Jump to content

Talk:Impossible Is Nothing (video résumé)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Privacy protection

[edit]

Is there anybody who would want to work with a bank that doesn't treat privacy protection correctly? This guy's cease-and-desist letter against the weblog and other medias seem completely justified to me. If I apply for a job, I expect the company to keep my data confidential. I hope this unnamed co-worker got fired for being unreliable. Guest Account 08:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened here?

[edit]

Not only is the article now extremely short (the old one [1] had a very detailed analysis of his allegations from various sources), but all the history [2] is gone too. Was there an OTRS complaint, or did some admins "decide" by themselves that the details shouldn't be there because somehow Mr. Vayner "looked bad"? --Tilman 12:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, bravo! Please save the answer.com text, including hyperlinks, because it's not going to be around for long. Your other link already reverted to this article. As per the log it died in a rather odd deletion review. Whatever the process it was declared non-notable under WP:BIO because the guy was famous for a single event and Wikipedia considers that newspaper-like, not fiting to its mission as an encyclopedia. I came across this and thought we should have an article, so I wrote this one. I didn't have access to the old article because once it's deleted from Wikipedia it's gone. An administrator could bring it back but as you can see from the review they are suspicious of Internet meme articles. Also, there's some weird history in the log. I was aware of the deletion action so I took a cue from some of the commentators and covered the longer-term phenomenon and did not focus so much on the biographical aspect. Even though this article is far less developed it has a better chance of being notable.
If you want to fill out this article with the salvage of the other one, that would be great. We should keep it focused on the meme not the man so that this article does not suffer the same fate. Ask yourself, what about this phenomenon is notable and see how you can fit that under the Wikipedia:Notability (web) or related standards. - Wikidemo 13:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made an (admittedly crude) archival copy of the Answers.com version[3], which is probably as recent as we can get. All the formatting is gone, and I'm too busy today to reconstruct all the references, but at least the information is preserved.Mockingbus 15:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, okay. But please do respect that the old version was deleted after due process so you can't just restore it without more or it will get deleted again. This is a new article that I hope and trust satisfies the notability guidelines. Your article has lots of good stuff in it but due to the focus was agreed not to be Wikipedia-worthy. I hope that's clear. Also, it would be good to follow up to see what has happened since then in terms of the meme's larger impact, legacy, recent news coverage, etc. Wikidemo 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, naturally. As you said, though, there is a tremendous amount of citation in the old article, and I thought it was better to preserve a copy of that and let us recover what we think is relevant than try to recover it from memory. Mockingbus 15:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... I would have voted against it. I didn't know about the deletion process; while I had the article on my watchlist, I didn't have the time to check all the details :-( True, the guy is famous for only one event. But so is the Star Wars Kid or the Green Helmet Guy. --Tilman 15:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether this helps any more than the answers.com version, but Microsoft's live.com search engine still has what appears to be a perfect cache. Anyone interested in reconstructing - I suggest saving a copy to your hard drive now. This urge to delete stuff is one of the things I hate about wikipedia. The people here who take themselves too seriously act as if they're writing a printed encyclopedia with a limited number of pages. The info on Vayner is clearly more useful than not. While people probably shouldn't spend any more time improving his bio, the efforts that were already expended shouldn't go to waste. On the other hand, if people are still around who would like to spend that time, why stop them? Let's instead stop pretending that we're rewriting Britannica here. The scope of relevance for an internet encyclopedia is far broader. Plumsforsale 04:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns

[edit]

A previous editor had deleted considerable material about the meme, saying it wasn't pertinent to the subject. We should be clear that this article is about the meme, not the individual. Covering the person behind the meme raises some BLP issues, and also notability concerns. He's famous only for his role in the meme, and that would make his own life history, biographical information, etc., less important and more news-ish than encyclopedic. The point of this article is to describe a part of Internet culture that arose in 2006, got major press coverage, and continues to get coverage today. It's notable as one of the milestones in how these things spread on the Internet, the role of blogs and newspapers, resumes, etc.

Based on that, I've deleted a couple references that seemed a little below the belt. As per BLP policy I don't want to spread them by even describing them here but they covered derogatory name-calling and speculation about the person rather than commentary about the meme. Even if a negative accusation is true, if it is contentious, derogatory, from a weak source, and about a living person we shouldn't be spreading it. Same goes for name-calling. We should present the facts and let people make of it what they will.Wikidemo 23:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Wikidemo. Although some of the things I removed were put back the article is better BLP-wise than before. Steve Dufour 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Other details" are apparently imaginary

[edit]

They were apparently taken from a satirical article in the magazine The New Yorker.

Entertaining they might be, but, IMHO, not to be deemed encyclopedic.

Remove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.19.124 (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker article is straight reporting, not satirical at all. Do you have any basis to claim the facts reported there are imaginary? Wikidemo 00:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about removing the whole thing. What is this crap?! Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia! --kingboyk (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is much more useless stuff than this on wikipedia. Delete that stuff before deleting this Parp555 (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a hoax

[edit]

Everything about it is laughable; such a person can't exist. If this person does exist then what he has achieved is to be a first class kook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.29.21 (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Yet another person questioning notability...I'll add some links here. If anyone wants they can work them into the article. [4][5][[6][7] [8][9] - Wikidemo (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if notable and verififiable, it should stay.

[edit]

BLP concerns are about inaccurate derogatory information, but even there, having no character to impugne is a legitimate defense. So, offhand, from an encyclopedic and legal standpoint, I don't think you can conclude that just because it isn't flattering it it creates a liability or is not encyclopedic. Indeed, even if the story is a hoax, reliable source coverage of the hoax makes the hoax notable ( a story on crop circles for example could be reasonable even if known the circles themselves were a hoax). You and us. LOL. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Someone please update.

He is using the name Alex Stone:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexstone3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.160.61 (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Impossible Is Nothing (video résumé). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Impossible Is Nothing (video résumé). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Impossible Is Nothing (video résumé). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Impossible_Is_Nothing_(video_résumé)&oldid=1253544553"