User talk:JohnQ.Public

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 TVRage 2 Formatting your reply on AfD 3 Other 4 2006 10 16 5 Unblock Request 6 Thinks to do on Wikipedia when you're not on Wikipedia

[edit] TVRage

Well, to start with I really have no idea about any competition you might have. I don't even have a TV (yes, it is possible:)). Second, WP has rules. And one of them is that deleted content can be speedied (see rule number 4). Third, WP has rules over notability (see here). Fourth, don't confuse notability with anything else. As someone said, you could write the best article about your dog (that is neutral and unbiased) but it would be still deleted because it is not notable. Fifth, as of right now articles reads like a how-to guide (see related (but not directly applicable) rule number 8). Conclusion, I agree I should not have put the speedy tag on it. However, I am going to take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion where you can make your case.

My suggestion though. Since it seems the popularity is growing, just wait. Once you establish your notability, it will have space here. I don't see much point in creating a bad record for your website. The article for deletion discussions will remain forever (even if the website is not deleted) that are going to say - not notable, spam, and other nasty stuff. Do you really need it? Renata 14:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

First, we're not on TV, we're a site that catalogs television material. I suggest you go take a look. Second, we already have a bad record for the website. We were reported to Wikipedia by members of Tv.com (the website that views us as competition) and were accused of being both a spam site and a money site. Neither of which we are, but we're deleted for it anyway because so many people just gave a biast opinion to delete us. I think we've proven we are not. As far as Notability, we're the second biggest site for this info on the net. It's a shame we have to compete with CNET's website (which takes most of it's visitorship from its other websites). Third, we were told specifically that we could return if we made it in the Alexa to 100,000. That was the only issue on Noteability issued to us. We've done that. Fourth, we're not a dog, we're a website. If that article isn't neutral enough, then I dare you to take that info and write something better. We did our best to give all the info on the site and it's flaws (another issue brought up last time) and put them in neutral form. I'd liek to see you do better. Fifth, as far as the content, I hate to be an ass, but MOST EVERYTHING on Wikipedia reads like a how-to guide. You make so many rules and stipulations on how things are to be written, people can't write material any other way. So if it can't be first person, and it can't be a description, how the hell is it supposed to go? Because I'll tell you right now, I've seen pages on here that read like they belong in the Britanica be deleted for no reason. As far as being on Wikipedia goes, yes, we need it. We'd like to be added since we are an actual site with real information. Unlike sites like Tv.com that are mostly flash ads and very little info. You compare the two and tell me who the real information site is. JohnQ.Public 09:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Somebody else took it to AfD. I could not care less about the wars between the TV sites. It is not the issue here. Notability is. See my statement on the new AfD. Renata 14:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen your statement, and I still think you're wrong. We waited until our popularity grew and we met the original guideline. It's rather underhanded to remove the rule and not bring our page back after it was dismissed for that reason. And now that we're back, this place is using another rule to bump us off again. You may say that there are higher websites who don't deserve a place here, but the fact is... they're still here. If you're so concerned with websites that have no purpose here, go after the higher ones and make way for the ones with substance to build. If you're not going to go after the real problem websites, why bother doing it at all? JohnQ.Public 12:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting your reply on AfD

I changed your :: formatting to a * formatting because as you have it now it looks like the comment is from me or at least in reply to me. I'm going to change it back, please use the standard * formatting so that people can follow the flow of commentary more easily. You may also want to consider putting your reply after Lar's reply so that people can follow the discussion. FWIW, I am on the Keep side of this discussion, as are many experienced editors. I think you're stating your case fairly well, but continuing to bash Wikipedia will do nothing except bring the deletionists out of the woodwork.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 24, 2006, 05:48 (UTC)

