User talk:Rivertonplain

Previous posts are in Archive 1

Please, make yourself at home! Leave a message!

A response re Arizona Sky

If someone deleted an article that I had written, I would first read the deletion rationale. This is in fact what I did on the occasions that articles I wrote have been deleted. Sometimes I am forced to concede the point.

In this case, the deletion rationale said "notability not asserted".

Not "not notable"; I'm not judging that. Rather, "not asserted".

You didn't say anything about why the film was notable. It was first shown at a film festival in July, and released on DVD in November? Big deal. Does anyone care?

That's not a rhetorical question. Does anyone care? I see that, when you re-created the article, you added a part about it being "an official selection of the Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian International Film Festival". That's something... I don't think it's really enough, though. Can you provide more information about why this is a notable movie? DS (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was reviewed and entered in an international film festival is sufficient. What I think is going on here is a difference of philosophy of what Wikipedia is. You are the type that wants to limit its contents to what YOU think is notable, and many of us want it to contain information about everything. No wonder it is the first website in google searches: because it has information on everything. What is deplorable about this action is that it was not flagged or given any time for conversation as to its notability. I think that it is notable enough.--JRiverton (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice in your answer that you state: "I don't think it's really enough, though." Which proves my point that it is your POV as one individual.--JRiverton (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to break it to you, but a movie being inside the IMDB is not something to jump up and down about. Just like Wikipedia, the IMDB is a website that wants everyone who has a pulse and types in English to send in information about movies. So that will not work. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion logs

Well, how did you even find out that I was the one who deleted the article in the first place? You looked at the deletion log and saw:

"01:18, 24 December 2008 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) deleted "Arizona Sky (2008 film)" ‎ (notability not asserted)"

Right there. "Notability not asserted". That's the rationale.

I made no judgment about the merit or lack thereof of the movie, only about the article. I did not say the movie was not notable, only that the article did not ASSERT notability. Do you understand the difference?

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with NPOV. "Neutral point of view" means not saying either "this is a horrible perverted movie about filthy faggots" or "this is the best movie ever and it will make even the most rabid homophobe weep". It means simply stating the bare facts in as unemotional a manner as possible.

It was in an international film festival? Great, but you didn't say that the first time around. How am I supposed to know that?

The material is in imDB? So what? IMDB is user-created. They have some employees verifying that the subjects of the entries exist, but that's all. They don't have any inclusion criteria other than "real" vs "lies". DS (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response on DS's talk page: ::In response to your post on my talk page [1] you state that there is a deletion log. There was no flagging warning of imminent deletion. You simply deleted it. That is not a fair warning or challenge. The material was in Wikipedia for 2 to 3 weeks, so it is not just some fly by night "vanity pages" that were put in there for a whim. As to IMDb it is just as "user controlled" as this website, fyi. The point is that an editorial board determined whether or not to include the material: not just anything is simply accepted into IMDb as you might think. Wikipedia has chosen to work hand in hand with IMDb in employing its entry numbers into its film info boxes.--JRiverton (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My second response on DS's talk page: ::You posted: "I made no judgment about the merit or lack thereof of the movie, only about the article. I did not say the movie was not notable, only that the article did not ASSERT notability. Do you understand the difference?" Yes, I understand the difference; however the manner in which the material was deleted was so precipitate that it did not allow for the POV of anyone but yourself, and was eo ipso not in the spirit of WK:NPOV. Why did you not flag it as a page subject to immediate deletion, and then give the author(s) time to respond? I guess that what you did might be called for stuff that is posted overnight and patently unimportant, but I would hope that a more involved policy would be followed for material that registered contributers (editors) have deemed of value. I understand that you are doing your work as you see it, but I am wondering about the precipitateness of that work.--JRiverton (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an outside comment: Dragonfly judged the article, correctly or incorrectly, to not meet the inclusion criteria, and deleted it. Any admin would do so if they thought the page didn't assert notability. Typically, if the deletion was borderline, the procedure would be to undelete the page and send it to AfD, where more editors could add their input and discuss the page. If it is indisputably obvious the article obviously should be deleted (which is not the case here) this would not occur. In this case, you recreated the article, which should never be done, however, in this case there was no harm done. The article is on AfD now, and its fate will be discussed m there. Prodego ^talk 03:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't recreate a page that was deleted regardless of if you disagree with the deletion, mostly because this would cause a giant mess. Lets say a discussion (AfD) had decided to delete a page. But if you recreate it, then there would have to be another one. There are ways to get things undeleted, and the first step should be asking the admin who deleted it. If that doesn't work out, then you should go to deletion review. Prodego ^talk 04:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your considerate explanation, and your impartiality. I will remember not to do what I did again.--JRiverton (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Wikipedia can be very confusing. Prodego ^talk 04:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in turn...

Glad to help. Keep up the good spirit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Christopher

I added sourcing back to the Internet Adult Film Database showing his use of both "Mike" and "Michael", and a complete list of screen credits under each name. Surely, others will find more him at the site for AVN (magazine). Even with heated deletes, these guys and gals usually get to stick around on Wiki. Your keep vote is suitable, as non-pay sources will be located. No doubt. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]