User talk:Miro.gal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
I moved your intro to your user page. I hope you don't mind. - CobaltBlueTony 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] International Institute of Management
Miro.gal, I thought I'd leave a comment regarding the article which I noticed was nominated for deletion. I have noticed you've made multiple pleas to people to "save" the article.
There is no individual who is going to make that decision. It is a community decision, you might call it groupthink. Therefore, the appeals to administrators are probably misdirected, and you'll see this pretty soon if you look at the results of other articles that have been AfD'd as well. Appealing to the administrators is like asking the local printing press to stop printing blank speeding ticket booklets because the cops have been giving unfair citations - the request isn't compatible with how things really work, even if on the surface, it seems like a simple solution to an apparent problem.
I am not saying it is necessarily right or fair. But I can provide the following bit of advice that may explain why the delete votes are getting piled on. Wikipedia is inundated constantly with people trying to promote their own stuff. I would say daily, but it is truly constant - there are 1,440 minutes in a day, and there's a spammer spamming Wikipedia within every one of those minutes. I am not saying you are a spammer, but a common characteristic of spammers and self-promoters is that they create articles related their organization as their first and only creations. That fact alone is going to be setting off spam radar, before anything else is considered. I'm not saying IIM is non-notable, but for people to accept it as a creation from a newly-created account, it's going to have to be about as notable as the Red Cross, or as well known as chocolate. Another thing is that with all due respect, is that from my subjective intution, the IIM article reads like something that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. That is something I can't concisely explain other than to say you will only come to sense when you've seen hundreds or thousands of articles.
Another thing is that real spammers are experts at creating numerous large web sites to make themselves look big, so when you provide lots of links, they don't get very much weight. The kind of link that does carry a huge amount of weight however, would be two or three links from a newspaper or a news TV station web site that essentially says the same thing you want to say. Most people on Wikipedia feel that if the news can report on it, so can Wikipedia (though two or more independent sources are vital - there is a huge difference between one source and more than one source).
I am one of the few I believe will admit that it almost seems like a "big boys club" - as though the people who have been around here longer can do as they please, and newcomers who create an article will fight an uphill battle to even keep it in existence. It seems totally not fair that they say for everyone to be WP:BOLD, but that somehow some people are entitled to be bolder than others. However, the only other thing I can say is that if you stick around here long enough, you'll get sucked into believing that it's the only way it can work - and only because you'll be rolling your eyes at what you see appear on here daily.
If you continue to edit articles for several months, and then were to recreate the exact same article, maybe it'd stick and maybe it wouldn't. But it probably would - not just because people wouldn't see you as a newbie, but also that you'll have a sense of what to put in a "keeper" article, and what to avoid to set off people's spam radar.
Good luck to you, and hope that you have a positive experience editing Wikipedia. Reswobslc 19:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for your input
Hi Reswolbslc, although you said that your initial feeling is to support the delete vote, from the way your wrote your response I can see that you are fair and open minded. I kindly request you to read my last comments in details at this article's entry and help in resolving the dispute. If you still advice against keeping it, then I will let it go. If you think it deserves a chance or requires more information then I will keep trying. Miro.gal
- I am pretty much powerless there. The most I can do is put a "Keep" vote, which won't mean much in the face of countless mounting Deletes. I am only one person. Basically, the page you've created meets most people's criteria for deletion, whether or not it's fair. Since I was new recently enough myself (you can look at the very beginning of my edit history to see how I created articles only to have them kindly deleted, as well as argued for the keep of pages I couldn't understand why they were being deleted), I thought I'd write you so that you'll be less inclined to feel that Wikipedia is a bunch of raving snobby wolves that seek to delete anything they haven't heard of. I personally would welcome you to recreate the page after a month or two of editing other articles, and while I'm only one person who can't dictate its success or failure, I can express confidence that you'll be able to create a page that people won't object to. Reswobslc 21:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Every Keep Vote counts, please help, I have added comments that supports the keep vote and I got strong keep vote from Ephilei Miro.gal
[edit] IIM vote
No problem. Happy to help. --Ephilei 23:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Discussion on the article takes place for 7 days total and then an admin will take action based on the consensus. In this case of about 3-6, I'm not sure if that's considered consensus. Remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so the votes don't really mean anything except reflect people's thoughts. All you can do now is find other users to support it (have you posted it on the Assoc Inclusionists?) and continually stress that nn is not an official reason for deletion. That scares people off pretty well. However, don't get into nitty debates about deleting - it makes you and the article look alone and desperate.
I too was once extremely discouraged by deletionists. I nearly left WP until I discovered the Association for Inclusionists. If you want to help inclusionism, there are several things to do:
- Help edit WP:NNOT - a proposal to eliminate deletions based on nn status
- Patrol Articles for Deletion and voice the inclusionist opinion where appropriate
- Revitalize the Association of Inclusionists. The group is pretty dorment now and needs constant upkeep in order to function at good capacity. A great addition would be posting links to AfD articles that inclusionists should vote on. (The AfD list is HUGE and the vast majority don't relate to inclusionism). I once tried this, but was too much work than I had time for.
