you have been doing a stunningly terrible job of both searching and in explaining how you have attempted to verify notability. For example, you consult Alexa for a [that ended two years ago]. However, while you seem to consider this an indication of notability for webcomics with low Alexa ranks, you then conveniently fail to note in another AFD that The noob has a remarkably high Alexa rank of 32,000. IMO, at least half the webcomics you've asserted a lack of information for are non-notable have been shown to be notable by WP:WEB standards in their AFDs, which is a remarkably high fraction for a topic as susceptible to fancruft as webcomics. This indicates either purely arbitrary selection on your part, or a deliberate intention to attack prominent webcomics in order to remove all webcomic articles from Wikipedia. Balancer 03:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A little note to the above comment, on which I agree. Seeing as how much 'evidence' is brought up in (some of) the AfD's, it is hard not to think you are putting an article up for AfD as a replacement for a source tag. JackSparrow Ninja 21:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A quote of yours that leads me to agree with above posters:

While I am no fan of webcomics and their lack of notability and worth in general, this one may need to be kept, and I will be fair in that regard. If this is to stay, then those familiar with it really should help better establish notability, and expand the article in that regard. The article mentions that it was the first series in a rater large website featuring webcomics - did the site expand rapidly because of this series's popularity? It is mentioned that this webcomic existed in print form - how many copies were printed, by whom, and how widely were they distributed? This may be one of the few notable webcomics, and thus, I am hesitant to condemn it without allowing a chance for certain ambiguities to be first cleared up.

(bold mine). You certainly seem to recognise your personal bias even on your own. It seems to me you should not really be working with webcomic articles, as you appear to have some kind of agenda with them. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 13:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To like [1] something is to enjoy or be in favor of it. Not liking something in no way implies animosity, hatred, disdain, or malice. Not liking something merely indicates the absence of feelings of enjoyment or favor. NetOracle 04:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you said you consider webcomics to have a "lack of notability and worth in general" and that Superosity "may be one of the few notable webcomics". You didn't say anything about liking them, and I didn't say anything about you disliking them. I dislike natto, but that hasn't stopped me from working in the article. The difference is that (1) I don't work in articles I know nothing about, and (2) I don't make sweeping generalisations about the notability of entire topics, which have been referred to by important professional journalists as a major part of modern culture. You, on the other hand, wrote only four days ago: "I couldn't have named a single webcomic as of yesterday, and only began to care about these things yesterday"(source). You are self-professed to have five days of experience in this topic, and to be indifferent towards it, yet you are vigilantly pursuing multiple webcomic topics on AfD, and casting negative votes in every topic I can see on your contributions frontpage (which almost entirely seems to consist of webcomic AfD topics). That is much akin to me hunting down random articles about korean cuisine (a subject I know nothing about) and throwing them on AfD because nobody has listed citations to cookbooks. Yes, numerous webcomic articles are full of fancruft and lack sources. That is why there are awesome tags like {{unsourced}}, and why it is possible for you to edit topics just like any of us. Last I checked, deletion was supposed to be a last-resort kind of thing, not the first line of defense.

I'm trying to use AGF: I think you really are trying to improve wikipedia, but IMO you should think critically about this. Of course webcomics are not going to seem notable to you: you haven't any experience with them. However, your arguments regularly seem to disregard or cast aside important authorities on webcomics, because they are non-notable to you... just as someone with no knowledge of genetics might not see any importance to something Reiji Okazaki said about replication bubbles.

Cheers. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 06:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (CPed from my own talk page for consistency/relevancy)

It strikes me that if you go around deleting every webcomic article that doesn't seem notable to you, then you're going to be left with maybe one or two of the most famous ones, which is less than helpful for the webcomics Wikiproject... There are far more obscure subjects with articles that are left alone, so it seems unfair to pick on webcomics just because their fanbases tend to be centralised on the comic's forum. If nothing else, just label them as unsourced like Erk suggested; as he said, tagging for deletion should be a last resort, especially with a subject that - by your own admission - you lack any experience with. DGemmell 19:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WACCA DRV

This comment doesn't help anything... I'd ask that you remove it. - brenneman 02:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD comment

You just commented: [2]