I totally agree with Bill about bashing WP. You've made your argument, it would be better to just keep quiet and let people look at the debate and decide for them selves instead of ranting and raving about how unfair WP is. WP really isn't unfair, except to articles that are borderline. I support the TV rage article now, but you have to accept that it's borderline: no matter how "good" the site is, it's not really that important yet, at least not in a sense larger than itself. Obviously, it's quite important and notable to its users, but there's a line that has to be drawn. But this "you vs. us" mentality is really hurting your cause: Perfecto asked whether you were here to be constructive, and I was going to ask the same question! It seems like you're here with an agenda, which makes people react the opposite way and oppose you. You asked where you can find WP editors who will defend you: actually, that's called "meatpuppetry" and is specifically forbidden. The idea is that people will monitor new pages and AfD with an open mind and defend articles that should be defended: if you ask people for support it distorts the debate. See WP:SOCK. If you keep quiet from now on, I expect the result will be either no consensus (in which case, the article would be kept) or keep. So stop. Seriously. Mangojuice 12:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

And regarding comments like this: It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! --InShaneee 14:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No one, in the entire time I've used this site, has been civil with me. All I've ever gotten is told repeatedly that any info I add, can and will be deleted for whatever reason they can find. I'm sorry if you don't agree with that viewpoint, but that's what I've experienced. And after talking with even more users today, it's quite clear that nothing I submit will ever be accepted onto this website. JohnQ.Public 15:14, 16 October 2006

Several users have been civil...you just didn't like what they had to say. As far as your submitted content being accepted, maybe you'd have better luck if "I don't read WP:Rules, because they are generic and do not apply to every situation known to man. So don't bother quoting them. I also don't spend my life here, so things like formatting and conduct and who is in charge of what are not burned to my brain. Unless you make things simple and clear (like this site should be), I'm not going to read your opinions, warnings, or anything else you slap on here. Wikispeak is not the language of the net, nor will it ever be. Type clearly, or don't bother". wasn't the attitude you took going into the discussions. Your site may be the best out there, I don't know. You still have to follow the rules even if somehow you think you're above them. --Onorem 15:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. "You can't add that" is civil; "all these links are crap" is not. --InShaneee 15:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, but I don't spend every single day here. I'm not going to become well versed in a site that from my experience, changes their rules and stances frequently. And for your info, I have added more to this site not involving TVRage, and it's all been deleted. Like my name is on a list somewhere. Do you really think I'd be this pissed just because you won't promote a website I'm at? Guys, my mind is not going to change on this just because you pat me on the head and tell me it's all okay. It doesn't matter what I add, you people delete it. JohnQ.Public 15:33, 16 October 2006

We're not asking you to change your views on wikipedia. We're asking you to follow the rules so long as you are here. --InShaneee 15:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well with all due respect, the rules here suck. They change frequently, and without reason. And if you think I'm a liar on that one, why don't you go look at why TVRage was deleted from here twice. We were given a set of rules, twice. And they all changed, TWICE. Not to mention we were lied to by Admins... you guessed it, twice. I really don't see how you can just sit there and tell me to follow rules that change depending on which way the wind is blowing today. It's extremely unfair. And I find it funny that you didn't bother to disagree that my name is on a list, or that my non-TVRage info was unfairly removed. Just a simple "follow the rules." JohnQ.Public 15:40, 16 October 2006

I'm not sure what rules you say specifically were changed, but I'm guessing the issue may have been that you just didn't understand the rules. The only edits on regular pages not related to TVRage in your history were adding images without copyright permission. I'm sure it was nothing personal that they were removed. As far as your claim that your name is on a list, I don't know of any official lists, but you are in a bookmarked folder now on my computer. Many editors bookmark the contribution pages of people who they have seen to be disruptive and uncivil. Maybe that is the issue you were running into. --Onorem 15:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, gee, thanks. I've been reduced to being a goldfish for you to watch. I can see my degrees in Broadcasting and Journalism have paid off well in the world of Wikipedia. Do I get my own bowl, or am I sharing space with trolls and spambots? JohnQ.Public 15:55, 16 October 2006

