User talk:Davodd/Archive 10
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Cleaned May 11, 2006. To add comments click on the + in the tab at the top of this page.
[edit] Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana)
You left a cleanup tag in the references section of this article. Can you explain why you think it needs cleaning up on the article's talk page? Thanks... Aplomado talk 20:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nice work on this article BTW, I don't know where you found all that new information. Aplomado talk 16:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tinea versicolor
I note from the edit-history that you previous contributed significantly to Tinea versicolor. I have grouped together the topical treatments as there is no distinction, in the UK, as to which agents may be obtained over-the counter or on prescription. I have previously summarised advice obtained from the UK Institue of Dermatology on treatment into a protocol factsheet, however wikipedia policy is not to add links to ones own website (but other editors may of course). - Please have a look at the Talk:Tinea versicolor page and comment as appropriate. Thank you :-) David Ruben Talk 01:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rdefined.com
You deleted this article a short while ago... why??? I worked on this last night, added some notability items, and wanted to continue on this when I had time. The article was also edited by the founder of the group, and you deleted it on grounds that it was an advertisement??? SocalR32 and Rdefined.com have existed as a community of owner/enthusiasts of the VW R32 (Limited 5000 production VW for the US in 2004), and this was serving to document some of the history of the group.
[edit] No, I didn't
I didn't vote for Fourteen points. Anyway, thanks for the invitation... --Francisco Valverde 17:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article Improvement Drive (WP:AID)
[edit] Portal:LGBT
Unless I misread the discussion at Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals the consensus is against the creation of Portal:LGBT. You have created the portal though. Appreciate your thoughts on moving this forward, perhaps listing the portal at WP:MFD for wider discussion of the issues. Hiding Talk 12:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, the process at Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals is built for getting a consensus on a portal's creation: "it is necessary to propose new portals so that their necessity can be ascertained with discussion." I'm not looking to get into an argument on this, and I should declare I helped set the process up so we're obviously going to have to disdagree on that point. What I am more worried about is that the consensus there is being ignored. The proposal system was set up because people were, and are, creating portals as they so desired and it soon became hard to keep a track of them. We need these sort of processes in place as a weeding process, and if people ignore it there will be a call to have it tightened. If you've got enough editors who see this as a good idea, please point them to the discussion and cast an "aye" vote. As an admin, I have to treat all portals created out of process in a similar fashion, regardless of their merit. Those portals which have merit, as you obviously feel yours does, should demonstrate that merit in discussion. Fair play and all, let's all keep on the same page and point people to that discussion to get a consensus. I don't imagine it will be that hard, and whilst you are keeping an eye on your portal, maybe you could lend a hand at Portal:Sexuality and keep the two on the same page where topics overlap. If no consensus gets demonstrated, I would imagine someone will take the portal to WP:MFD at some point. Hiding Talk 19:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not going to beat this any further. I've asked for a couple of favours, help me build a consensus at Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals for this portal's creation, and help maintain Portal:Sexuality where the topics overlap. I'd appreciate it, but if you don't feel you can, that's up to you. We can dicker about process all day long, but all I'm doing is asking a favour. The portal process is broken, yes, but here I am asking you to help me fix it by directing people there to get the consensus that, I hope you will agree, surely exists. Your call. Hiding Talk 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs
Ello there, Davodd.. I'd rather like for you to give your input on the future of List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs since it may invariably suffer the same fate as Other films aired on The SciFi Channel, so please do so if time permits. I feel it a rather pertinant piece of information concerning the Sci Fi Channel, and its demise may compromise the article in its entirety. DrWho42 04:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AID
Hi. Thanks for doint the AID rollover; however, you did something weird: [1]. I think I've fixed it, but you might want to be careful next time you copy/paste. ;-) PruneauT 16:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Georgia Move
As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please help on Astronomy
Posted by →LzyGenius 11:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID maintenance team.
