Jump to content

User talk:DJH47/Archive

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

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

[edit]

Welcome to the Wikipedia, DJH47! Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! And thanks for the update at Wikipedia:Cleanup on the Running gag article. Here are some perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, DJH47, and have fun! Ombudsman 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article for December 25th

[edit]

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:11

Gay fuel

[edit]

You didn't even read the Gay Fuel discussion at all, where I made the point that the YTMND Gay Fuel phenomon is pretty much the biggest thing Gay Fuel has going for it, did you? For shame! As all your wikiwork seems to be centered around YTMND removal and maintaing the "running gags" article, I suspect that you are actually an agent of Fark.com, some other rival of YTMND, or even KHAN!.

  • Hello, User:71.141.129.195. No, I am not a member of some silly rival site. I am just a Wikipedian with concern for the professional appearence of the encyclopedia. Only one YTMND appears on the first page of a Google search, and it has only 200 views. Therefore, the internet meme is not relevant to the product. I saw your comments on the talk page. Please put a signature next to your comments when posting on Wikipedia. --DJH47 19:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose no matter how hard I might try, I can't stop the rock. You win this one, DJH47! -- 71.141.130.242 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Run gag.png listed for deletion

[edit]
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Run gag.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

- Mike Rosoft 14:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

[edit]

Based on what I've seen from you on AfD, I think that you might have something to add to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cart00ney. I'd appreciate you weighing in on the matter in either direction. Savidan 19:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You voted "Merge". The content has recently been added to List of internet slang. Would you consider changing your vote to delete? Savidan 22:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Mudo

[edit]

It seems rather pointless to maintain this cycle of editing and reverting; at this rate, it'll never end. When you say that El Mudo's music has "quite a bit of scope beyond YTMND", what such scope do you mean - local radio, television, other humor sites, or another source of popularity? Please see the talk page as well. --CrazySunShine 06:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defining "vandalism"

[edit]

I would also like to ask what, exactly, you consider to be vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism says that vandalism is defined as an edit that is deliberately intended to lower the quality of the page being edited. If someone were to link to a YTMND, misguided or not, that would not be vandalism under those guidelines. The user has an intention to provide more information to the reader. Now, if someone were to erase a page and say "YTMND rules lol", that would be vandalism. Even then it's not YTMND's fault, it's the fault of an ignorant person who wanted to be crazy under the banner of YTMND.

I completely agree that mention of YTMND should be preceded by consideration of popularity pertaining to the subject in question, but it doesn't have to be so strict; relax a little. Besides, I'm sure you're tired of reverting El Mudo multiple times by now. It is not as if a college professor is going to say "Why, mention of a humor site on the article of a band with crazy music that doesn't make sense! How blasphemous; Wikipedia is nothing but trash!"

I apologize if any of my comments are construed as insults; they are not meant to be an attack on your views. I simply want to discuss the mentality that goes with your judgment. --CrazySunShine 20:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have not responded yet. I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Now, there is a section on importance, and it says as follows:

An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true... 1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).

Under those guidelines, I believe the crazy but still united YTMND community would fall under that banner. On the page for Wikipedia:Fancruft:

Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are highly controversial.

Trivia is just that: trivial. It's not meant to be known by a lot of people offhand. I doubt that an article's "professional appearance" will be harmed by a mention of the internet at the end.

I could go on and on about these subjects, but they do it much more effectively.

Please discuss. --Crazy SunShine 20:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Please respond. --Crazy SunShine 04:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About "pop culture" references

[edit]

I understand that you want to delete references you consider "obscure", but consider first that these references are made in numerous articles (sometimes even separate from the main article. What of Odin in popular culture? Kraken in popular culture? Thor in popular culture? Ragnarök in popular culture? Maybe even Yggdrasil (disambiguation) on the grounds that none of them are "important" enough?

Say what you will, but please do not ignore this. --Crazysunshine 23:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Lobster

[edit]

Hey there. The Family Guy reference had been there for a while, and when I came across it, I knew of a few other recent places the song has aired. All those particular references made up the first time I've ever heard the song, otherwise (for me) it still would have been a song lost in history.

