User talk:Natevoodoo

Archives

Am I missing something or are strangers given the power of deletion with no explanation as to why.

--Natevoodoo 22:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Addis

WP:DRV is not "AfD do-over". You must explain why the closure was incorrect, not why the arguments for deletion were incorrect. If you believe that the article can be made to meet the requirements at WP:RS, then recreate it at User:Natevoodoo/Paul Addis, with the appropriate sources, and then go back to DRV and point to your new version. Corvus cornix 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not clear on what you are saying here. I believe that I am explaining why the deletion was incorrect and while all the arguments made against it are invalid. I don't believe the standard you seem to be requesting (and infallible first draft within a few hours) is at all fair or universally applied to other pages on this site.

If you can show me a page stating that I am required to do this and that you are not arbitrarily imposing this standard, I would be happy to read it.

If not then please reconsider your vote and allow others to contribute to the page in a reasonable time span.

--Natevoodoo 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for an infallable first draft within a few hours. Take all the time that you want. When you are satisfied with the results, go back to DRV and ask someone to look it over. But what you asking for currently, on DRV, will fail, because you are only arguing that people's opinions were wrong, you are not pointing to policy violations. And as such, that will not get a deletion overturned. Corvus cornix 22:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for explaining yourself a bit better.

But I don't understand the justification for deleting my original comments and then protecting the page so that the revision has to be made on a new page.

If their opinions were flawed and the decision to delete was made fast on bad information but that doesn't mean they were wrong to delete and the page won't be reinstated, then what does that say about the content on wikipedia as a whole?

Is this some kind of fascist control by the few, likely biased, individuals who happen to show up that day to vote and are informed enough to know how?

Please point me to "Policy Violations" as I feel this must violate some but I have yet to be pointed where to look.

Also I'm not going away on this if that is what the multiple levels of bureaucracy is intended to achieve.

--Natevoodoo 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might start by reading WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Starting off with words like "fascist" and the assumption that those who discussed the subject on the AfD are "likely biased" is not a good way to begin to work within WP:CONSENSUS, which is a cornerstone of the way Wikipedia works. Secondly, AfDs normally run for five days, so "happen to show up that day" isn't true, unless there is an obvious consensus one way or the other, in which case someone may close the discussion early under the WP:SNOW guideline in order to avoid the appearance of "piling on". Now, as to which policy violation you want me to point you towards, begin with WP:BIO, which is the guideline for notablity of biographies. And then go on to WP:RS, which explains what types of sources are acceptable in order to write your material from. Corvus cornix 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey These are some good points. I see that you are trying to build some consensus here. I do feel that I am not the only one being defensive. I do get irritated when people take action without discussion naturally.

You are stating here that if a consensus of anyone who shows up on the first day is reached, then it doesn't take 5 days. Certainly the article I put up wasn't given 5 days. I am not aware that my article adds nothing new to the last article, as I don't have a copy of that article to read. Do you? By reading the deletion discussion it seems that they may not have had all the articles I have. I certainly feel as I have already stated that calling Reuters not a reliable source is a violation of that policy. I also feel that disclaiming the notability was a violation which is why I quoted what I did on the DRV (sic) page. Please see this and tell me how it does or does not talk about a policy violation on their part. Just because someone somewhere has not heard of Paul Addis, it does not mean they are not notable. According to authoritative news sources he is, right?

Anything you can do to further help me see your perspective is appreciated. I will do what I can to get people to collaborate on a new page, but less contributions are likely than if people could find the Paul Addis site directly and it seems to be an unfair standard given the huge extent of crap/trivia of wikipedia.

How do I do this exactly? Link?

Just some more thoughts

--Natevoodoo 22:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have a copy of the article. You might ask the deleting admin to copy it to the redlinked page I indicated above, in your user space. Are you saying that you created a new article after the original deletion, and that got delete, too? and it isn't a matter of "someone somewhere has not heard of Paul Addis", as you can tell from the AfD discussion, people there had heard of him, but didn't feel that the only incident that he's known for was notable enough to have an entire article about him. You are stating here that if a consensus of anyone who shows up on the first day is reached, then it doesn't take 5 days - well, basically. It's not just that a consensus appears, but that it's an overwhelming consensus - eight, nine, ten people all with reasoned arguments for deletion, and nobody requesting that it be kept. Corvus cornix 23:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you saying that you created a new article after the original deletion, and that got delete[d], too?"

