Talk:Spot

Scott Draves

"Spot" also refers to Scott Draves. This meaning is the #6 google hit, but I have CoI since that's me. It was removed from this list by Editor5435 in a vendetta against me as a result of our dispute over Fractal Compression. Spot (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your nickname "Spot" is no reason to be included in the list, its nothing but shameless self promotion and vanity serving your own interest, just as "you" are the one advocating your own insignificant listing.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal nickname?

Message to Ronz, it should make no difference if the linked article is up for deletion or not, the fact remains the inclusion in the "Other meanings" list is erroneous and irrelevant in context with the other items. Just because some goes by the nickname of "Spot" is no reason to included in this article, its just plain ridiculous and nothing but blatant self promotion and vanity. I remind you to adhere to Wikepedia's [policies and guidelines] when editing articles. This issue may have to be taken to Wikipedia administrators to be properly resolved.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone advise of how to remove this absolutely absurd "Scott Draves" inclusion in the Wiki article about the word "Spot"? Who are some Wikipedia administrators I should contact to resolve this issue? Obviously there is self interest and other factors influencing a quick resolution to this stain upon Wikipedia.--Editor5435 (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Ronz, stop posting personal nicknames to the "Other meanings" list, you've got to be kidding that's its relevant to the article!--Editor5435 (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I am warning you, the additional to the Other meanings list of a personal nickname is not notable in the context of the article, stop including it for personal reasons.--Editor5435 (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see anything in your warning that I need to take action on.

Since the article Scott Draves includes the nickname "Spot" with a source, and searches for "spot" in search engines brings up Draves very quickly, I think it should be included. --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Google returns 294,000,000 search results for the word "spot". The personal nickname for "Scott Draves" is completely irrelevant to the Wiki article on the word "spot" and how it relates to the English language. Do you honestly think any dictionary in the world would mention Scott Draves' nickname? Its inclusion was only out of blatant self promotion and vanity. Your support of it is only out of contempt for myself and my efforts to cleanse Wikipedia of such abuse. Just STOP your little game, you are annoying!--Editor5435 (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest WP:THIRD or WP:EAR. Perhaps it is a stretch, but the google results suggest otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm warning you for the last time, irrelevant personal nicknames do "NOT" belong in this article! The nickname for Scott Draves is not even a remotely common "other meaning" for the English word "Spot". There are millions of other people who share the same nickname. What makes Scott Draves so special? Google results can easily be manipulated, especially by someone who is obsessed with vanity and self promotion. If Wikipedia was based upon Google rankings it would be absolutely useless. I submitted this dispute to WP:THIRD, hopefully a swift end will be put to your utter nonsense!--Editor5435 (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Scott Draves isn't notable enough to include here. While there might be a handful of people with this nickname, this seems highly unusual and not worth mentioning any more than my high school nickname of Skittles is. _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Spot" is the name I use professionally, just like Spot_(producer) Spot_(rapper/producer) and much more so than Jerry_Chamberlain who just used it once, but is still listed. See Spotworks DVD, "software artist Spot aka Scott Draves", an interview ("all of spot's art"), on a playbill ("Visuals by SPOT"). Spot (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is anyone going to argue that it's not a professional nickname? --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There goes Scott Draves again, tooting his own horn. I have never seen such obsessive blatant self promotion and vanity demonstrated on Wikipedia before! Both Scott Draves and his nickname (personal or so called professional) are "IRRELEVANT" to the scope of this article.--Editor5435 (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:TALK and WP:CON or your comments may be ignored. --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I am not the only one against this preposterous inclusion to the article, in case you haven't noticed. Besides, Scott Draves should not be commenting on his own inclusion, it is a blatant NPOV and COI violation of Wikipedia policy. You should know better than that.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. I don't see Draves violating any of them, but you certainly are. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yah right, someone engaged in their own blatant self promotion isn't NPOV and COI? You only make yourself appear foolish by saying such nonsense! Your credibility is lacking.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of being uncivil, take your complaints of COI to WP:COIN. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

Maybe the dispute above can simply be solved by deciding what the inclusion criteria is for this disambiguation page. We currently have references for the use of "Spot" to refer to Draves. What more do we need? --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? There are thousands of references that can be sourced linking "Spot" to peoples' nicknames, it doesn't mean they are relevant to this article about the English word "Spot". Scott Draves lacks notability to be included when compared to the rest of the article.

   * Spot (professional wrestling), a pre-planned wrestling move or series of moves
   * SPOT (satellites)
   * The Spot, New South Wales, a locality in Sydney, Australia
   * Spot date, a financial term
   * Spot Fetcher, a dog owned by U.S. President George W. Bush
   * Skatepark of Tampa
   * Smart Personal Objects Technology, a Microsoft initiative
   * Leiostomus xanthurus, a fish
   * Pimple, a skin blemish
   * A nickname for a spotlight
   * Old Australian and New Zealand slang for one hundred dollars
   * "screening passengers by observation techniques" (SPOT), one airport security technique
   * Spots are a method of smoking cannabis.

Scott Draves is "irrelevant" to the meaning of "Spot", there isn't even the most remote association in context with the English language. Please stop your ridiculous game!--Editor5435 (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to follow WP:TALK, especially WP:CIVIL.

I see no argument here that the references provided cannot be used to justify the inclusion of Draves' professional nickname. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the simple fact Scott Draves is irrelevant in the context of the English language which the article is about, the meaning of "Spot". I suggest you get a copy the the "Oxford English Dictionary", no mention of Scott Draves! Others see a problem with the inclusion, why can't you? Are you sure you are acting objectively here, or are you letting personal influences override logic?--Editor5435 (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor5435, please calm down. We can agree that Draves isn't notable enough to be mentioned here without assuming bad faith on the part of User:Spot (who, by the way, should not participate in this discussion as measures of his own notability are subject to his own point of view and therefore a conflict of interest. I believe he knows this already).

