User talk:Formulafiftypoet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I declined to delete the article on William Deresiewicz as a speedy deletion, but it will need considerably more information to avoid being deleted. A list of publications would help, and a list of any prizes or awards he won fro his book reviewing or other work. Be aware that assistant professors are not necessarily considered appropriate for WP articles.DGG (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Formulafiftypoet 20:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Jessica Smith (poet)

The article Jessica Smith (poet) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki 14:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Smith (poet). I'd withdraw the AFD if you had better sources than two blogs. NawlinWiki 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's still a citation to her own publisher's PR page, so it's not an independent source. I'm more looking for independent reviews rather than one-sentence blurbs that she or her publisher gathered. NawlinWiki 15:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Joelle McSweeney doesn't have an article here, either -- I have no way of knowing if she is a reliable source. Given the debate already taking place on the AFD page, I'm inclined to let that debate run its course. I see that you're already making your arguments there, so let's leave it there. I'll follow the debate and decide from there if I want to change my mind. NawlinWiki 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, I was pretty sure that your promise to withdraw the AfD was purely for show. Formulafiftypoet 15:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Oh! But I think it's clear I'm an old hand, no? :) Formulafiftypoet 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badgering

While you may disagree with User:Arkyan, the suggestion of not instructing every single person to change their vote is helpful. It'll often make people react defensively, and may hurt your cause. --Eyrian 16:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be careful with deletion nominations

Please take care what you nominate for deletion- some of them look like things that should be deleted, but some do not. It may be wise to spend some more time learning about what we do here at Wikipedia before nominating more. Friday (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take what User:Friday is saying seriously. Deletion nominations seen to bad faith can lead to a block, or, at the very least, lead people away from your cause. Please stay cool. --Eyrian 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You are losing your cred very quickly. Bearian 01:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please be civil

You're becoming increasingly hostile toward other editors- this attitude is not helpful for collaboration. Please review Wikipedia's expectations of civil behavior. Friday (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable work that I have contributed to the wikipedia is being deleted by editors who clearly do not understand -- and do not wish to understand -- the subject in question. In contrast, the nominations I have made are solid; I do believe these articles describe non-notable things that should not be the subject of coverage in the wiki. Formulafiftypoet 17:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're having a bad experience, but please understand that any work you submit here will be edited mercilessly. It's the nature of the beast. You're much too new a user for me to automatically trust your judgment on what is or isn't appropriate for inclusion, and your recent behavior confirms my reservations. Remember, there's no rush. Some of the problems you're having have been made much worse by your own actions. Friday (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not a "new" user; just a new account. I used to edit wikipedia a while ago and have returned. Formulafiftypoet 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't know under what terms you left before, but if you continue as you're going now, you may find that you wear out your welcome. I hope this doesn't happen, as you seem to have useful content to contribute. Friday (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I agree, you're going off the flipping deep end. Please step away from your computer for a couple hours, go have a soda, sit outside in the sun, but for crying out loud quit getting yourself all wound up at AfD. I've had pet-project articles get mercilessly deleted here at Wikipedia as well. Guess what? There's deletion review. There's even other things you can do. I ended up re-creating an article that was "mercilessly deleted" for being "not notable", and it's now a completely uncontestable article due to my fixing it up. Basically, you need to step away from the computer and ask yourself what the hell is so important hat you need to get your IP range banned from Wikipedia - because getting all wound up will result in a ban. As for me, I'm personally stepping away from the computer right now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am stunned by wikipedia. I "left" on very good terms (just moved on), but came back to work on my hobbyhorse which is contemporary poetry. In my few days here, I have been condescended to, I have had my work nominated for "speedy deletion" twice (and "speedy deleted" once). (And what the hell is the captcha I have to type in every edit?) Now a fine stub is being nominated for deletion by people who not only have no idea about the subject, but are unwilling to listen. We have articles on football players who have done nothing but throw a ball for a few years, and people want to delete an article about a young poet who's attracted significant attention in the community?

As far as I'm concerned, the project has devolved since I was here last. Look at Fence magazine, which I just created (Hypnotoad, feel free to speedy delete it after asking me to be banned.) In order that it not be deleted (or at least so that I have some "ammunition" against people like you), I had to sit down and "pump it up" so that it would escape speedy (you know, explicitly call it important, etc). Then I had to find random media coverage from an organ that the average wikipedia member would instantly recognize (not sure if I succeeded; Poets and Writers is a large circulation magazine, but you know what -- a joke in the community itself!). Then, what -- do you think I'm actually motivated to work on the article at all? When a bunch of people can get together and "vote" (back when I was here, AfD was called VfD at least) to delete it on entirely suprious grounds? ("Not enough google hits" seems to be the main complaint.)