I was just trying to give you a possible solution to your conspiracy theory. Your degrees mean nothing here. Everyone is free to contribute as long as they follow the rules, which don't change often or quickly. Which rules specifically do you claim you were lied to about and/or changed on you? I tried reading back through the AfD's, but they were kind of a tough read with all the unsigned comments and possible sockpuppetry. --Onorem 16:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic, another trait that does not carry over here. Bare with me, I'm going by memory, because it gives me a headache thinking about reading those pages. We had no hands in the puppet heads, thank you very much. The majority of the voting came from members of our site and TV.com who wanted to voice their opinion without putting their name on the line. It killed both votes because no one wanted to take us seriously, nor did they want to acknowledge the fact that the majority voted to keep (which included staff members). We were told if we made it to a certain number on Alexa we could stay. That changed. We were told we needed an article of noteability on a website not owned by us. That changed. We were told we needed to prove the relivancy of our site. That changed. Also, check the history sections. A lot of our submitted info was deleted because Admins deemed it "Not Notable." JohnQ.Public 16:19, 16 October 2006

For the record...I do think it looks like your site should be listed on Wikipedia. I also wasn't trying to suggest that your side was responsible for all the sock puppets...just that both of those AfD's were extremely hard to follow. I'm going to guess from what I have read that poor communication on the part of whoever brought up Alexa led to the confusion with that ranking. Sites don't qualify when they have an Alexa ranking of higher than 100,000. That is correct per search engine test guidelines. That is a quick criteria to check, and doesn't necessarily mean that the site has a place here as soon as it crosses that 100,000 mark. Sites in the top 100 are considered to be obviously notable. Sites in the top 1000 still often need discussions to decide whether they are or not. For everything between 1000 and 100,000...Alexa shouldn't even be brought up IMO. --Onorem 16:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was. And when it was, we pushed to improve ourselves, which we did. And then we got shot down. Very disheartening when we were told it was not to be. I had a similar discussion about this months ago with some others here. There are sites lower on the food-chain with nothing going for them that have had a page here since Day 1 and have never been deleted. Meanwhile we got something going for us that doesn't involve porn or selling turkey roasters, and we were erased as quickly as possible. And I swear, it's just people from TV.com bringing it up because we are competition. What's worse is that there's really no group, or even a couple of independent staff members who make it a point to become versed in websites to help decide what stays while remaining neutral. It's a very sketchy process that I think we've gotten the brunt end of. And don't worry, I'm not going to assume that if I can convince you we deserve to be here, you'll go fight for us. But I would like to extend appreciation for putting a fresh pair of eyes on an old argument. JohnQ.Public 17:00, 16 October 2006

[edit] 2006 10 16

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks.

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --Madchester 17:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a shock. Just as I start having a decent discussion with someone in charge, I get blocked. Great job adding the timeframe too. Heaven forbid you tell people how long they're banned for. Not to mention the obviously superb job you did at citing your sources for the block, and giving me a place to go to defend what I said. And you wonder why I have an attitude problem with the rules and the way this place is run? JohnQ.Public 18:23, 16 October 2006

I'm not sure about the reasons for your block, but at the top of your contributions, there is a link for the block log. It is a 48 hour block. --Onorem 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I just find it rather ironic that for a site so obsessed with citing sources, they didn't bother to point out where any of the "personal attacks" were. Unless there's anything else on your mind you want to discuss, I can't do much else around here for the next 2 days. --JohnQ.Public 18:37, 16 October 2006

