User talk:Nevreware

Hi there.

Curious

June 15th, 2005 - Someone put the Wikipedia Is Evil page back up, after it was so obviously voted down and deleted a few days ago. Is this because people want to continue critiquing it and / or me? Very strange indeed.

The page has never been deleted, the vote for deletion commenced on the 12th June and it will finish on the 17th June (5 days). The page is located at Wikipedia is Evil (note the lowercase i in is) and it has existed since it's creation on the 12th June. -- Joolz 19:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Evil

In the VfD for this article, your inital comments indicated some confusion over what types of articles belong in Wikipedia. Do you understand now why this article is not appropriate and will be deleted? If not, I would be happy to explain it or answer any questions you may have. I'd also like to request you to refrain from commenting on or criticizing every vote—it is not considered very polite, especially when one is the author of the article in question. The quote you listed from WP:NOT is an important one, and one that people sometimes forget. However, it is not very relevant for this particular VfD, as little to no discussion is needed if there is already a clear consensus or if the reasons for deletion are readily apparent, as they are in this case. In addition, traditionally those voting do not give further comment if they agree with the nominator's reasons (or the reasons expressed by other voters). And certainly nothing in deletion policy or WP:NOT suggests that votes are invalid if they don't specify a reason for deletion; votes cannot be invalidated in this manner. Hope this helps, and feel free to ask me any questions on my talk page. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What constitutes something being "readily apparent" is not always apparent. Politeness aside, I was simply defending my entry against idle votes with an understanding that there had to be a reason behind them in order to be considered valid. I understand now that this is not the case, and that Wikipedia administration is an absolute authority over all matters on its website, regardless of legitimacy. I would like to apologize if I have offended you or anyone else with my behavior, and I will not be continuing persuit of my original article.

Thanks for your response. You are correct that what some find obvious is not so to others. And I don't fault you for creating an article that didn't belong. However, you must understand that we have a well-established way of doing things, and to anyone familiar with deletion policy it would be immediately obvious that such an article was not appropriate for Wikipedia. If one is not familiar, that is fine—especially as a newcomer—but one should not demand rationales behind votes or declare them invalid. That is why newcomers don't close VfD debates or delete articles—someone who is familiar with deletion policy, to whom the reasons for votes will be "readily apparent", will make the judgment; as you pointed out, it is not simply a matter of numbers and voting. I am uncertain what you mean by "Wikipedia administration is an absolute authority over all matters on its website." Wikipedia has administrators, certainly, but there are policies and traditions, and they have no special authority over non-administrators. For instance, any administrator would have the power to simply delete an article out of hand (or even blocked you from editing), but this would be against deletion policy (and blocking policy); instead, they (along with non-administrators) will vote on its deletion. Note that the vote of an administrator is not "worth" more than the vote of a non-administrator; indeed, there is no easy way to tell the two apart on VfD. If you mean that "Wikipedia has rules that its members decide on and that it follows", then certainly this is true, but it is also true of most organizations and governments (although members often have less input into rules than they do here). If you don't follow the practices the Wikipedia community has decided upon, you can expect to encounter some conflict; this is not because of some absolute authority. For instance, your refusal to sign your posts despite polite requests by two users indicates a lack of respect for community practices. Also, I note that not only do your posts on this talk page lack signatures, but everywhere else as well (for example, on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia is Evil, User talk:Joolz, Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and so on).

By the way, do you understand why the article was not appropriate here? It has nothing to do with the specific subject, but rather the whole class of articles—an article "Christianity is Evil" or "Mike Smith is Dumb" or even "Wikipedia is Awesome" would not be appropriate for Wikipedia either (though there are certainly some who try to create such articles). — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought I would give it a shot, in light of the "reasons why wikipedia is so great" and "reasons why wikipedia is not so great" (redirected from wikipedia sucks) entries.

One should understand that perception is often relative, which unfortunately is the source of conflict between parties. In this case it was just that: a misunderstanding. Perhaps the logo in the upper-left corner should be reworded as to avoid confusion for those who believe "free" stands for different things. Thank you for clarifying the Wikipedia guidelines and providing me with information other than attacks on character and threats of personal harm. Which, incidentally, people don't seem to mind around here from my limited experience.

If it was required to sign my posts I was unaware; it seems if something as simple as a signature were required, the server software would insert them forcefully and automatically in all user posts. I considered continuing to use unsigned posts as a signature style, or just to prove some sort of point, but I already have a good portion of Wikipedia breathing down my neck for something or other. ;-)

I like you Knowledge Seeker; you are the first person to be nice to me on here. I can't believe you still have that caption under your picture though... my friend added it like half a year ago as a joke. Nevre 19:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand your intentions. What you probably didn't realize is that those are not articles; they are not in the main (article) space. There are several namespaces at Wikipedia. The main namespace is for articles, and is of the form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/xxx (the title "xxx" appears at the top). All other namespaces are preceded by the name with a colon; for instance, the user namespace has "User:" preceding the title. So your user page is at User:Nevreware, not Nevreware. Information about policies and such, and Wikipedia administrative procedures are all in the "Wikipedia" namespace. It appears that the redirect from Wikipedia sucks has been deleted, as is appropriate, as there should be no redirection across namespaces. The material you posted may be appropriate for meta:; I am not very active there so I am not sure. The word free in this context means "free of charge", which I believe is the most common meaning (at least in this context). I understand what you are saying but I think it would be difficult to put more explanation in a logo (it is just a phrase), and the pages on how to start a new article all have links to WP:NOT, I believe.

I'm sorry that not everyone has been nice. Normally I've found Wikipedia to be a friendly, supporting community—but one whose interaction with you will also be defined by your interaction with it. I think that coming to a community and almost immediately writing about how the community was evil, then commenting on everyone's votes being invalid or wanting things to be done your way might have been a little off-putting for some people. No one expects newcomers to be familiar with all the policies and such, but just be careful when accusing others. Despite your tumultuous start, I hope you do stay at Wikipedia and help us improve our encyclopedia. If you have questions on how anything works here, feel free to ask me at any time.

Signing posts is not required per se, but strongly encouraged; see Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Since not all edits to talk pages are new posts, automatic signatures could be problematic. Thanks; I'm glad I am doing something right. I'm a little confused by your comment on my picture, though. Half a year ago I had only been at Wikipedia for less than a month. I didn't upload the picture until March 15, and I changed the caption to its current form two months ago. Perhaps you are thinking of something else? — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tildes...

I'd be a convenience to all concerned if you'd sign your talk page comments, i.e. like this: ~~~~. Thanks. Alai 16:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think one can reasonably infer that I am responsible for unmarked replies on my own talk page.
- While I would assume that, it's not the standard, so most people won't. --Habap 21:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It'd be a convenience if you also signed your VfD edits, where we can not reasonably infer jack squat. jglc | t | c 14:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - But they say variety is the spice of life... and leaving posts unsigned is the spice of annoying Habap. Nevre 19:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am your God. I command you to always sign comments with tildes. Sincerely, God. P.S. If you are a true believer, you will be able to see these words without looking at the edit page or highlighting these words on the regular viewing page. — GOD. P.P.S. You must not edit these words, either. — GOD

Curious

Categories

Wikipedia is Evil

Tildes...