--Ephilei 04:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seeking out votes is against the rules!
In regards to recruting over 20+ people to vote keep, it is against the rules.
It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. The arrival of multiple newcomers, with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints arriving in order to present those viewpoints, rarely helps achieve neutrality and most times actively damages it, no matter what one might think. Wikipedia is not a place for mixing fact and opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion. Controversial articles often need more familiarity with policy to be well edited, not less. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is not to solicit others outside Wikipedia. Instead, avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are quite well tested processes, and are designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.
[1] Nickieee 08:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. Miro.gal, I've reverted your canvassing. Let me know if I missed any or if I accidentally reverted a non-canvassing message. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-13 09:01Z
Miro, are you Med Younes? Nickieee 20:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation Cabal?
[edit] Don't be discouraged
No matter what the result of the IIM article is, keep on going with wikipedia. A while ago I was also enraged by a lack of reason by deletionists trying to delete an article of mine. Keep on going with other projects. --Daniel Olsen 18:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment on deletion
I am not a blanket inclusionist or deletionist. I sincerely try to examine each entry carefully to see if it really does deserve inclusion, and if it needs more. Your article seems to merit deletion based on a crucial factor: its presence in material outside of its own web presence. Anyone can promote their organization online, but it is the reaction and observation by others that indicates its notability. It is the failure of independent corroboration, specifically incidental mentions in the press or in other non-related websites, that makes its true notability suspect.
From my own web searches on the name, and on one of its leading participants, Bruce LaRue, it seems to be that there is an extensive amount of self-promotion going on. They are obviously making money on both the satisfaction of their customers and the mere appearance of such. What they offer in terms of the educational and viability of their product does not seem notable in that it also does not stand out in any web searches. I don't see them as charlatains as such, but they do rely on the businessy sound of their presentations, which seems to be filled with alot of synthesized buzzwords, unique to their own particular program or not.
The bottom line is, how is the subject regarded outside of its immediate circle. What you have failed to do is present that information. Who else talks about them? What famous people or institutions have benefitted from their classes/methods? This information has to come right out of the mouths of others, and cannot simply be self-inferred or claimed. Wikipedia does not engage in original research, and because of this, it collects and presents information already present in secondary sources.
In short, IIM has failed to be extensively referenced by corroborating secondary sources, so I have to agree with the deletionists on this one. I hope I have provided enough succinct examination for you to understand the reasoning behind this, that it is not arbitrary, and is based on well-founded and long-established academic criteria for encyclopedic material. This is not to say that the required information does not exist; it just means that the burden of proof is on you to establish sufficient proof for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Keep on trying, and persist in your research; they need not be online materials, just verifiable sources. Even if you do not succeed in this articular issue, please continue to utilize such steadfastness in finding new topics and imporvements for old ones. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 04:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AfD on IIM has been closed as delete
I have closed the IIM AfD as delete. I worked on the closure for >2 hours and produced a full rationale behind my decision at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/International Institute of Management. I'd like to further agree with Cobaltbluetony's words above. Also, I'd like to heartily agree that this one debate should not be taken as a reason to condemn Wikipedia. Nothing is perfect, and Wikipedia is not immune to that maxim. Keep contributing. Please. All the best, --Durin 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hard Luck
Please don't give up on Wikipedia though. We have all had experiences in which the actions of a few editors has turned us against Wikipedia for a while, but such editors are a minority. You can make hundreds of edits without any conflicts and then suddenly you will come up against someone with a personal grudge, as it appears you did it during the course of the debate. Just remember why you wanted to contribute to Wikipedia in the first place and continue with it. The admin who decided did make a fairly well reasoned decision, so hopefully you can at least partially understand his motivations. My only criticism of him would be that his arguments were sufficiently disjoint from those used during the discussion to make it marginally unfair that you did not have the chance to respond to them. No process is perfect though so it is unwise to dwell on it. In a year or so when the IIM is more widely known and when you have passed from under the new user radar, there is a good chance that you will be able to create this page and have it remain.
Best of luck, --cfp 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Rather, the discussion at the AfD was disjointed from the basis on which we need to consider deletion consensus :) Somebody had to make a call. I made it. There's always Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Durin 15:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your message to me was deleted
In looking at the history of my own talk page I stumbled upon your message, which I never knew about, as I had not logged in before it was deleted by some user I have never encountered before. I just posted a message to his talk page asking if this was appropriate, and I wanted to let you know as well what happened. I certainly didn't mean to ignore your request and I hope you will make them to me again when justified. Charles Douglas 08:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
