Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lissaexplains.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The material below was refactored from the AFD page by me as it was a conversation and not relevant to the matter at hand. Stifle 19:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Just because something is true doesn't mean it's suitable for an encyclopedia article. In particular, details about the culture on a forum attached to a website are generally not relevant to the web site itself. Furthermore, if Lissa did indeed remove information from this article, and that information was both relevant and encyclopedic, then that would be considered vandalism and would normally be reverted (if noticed, that is). However, I note that above it is claimed that Lissa never edited this article. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Without that, Lissa's alleged behavior is entirely irrelevant to the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia. The only issue is the notability of Lissaexplains.com, and, to some extent, the maintenance of NPOV within the article. Powers 00:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. If you check the history of the article, you will see that most of the content was added by Adrienne Daniels, who is Lissa's mother. Nobody said that Lissa edited the article, only that a relative did. I pointed out that she removed a comment from this page that addressed her claims about it being "slanderous" (I noted that for it to be such, the statements would have to be false, while they were not), and Lissa's mother was no longer a moderator. At the time of that statement, she was, so the author of most of the article had a very obvious connection to the site (and she still does, being the owner's mother). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.0.178 (talk • contribs)
- Comment. Agreed. From the Vanity Guidelines, "meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author". --Jessily 08:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Indeed. However, note several things. User:Adrienne.daniels did not create the article. While that user's initial edits certainly violated the vanity guidelines, that text has since been extensively modified to remove vanity elements. It also appears that user has been tampering with this AfD page. However, regardless of her actions, this AfD is about the article, not Lissa, and not her mother. The article as it stands today does not violate the vanity guidelines, IMHO. Powers 13:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Yes. I just moved my vote. At the time this was posted for deletion, it oozed vanity. It has been edited since then, removing much of the issue. Although it still remains that it is now moderated by mainly family members as other moderators left. But that is beside the point. I feel very uncomfortable with the fact that I was banned and put in the Miserable Users Group for saying I agreed that the article contained a lot of vanity. I never had a personal vendetta against Lissa herself. I joined the forum and stayed there posting for 3 years. I loved the place! But this isn't helping at all. :( --Jessily 22:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I would like to comment about the above "tampering" issue. I did, indeed, sign up to wikipedia with the username "thomas" so that I could have one, and only one vote which could remain anonymous. I did this because I knew if I voted under my own name, personal issues would arise, and of course they have. I changed nothing on the AfD that wasn't my own, except for removing this statement: "Note from Lissa at Lissaexplains.com: actually, just because people a problem with the website and intergrity of it, doesn't mean they are trolls. Lissa is veracity challenged, a poor little rich girl who wants others to do her work and then she'd stabs them in the back. That used to be called slavery." I removed it because I knew Lissa did not write it, and that another user had edited it. You can check the history. I'm not very good with wikipedia, and I couldn't (and still can't) figure out who edited Lissa's original comment. I was in a hurry to remove it, and I think I may have accidentally removed an item below it. The following users who have contributed to the discussion on this AfD are ex forum moderators and or members: User 130.49.0.178(forum username dude128 [Dan]), Jessily, Dave83(forum username Sphere [Dave]), hongkongdongle, fiftythree, user 71.108.242.89 (psychochick), user 80.60.5.197 (Marianne) and j8675309. I did not write the original article, as you stated above, but I was excited to see it here and did expand on it. Thank you User:Astrokey44 for removing most of the fluff! Adrienne.daniels 16:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Isn't it ridiculous that you are trying to post our first and last names on a public site WITHOUT permission from the users or Wiki? Someone removed the last names and you readded them again. I'd like that our privacy will be respected!Dave83 19:55, 30 January 2006(CET)
- Comment. Remember the golden rule?? Do unto others... Addie 19:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. You are posting two users' last names and one's first name with this statement: "If you check the history of the article, you will see that most of the content was added by Adrienne Daniels, who is Lissa's mother." To be honest, I'd prefer for people to not know MY last name (because as you can see, my Web site is notable and I have users with a grudge), and now it is obvious. - LissaExplains 19:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Your mother chose to use her full name when modifying the pages. Blame her, not me or any of us. How much longer will this nonsense go on before everyone involved can drop it and move on?130.49.0.178 19:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I guess you didn't notice that the users from my forum are actually continuing this ridiculous charade. Dave83/Sphere even went so far as to obtain screenshots from user Jessily/Jessi15 and host them on his own server to "make a point," which did not even correlate to the issue here today. These users are harassing me, trying to prove that I am indeed a bad person; however, my friendliness is neither notable or verifiable, nor important to the issue of the notability of my Web site. I could be a jerk with multiple personalities and a God complex, but that doesn't matter, because it doesn't have anything to do with my Web site (no, the forum is not important to the evolution of my site either). - LissaExplains 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The issue at hand is that you are influencing the voting, which is why he posted those screenshots as evidence of that. Nobody ever said you were a bad person, merely that you were doing something wrong in trying to sway people. I won't even get into the argument over who's carrying this on. 130.49.0.178 19:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment.The issue is that you (130.49.0.178 ) were let go as a moderator on the Lissa Explains it All forum for behaving unprofessionally. Apparently, you haven't been able to let go of that and decided that cyberstalking was a good option. --Addie 20:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Please, this is ludicrous and absolutely embarrassing. Allie posted her own name as it is her username here, none of us even KNEW her/your real full names, please stop re-adding the full names of the people, and allow people to democratically vote how they wish without fear of you banning them or posting their personal information. Thank you. Hongkongdongle 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I did know her real full name, and Lissa's, but would never have posted it here. However, she thinks it's perfectly okay to use my name.
