User talk:Lerner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] To Klaw regarding AfD

Please explain in detail why the GHava article does not meet the criteria in your opinion? From my research it seems that it is completely suitable for a listing here. Im not sure what you are talking about regarding vandalism. I have not edited anything but my own entries nor have any of my colleagues been involved in this discussion as of yet.

Please do not delete this article. There are tons of articles on GH collaborators listed on Wikipedia that discuss projects in which GH has been involved in creatively. I am in the process of adding more information discussing the art exhibitions GH has been involved with domestically as well as internationally.

On a separate note, there is an article about The Designers Republic here. Why is the GH one being marked for deletion? GH is the same type of collective and have collaborated with many of the same people. This is not making any logical sense.'--lerner

  • Looks like the situation may be out of my hands now. Nothing seems to make any logical sense anymore. Thanks for your message. -- JJay 01:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Designers Republic

You expressed some concerns about The Designers Republic. Here is a link to Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), and here is the Guide to deletion. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I think you misunderstood what I wrote. By no means am I interested in deleting TDR. That would be like deleting a contemporary Saul Bass listing. An article about TDR should be on this site as well as one about GHava. That's the point you seemed to have missed. There has not been one helpful person in this process who has explicitly described why a GH article should not be on here. Klaw keeps pointing me to the "Wikipedia standards". As I stated above from reading those documents I see absolutely no reason why it should not be on here.
Klaw is making accusations regarding vandalism that my group has absolutely nothing to do with. He seems to have some sort of vendetta against us for a reason unknown to me. As you can see he is the person that marked the article for deletion probably 5 minutes after it was created. I really do not think that I should be penalized for someone else's vandalism.
I am in the process of adding to and linking further information to the article. This whole process started because I noticed that there are quite a few articles about GH's collaborative projects with other artists on Wikipedia already and I felt that it was appropriate for information about GH to be accessible for people that are researching those endeavors. There has been quite a lot of press, books, discussions, and college level papers written about the artwork that GH creates. Please see the article for links to some notable ones.

Any help you can offer would really be appreciated. --lerner

[edit] AfD

As I said, I'll keep my eye out. Looking forward to a reason to change my vote.--SarekOfVulcan 23:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging entries

Please stop labelling "delete" votes on the AfD on the article you wrote as sock puppets. I'll take care of tagging unsigned entries, but sock puppet has a specific meaning, available at WP:SOCK. In addition, you tagged one delete vote with this line:
:* User's first edit and is not signed. possible sock puppetLerner 21:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It was not the user's first edit, and it's clearly not a sock puppet. Deliberately mislabeling opposing votes is not acceptable. Please just let the AfD process run its natural course. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

it was definitely unsigned and it happens to be you that is being the vandal here. see the below link to history. STOP editing the AfD page, it's outright vandalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GH_avisualagency™&diff=31391556&oldid=31391419 Lerner 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I never said the post wasn't unsigned. But there's a way to tag unsigned votes rather than just saying "vote is unsigned." As soon as I saw the unsigned vote, I tagged it according to the procedure. You tagged it as a "first edit," which it wasn't. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

the unsigned entries should be edited by the people that are making the posts and not by KLAW.

regarding if it was the user's first post or not, as far as i could see, due to the fact that it was unsigned it was not apparent whether or not it was a first time user. the real issue is that you are editing other users' posts and this is a violation of the rules here.

you deleted this because you assumed it was a sock puppet. you are completely wrong.

208.27.111.121is the same user as Mrethan

NOT 207.237.118.48, as KLAW claims it is.

compare

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GH_avisualagency™&diff=31655489&oldid=31655443

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GH_avisualagency™&diff=31391556&oldid=31391419

and you will see that they are the same user who signed in later as Mrethan. KLAW clearly vandalised that vote and deleted it, forcing the user to have to post it again.

KLAW needs to stop accusing all the new users of being sockpuppets as this has absolutely no evidence to prove this. all of the IPs are different, with the exception of one. for someone who has only been on wikipedia a year himself so i am shocked that he keeps on insulting all the new users in this very abrasive manner. new users are integral to the life of wikipedia as it is a community based system and not a dictatorship under the rule of KLAW.Lerner 23:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meatpuppets

Hi, regarding the accusations of sockpuppetry, I suggest you read this Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Sock puppet#Meatpuppets. I am currently investigating the other accusations. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, according to the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion, user comments should not be deleted unless they are patently personal attacks or banned users. Therefore, if User:Keithlaw deleted comments, it should be revert. Please do not revert yourself though. I am currently investigating the edits which Keithlaw calls vandalism (he may very well be right). — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have read above articles and understand completely. Yes they are newbies, but is it not harassment on the part of KLAW to be constantly accusing every KEEP vote on the discussion as being a sockpuppet? it is clearly evident from the different IPs that they are not. could you please tell me how i can stop him stop doing this? Don't Bite the newbiesLerner 22:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • please see above discussion re: tagging entries. Lerner 23:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] APOLOGY TO LERNER

i will outright confess that i made a mistake and accidentally erased some things while i was trying to post and also while i was trying to send klaw a message, which i could not due to his tattletailing. i have paid my penance of suspension and feel that it is not right of klaw to persist in wrongly accusing lerner. it's taking me a little while to figure out how to use all the functions properly. as i've said before i've used it for information since it's inception but have not felt a need to comment until now. the instant i saw that the article was nominated for deletion, i tried to comment, albeit rather clumsily. as an ardent worshipper of art and all things creative, i have followed the work of GH and am aware that they are a very vital force in the up and coming art scene. unfortunately it appears that klaw has let a personal vendetta against me blind him from that fact. i am NOT a sock/meatpuppet. my contributions on here are just as valid as klaw's. just because he added something to the whitesnake article does NOT grant him seniority status on wikipedia. As it expressly states on here:

"Unlike other encyclopedias, the volunteer writers of articles in Wikipedia need not be experts or scholars (though some of them certainly are). They can be anyone, even you! Volunteers do not need to go through any formal process before creating an article or editing an existing article. Many people have created or edited articles in the Wikipedia. They come from countries around the world and are of all ages and backgrounds. Anyone who contributes to this encyclopedia is called a Wikipedian."

