User talk:SteveCoppock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Why no list of nominees? 2 Your User Page 3 Speedy deletion of Too Much Information (web comic) 4 Kiarostami

[edit] Why no list of nominees?

I find it surprising that neither here, nor on the pages for the individual years is there a list of nominees. For that one must look up each individual award category. Seems very strange that someone can't simply easily find a master list for each year. SteveCoppock (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that what you mention is actually a work in progress. See, for example, 79th Academy Awards nominees and winners. It seems that some years / ceremonies have similar Wikipedia pages, and some do not (as of yet). In fact, at the very bottom of that page (79th Academy Awards nominees and winners), there is a box entitled "Academy Award Nominees and Winners by Year". This box indicates that Wikipedia pages exist for 1927/28 through 1931/32 ... and for 1994 through 2006. All of the years / ceremonies from 1932/33 through 1993 are still missing Wikipedia pages (with the exception of 1985). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

Yet the individual years already have their own articles, yet for some bizarre reason only the winners are listed. Why start another series of articles when it would be much easier to simply expand those articles to include the information. You have to assume the vast majority of those who look up individual years are doing so to find both the winners and nominees. I wrote this after just such has happened to me 3 times in the last year. I finally gave up the other times and simply went to the Academy's website. SteveCoppock (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Are we in any way communicating here about the same thing? I just checked literally each and every one of the 18 articles that I mentioned in the post above. Every single one of them lists both the winners and the nominees for the given year's ceremony. In fact, the very names of the articles in question are 79th (or whichever number) Academy Awards nominees and winners. So, are you sure that you are checking the correct pages? I am stumped by your question. Please clarify. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

Hi. You never got back to me about the above issue. Please reply at my Talk Page, if possible. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Your User Page

Hello. As I was leaving the above message about the Academy Awards, I came across and read your User Page. You made the following statement: "First Do No Harm/What Does It Hurt becomes the Wikipedia standard - to me the thing I loved about Wikipedia was that it had a laid back, sure-we-have-an-article-on-that attitude. Too many people are getting too literal about the whole "Is it encyclopedic?" thing. Hello - your handle is "DarthLives!" and you are editing an article about an episode of a sitcom."

I had to laugh, particularly at your last sentence there ... the Darth user name and the sitcom editing references. How very true! Sometimes, on Wikipedia, some editors take this way too seriously. And, as your post there pointed out, they really miss seeing things in any perspective ... they miss seeing the larger picture. That being said, your very liberal "Keep It In As Long As Nobody Is Being Hurt By It" policy would also have problems of its own. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry would add every useless "fact" (using that term very loosely) to Wikipedia ... and thus rendering its credibility and its usability essentially null and void. No? For example (hypothetically) ... it may be a fact that Tom Cruise likes to watch Saturday Night Live (who cares?) or that Donald Trump was born on a Wednesday evening with a full moon (who cares?) ... and, yet, both of these facts do no harm. But, we also would not want Wikipedia to deteriorate to providing this level of "information" (as it were), would we? Thanks. If you want to, please reply at my Talk Page ---> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

You write: I had to laugh, particularly at your last sentence there ... the Darth user name and the sitcom editing references. How very true! Sometimes, on Wikipedia, some editors take this way too seriously. And, as your post there pointed out, they really miss seeing things in any perspective ... they miss seeing the larger picture. That being said, your very liberal "Keep It In As Long As Nobody Is Being Hurt By It" policy would also have problems of its own. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry would add every useless "fact" (using that term very loosely) to Wikipedia ... and thus rendering its credibility and its usability essentially null and void. No? For example (hypothetically) ... it may be a fact that Tom Cruise likes to watch Saturday Night Live (who cares?) or that Donald Trump was born on a Wednesday evening with a full moon (who cares?) ... and, yet, both of these facts do no harm. But, we also would not want Wikipedia to deteriorate to providing this level of "information" (as it were), would we?

Yet that isn't what I wrote. I didn't write "fact," I wrote "article." And there is a rather large gulf of difference between the two (although trivia sections is another topic I have some suggestions for). I'm talking about people who expend an incredible amount of energy "proving" that there doesn't need to be an article about "Han Shot First" even after others have spent much time providing the documentation that it is indeed noteworthy. Pretty much half of Wikipedia would disappear if their criteria for inclusion was followed to the letter. These folks seem personally injured by these articles, yet only someone looking for them will even be aware that they exist on Wikipedia for the most part. That to me is the beauty of the thing. SteveCoppock (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry I had not gotten back to you sooner. Was busy with Holidays, etc. Thanks for the reply (above) ... and, yes, I see your point and pretty much agree with it. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Speedy deletion of Too Much Information (web comic)

A tag has been placed on Too Much Information (web comic) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kiarostami

I hope that you are not prescribing what I may or may not write on a talk page; you must have realised that I have not contributed to the contents of Kiarostami's entry, barring some references. What I wrote about Kiarostami's Persian Carpet, was mainly aimed at those who have the tendency to remove links as soon as they see one. Kind regards, --BF 23:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear SteveCoppock, there is now a discussion going on here: [1]. You might like to let your voice heard. Kind regards, --BF 21:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear SteveCoppock, thanks for your comment which I just saw. One thing, your statement is somewhat ambiguous, as "your" in your text can refer to both me and User:Gprince007; only reading your text until the end makes clear to whom your "your" actually refers. Could you please be more explicit? Thanks. With kind regards, --BF 22:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. For your information, I am not seeing the issue really as a battle and do not mind to loose, if that is the term. I only abhor the attitude that has led to all this and will want to send a clear signal that a community that is dominated by vigilantes can never be a good and healthy one. Despite my repeated pleas, the person in question has never said why I should accept her or his assertion. Now s/he is complaining why I told that s/he showed signs of obsession, as if I made it all up for fun. Kind regards, --BF 23:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)