• Keep Aviation, aerospace and aeronautical articles include highly technical jargon, not all of which can be explained in a simple dictionary definition. This article is of great use to a person learning about aviation, aerospace and aeronautical subjects. NetOracle 21:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to reconsider. It appears you are making two arguments here. 1) It's useful and shouldn't be deleted, and 2) it is technical jargon, not "simple dictionary definition". As for 1, please read WP:USEFUL: this argument is a fallacy because topics that are not encyclopedic, like dictionary definitions, are often useful. Also, the article is no less useful at its current home in Wiktionary. To reply to your second point, defining jargon is still a dictionary definition. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the first sentence of which reads "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a jargon or usage guide." Also it appears, considering these two points, that you haven't offered an actual argument as to why the article is encyclopedic, since it isn't. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 22:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I voted keep was because some of the terms have corresponding articles which contain far more depth than is possible in a standard dictionary definition. Keeping the list/glossary around serves to centralize all articles related to aviation, aerospace, and aeronautical terms. NetOracle 02:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved with webcomics professionally. I am a well-established writer in fiction and nonfiction. It's blatantly obvious that NetOracle, his amusing nom de net aside, knows absolutely nothing about publication or media. Therefore, it might be best if he simply shuts up and sticks to subjects he might know. (I can't imagine what those are. His user page lists nothing substantive, and his history seems to indicate he's merely a deletion troll, but giving the benefit of the doubt, there may be subjects on which he's knowledgeable enough to comment.) The fact that Wikipedia CAN be edited by anyone, doesn't mean what amounts to vandalism should be tolerated or encouraged by any luser who wanders in off the web. I'm sure, with reflection, NetOraclewill concur.

My comments in blunt terms are here: http://mzmadmike.livejournal.com/30062.html

I don't comment on early Peruvian history, because I know nothing about it. By admitting to knowing little to nothing about webcomics in general or specific, NetOracleis admitting his lack of credentials to give a "professional" (his term from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Webcomics opinion. To regain some small measure of credibility, he should stick to what he knows, whatever that might be.

It's pretty clear Wikipedia should change its tag to "The online AMATEUR encyclopedia anyone WITH KNOWLEDGE OF A SUBJECT can edit."Mzmadmike 21:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Why are you doing this? Do you get some sort of perverted kick from upsetting people or making their work feel bad? I can be just as much of an asshole as you, but I don't want to. QUIT HURTING THE WORK OF OTHERS EVEN IF YOU DONT FEEL IT BELONGS ON WIKIPEDIA Ccfr88 23:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ccfr88, your personal attacks are unacceptable. Please remain civil. Sancho McCann 23:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What he said. Additionally, he in large part was disgusted at the conduct of some of the more incensed advocates of webcomics. So... thanks for that, kid. --Kizor 00:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I have responded to your question on my talk page. --User:Krator (t c) 10:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to you here as well. I also notice that I am not the only person to have these views, as evidenced by the number of similar comments in this page as well. You may wish to review your current methodology as an editor.TNUK 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have initiated a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Nearly Headless Nick disregarding consensus and consensus-related policies, a matter in which I believe you to have been involved in the case history of. Your commentary may be appreciated. Balancer 13:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've C&Ped the statements from the RfA to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC) on the basis that there seems to be agreement that the issue should be taken up in RfC. You may wish to ratify, modify, withdraw, etc your statement if you have made one, or add a statement if you have not. Balancer 23:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomic deletion.

Please allow the webcomic projext to do it's job rather then rampaging through the wiki. If the article is sub par simply notify a member and they will get to it as soon as possible.

Also please use the following template BEFORE Deletion tagging

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Shroud (talk • contribs) 22:02, 19 February 2007. That still does not change the fact that you have not been tagging. An article must be allowed to establish it's "notability" before being placed up for deletion. I am not going to flame you, or belittle you. I simply ask that you go through the proper process before your attempt to remove a page. --The Shroud 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

I have temporarily semi-protected your user page for 2 weeks, since it's being vandalized a lot and a recent vandalism has caused a fair deal of confusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Goonish Shive. If you want it unprotected before it expires, just ask any administrator or request at WP:RFPP. --cesarb 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Though that confusion was swiftly dealt with, if your sense of humor takes it you might want to get a vandalism counter. Lots of editors on counter-vandalism and other such fields have them. (Mine's at 22.) --Kizor 02:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samir the asshole

Stinking shit, you are that samir the asshole who claimed scope for his fucking business here! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.46.26.10 (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

My personal feelings for NetOracle aside (i.e. I disagree with his actions strongly), personal attacks of this nature are childish and immature. They are not appropriate here. Steve J 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And I would also like to state that vandalisim like this has no place in wikipedia. I also strongly disagree with NetOracle on webcomic related issues, but I stand united with both of you against vandalisim. Timmccloud 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Request for Administrator Review

