User talk:Truth in Comedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives:

*/archive 1: February 13, 2007 – February 19, 2007

Contents 1 Farce Side Comedy Hour Edits 2 Elephant Larry 3 Britethorn 4 CSD on Holes 5 Jester of Columbia erasure 6 Edits to your archives

[edit] Farce Side Comedy Hour Edits

Hey,

Look, I know you're just trying to make a better Wikipedia here, but you are fairly destructive about it. You don't read or reply to discussion (nobody knows why) before you make sweeping edits. You ignore the discussion page which is near heretical in my opinion. If you're going to be the Sword of Damocles and smite peoples' work, at least talk about it first!

You mark stuff for speedy deletion, which gives nobody time to fix the issue (as if every author was on Wikipedia every day, scouring what he's already written) before the content is unceremoniously and silently dumped.

What happened to Barren Mind? It's gone, I can't see any history on it. It could have been fixed. Your actions were NOT helpful in this case.

Please slow down before you wield that sword. Please. What is the big hurry?

Apparently, according to your talk archives, a horde of people agree with me. Could you at least try to work with us instead of against us?

Cernansky 22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I only mark for speedy deletion for notability. If the subject is truly notable, then it shouldn't take long to find references. I have been trying to improve a number of articles whose subjects are notable, and ironically, some of which were marked for deletion by others. This tells me I'm not the only one working on this. Unfortunately, it is generally the case that student groups are not considered to be notable and that their articles should be merged into the school article. Working on this means that I will hurt people's feelings sometimes, particularly because the articles about comedy groups are often created by the members or their friends or their webmasters, and so it's a very personal work for them, and I know many see Wikipedia as a way to get attention for their group as part of their PR. But Wikipedia is not for PR or for personal web pages. Finally, everything needs to ve verifiable. If removing uncited claims leaves the article short or even a stub, that's fine because everything in the article can be trusted. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elephant Larry

This article survived AfD in November 2006 so I removed the speedy tag. If it sounds too much like an ad, remove/edit those parts, or if you think the article is too far gone nominate for AfD again. Salahx 01:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 02:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britethorn

You think this group is notable enought for WIKI entry or should we nominate for deletion?--Twintone 14:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSD on Holes

Hi. Please see the criteria for non-notables - plays, books, and similar publications do not fall under the criteria. If you still feel that a play written by one of the most popular authors for children should be deleted, try AfD. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, so you know, anyone can remove a speedy tag. You need not be an admin to do it. While I'm well within my rights to remove the improper tag yet again, I've added the hangon tag. I strongly suggest doing the right thing and simply AfDing the article if you insist on deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jester of Columbia erasure

TIC, please be so kind as to not slash out all of the content on the page for the Jester of Columbia. Firstly, information concerning the content of the magazine is eminently observable and consequently not necessarily cited. Secondly, I am getting citations for the article, and I have added the Finally, although your policy of erasing huge swaths of text is inside the letter of the law but not within the spirit of the law. Moreover, it is completely unproductive. If you would simply tag claims that are unconfirmed, as is the policy, so that people can come along and confirm or disprove them. If there is nothing, then most editors will not be able to offer their information, as there is nothing there to improve upon. Reducing articles to nothing, benefits no one, even if it makes the article more "trustworthy." Genesis is messy, let it happen well. Philolexian Society is another article I helped develop, and it was messy, but the editors corrected and confirmed information slowly and patiently, and the result is a very solid piece. So cool it, please, and maybe we can work together. I need a few more days to put stuff together, so I'm tagging it as undergoing a major revision. Stakhanov 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is unreferenced and has been tagged as such for months. If this information is unverifiable, it should be deleted. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 16:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to your archives

By the way, just as a side-note, your archives are being edited. I don't know if you mind or not (some do, some don't), so I figured I'd leave you a message. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 01:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)