[edit] Kent-Meridian High School
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School, I just thought you'd like to know that the consensus for deleting High School articles now appears to be swinging back in favor of deletion. So this may indicate the beginning of another campaign to remove most High School articles. Your opinion on the AfD article would be appreciated. It might be helpful if a notability standard for High Schools could be agreed upon. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please discuss changes before doing anything drastic
You have mistitled the article that discusses spider venom. Venom is not poison. Please see the discussion page for that article. P0M 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Collaboration of the Week
Hi!, CotW nomination period has expired for this week and I don´t know how how to update it. Would you be so kind to do it for me? Thank you for advance, --Garcilaso 09:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner
[edit] Superman Returns article
Hi... you did the good article review, and I don't know if it's procedure to ask like this... but I've gone through it with what I hope is a scythe to clean the hell out of it. Would you mind taking another quick glance at it for me to know what needs the most immediate attention? I put a summary of everything I did just now on the talk page there, and have been trying to de-fan-ize, de-cruft it, de-weasle it, and NPOV it, and I think it's beginning to get there--some of the sections need a lot of work yet, especially the mess that is reactions. Any additional suggestions would be really appreciated. I've got like 40+ edits into it in the past 24 hours trying to fix it. rootology (T) 01:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your response on the template work
I appreciate your effort to be communicative and thorough, and I appreciate your attempt to be inclusive. Unfortunately you seem to be arguing from a position of misinformation and misapprehension, which renders many of your admonitions a bit off the mark, and subjects you to many of the same criticisms you direct at me, and then some. If you are interested in analyzing this further I would be glad to discuss this with you. If you are not, I still look forward to ongoing co-operation with you but perhaps in a more reflective and collegial atmosphere than that of our last exchange. I am sure there is a lot more common ground between our views of proper work etiquette than might first meet the eye. Regards, Haiduc 10:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pederasty
I resent that the Pederasty article has been associated with LGBT studies. I resent seeing our flag associated with the practice of pederasty. It is the same as associating the American flag as symbolic of American studies with race-based murders. Pederasty is not part of the GLBT movement or our struggle for equal rights, represented by our rainbow flag. I would like to know who decided that Pederasty should be included in this project, where there was consensus and how to contribute, because I certainly do not wish to see this association. This is not a denial that there are GLBT pederasts, but it is a legitimate wish to not have this practice included as some how integral with our community. Enzedbrit 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Although I understand your personal opinion, and may share much of it. Technically, the definition of pederasty includes a form of same-sex behavior that has historical and sociological importance, therefore fits within the LGBT Studies area. Your argument could also be used by people who resent that drag queen or gay bathhouse or gay slang or twink or barebacking are included. To dis-include any of these because a faction finds it distasteful is academically dishonest and hurts the credibility of the LGBT Studies project. It is the purpose of the LGBT Studies Project to work in a constructive and collaborative way to make sure all LGBT-related articles (which does, in fact, include pederasty by definition) are well written and reflect the consensus of the academic world enough to become featured articles. It is not the purpose of the project to advance one person (or faction's) ideal of what is appropriate or inappropriate behavior since that form of advocacy is not encyclopedic. We need more people who are willing to put aside their personal biases to work with others of differing opinion enough to write a quality encyclopedia of LGBT-themed articles. You are welcome to be a part of this collaboration. Neither you nor I can justify forcing our personal opinions on others (see: Wikipedia is not a soapbox) to the detriment of scholarly work on Wikipedia or deciding that because of our personal opinion, that some same-sex themed articles are less worthy of inclusion in this project than others (see: Wikipedia is not censored). As editors, it is not our job to put 2 and 2 together on our own to decipher what is and is not a valid LGBT subject (see Wikipedia:No Original Research). - Davodd 19:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think what you want to say is that this is then part of same-sex studies. GLBT is the umbrella term for our community and attachment to this community at the grass-roots level is entirely subjective. Pederasts naturally may identify themselves with being GLBT and their minority sexual preference as being an integral element of our community, but the community is based on being gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. There is a difference between the community of Queer people and sexual practices of people who are of the same sex. My argument could be used about other things, as you have said, because these are facets attached to gay and lesbian people. Drag Queens are associated as being in the community and that needs no justification, Twink is a term used in the community to describe a certain person, barebacking is a sexual practice between men, gay slang or Polari is a language associated with gay and lesbian people. I do not believe that sexual practices need to be attached to our community and I negate your statement that pederasty thus comes under the scope of our community. There are lots of gay people - I can say without proof - who will enjoy sex with their siblings, with animals, with excrement, and there is every justification to attach that too to the GLBT study area we are identifying, because they are undertaken by gay and lesbian people. Why should