Would someone with the knowledge requisite to write such a thing kindly nominate this account for administrator review? It appears to be a sockpuppet of an experienced Wikipedian used solely to bash using the AfD process. Then again, his lack of use of the notability template could be an argument that he is merely a particularly-dedicated reader of internal Wikipedia guideline documents. Nonetheless, his writing style would appear to be that of a seasoned editor, which clashes mightily with his user creation date and does not jive well with his completely-undeveloped user page (given the tendency of most editors to create a well-rounded personal page), and which lends credence to my assertion that he's merely here to expunge web comics from the wiki en masse. If he is, in fact, an experienced user, he will likely have evaded checkuser. NetOracle, I've pushed WP:AGF as far as I can go on this one, but I can push it no further. Jouster 02:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you might want to look at his total edit count, as well as his contributions for a better outline of all his edits. If you want to report him, try WP:CHECK. JackSparrow Ninja 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure I have the expertise or policy knowledge to submit a request at that location. Additionally, I'd rather not do it without community support. If you, and others, feel my concern is unjustified, there's no point in subjecting him to that scrutiny. Jouster 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For bonus tinfoilhatfulness, is this user merely attempting SEO? He professes a great deal of expertise [3] on the subject, and Wikipedia could certainly be drawing top billing away from his favored web comics (or webcomic aggregation site) on a Google search. Is there any particularly-egregious omission in his latest anti-comic crusade, or an aggregation/promotion site that has recently dropped off of the top few spots in a Google search for "webcomics" or the like? Certainly, posting an AfD instead of simply tagging the article would make a lot of sense from an SEO standpoint. Jouster 04:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious you're not the only one who is concerned by his behaviour on Wikipedia, as you can see on this talk page, and the fact he doesn't address anything people say to him, doesn't help either.

If you truly feel there is something fishy, and I can understand you do, please do not be afraid to let the admins check out the case. That's what it's for, no one will hold it against you. If you're correct, then you've done a good deal, and should your feelings be incorrect, then we at least still have it clear for everyone. There's no loss there. JackSparrow Ninja 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My concerns have been posted. [4] I hope I did this right.  :\ Jouster 15:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion vs. Contribution

As you know, I have been following you for a while. Unlike most people who disagree with you, I don't think you are a fool or useless. However, I am very concerned. The best summary of your motivations that I have seen so far seems to be:

I went ahead and weighed in on the active RfC concerning you, and have lent my support as I feel is appropriate. I am glad to see that Wikipedia still has some administrators left who are willing to fight the good fight against mob rule by the masses in favor of policy and encyclopedic standards. Be prepared for a rather heated RFC, as some of the people who didn't like your stand against voting blocs, canvassing, and policy-weak arguments will surely show up to accuse you of having some hidden agenda related to the complete abolishment of consensus on Wikipedia; just ignore those kooks - they belong on fan wikis and in chatrooms, and not on a place whose goal is intellectual writing of a meaningful nature. Keep fighting the good fight against fancruft and tribute pages! NetOracle 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, some of the things you have nominated for deletion are genuinely non-noteworthy. More of them simply needed cleanup, and The Shroud has brought that up as have many others. You are aware of Balancer's under-construction article, but I do not in fact see you following, nor offering opinions on, this policy yourself. I am going to try again to reason with you.

When you put an article on AfD, you involve large numbers of wikipedia editors in your debate. Many of these editors do not know anything about the subject matter, or not enough to contribute to an article. When you post a cleanup tag, you will alert authors who know something about the subject to work on it. I know this, because I am one of the authors who hunts down and improves tagged articles; that and vandalism cleanup is how I roll, baby (generally as a gnome until lately).

Your AfD kick does not help wikipedia. It is not contributing new material; all it is doing is creating a rift between factions in the WP community, and bringing in droves of uninvolved crufty parties who, frankly, are never going to help wikipedia and are only spamming the place up and wasting resources because of personal bias and interest. If any of these parties stay around, it will only contribute to the numbers of cruft-friendly editors on wikipedia. Further, these debates use up far more of WP's resources than the original article ever did.

If you truly want Wikipedia to be an academic resource, why are you wasting everyone's time creating huge debates in the community and polarising factions against each other, rather than following tagging procedures as in polite society? Why aren't you contributing positively to the encyclopaedic effort, rather than focusing on the removal of articles? The amount of contest you are meeting indicates that the articles in question are of some interest to someone - they are not someone's articles about the size of his wang, and while many do meet deletion criteria, that is pretty much irrelevant to my point of argument. What you are doing is cutting off everything you can see that might not be appropriate, without allowing people a chance to properly work on the articles. That's akin to attacking a cancer by lopping off limbs semi-randomly because some of them are sure to have tumours, and some even have obvious signs like irregular skin patterns. Who needs tests when you have irregular skin patterns? If your goal is truly "intellectual writing of a meaningful nature", why aren't you doing any intellectual writing?

In conclusion, I would like to note that the first 50 Contributions on your page consists of nothing but deletion articles, and the top 100 have only a tiny handful of articles in them. To many indicates you have no actual interest in wikipedia as an encyclopedia and are likely a troll. I don't hold that view, as I have seen your genuine good-faith contributions, but I can hardly blame anyone who does. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear NetOracle

Keep laughing! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not get discouraged by other users telling you off. You are doing a good job for the encyclopedia, and I feel that you have a much better understanding and grasp of Wikipedia's policies as a whole. Please return and contribute actively. If you cannot, then take a short break rather than leaving the project. Also, writing articles reduces stress and you feel you have done something constructive. :) Best, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)