But in any case, did you think it wasn't written well enough? I wanted to write about the song becoming a somewhat recent um.. cult phenomenon because of its many appearances in Adult Swim and Adult-Swim-related sites and material, but I wasn't sure how to word it right, nor was I sure if "recent cult phenomenon" would have been an accurate phrase. But it appeared to me at least that the song was coming back with some new, more obscure popularity within those interests.

..Plus it's a stub article; sometimes extra information in those is at least good, no matter how slight.

--Crisu 14:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

[edit]

Welcome to the Wikipedia, DJH47! Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! And thanks for the update at Wikipedia:Cleanup on the Running gag article. Here are some perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, DJH47, and have fun! echelon talk 03:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome also!

[edit]

Welcome user!I would like to be your friend!I too am a vegetarian!Best Regards from me to you and your friends and family!Trampton 11:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So you're back

[edit]

Hello there. The last time we talked, we didn't agree upon much. After you took your extended absence from Wikipedia, though, I think I see why you deleted so many YTMND references and popular culture lists. I don't completely agree with everything you did or your reasoning for it (mostly using Google tests without other checks of notability), but yeah, I see where you're coming from now. I just thought I'd tell you that. Crazysunshine 11:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the feedback. I have gone to using media-based verifiability as a more valid criterion for inclusion. YTMND has died down, mostly, so now I plan to work on forcing sources down various articles's throats. :) --DJH47 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I actually like FLCL.)[reply]

AoStH

[edit]

I noticed you deleted an entire section on the 'Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog' article, and it just so happens that was the 'Sonic Sez' section. Why did you delete it? The Sonic Sez segments were among the most memorable parts of the show, and it just saddens me to see that Wikipedia has no information on it at all. Steg Blob 23:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CopyNight Orlando

[edit]

Hi DJH47/Archive! I see you're from Florida. If you're in the Orlando area, please check out this brief survey. I'm looking to start a meet-up of CopyNight, a monthly social discussion of copyright and related issues (like Wikipedia, Creative Commons, and open source). If that sounds neat, please answer this short survey to help with scheduling the event. Thanks! --Gavin Baker 10:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Lobster Edits

[edit]

I have actually made references reguarding the Family Guy edits before, but, in my most recent edits to the page, I have completely excluded family guy. So your post to my talk page was rather pointless and uncalled for. Daedalus969 (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and Wikipedia

[edit]

Well, you have obiviously been here longer then me. I was just wondering if you had any idea of how to add an Xbox Live gamer card to one's user page. Help would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedalus969 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No clue. Primarily because I do not have a Xbox 360. If there is generated HTML from some website, I suppose you could just copy and paste it; Wikipedia is pretty good about that. --DJH47 (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Lobster Edits

[edit]

Is there a way we can lock this vanboto guy out of the article? Daedalus969 (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

[edit]

Please do not delete properly referenced material from pages without explanation, as you did to Poltergeist (film) and The Butterfly Effect. The references on the pages are brief plot summaries, which are primary sources (which are acceptable on WP for such matters).

This appears to have been spurred by a conversation we were having on Rock Lobster (song). If you disagree with other people's edits, it's best to discuss them on the talk page rather than make wholesale deletions.