Your block has been extended to a week for repeated personal attacks, link spamming (despite warnings about WP:SPAM and WP:EL), talk page comment/warning removal, and general assumption of bad faith. --Madchester 21:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed that material because it was 8 months old and obviously served no point since the argument was dead. Plus, IT'S MY TALK PAGE, I can add and delete what I want here since it's not a major page of Wikipedia. You're just adding material on for the sake of adding with no real point other that to prove who's in charge. How can I link spam after you already blocked me? And I'm still waiting to see all those links where you claim I made personal attacks. You're being extremely unfair and are only proving that I can't get a fair shake around here. That, or you're trying to make an example out of me, which is even worse. I'll take my suspension, but I think it's highly unfair for you to suspend me without citing examples, or allowing me to defend myself and plead my case to a group. You can assume bad faith all you want, I just wanted to help this place out while showing how good my site is. But I think it's bad faith to block someone just because they don't agree with certain ideals. That should be left for discussion, not an automatic ban. --JohnQ.Public 22:32, 16 October 2006

And I hope the people I was talking to actually come back and talk to me since I can't go talk to them on their pages. I was nice having a conversation where soneone was treating me with respect, despite my attitude toward the situation. --JohnQ.Public 22:39, 16 October 2006

[edit] Unblock Request

Madchester has no email address, so I cannot appeal the block with him. I was blocked for two days for "personal attacks" he failed to point out. Then he extended it for a week saying I was link spamming AFTER I was already blocked. Plus, time was added for removing material off of my talk page. It's MY page, I can add and delete what I want here. I saw no relivance in keeping 8 month old discussions about dead topics I could never appeal. I'm not an expert at editing here, so I don't know how to do the shole screenshot thing. All I was trying to do was improve some pages while showing our website's valuable info. I realize I have an attitude problem, but seeing how almost everything I contribute to here ends up being removed or deleted, I think I'm allowed to be a tad angry with the situation. Please, help me. --JohnQ.Public 8:37, 16 October 2006

Wikipedia prides itself, rightly or unrightly, as the "Pinnicle" of the wikiformat websites. Put simply, this is comparable to Formula One being at the absolute top of the motorsports pyramid; not only do they feel the position is self-constituted, they also feel that they have a mind-boggling degree of dignity to uphold. Whether or not someone (namely you, but anyone else either, who's not on an International Automobile Federation committee) agrees with that stance, or their very existence at all, has never been their concern: they rule their world with an iron fist...and believe in certain ways of doing things (very important point).

Wikipedia believes it sets the standards all other encyclopedic wiki live by; others can attempt to prove them wrong, and create their own way of doing things; in the end, though, Wikipedia has thus far been just what it sees itself as, the standard by which others are judged, and likely will continue to be so for a long time. In that capacity, they have had to take on a great problem regularly faced: vandals, hacks, and/or, simply put, irrational people. You, specifically, may...or may not...be one such person. If that is offensive to you or anyone else reading this, excellent: it is hoped that it will be. That fundamental offense is the foundation of whether or not one can coexist at Wikipedia: anyone might be a crank or crazy, and no sweet-talking by anyone in any universe, OTHER than the possible exception of Supreme God Almighty deciding otherwise, can change it. If you can accept that everyone is just as suspect as anyone else when their merits have not yet been shown, pro or con, then business, as it were, can be done. If not, leave: creating your own will bring less pain for everyone: you can do so at www.wikia.org.

Who is to decide what is a pro or a con on irrationality? The people who run Wikipedia. It is their ideals, their site, their vision. They want certain things in an encyclopedia, and personally own the place to make sure it is abided by. In the end, Wikipedia is a democratically-minded dictatorship: it seeks to do what is what it sees as best for all users: if all users at once, save the founders and runners of the entire programme, vote down what they see as fundamentally good habits in encyclopedia creation, they'll simply dictatorially veto them. It's their site to do so with: democratically-minded dictatorship.