Formulafiftypoet 17:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Hey, life is hard. Before you aim anything at me, though, note that on the few times that I've bothered to slum around at AfD, I've regularly voted against deletion on principle when the article was obviously AfDed just a few hours (or minutes) after creation by a new editor. In fact, if you go check my user page, you'll see that's one of my big complaints about Wikipedia - quick trigger fingers. They're being completely unfair, and I hate it.

But, here's some principles to live by:

1) Do no harm. I'd personally love to delete the 1,000 articles on the Simpsons here, but know that I'd get into a flamewar over most of the non-notable episode articles I'd want to delete, and would also annoy people who come here to read about the Simpsons.

2) Wikipedia is not the Second Coming Of Christ. It's an online public-domain encyclopedia.

3) A sense of perspective solves all problems. I wasn't broken-hearted when 2 of my fav articles were deleted - they were on a minor Satanic cult and a pompous podcaster with 1000 listeners. I got over it, because I knew that they both mean little to the world. Most articles here mean little to the world, and I can empathize with deletionists who want to delete everything of little or no note. I also like the standpoint of the inclusionists. And I know that Wikipedia isn't just me, it's 100000 other people - many of whom, yes, are completely abusing Wikipedia. You can either deal with it and move on, or you can let it destroy your soul. What seems more crazy? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem as I see it, is that you're taking it as a personal insult if someone nominates an article you made for deletion. Instead, try to see how it looks to someone who doesn't already know the subject matter- have you used proper sources? We get puffery articles all the time, making spurious claims of importance. They get deleted quickly and routinely. You need to distinguish your articles from that kind of stuff, if you want people to not nominate them. It doesn't need to be personal, so please don't try to make it personal. You've been badgering other editors- surely this has caused your own contributions to be viewed with a more critical eye than would otherwise have happened. Friday (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

All this is fine. I think basically wikipedia is not the place for me to be contributing content. Formulafiftypoet 17:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • As well - I'm not asking for you to be banned. You quite simply will be banned, if you keep trying to disrupt Wikipedia. I don't have to ask for it, it'll just happen the minute some admin starts reading through AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated my other contributions for deletion on AfD. It is clear that I no longer have the temperment for the project. Hopefully some yes/no AfD votes will clarify the usefulness of contemporary poetry content for future editors. Right now it seems that the wiki is more concerned with football players, street signs and, yes, Simpsons episodes than actually welcoming coverage of new areas. Formulafiftypoet 17:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

See - now, there you go. You've still lost your sense of perspective. I would personally love to see, for example, some in-detail articles on stuff like African farming techniques, traditional creation stories of the Melanesians, and perspectives on Social Constructivism from the thinkers of ancient China. Other people will want to read about notable trends in 21st-century American poetry. Everyone wants to see coverage of new areas here. However, you make Wikipedia seem like some sort of mob that's refusing to acknowledge your importance, and that's not true. In reality, Wikipedia is some sort of mob that doesn't care whether you exist or not. The same applies for all of us. Many people want to read (and contribute to) Simpsons articles and articles about the physiology of Alien and stuff from Dungeons and Dragons. A sense of perspective will allow you to function, here - don't get all wound up over yourself. The best you can do is to try to write articles that satisfy notability criteria. The world will work itself out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is your Dangerous Idea?