practices of GLBT people then be studied as a part of our community?! I do not wish to see this, or for that matter any sexual practice, associated with our community. It is not about that. I am certain to find a majority opinion in that, and I only wish that this were a live forum, because I would easily gather that support right now. Pederasty is a practice between men and boys. I’m very sorry, but that doesn’t make it part of our community, or a gay-themed article, anymore than gay on gay murder would be. Make your study about sex, not about our people. Enzedbrit 03:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your arguments are not really very cogent, sorry. You are playing semantic word games and using circular logic which is confusing the real issue, basically, that in your personal worldview, you do not like a certain article associated with a topic with which you are emotionally attached. Although I empathize with your frustration, that is not a valid excuse for censorship. The LGBT Studies Project is not about bettering the image of or empowering or reaffirming the gay community - it is about bettering the content of Wikipedia — specifically Wikipedia articles that deal with same-sex (LGB) or transgender (T) issues. This includes non-flattering or distasteful same-sex issues. To be academically honest, you need to distance yourself from your emotions or any "yuck" factor that may be clouding your judgement and be willing to admit "heterosexual pederasty" cannot exist - since it requires a same-sex act or desire. Then, you need to look at whether pederasty is at all notable. For instance, has it had any social, historical or legal importance? It has. Therefore pederasty, a same-sex topic has valid academic value to students of sociology, law and history. It fits within the Wikipedia LGBT Studies project. - Davodd 08:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- My argument is only incoherent because I lack the time to spend editing replies into logical format. Here comes some arrogance on my part: you are completely wrong. The association of a sexual practice with a community based on sexual identity is distortive to truth and confuses the term and classification of the community. Even the Wikipedia article on GLBT refers to it as a community composed of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. People, not sexual practices; sexual identity, not sexual practices. The indulgences of these people is irrelevant. Again, I state that the article on pederasty should concentrate on sexual activities. The fact that the sexual activity in question I find disgusting, is irrelevant, likewise consensual monogamous sex between same-sex couples would be. This association does a great disservise. So many of us have spent much energy in really living up to 'keeping our sex lives in the bedroom' and fighting for our rights, our equality and liberties by removing sexual behaviour from the equation, and here it is now being thrust back in our faces with some legitimacy as though it is beneficial to understanding ourselves. I can't understand that, nor can I be appreciative.Enzedbrit 09:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then hopefully the conflict of this impasse will cause both of us to challenge our biases and preconceptions. Davodd 00:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- My argument is only incoherent because I lack the time to spend editing replies into logical format. Here comes some arrogance on my part: you are completely wrong. The association of a sexual practice with a community based on sexual identity is distortive to truth and confuses the term and classification of the community. Even the Wikipedia article on GLBT refers to it as a community composed of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. People, not sexual practices; sexual identity, not sexual practices. The indulgences of these people is irrelevant. Again, I state that the article on pederasty should concentrate on sexual activities. The fact that the sexual activity in question I find disgusting, is irrelevant, likewise consensual monogamous sex between same-sex couples would be. This association does a great disservise. So many of us have spent much energy in really living up to 'keeping our sex lives in the bedroom' and fighting for our rights, our equality and liberties by removing sexual behaviour from the equation, and here it is now being thrust back in our faces with some legitimacy as though it is beneficial to understanding ourselves. I can't understand that, nor can I be appreciative.Enzedbrit 09:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your arguments are not really very cogent, sorry. You are playing semantic word games and using circular logic which is confusing the real issue, basically, that in your personal worldview, you do not like a certain article associated with a topic with which you are emotionally attached. Although I empathize with your frustration, that is not a valid excuse for censorship. The LGBT Studies Project is not about bettering the image of or empowering or reaffirming the gay community - it is about bettering the content of Wikipedia — specifically Wikipedia articles that deal with same-sex (LGB) or transgender (T) issues. This includes non-flattering or distasteful same-sex issues. To be academically honest, you need to distance yourself from your emotions or any "yuck" factor that may be clouding your judgement and be willing to admit "heterosexual pederasty" cannot exist - since it requires a same-sex act or desire. Then, you need to look at whether pederasty is at all notable. For instance, has it had any social, historical or legal importance? It has. Therefore pederasty, a same-sex topic has valid academic value to students of sociology, law and history. It fits within the Wikipedia LGBT Studies project. - Davodd 08:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think what you want to say is that this is then part of same-sex studies. GLBT is the umbrella term for our community and attachment to this community at the grass-roots level is entirely subjective. Pederasts naturally may identify themselves with being GLBT and their minority sexual preference as being an integral element of our community, but the community is based on being gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. There is a difference between the community of Queer people and sexual practices of people who are of the same sex. My argument could be used about