Yes.

I don't think it was that it was as many as 8 people. It doesn't seem like there is any standardized number from what you are saying. Someone with power, due to time spent here, made a call. I suspect strongly that whoever made that early call has a personal bias especially considering the contentiousness of the arson Paul Addis committed. And my page was taken down even more quickly by one person flagging it and one deleting it within hours. Despite the fact that I defended how it had improved over the last page based on the deletion discussion (not the original page for comparison--don't have it). And I cited all the things I'm citing here as policy violations. Thanks for these suggestions on how to proceed, I will give it a shot.

--Natevoodoo 23:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no standardized number. It's whatever the closing admin feels, in his or her judgement (which the community respects, or they would not have become an admin) is a SNOW number. And note that the discussion ran for four days, it wasn't "within hours". I still don't see any policy violations that you keep talking about. Corvus cornix 23:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right someone made a decision. Not the "consensus" you keep talking about. The "within hours" is refering to what happened today to the page I posted today. I understand that a brief period of days was given to some page I have never seen.

As to the policy violations. We seem to not have shared definitions of what a "policy" and a "policy violation" is. Please define this better so I can know what you are requiring. Or apply my lay men's terms of the problem above: i.e. he is notable bc several reliable sources put him in print despite the previous deletion discussion false statements to the contrary.

--Natevoodoo 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said And I cited all the things I'm citing here as policy violations. I'm trying to figure out what policy violations you're citing. Corvus cornix 23:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and Reliable Sources. What else am I missing that you are trying to communicate?

--Natevoodoo 23:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources have you provided which you can write a biography from? Corvus cornix 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WIRED definitely. Some other websites that are less known but still read by many. 10zenmonkeys.com, others... And the website for the one man play he's in.

Then there are the news sites that mentioned both the arson and his name and a small bit about him but not much. But it wasn't just what occured. Reuters, AP, CNN, Reno Gazette, UK paper, SF Chronicle, etc.

Thanks again.

--Natevoodoo 18:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you proide some links? Corvus cornix 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Fiery Q&A With the Prankster Accused of Burning the Man http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/08/addis

Paul Addis — Hero or Pariah? http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2007/09/paul-addis-hero.html

Burning the Man With Hunter S. Thompson http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/08/28/burning-the-man-with-hunter-s-thompson/

Those are the most biographical. The CNN, Reuters, AP, etc. links are now on the Paul Addis temp page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Natevoodoo/Paul_Addis

thanks for your time again

--Natevoodoo 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If those are the most biographical, then I think you've got a big problem there, because except for brief mentions of his earlier appearances at Burning Man and the fact that he's done some acting, there isn't anything autobiographical there. Corvus cornix 20:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't feel there is enough biographical material? --Natevoodoo 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. That's the main reason why his article got deleted. there's not much printed about him. it'a bout what he did, which is covered in the Burning Man article. Corvus cornix 23:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think the decision do delete the original smaller article and my article were a bit more myopic and rushed than what you are saying. But if that's the standard I may not be able to publish the page until Paul pulls another stupid stunt. I just wish that standard was applied to all the comic book related nonsense out there.

Thanks again. --Natevoodoo 00:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Natevoodoo/Paul Addis

I've moved the article history to your subpage as requested, feel free to work on it. In full disclosure, the article was actually deleted twice. The first time was a basic speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7, but that was in error as the article was on AfD. Since the AfD contained a near-unanimous consensus to delete, I closed it a day early. Note that I have no strong feelings about the subject matter. Actually, to be perfectly frank, I really couldn't care less about Addis or the alleged arson. I have some knowledge of the Burning Man festival and its influence, Addis case may well be an interesting section in the history of the festival. However there was no consensus for (or rather a very strong consensus against) spinning off his case to its own article. As you've been informed, WP:DRV is the proper forum to contest the deletion, and the above advice by Corvus cornix should help you understand and participate in the discussion. Let me know if you need any other help, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Anetode,

You are both being very helpful. Thanks for seeing that there is some possibility for an article here. It takes a bit more work than I anticipated.