The AfD discussion on that article (What is your Dangerous Idea?) was started by yourself, and the article was started by me. Is it just a coincidence that I placed a Delete vote for the article you had started (the one on Jessica Smith the poet)? I find this a remarkable coincidence, and have come to the conclusion that you're just trying to get back at me for my delete vote. This would hardly be a demonstration of good faith, which you always point out to other users but never show. If this is just plain paranoia please forgive me, but I have a hard time believing it is. Slartibartfast1992 17:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No -- not a coincidence at all. I looked through your contributions and nominated an article that I thought did not satisfy the notability guidelines. Formulafiftypoet 17:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
(If you'll allow some cliché) Just as I suspected, it was not a coincidence. But I hardly believe you nominated it because you thought it "did not satisfy notability guidelines" (this obviously does not seem like much, but googling it got 130,000 results). I believe you are indeed just trying to get back at me. It's notable and yet you placed an AfD. Well OK, discussion is always an option. Anybody who actually says it is notable gets "not-so-good faith" from you (you are acting somewhat dictatorish if you ask me). And you always prompt anybody not showing good faith to you with requests for good faith. You are just trying to delete that article that I work on because I gave a Delete vote (one tiny delete vote) to your article on some poet which is indeed not notable, and who nobody recognizes except yourself. Face it. You are just picking on me because you're angry because you lost your poet article. Slartibartfast1992 17:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, as I said, it's not a coincidence. How does it feel to have your own work -- which, sorry to say, in its current state does not statisfy notability -- nominated for deletion by a stranger? Formulafiftypoet 17:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not weeping. Fine, a perfectly good article gets deleted by some guy who claims that it's not notable (which, I'm sorry to say, is either always notable or never notable, and the former is the true). Who cares. It's not gonna turn my life around. And, just clarifying: I didn't nominate your article for deletion, which shows exactly how unfair your judgement is (do I hear the word dictator in the distance?...). Slartibartfast1992 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Nah. Just someone who's taking everything far too personally. And, just clarifying: check out Slarty's attitude? "Who cares, it's just a damn article." In fact, if it does get deleted, it'll probably be re-created into a large and perfectly acceptable article in the future, if it really is notable. See? Notable things will exist. Non-notable things will not. No point in getting all wound up about everything. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I was just trying to make an impact with the whole "dictator" thing. People should really stop being so touchy about "their" articles. Besides, nobody owns articles. It's all collaboration from (hopefully) everybody. P.S.: Hypnotoad's last edits were hilarious. "Dictatorinthedistance"...lol. Slartibartfast1992 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted edits are like a secret code that hides our real opinions from admins. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess they are like that...lol. But does that mean you want me to delete that bit about dictatorinthedistance? Slartibartfast1992 18:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
What bit? It doesn't exist. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
My mention of it. "Hypnotoad's last edits were hilarious. "Dictatorinthedistance"...lol.". Anyway, never mind. Slartibartfast1992 00:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I never said that. You're a liar. A lying liar. A lying liar who always lies. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Who's a liar? I never heard anything about no liars. Especially no lying liars and definitely no lying liars who always lie. I don't know nothing. You'll never get no lies out of me. Definitely no lies about no lying liars who always lie. Lol. PS, I'm lying. Slartibartfast (1992) 03:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Liar! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't call me a liar you lying liar who always lyingly lies like a lying liar who always lies! Lyingly! Like a liar! Slartibartfast (1992) 04:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be kind to take your increasingly tangential discussion somewhere else? --Eyrian 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was getting a bit carried away. Good idea, this increasingly tangential discussion has finished (and I got the last word, haha). Slartibartfast (1992) 04:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your own articles can be deleted easily

You don't need to use AFD for your own articles- just blank them, or tag them as a speedy. However please don't do this as some kind of dramatic "OK, fine, I'm leaving!" gesture. Editors come and go; this doesn't mean we remove their contributions. However if these subjects have not gotten adequate coverage in independent sources, perhaps we cannot have articles on them. Friday (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, obviously I'm pissed, and nominating my own work for AfD -- which I think is perfectly fine -- is a way to express that. Formulafiftypoet 17:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Then you do what the rest of us do: step away from the computer. Your actions are disruptive to Wikipedia, regardless of how you feel. Do not do this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] look

I guess I've made my points. Yes, wikipedia is a bit of a mob at this point, although I think that's a bit disinguenous; everybody is walking around claiming that there are rules, or agreed on methods, or some way to establish consensus -- and in fact, there is a consensus. If it's on ESPN, it is notable. If it's an anime character it's notable. If, on the other hand, it's about a poet or a critic, well -- then it can be arbitrarily deleted.

As for wikipedia being about collaboration, well -- the only contact with other users I've had here (apart from a nice person who fixed my references) have been people arguing for the deletion of my content. I don't mean to get all GBCW -- but please, we have an entry on GBCW while it seems that "consensus" is growing that an important term in contemporary poetry ellipticism is non-notable? Please tell me something is screwed up here? Am I wrong to be angry -- or at minimum, upset -- about this stuff?

As I've been told (and is obvious to me as well, of course) -- I really shouldn't be contributing here. It's ironic because in general I hate the general elitism in the press that dismisses wikipedia and related projects (or, even, considers them the end of civilization!) -- but my experience here over the last few days since I registered has been really very negative.

I can't tell you how different things were a few years ago. Back then I could write a huge chunk on an artist without worrying about some admin speedy or AfDing it because I hadn't sufficiently promoted the subject as worthy of inclusion.