In addition, I'd like to apologize. I reverted two of your edits by rollback, rather than undo. I should have used the undo function and left a more complete edit summary. Sorry about that. Snowfire51 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pages are referenced, as I explained above. Wikipedia policy allows for that for plot summaries, we had a long discussion about it over at WP:SPOILER a while back. Showing certain references to subjects in other media (i.e. Rock Lobster being referenced nearly thirty years later on Family Guy) helps to indicate cultural significance. Snowfire51 (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no mechanism to evaluate whether or not an allusion to a work is inherently notable. I could start a blog tomorrow and mention Rock Lobster, but it does not make it relevant to the article, which is about the subject, and not its countless allusions. --DJH47 (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, blogs are generally speaking, not notable as per WP:Reliable source examples. Family Guy, which is a show seen by millions and on the air for several years, is probably far more notable than the song "Rock Lobster." Being referenced on the show actually raises the profile of the song, especially after thirty years. Don't you think? It's not like they were singing "Private Idaho" out there. Snowfire51 (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought I would experience cultural elitism in the defense of Family Guy, but here I am. :) The Parents Television Council complains about Family Guy quite a bit, and we see none of their influence on the Family Guy article. Allusions do not make a work notable. --DJH47 (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm officially confused. Are you saying that any references from Family Guy are inherently non-notable? Or are you saying the song "Rock Lobster" is not notable, no matter what references in popular culture exist to it?
And if someone were to add news of the PTC's notable protests against FG and properly source them, I'm sure it would stand on the page. Snowfire51 (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rock Lobster is notable. Family Guy is notable. The Cleveland–Loretta Quagmire, while not a very good article due to multiple issues with references, is probably notable. The fact that said Family Guy episode referred to Rock Lobster, a song with its own merits outside of Family Guy episodes, is not worthy of mentioning on the Rock Lobster article. Is it on the article on Quagmire? Maybe, but that is another discussion altogether. The 80s is not just a cliche. --DJH47 (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I see your point on that. One mention or reference may not be notable, just in passing. How about Poltergeist (film) article, however? The Family Guy episode (for example) was basically a full-on parody of the movie. It went far beyond a passing reference, and delved into Blazing Saddles or Airplane territory. That would sem to be notable to me. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with allusions and parodies of the original work being listed on the original page is that often, a work will spawn a whole mass of imitations of various length and quality. Listing all of them would obscure the focus on the original work (what the article is about) and increase file size drastically. Listing just one as an example would give undue weight. The same thing happened to the running gag article, and it took a whole lot of clean up to prevent it from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information --DJH47 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this not a pop culture reference? I kept the other items out because you were right that they don't belong.

In the Family Guy episode "Untitled Griffin Family History", Peter Griffin states that the panic room he built in the family's attic was devised while watching The Butterfly Effect as a way to "escape to a place where this movie couldn't find me."

Wryspy (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I said references, I was talking about CITATIONS. Sorry for the confusion. --DJH47 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And about the others, you were right. But with a TV episode, it is the reference. A citation with production information would be fine to go with it but isn't essential when the series and specific episode are both named. Wryspy (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC) And unlike the other two things people had in that section, this one was straightforward and the character named the movie. No interpretation or opinion had been inserted into the article. Wryspy (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just got out of a whole debate on why allusions to a work should usually not be included on an article about the work. Does mentioning this Family Guy episode increase your understanding of The Butterfly Effect? --DJH47 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it provides an external source that says it's a crappy movie and shows that the movie had enough influence of any kind that anybody would joke about it. If other sources had better references to this movie, removing the Family Guy quote might make sense. Right now, when this is the best reference we have, it at least serves the function of proving that anybody cares enough to mention this movie. Wryspy (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allusions to a work from other works are not necessary, and serve to obfuscate knowledge about the actual work. --DJH47 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not a retelling of the movie and its internal content. It's not just about understanding what happened within the movie. We're supposed to integrate external world relevance into them, and if this is the best the article can get, then that's what we've got. Wryspy (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DJH47, I can understand the point you're trying to make, but it seems like it would be better and more civil to discuss it with other editors before deleting big chunks of information. Your viewpoint is not the current consensus, as evidenced by the fact that almost every page for films/books/songs has a list of references to it discussing references and cultural significance. I'm not saying you might not have a point, but one person's opinion does not make consensus, and certainly not a wide-sweeping consensus that deletes material off of a number of pages with no talk page discussion at all. Snowfire51 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This "consensus" only exists within sufficiently unmaintained articles. Featured articles lack these lists rather consistently. --DJH47 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(OD)I disagree. For example, the articles on Poltergeist or The Butterfly Effect are not unmaintained, they're just not as popular as Star Wars or Christianity, to bring up two links you've brought up as examples before. Do you have any examples of other non-blockbuster films/books/songs that have a consensus established against references and cultural impact sectins? Snowfire51 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly my point. Good articles do not have these references, and are better because of it. If there is any perverse "consensus" towards having pop culture reference sections in bad articles, it is because of the obsessive fan base that patrols these articles, and not the overall consensus of the more academic areas of Wikipedia. --DJH47 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Running gag

[edit]

A while ago you contributed to a discussion about whether listing notable running gags on the Running gag article was a good idea. The subject has reared its head again, so I am inviting you to contribute to the current discussion. -- JediLofty UserTalk 15:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

[edit]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DJH47/Archive&oldid=1079367235"