User talk:Kamylienne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Kamylienne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

I was wondering when someone would start an RIA page. Antandrus (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rateitall

There were a couple problems. Initially the article suffered seriously from sourcing issues as well as point of view issues. Genghis has claimed to be neutral but I've already found statements of him expressing anything but neutrality in regards to the article. The second problem was a lack of sources establishing notability. Had the ABC interview been provided earlier, it would have been easier to realize that. I'm comment here because the afd is becoming a mess to read and I've withdrawn the nomination since the appropriate sources were provided.--Crossmr 04:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Response: Thank you for responding; I don't know how to respond to you directly (again, I'm a stumbling newbie, and figuring out the whole system is still very cryptic to me), so I'll do so here. Genghis and I both have been using RateItAll for some time now, so I understand it may be difficult for us to write in a neutral manner (I've avoided doing so only because I've only added that little box-thingy on the side. Hard to make that biased, though I'm sure it could be done). Even so, I think with a good run of editing it could work. As far as sourcing goes, I do agree with the complaint about the lack of hardcore sources; I hardly trust anything on the internet to be a legitimate "source" of any information that has a ".com" on the end of it, but I found that the sources listed on articles on similar webpages to list similar sources, or even sources that are downright unacceptable in my eyes (with regards to legitimacy). As someone who clearly has Wikipedia's best interests in mind, I would sincerely like to ask for your help on how to make this article up to par (which, as an admittedly hard-headed person who hates asking for help as I am, takes a lot for me to ask). Kamylienne 04:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)kamylienneKamylienne 04:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That is why I linked to several of the relevant policies on the talk page, but it seemed like Genghis was just ignoring them and continuing along with whatever he wanted. When I failed to see the proper sources that is why I went ahead with the AfD. I googled it and went through every unique source and certainly didn't see notability within that, unfortunately that ABC source didn't show up. One key to remember is to write facts. Don't editorialize. Make sure you read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and make sure you understand them and how they apply. if you have any specific questions feel free to ask.--Crossmr 05:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That edit summary should have read "lacks sources". labeling something criticism and not providing sources, and using weasel words isn't the way to write criticism. Every piece of criticism in an article needs to come from a reliable source (i.e. reputable web articles, news articles, review articles, etc). Taking a fact like "Alexa gives the site a slow rating" and translating that into a "criticism" is an original research issue, where you've taken a fact and analyzed it to make a judgment of that fact.--Crossmr 15:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
First off, in response to your first sentence above, that was highly uncalled for. I'll be more than happy and encourage any help in this, but there is absolutely no need to be smug. After reading the link you've provided, I do agree that it would fall under the "weasel" category; however, due to the nature of criticisms, criticisms ARE subjective. But, I don't believe Alexa's rating of "slow" for the site is a matter of "analyzing it as a criticism" so much as it is a legitimate point brought up by a source who routinely rates websites in that fashion. Another problem with locating the source of the criticisms is that a lot of this information from personal experience and being part of the debates that I have written about (I would imagine your standards have little room for citation from heated arguments back and forth on blogs and private messages). If you have anything constructive to add, I would be quite happy to accomodate. Kamylienne 15:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)kamylienneKamylienne 15:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Criticisms may be subjective, but they still require a reliable source to both label them a negative, and of course to even make the information itself usable in an article. Personal experiences which are not duplicated by a reliable source fall under WP:NPOV see undue weight and WP:OR. Every thing on wikipedia requires sources which is one of the big problems with the articles. Your personal experiences, while important to you, are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards, and not a basis for article content. Whether you find that smug or not, thats the way articles work on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a primary source and as such an editor relating their personal issues with a subject just isn't acceptable. Creating a criticism based on your experience, or things you've read on a forum, or from talking to people just doesn't work, same with any other information. If you wanted to add something like "The founder was at my house on Friday and said he was selling the site" true or not, unless thats reported by a reliable source, it can't be used. The Alexa speed rating, while true, doesn't support your criticism of it. You've labeled it RateitAll's biggest criticism, says who? You've also reported a remedy of them adding another server this month, source? You can say that Alexa ranks their site speed as slow, but you can't label it their biggest criticism, or report on their solution to that without providing sources for that opinion and information.--Crossmr 17:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, what was "smug" about your comment was your initial sentence, "That edit summary should have read "lacks sources"." I agree with most of your objections, but it's certainly hard to take your commentary seriously with that tone. If you are sincerely attempting to help improve the article (which I would certainly welcome), I guarantee you I would be much more receptive to it without the sarcasm. I will be more than happy to edit the content to reflect sources, but I would highly appreciate commentary at a more professional level. --kamylienne
There was no sarcasm intended. If you went back and checked, I had accidentally typed "lacks criticism" in the edit summary. I was simply correcting what my intended message was there as it would have no doubt lead to confusion when you read it.--Crossmr 02:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps I should suggest that you reduce any ambiguity from your statements; "That edit summary" (in your statement "That edit summary should have read "lacks sources",") can refer to ANY "edit summary" when there is no previous notation on what you're referring to. It would greatly decrease any room for misinterpretation. --kamylienne