- Comment. You did exactly that, in one of the above (unsigned) posts. --Addie 00:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Perhaps you should check the facts more carefully. I didn't post that. I didn't post anything that wasn't already accessible on wikipedia. So why are you insisting on posting my information? 130.49.0.178 00:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Cyberstalking Is serious business. A record of your name, Dan, is necessary. Even if you remove it, it remains. --Addie 01:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. When exactly do you allege I engaged in cyberstalking? Looking at the definition, I have not "follow[ed] the victim's online activity", made threats, or resorted to "other forms of verbal intimidation". I have put forth reasons why I felt the article did not belong on this site, and defended those comments and comments left by others. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly inserted my personal information against my will, and continue to harass me. I have made it clear that I do not wish to have my full name entered here, and I have asked that this issue be dropped, but you insist on carrying it on. Please drop this nonsense. I've been prepared to forget about the entire situation for quite some time now, but it has been brought up over and over. 130.49.0.178 02:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. You did exactly that, in one of the above (unsigned) posts. --Addie 00:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I did know her real full name, and Lissa's, but would never have posted it here. However, she thinks it's perfectly okay to use my name.
- Comment. Please, this is ludicrous and absolutely embarrassing. Allie posted her own name as it is her username here, none of us even KNEW her/your real full names, please stop re-adding the full names of the people, and allow people to democratically vote how they wish without fear of you banning them or posting their personal information. Thank you. Hongkongdongle 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I guess you didn't notice that the users from my forum are actually continuing this ridiculous charade. Dave83/Sphere even went so far as to obtain screenshots from user Jessily/Jessi15 and host them on his own server to "make a point," which did not even correlate to the issue here today. These users are harassing me, trying to prove that I am indeed a bad person; however, my friendliness is neither notable or verifiable, nor important to the issue of the notability of my Web site. I could be a jerk with multiple personalities and a God complex, but that doesn't matter, because it doesn't have anything to do with my Web site (no, the forum is not important to the evolution of my site either). - LissaExplains 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Your mother chose to use her full name when modifying the pages. Blame her, not me or any of us. How much longer will this nonsense go on before everyone involved can drop it and move on?130.49.0.178 19:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. You are posting two users' last names and one's first name with this statement: "If you check the history of the article, you will see that most of the content was added by Adrienne Daniels, who is Lissa's mother." To be honest, I'd prefer for people to not know MY last name (because as you can see, my Web site is notable and I have users with a grudge), and now it is obvious. - LissaExplains 19:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Indeed. However, note several things. User:Adrienne.daniels did not create the article. While that user's initial edits certainly violated the vanity guidelines, that text has since been extensively modified to remove vanity elements. It also appears that user has been tampering with this AfD page. However, regardless of her actions, this AfD is about the article, not Lissa, and not her mother. The article as it stands today does not violate the vanity guidelines, IMHO. Powers 13:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Agreed. From the Vanity Guidelines, "meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author". --Jessily 08:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. If you check the history of the article, you will see that most of the content was added by Adrienne Daniels, who is Lissa's mother. Nobody said that Lissa edited the article, only that a relative did. I pointed out that she removed a comment from this page that addressed her claims about it being "slanderous" (I noted that for it to be such, the statements would have to be false, while they were not), and Lissa's mother was no longer a moderator. At the time of that statement, she was, so the author of most of the article had a very obvious connection to the site (and she still does, being the owner's mother). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.0.178 (talk • contribs)
- Comment. Just because something is true doesn't mean it's suitable for an encyclopedia article. In particular, details about the culture on a forum attached to a website are generally not relevant to the web site itself. Furthermore, if Lissa did indeed remove information from this article, and that information was both relevant and encyclopedic, then that would be considered vandalism and would normally be reverted (if noticed, that is). However, I note that above it is claimed that Lissa never edited this article. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Without that, Lissa's alleged behavior is entirely irrelevant to the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia. The only issue is the notability of Lissaexplains.com, and, to some extent, the maintenance of NPOV within the article. Powers 00:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This discussion has moved so far away from the original purpose of AfD. Is the article notable? Is the article verifiable? This is definitely a personal attack against the person mentioned in the article, and if I were her I would be frightened. JasonMilder 01:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
