User talk:Joseane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1

[edit] Talk page archiving

The guide to talk page archiving is here.--chaser - t 02:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tondino has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Institutional Critique, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for leaving a note in my talk page. I have a problem though. I have made a few contributions over the last few years, some of which were deleted as neologisms and some others that were deleted because they represented more obscure artists - apparently this is a huge problem for the "notability police". The comment on the talk page is negative - I do not see the point of leaving non-notable opinions that could ultimately damage the careers of living people. It is one thing suggesting we remove something from wikipedia and quite another leaving statements (like the one in the Institutional Critique talk page) that also happen to border on slander. What do you think?Joseane (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I believe you are referring to this edit that you made. My thoughts are that an opinion is not slander and that changing another editor's comments to alter their meaning is not acceptable. If you disagree with another editor you should offer a civil rebuttal. As for the issues you raise with the notability guidelines, you might want to look in at new pages patrol and see just how many obviously non-notable articles are created and deleted every single day. The rules for an obscure artist can not in all fairness be different from those of an obscure garage band. Article creators need to verify their subjects' notability by including citations to reliable sources that aren't directly related to the subject. I hope this addresses your concerns, please feel free to contact me with any more questions you may have. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, this is the kind of response I have seen before. Apparently, it is all clear in the guidelines. The point I am making is, the artist in question is not notable enough to be included however, the talk page that makes negative claims regarding the artist is "notable". The garage bands you mention as an example go down in history as not notable because, well somebody said so. This just does not work.Joseane (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. You're correct, it is indeed clearly explained in the guidelines and policies. The three most important policies regarding the content of articles are No original research, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability. We need to have policies such as these or the encyclopedia would very quickly turn into a collection of high school student autobiographies, pet memorials, and spam advertising. The standard for the contents of talk pages is delineated at Talk page guidelines. In the particular case at hand the other editor was stating his opinion about the content of the article. In paraphrase he said that addition of a particular artist was argumentative, that the artist wasn't well-known and wasn't listed in the sources cited on the page and that he thought the mention of the artist should be removed. That's not slanderous (or libelous), he stated his opinion on the effects of the listing on the article and on how well-known the person is and the fact that he's not listed in the sources. Wouldn't you agree that the Big Brotheresque re-writing the other editor's opinion to change the meaning is out-of-line? When I've removed clearly defamatory material in the past, if it wasn't the case that the whole post was reverted with a proper notation in the edit summary, I've made it obvious that someone other than the original editor has changed the contents- usually by replacing the offensive section with a note such as [defamatory material removed —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)]. Again, believe it or not, this is actually explained in the guidelines. I really suggest you follow the links I and others have provided for you so you can read how we do things around here, it will really make your time much easier. Again, feel free to ask me if you have any more questions. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if you're still watching this but I can't say I really agree with much of what you've written. Policies, guidelines and laws are never clear. They are always subject to interpretation, not to mention gastronomic jurisprudence. If your views were true the world would be a much happier place. We'd all agree about what "laws" mean and everything would be fair.

I made and error by entering the artist's name in the article on institutional critique. Nevertheless, what is on the discussion page regarding the artist is negative. It claims the artist is not notable which for any artist, you must agree, cannot be a good thing. It doesn't matter that there is a jargonesque definition and criteria in wikipedia. To anyone who googles that artist - it's negative. So. it is not big brotheresque for me to remove the reference in the discussion.

You're understanding of Orwell misses the most profound element of his work. So, maybe you can "look him up".Joseane (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)