Draves is notable enough to mention on Wikipedia, but not in this disambiguation page. Keep in mind that, although he's notable as an inventer and leader of a computing project, I don't think he's notable enough as a VJ. The google test is not a good measure as search engines are subject to manipulations from promotion efforts (which is not unlikely in this case). — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been specifically told that I am allowed to comment on the talk pages where I have a CoI like here so I believe my participation here is quite valid. "Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page" from COI. Use of the name "Spot" is consistent across my work as inventor, artist, and VJ. I am curious on what basis you judge "spot" the rapper and and "spot" the producer as notable but not me. I assure you that my google ranking isn't the result of manipulation. I haven't paid anyone to increase my google rank, i've simply earned it after years and years of work on the internet under this name. Spot (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"(who, by the way, should not participate in this discussion as measures of his own notability are subject to his own point of view and therefore a conflict of interest. I believe he knows this already)". It appears you spoke too soon. There he goes again, another toot of his own horn, continuing demonstration of shameless self promotion and vanity! The fact remains Scott Draves is irrelevant to the meaning of the English word "spot", just look up the meaning in the Oxford English Dictionary for an idea of what is relevant to this article. In my opinion the Google results are heavily manipulated, in fact, judging by the comments here its quite obvious! This entire discussion is simply ridiculous. Wikipedia is not an advertising service.--Editor5435 (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, Spot, for trying to dissuade you from participating in the discussion. My point is still valid, though, that being Scott Draves makes it difficult to objectively determine your own notability. If your professional name is "spot" then should we rename our article Scott Draves to Spot (inventor) or Spot (computer programmer)? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing: We've agreed that User:Spot is following WP:COI appropriately, that Editor5435 is unable to properly behave in talk page discussions, and that we need to find some inclusion criteria. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Spot's participation in this discussion is blatant violation of NPOV and COI. We don't need to find anything, the consensus is very clear, the inclusion is erroneous! Why do you persist in spoiling the article with irrelevant information? Spot (inventor) or Spot (computer programmer) are appropriate names for the Scott Draves article, however, his name lacks notability in the context of this article. Use some common sense!--Editor5435 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His participation in the article space might be NPOV and COI, which is why we're discussing it. The amount of attempted self-promotion isn't relevent here. If Bob Woodward came to Wikipedia in early 2002 and wanted to see an article on himself created, there would be the same amount of self promotion involved. In spite of that, though, Woodward is notable enough to include so his attempts at self-promotion would be just as irrelevant.

While I put forth the idea of renaming the Scott Draves article to Spot (something), I wonder if that's appropriate since it seems most of the sources don't use "spot" but "scott." — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I wonder if that's appropriate since it seems most of the sources don't use "spot" but "scott." Considering this, it makes the inclusion of Scott Draves even more meaningless.--Editor5435 (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'I wonder if that's appropriate since it seems most of the sources don't use "spot" but "scott."' I haven't looked at it carefully, but from what I see Scott Draves appears to be the best title for the article. We have sources that no one is contesting that show he uses "Spot" as well. From my understanding, that deserves disambiguation. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, don't you understand that Scott Draves is totally irrelevant to the article? If everyone was listed that also uses the same nickname the article would be many pages long. Why are you so eager to see his irrelevant name in the list? Are there other reasons that are causing you to be impartial here?--Editor5435 (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of disambiguation is for users who will enter "spot" in the search box. Is it reasonable to expect that someone familiar with Scott Draves will know his nickname and not his real name? There are many articles that start with "spot" If we are to include Scott Draves here, by what criteria would we exclude some of our other articles? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"by what criteria would we exclude some of our other articles" We should only include those that are referred to simply as "Spot" in some notable content that is properly referenced. --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we start compiling a list of other meanings for the English word "spot" sourced from the 300,000,000 Google results?--Editor5435 (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable that Scott Draves, being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article dedicated to him and being known professionally as "Spot" can justifiably be included here.

Editor5435: you're now the only one in opposition to including Scott Draves. While User:Spot's contributions could arguably qualify as POV, COI, or self promotion, the opinion of Ronz and myself do not. Let's also put this in perspective: it's an item on a disambiguation page, not the end of the project. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if someone as irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as Scott Draves is included there are thousands of equally irrelevant meanings that can also be added, found among the 300,000,000 Google results returned for "spot".--Editor5435 (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Draves has passed the test of notability. This is why he has a Wikipedia article dedicated to him. You can't say that for the other 3 million google hits. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of equally irrelevant meanings among the 300,000,000 Google results. If Scott Draves is included in the list then that sets the inclusion criteria which will open up the article to dozens if not hundreds of additional meanings.--Editor5435 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not basing Scott Draves's inclusion on his appearing in a google search. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its absurd to suggest Scott Draves is even remotely associated with the broad meaning of "spot" in the context of the article.--Editor5435 (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No more absurd than some of the entries already on here, including Singing Priests of Tagbilaran, Smart Personal Objects Technology, Jerry Chamberlain, and "screening passengers by observation techniques." — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All irrelevant listings should be removed, the article should represent what is common to the English language, similar to what is found in Oxford English Dictionary for the word "spot".--Editor5435 (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, friend, that's not how these disambiguation pages work. Disambiguation pages are "non-article pages that contain no content and only refer users to other Wikipedia pages." If you want a dictionary definition go to wiktionary. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]