The article you posted for me was what I had written. And I'm glad to get that back. However another user posted the original article and I did not write that. I don't have a copy of that. If you have a copy of that article I would appreciate it too.

Part of my frustration yesterday was people saying that I had not added anything new but I didn't have the original article to confirm if that was true or not.

Regards

--Natevoodoo 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind found it in the history for the page. Thanks again.

I do believe now that I've seen the original that I provided sufficiently more link and sources thus making significant changes that shouldn't have been so speedily deleted.

But I still need to summarize the links in some paragraphs.

--Natevoodoo 19:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copies of deleted articles in userspace have been known to cause problems, not the least of which is the appearance of a user simply trying to boost PageRank for a pet subject. You have the text and edit history of the deleted article, yet there is no indication that you have prepared a draft article to propose. My advice is for you to take the info you have, save it in a text file, and work on creating a substantial piece of content before you bring it back to your userspace. There's no set deadline for working on it, take as much time as you need, but don't add it back to your userspace until it is near completion. If sometime in the future you put together a well-referenced article, another discussion can take place at WP:DRV or WP:AFD on whether the Addis article should be resurrected. I'm afraid that one sentence and a bunch of external links aren't going to cut it right now. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok I've blanked it. I don't want it to be deleted because that erases the history of contribution as well as discussion. How do I archive that?

--Natevoodoo 01:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the "history" tab, then select and click on a dated revision (a little red box should state "This is an old revision of this page" at the top). Edit that revision, then copy the source text and paste it into notepad. Save the file on your computer and work on it at your leisure. If you want to see what it's going to look like on wiki, edit a user subpage and click on "show preview", making sure not to actually save. If you are ok with this method and you have saved all the info you need, add {{db-g7}} to User:Natevoodoo/Paul Addis. Don't worry, the edit history can be resurrected after you upload the new draft. Doing this will also close the MfD discussion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pro crast in a tor/Paul Addis

No need to thank me, just trying to sort things out after finding Paul addis article (note lowercase). I wouldn't have created an article if I'd known there had been an AfD and DRV, but after putting time into it, I figured might as well try.

Also, a few words of advice: nothing's personal here unless you make it personal. People may criticize your work or the article, but personal attacks are strictly forbidden and unlikely to happen, especially at AFD and DRV where most folks are WP administrators or long-time editors. I read your DRV, and you were interpreting things as personal attacks that clearly weren't (to my semi-trained eye, at least). Also, finding a few similar articles would have illustrated what would constitute a better article, and would have been a good thing to do prior to going to DRV.

Also, I recommend thinking of the place like your local DMV, where there is a very established order to everything, and people can be so blunt that it appears that they don't care about you at all. Which is true - both at the DMV and here - but in both places, they'll also be nicer if fill out forms correctly, you're gracious rather than defensive when they point out you've missed a place to sign, or that you missed a relevant WP policy, eg, "you clearly haven't read xyz" becomes "you may have missed xyz". A DRV after a contested AFD without changing the article was interpreted as you saying "I'm going to waste all of your time", and they treated you accordingly. Cheers, Pro crast in a tor 23:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some WP policies are open to debate, others are not. Look at the top of wp:blp, and you'll see that it is official policy, not subject to debate. Per WP policy (not suggestion), the user page article needs to be blanked, as the article would be sure to be found by Google, and spammers could create large numbers of user articles to influence google rankings.

Other editors are under no obligation to teach you the ropes. Some may feel like it, but "don't bite the newbies" doesn't mean "you must help the newbies". Some folks have the temperament for it, some don't.

From my perusing of google, there are no other media articles on Paul Addis that could establish notability. None. There's no way to make it notable from here, and there's no point in editing the article further. More coverage of his arraignment in a few weeks, or him going to jail or being released or dropping of charges, still won't make it notable. Please don't try to add the article again when the above listed events happen, it will not be productive for anyone.

I'm guessing Mr. Addis will be in the news again for another event or, better for him, a well-known play that sells out at 1000+ seat theatres to rave reviews. Until that time, Paul Addis will remain a red link, like my name, and likely your name, too. Best, Pro crast in a tor 00:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]