other things, as you have said, because these are facets attached to gay and lesbian people. Drag Queens are associated as being in the community and that needs no justification, Twink is a term used in the community to describe a certain person, barebacking is a sexual practice between men, gay slang or Polari is a language associated with gay and lesbian people. I do not believe that sexual practices need to be attached to our community and I negate your statement that pederasty thus comes under the scope of our community. There are lots of gay people - I can say without proof - who will enjoy sex with their siblings, with animals, with excrement, and there is every justification to attach that too to the GLBT study area we are identifying, because they are undertaken by gay and lesbian people. Why should practices of GLBT people then be studied as a part of our community?! I do not wish to see this, or for that matter any sexual practice, associated with our community. It is not about that. I am certain to find a majority opinion in that, and I only wish that this were a live forum, because I would easily gather that support right now. Pederasty is a practice between men and boys. I’m very sorry, but that doesn’t make it part of our community, or a gay-themed article, anymore than gay on gay murder would be. Make your study about sex, not about our people. Enzedbrit 03:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] FLCL Nom
Could you please at least put your reasons for failing FLCL on the talk page? -Litefantastic 22:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hello. I did give the reason why I failed FLCL from WP:GA status on the discussion page immediately after I failed it. You can see the comment by going here: (Talk:FLCL#Good_Article_nomination_is_on_Hold). With the vast number of substantive edits in the past few days, the article clearly fails the Stable criterion. It merely needs to stew for a while in its goodness to be stable enough for re-nomination. I hope that clears things up. By the way, when you leave messages on people's talk pages, it may better serve you in the future if you do so in a polite manner (WP:Etiquette) since not every editor is forgiving of what may be considered a rude or false accusation. You may want to choose your words and tone carefully, keeping in mind that communication via talk pages puts certain impediments on communication of meaning that are not a problem in vocal/visual communication. - Davodd 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry. I didn't think I was overly crass, but then again I don't think I'm really an unbiased judge of myself either, so: sorry about that. As for the article, I'm afraid stability will be a long time coming, but I'll be back when it does. Thanks, -Litefantastic 01:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Gerber/Hart Library and charity
Thanks I appreciate the good will of the message that you left on my talk page, and I assume it was made in good faith. That having been said, I do take it personally when I try to engage someone in a discussion on Wikipedia, and I feel slighted or summarily dismissed, as I did and do on the library's talk page and the AfD.
The article was one of several dozen I've recently nominated for deletion, and I stand behind my reasoning for all of them. I don't think that there is any special standard of notability for any kind of subculture or sect, and obscure topics belong at community-run wikis, like Wikia, where the scope of the encyclopedia can be narrowly defined. As for your other examples of equally non-notable articles, I'm consistent - I say delete them also. There are only so many hours in a day, though, and the ones that I've nominated recently are the ones that I've happened to see. The only differentiating factor here is I was there at the time.
Again, if you write something like "as a resource of the LGBT community in the Midwest U.S., the library is a big deal," sure, I can't argue with that. What I can say is, that is irrelevant to the scope of human knowledge of an encyclopedia. While nothing that happens in Tunisia may ever be as important to a given individual as the resources of this library, a topic like Tunisia is inherently more important and has more potential to be a well-written article; a resource that other people can read and use. What could possibly be written about any encyclopedia with 14,000 books - one that is ho-hum as a library? Again, you could create articles on the first person to own 10,000 comic books or the world's largest ball of wax or the first woman to drive a Buick, and those would be of some value to a segment of the population. They would also not be encyclopedic. To establish credibility, some things that could be included in the whole of human knowledge must be selectively left out (e.g. don't create List of all lists on Wikipedia or Category:People who aren't twins), and this is an obscure enough topic to not merit inclusion.
Lastly, let me stress that it is not intended as a personal slight that I nominated your work or anyone else's for deletion. For instance, see my comment here. I've had my work deleted before, and in many of those cases, I still feel that it deserved to be as I left it. That having been said, I don't own Wikipedia, so I don't always get my way, and sometimes I feel like the community makes the wrong call. I hope that if we can disagree, it can be with charity. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] COTW
Hi, thanks for your work on COTW. Maurreen 06:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
... and thank you! - Davodd 17:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your thoughts on WikiProject LGBT studies
When you've got a few minutes, I was wondering if you'd take a look at my ideas regarding increasing participation in WikiProject LGBT studies? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GLBT Awareness
Davodd, I appreciate your involvement with many aspects of Wikipedia. I understand that everyone is motivated by their own internal points of view. I have an agenda, you have an agenda, all that is OK. I realize that you have a strong interest in increasing awareness of GLBT issues. I am fine with that. Heck, I hosted the local GSA party a few months ago and the entire crowd was back last weekend to celebrate the end of summer. I really do not have a problem with the topic, and given the right circumstance I might even help out (I'm just not particularly motivated to do it).