Where you have a major point is on the issue of "notable" enough for their tastes. I for one don't agree with it: there is no such thing, in my mind, as notability. Reality is the only thing that matters. Others, however, believe in something called "common sense," which in my experience isn't very common, and even if it is, it's the common sense of dumb sheep and not intellectual belief: them not wanting to have exhaustive lists of everything, viable information on everything, etc., even if it is fully referenced. Considering that this is at complete odds with their founder's stated goals, I find it to be hypocritical at best and truly disgusting at worst. A very apt comparison in my mind would be to the article List of Indianapolis 500 winning car numbers, deleted for being "trivia," even though it is referencable in many locations, sites, and books. As such...if your material obeys the laws of academic referencing, and conforms to the Wikipedia encyclopedic standards, anyone who wants to delete the information for "not being important enough" should themselves be deleted by a given divine being for not being important enough themselves; who's to disagree that they don't matter in the cosmic scheme, after all?

All this is digression, though. In the end, Wikipedia can best be understood as a microcosm for the current trend of world politics: individual super-beings are almost non-existent, with most great decisions being done by the largest or most technically-advanced mobs of posters. As such, with the inherent weaknesses of human nature and close-mindedness involved...maybe the struggle to carve something noble out of Wikipedia is not for your tastes: in the end, after all, you'll receive no real reward save your own satisfaction, and like life, it can be destroyed almost without warning at a moment's notice, for no reason whatsoever. Therefore, your choice on whether to contribute is your own. --Chr.K. 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Chr.K, I'm not trying to be mean on this one, but that really looks like you C&P'd that entire paragraph. Honestly, don't look at this as me chewing you out, I'm saying this in the kindest of words I can say. I'm not trying to insult you, but from my vantage point it seriously looks rehearsed, or at least finely tuned. I can't relate to the whole comparing this site to cars and the Indi 500 thing. I do think you modified it a bit to fit my situation with the whole Notable argument, but the majority just flies over my head because it doesn't feel like you were speaking to me. More like you were addressing the situation, for a reason I can't figure out. So I appreciate you trying to help, but I don't get it.

To ЯEDVERS, thank you for reviewing the block and encouraging me to come back when it's lifted, but I don't think I can submit anything here without people treating me like a special case from now on. I get the distinct impression that once ban is lifted, someones just going to be watching my name 24/7 and deleting anything I submit for the next year or so, no matter how important or irrelevant the info is. Some people are already watching me at TVRage to look for more reasons to ban me or more material they should look for to delete (you're not the only website with an IP tracker). So with that in mind, please respectfully answer me this one question: Why should I submit info to a website filled with people who are going to be told to delete on sight?

As for the rest, I don't need any more speeches. I just want some decent conversation. Preferrably about TVRage and it's past problems getting on here, or say something of interest you'd like to ask me. --JohnQ.Public 5:17, 19 October 2006

[edit] Thinks to do on Wikipedia when you're not on Wikipedia

With several thousand permanently blocked users, many hundred often blocked users and even a good percentage of admins with blocks they got before they got the mop and after, I'm pretty confident that nobody will hold a little block against you and judge you for it.

Of course, if you make personal attacks, linkspam or are incivil, then, yes, you will be judged because of your previous block. You would be blocked for this anyway, but doing so after being blocked for it recently would likely double the block you would have been given.

But, if you're not planning to make personal attacks, linkspam or be incivil, then you wouldn't get blocked anyway.

You do have the right to vanish on Wikipedia, and that includes dropping this account and starting a new one (after the block on the old one has finished). It's easy to do and leaves footprints that Wikipedia can see but very firmly chooses not to. In fact, it's quite important to us that we don't see it - we tie ourselves in knots avoiding doing so quite often.

So, your contributions will indeed be welcome and accepted without prejudice if you continue to edit after your block has expired. You contributions will be welcome if you edit under a new name after your block has expired. The only time that, potentially, we won't welcome contributions from you is during the block.

But your current user page, which effectively says you don't care about our rules and how they don't apply to you... well, keep that if you must - but you've already discovered that our rules do apply to you and, having been blocked, it would appear you do care about them. Wikipedia is not anarchy, to quote a rule at you. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)