Formulafiftypoet 18:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was here a couple years ago, and I looked at new pages then too, and I marked for deletion whatever didn't seem suitable for inclusion. Maybe there are more people looking at new pages these days. I too think it's silly that people think we should have articles on random individual buildings or bits of road, but people like what they like. What I can tell you is this: I will help out any way I can to prevent deletion of appropriate, adequately sourced content. One thing that can help is working on a page like User:Formulafiftypoet/Sandbox until you have enough content to put the stuff into article space. I don't know anything about ellipticism for example but if this concept is recognize and discussed by proper sources (as appears to be the case, based on current article contents) then it surely belongs. Friday (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't have an entry on GBCW. It's in a list. And yes, you're wrong to be angry - you should realx and have a Flaky. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I promise you that wikipedia will cover the minutae of DailyKos (or wherever that term originated) well before it even begins to have sufficient coverage of contemporary poetry. Here are just a few names that would be instantly recognizable to anybody involved in U.S. poetry that -- because of admins who speedy delete articles like William Deresiewicz -- I shan't bother trying to create. Stephen Burt, perhaps? Hell, pretty much anybody who's appeared in the BAP (as much as we love to hate it) deserves coverage. Formulafiftypoet 18:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
And as for "have a flaky"! Well, sure. I'm more amused at this point than angry. But wikipedia takes itself extremely, extremely seriously -- so seriously as to have a formal procedure for deleting content! It's not exactly fair to make fun of me for taking things seriously right after you and others have all clustered solemnly around the table to delete my work. I'm quite sure that if I'd continued to AfD articles, you would have summoned an admin instead of "having a flaky". Formulafiftypoet 19:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're being overly pompous. We didn't cluster around a table. In fact, I was stuck here typing responses to you when I should have been recording, playing Civ, or even spending quality time with my cat. I'm still here because you wanted to be important to half a dozen people, to get them to drop everything and pay attention to you and the things you consider to be important. When that didn't happen, you pulled a public hissy-fit to get a half a dozen people to pay attention to you. I wouldn't have "summoned an admin" - I would have moved on. You would have been dealt with eventually, without me doing anything. That's how Wikipedia works. Things happen without me or you being involved. In fact, nobody gives a damn about either of us, but you STILL haven't gotten it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
They should have a civilization advance called "wiki", except that it actually turns one of your specialists into a wiki contributor. (If you build the wikipedia wonder, you can create trolls that you can send out to disrupt the research of other civs.) Formulafiftypoet 19:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know there are thousands or even millions of articles corresponding to stupid things, things that only matter because they're part of pop culture. In fact I agree with you, that sucks. But that's exactly what makes something notable: being noticed by large groups of people. There are and will be millions of articles on well-known parts of pop culture that mean little or nothing to smart people but you have to understand that a very tiny part of the world is made up of smart people, thinking people. But thanks to that minority there can be articles reflecting rich parts of culture, such as books by Isaac Asimov, scientific theories such as the Big Rip, or books about philosophical thinkers like the one you so kindly nominated for deletion, What is Your Dangerous Idea: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable (which, check the AfD discussion, you will see that the forming concensus is Keep). So there you have it. An article will not be deleted should it be notable, with no respect to it being intellectual or not. Slartibartfast1992 18:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi FormulaP

Hi FormulaP, please don't despair and try to delete your own articles. They're brill and about meaningful stuff rather than completely gay lists of things in a computer game or something. Don't despair because of one or two people. Look at how many of your articles, people really would prefer were kept. As to the have a Flaky comment, I think the contributor was suggesting you should have some sort of chocolate and relax rather than saying you were being daft. People value your contributions, as you can see, so please don't go, at least not permanently.Merkinsmum 19:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You've ruined it all by being nice to me. Anyway, I'm sure I'll come back eventually. Just under a different username. And the sandbox is a good idea as well, I guess creating "live" is impossible these days because of the recent page patrollers. Formulafiftypoet 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:GRIEF to get some perspective, dude. Bearian 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I'm impressed with those "five steps" in WP:GRIEF. That expertly summarized all that Formulafiftypoet went through today. Are psychologists working behind it? Slartibartfast (1992) 01:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it's a text book case! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here's a thought.

I cannot condone your methods (i.e. all the WP:POINT violations), and they have done nothing to advance your cause. But you're correct that poetry is underrepresented on Wikipedia. You won't do well, though, if you create hard-to-source articles with hard-to-prove notability.

Have you considered starting at the other end, though? List of poetry awards, for example, shows several major awards (say, the Griffin Poetry Prize) that have numerous redlinks. I would say that any Griffin prizewinner is automatically notable per WP:BIO. In fact, some "major" awards (allegedly, because they are not sourced articles) are redlinks themselves. Work your way through the lists on these pages, build up a reputation as a contributor and as an editor who can be worked with, and you'll be in a much better position to (in my opinion) see at the outset what is notable and what is not. --Dhartung | Talk 08:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Jessica Smith (poet)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jessica Smith (poet), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Smith (poet) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Slarti (1992) 21:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)