However, when there are attempts to leverage the celebrity of another person, for the purpose of increasing awareness for an unrelated issue, just because they CAN, I get a bit put out. A know lots of people want to hang on celebrities coattails for attention. Grimy little porn star wanna-be's telling fanfic for self promotion reasons, PETA advocists using shock tactics, money grubbing authors that could not get legitimate publishing houses to publish their books, so they pay for their own publishing and try to recover the costs via lawsuits. It is all about "users" trying to make a buck and get attention at someone else's expense. Just because many celebrites have to fend off continual attempts at being used, does NOT mean that Wikipedia needs to give those "users" page space (which just accomplishes the "users" intended purpose to begin with). Especially when in the scope of things those attempts are just pesky irritants in the life of the celebrity. Even if one of those attempts happens to sync in with an issue that you happen to care about, that is not a reason for exagerating the impact of minor events of attempted scandal that did not succeed. I would not want to put the GLBT folks in the same "user" category with those others, willing to damage a celebrities image or career just to further their own cause.
I just want you to know where I am coming from if we happen to not agree on other pages. Thanks for your time. Michigan_user 14:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- I appears that you have been browsing my user page, which is there to remind both me and others on my personal biases. As for your attempt to write me off as some form of gay activist, the facts are to the contrary. As a professional writer and editor for almost 20 years, I have faced on a daily basis the challenges of how to balance a writer's personal interests with obtaining professional distance in writing about subjects. Looking at my edit history, your presumption that I am a POV-pushing gay activist is just plain wrong. By browsing my non-Clay Aiken edit history for the past two weeks (feel free to go further),the results show my main interests here lie mainly in areas other than LGBT-related topics:
- LGBT-related | Issues | 12 edits
- * Wikipedia:Categories for deletion | vote Category:LGBT rights organizations | 2
- * Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other | Added LGBT Studies project tag | 1
- * LGBT studies related | Various user talk page discussions | 1
- * Gay Blue Jeans Day | content | 1
- * Talk:Matthew Shepard | hate crime or not | 2
- * OUTNOW (ON magazine) | content | 4
- * Window Media | content | 1
- Non-LGBT | Issues | 189 edits
- * Rankin/Bass - Cleanup, poor quality of article | 3
- * Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week | Administrative-related | 14
- * Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive | Admin/vote | 58
- * User:Davodd | Edit/update page/talk Page | 9
- * Indiana and related | Various| 3
- * Law school and related | Content edits | 14
- * Wikipedia:Good article candidates-related | Non Clay Aiken only| 25
- * Ottoman Empire | WP:GA Passed | 1
- * Delhi | WP:GA Passed | 1
- * El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda | WP:GA Passed| 1
- * Póvoa de Varzim | WP:GA passed | 1
- * Diego Maradona | WP:GA failed POV issues | 4
- * 1 Ceres | Nominate for WP:GA | 1
- * Talk:Saturn Nominate for WP:GA | 1
- * Louvre | Nominate for WP:GA | 1
- * Suzuki SJ | Content | 1
- * Cleaning User edits to various articles | Cleanup/Vandlaism | 17
- * User talk:24.60.177.155 | bogus edits to (Three's Company), (Judy Garland)-realted articles. | 12
- * User:JudyGarlands | Bogus fancruft issues {Judy Garland)-related | 4
- * User: 68.114.120.127 | revert vandalism to Blue balls | 1
- * Wp-bio tags | Added to peronalist bio patk pages | 6
- * Various article | Random vandalism reverts | 1
- * James Daly (journalist) | 1
- * Wikipedia:Categories for deletion | vote Category: Human over 8 foot tall | 1
- * 2006 in film | update | 2
- * Steampunk | tag spam links | 1
- * MyNetworkTV | various content-related/talk page | 10
- * Telenovela | content-related | 4
- * Television serial | make disabig page | 4
- * Trio (TV network) | content | 1
- * Talk:Pluto | Demote to Class-B quality | 2
- * Talk:1 Ceres | Call=B, nominate WP:GA | 4
- * Talk:History of the World Wide Web | fmt | 1
- * Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) | talk | 3
- * Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll | vote/talk | 3
- * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empires: Dawn of the Modern World Gameplay | vote | 1
- * Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard | comment | 1
- Conclusion
- It is quite clear that the only real "agenda" I have in dealing with Clay Aiken is two fold:
- Explaining why the article does not meet the criteria for WP:GA
- Defending Wikipedia's quality from an apparent cabal of fans who are harming the quality this project.