Inspectorpanther 18:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I appreciate your effort to apologize, but, you totally incited a massive witch-hunt against me by Klaw. This has only made it way more difficult for the GH article to be included here. Please try to be more careful with your editing in the future. Lerner 18:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence and Facts

Below is research I found which pertains to the grounds for inclusion on Wikipedia:

  • Welcome to Wikipedia
  • "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
  • "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers."
  • "Unlike other encyclopedias, the volunteer writers of articles in Wikipedia need not be experts or scholars (though some of them certainly are). They can be anyone, even you!"
  • "Anyone who contributes to this encyclopedia is called a Wikipedian."
  • Wikipedians are the people who write and edit articles for Wikipedia.
  • "The ending of Wikipedian, though, suggests being part of a group or community. So in this sense, Wikipedians are people who form The Wikipedia Community."
  • Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines
"This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy.
" The terms: vanity article and/or vanity information are amorphous constructs and it is therefore difficult to develop an concise list of criteria for the easy black-or-white diagnosis for these types of concerns. In most cases a vanity intent of the writer can be fairly easily deduced from the general tone or content of the article or information.
"Most often, vanity edits are edits about the editors themselves, their close relatives or their personal associates. While an article about a little-known company, say, should not automatically be taken as a vanity article, it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner or employee of or an investor in the company; likewise, an article about a little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, a member, or a manager, roadie, groupie, etc. Articles on very little-known subjects are often of debatable value for our readers, so if you write a new article on one it is particularly important to express the facts in a neutral way and as much as possible to cite sources that are credible, neutral, and independent. "

[edit] note:

  • "it is preferable", not policy
  • sources have been cited that are creditable and neutral and independent.
  • "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion"

"Many Wikipedians do not consider importance a necessary qualification - see the poll Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance which failed to win consensus, and especially Jimbo's vote where he explains why the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is sufficient. However, verifiable articles continue to be submitted to Articles for Deletion."

[edit] note:

  • "Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research."
This has been done for the article written on GH avisualagency

Lerner 23:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets are bad

"Unfortunately, (vandalism aside) such cases are notoriously hard to distinguish from good-faith contributors writing their first article or from anonymous users who finally decide to log in. If someone does point out your light contribution history, please take it in the spirit it was intended - a fact to be weighed by the closing admin, not an attack on the person."
"Because of our past problems, opinions offered by new or anonymous users are often met with suspicion and may be discounted during the closing process. This decision is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments. In practice, civil comments and logical arguments are often given the benefit of doubt while hostile comments are presumed to be bad-faith. Please note that verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process."

[edit] note:

  • From what I can find in my research, a discussion regarding whether or not a collective of artists that practices both fine art and commercial art seems to have 'never been a topic of discussion on Wikipedia. From day one of the GH article's addition to wikipedia the debate over inclusion has created a need for a new category on wikipedia to reflect groups which are similar to GH avisualagency in their collaborative and artistic structure.
  • I honestly believe that an unbiased decision in the voting process would mean that there is already an existing wikipedia community of individuals that practice both fine art and commercial art. It is true that the posting on newstoday.com brought to Wikipedia an influx of this type of user. As evidenced by the fact that these new users voted both to DELETE as well as to KEEP, we can see that this was unbiased and thus discredits the accusations of meat/sockpuppetry leading to an unfair vote.
  • There are legitimate votes that have been made in good faith which have been discredited on these grounds and taking the above in to consideration

Lerner 03:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To AmbushCommander

Regarding your comment, " That reason is notability. Back up your claims that GH is a 'creatively influential design organization' with fact."

GH is currently in the process of creating artwork that will be displayed wrapping around the entire facade of the MTV building in Times Sq, which spans the whole city block. This will remain up for an entire year. How can these types of influential projects be added to the article without sounding like advertisement?

Your comments and suggestions towards this debate have been very helpful. Any suggestions you can offer up as to what can be construed as influential without being self-promotional would be greatly appricated. Thank you. Lerner 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds quite influential. As long as you can cite a reputable source that claims that this is happening, I see no problem with putting it in.
I would also try writing about the history of the group, and with the list of links to libraries, linking to their respective Wikipedia articles. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Everyone

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE ENACTMENT OF "HOW TO STEAM ROLL VOTES AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE".

LONG LIVE ZORDRAC!!!

Lerner 18:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to join WikiProject Graffiti

Hello, thank you for your recent contributions to an article relating to Graffiti or Graffiti culture. WikiProject Graffiti is a dedicated group of people working to better Wikipedia's coverage of topics relating to Graffiti. We would greatly value your joining our WikiProject, or adding some input at our talk page.

Regards, Dfrg.msc 07:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for joining, it'll be good to see you around, we need all the help we can get. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of museums and galleries in Second Life

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article List of museums and galleries in Second Life, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Marasmusine 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that the article at this point in time should not be included in Wikipedia and it is now located in its proper place on the SL History Wiki

Lerner 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)