User talk:Trekerboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Zeitgeist

(Copied from User talk:DESiegel):

Why did you delete the talk page of Zeitgeist the movie? --Trekerboy

Because the page Zeitgeist the movie had already been deleted, and after a look at it I saw no reason to challenge that deletion. Therefore WP:CSD#G8 (talk pages of nonexistent or deleted pages) applied. If we are not going to have an article Zeitgeist the movie, there is no good reason to have Talk:Zeitgeist the movie. If you think that Zeitgeist the movie was deleted improperly, take it up with the deleting admin, or got to deletion review. i don't think that many will agree with you, but i could be wrong, i have been before. DES ^(talk) 18:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't agree with the deletion of Zeitgeist the Movie please bring it up at deletion review as DES suggested. Don't make complaints on other articles as you did at Zeitgeist (disambiguation) - it looks like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and could be regarded as vandalism. Iain99 18:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the information. I have already done as you suggested (multiple times). But thanks for the information, I will reform my entry on the page to make it meet up with wikipedia standards. --Trekerboy 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The deleted article was rescued and moved to Wikia, http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:Filmguide:Zeitgeist , so can you put out the word to the Zeitgeist warriors, so they can stop trying to slip it into Wikipedia? It has been deemed inappropriate for WP, but it is welcome on Wikia. - Crockspot 19:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist warriors? I have no idea who they would be, but if you know of such a community please let me know, I'd love to connect with some of them. Crockspot, I have been inquiring all over wikipedia why this article was "deemed inappropriate for WP". The reasons cited, such as "not notable" and "It is an article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. (CSD A7)" are completely untrue. The notability of this documentary is clear if by nothing else the deletion review discussion [1]. Further, to say that the article is about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject suggests that the person who deleted the article didn't even know that it was/is a full length documentary. The article was not about a a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content, it was about a documentary. I feel very strongly that this article is being censored which is EXACTLY what wikipedia is supposed to be against. --Trekerboy 19:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Google videos hardly reach the requirements of "notable documentaries." -WarthogDemon 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the first time I saw this movie it was being presented at the University of Michigan. Additionally, I also have a DVD of the documentary, so I continue to assert that this article is at the very least "notable". --Trekerboy 19:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's on dvd doesn't mean it's notable. I have a dvd of my friend's pictures of his daughter. Does that mean that deserves an article too? -WarthogDemon 19:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of notable just so we are on the same page [2]. Further, if your DVD of your friend's daughter have a deletion review [3] more than 20,000 words long, then yes, I would argue that it is notable. Also, I highly doubt that the DVD of your friend's daughter has any original content and new ideas, but if it did and a lot of people were interested in it, then yes, it would be notable. --Trekerboy 19:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The definition of notable per Wikipedia is to be found on Wikipedia:Notability, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (films) and/or Wikipedia:Notability (web). The Zeitgeist article was deleted according to those policies, because nobody made a coherent case as to how it satisfied them. If Wikipedia did censor internet 9/11 conspiracy films, this article would have been censored too. It wasn't: it's a question of notability and reliable sources rather than content. Iain99 20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Trekerboy, you missed my point. I was saying that anyone could make a documentary of something (amateur, professional, or otherwise), put it on a dvd, and say it's notable. -WarthogDemon 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding why I edited the Zeitgeist disambiguation page, first of all I'd point out that I removed references to the film twice, one of which was your comment that the article had been censored, so I think "many times", and "repeated attempts" is a bit of an exaggeration. However, I agree that it shouldn't be there for two reasons: first of all disambiguation pages are primarily a tool for navigating Wikipedia: links to articles which don't exist and are unlikely to exist in the near future don't belong on them; and secondly since the outcome of the AfD was that the film doesn't belong on Wikipedia at this point, I think that reinserting the content into the site through other pages is poor form, and contrary to the spirit of the community. If you think the AfD was improperly handled, there are ways of complaining, but if policy and consensus are still clearly again then it's best to let it lie. Best, Iain99 20:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For the ACTUAL definition of notability, that is used to determine content appropriateness on the English Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Notability (films). - Crockspot 20:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the Wikiepdia people are crazy, so much of what happens is based on opinion or 'interpretation' of policy its kinda a joke, plus I had a few moderators abuse system and do shady actions ... thats when i found out its a type of corruption here... but abuot the Zeitgeist, I think it will be back on, they will just have to wait a few months until it gets some more external references ... :(Squarepush3r 08:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)