- Davodd 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I did not mean to give the impression that I thought you were just some sort of gay activist. That is why I said "I appreciate your involvement with many aspects of Wikipedia." Really the entire GLBT thing is beside the point. I must not have explained myself well. I have no objection to including critisisms in articles, if they are based on FACT. If there was really a scandal and the celebrity was involved in it, then by all means include a mention of it in the article. What I have an objection to is when there is no involvement, and someone is tring to invent one to gain attention for themselves and their gay porn ambitions, then I have a problem with giving them the attention and publicity that they could NOT get from mainstream news sources. And no matter what you say, mentioning a non-existant gay scandal in a source like Wikipedia will create doubt in many folks minds, and it will do damage to careers, fair or not. The Wikipedia policy is "Do no harm". "When in doubt err on the side of privacy". Yet you are pushing to do the opposite. I understand that you do not want the articles controlled by fancruft (is that the word?) but there are also other factors to consider. Thanks. Michigan_user 22:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm stopping by to introduce myself as well. I have been an editor on the Aiken page for years now, and have been through two edit wars during that time. I won't be participating in another, so I'll just be stopping by from time to time and maybe I'll make a comment or two. I asked you a question in the comments on that page, which are already extensive, and got no response to that particular question, so I will ask it and another here. I asked, regarding the "fan lawsuit" you alluded to, what are we to do if no media organization has done the research to find that it was merely a publicity stunt, although we as editors are aware of that fact. A second, and related question. You cite a NY Daily News article about John Paulus which you say has now been debunked--can you show me a legitimate news source for that debunking? Because I've never seen one, although I am of course aware that Paulus is a nut job. The problem with incorporating tabloid style material in Wikipedia is that these issues are not subjected to the kind of rigorous investigation that takes place in the case of real news (or should, but that's another issue). Retractions are not printed when errors are made, because they were presented as gossip and "entertainment" in the first place. No one will be coming to Wikipedia to clarify anything about these rumors in CNN or the NY Times because they were never published there to begin with. Celebrity gossip is its own universe, and it is extremely difficult to address this kind of gossip because of the constraints I describe.
ETA: Thanks to my colleagues' hard work, hopefully an edit war has been averted. -Jmh123 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I found this by accident (following links) so I guess I'll say hello too. You said "As a professional writer and editor for almost 20 years, I have faced on a daily basis the challenges of how to balance a writer's personal interests with obtaining professional distance in writing about subjects." The biggest challenge we face editing the Clay Aiken article is attempting to keep salacious gossip from being stated as fact. Especially when we have to deal with those who delight in gossip mongering and smearing because of their own POV. Sloppy journalism does not help. Neither does confusing gossip with real news. As JMH said, retractions and corrections don't get reported. I watched one edit war and got involved in the other. It's not fun and I don't want to do it again. Sticking to facts is not always easy but it's what I do best. - Maria202 03:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] OUTNOW
Hello Davodd, thanks for the comment - I have usually felt a bit intimidated by the Wikipedia boldness but am trying to embrace it. I have started to add some comments on other areas of interest - in the past I did not as I felt a bit unqualified to do that. There was an AfD discussion that involved Out Now Consulting earlier this month and it was made very clear to all there who I am and my involvement with that article. The changes I made on the weekend related to a different 'Out Now' - a magazine that is published in the US and to avoid confusion I added a disambiguation link. They are nothing to do with Out Now Consulting though. I corrected their title to correctly reflect their magazine's name (as per their Media Kit) and added the disambiguation. One of my other (varied) passions is music so added an entry about the disbanding of Macquarie Trio today and added an additional citation to the Wal-Mart article regarding their new gay market steps. I will feel a bit more emboldened in relation to my other topic areas. Relating to Out Now Consulting, the page was subsequently edited by some of the contributors involved in the AfD debate with respect to corporate notability, and I last tidied up some minor text there. Thanks. Out Now 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
