User talk:Sophia Demiurge

Maddox

I just think its relevant and notable. I did not place Maddox there, but I will revert attempts to remove him or any relevant meme without some sort of consensus. If you prefer to be a rogue editor that is your prerogative, but you won't accomplish much. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between a rogue editor and a regular editor in lawless cyberspace?Sophia Demiurge 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is lawless? The difference is self evident; when your changes are reversed, discuss your edits on the relevant articles talk pages rather than dictating your decisions and berating others. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of Wikipedia is lawless. After all, the original intention was to create an online library of "the sum of all human knowledge". Not so, however-- such is the nature of every free organisation. All creation is offered and thus taken away. Where one speaks, another censors. I suppose your founder's quote should be amended to "the sum of all pick and choose pop culture" instead.

My message is no dictation, it is a proposition to allow information to exist as it should, freely. I had a clear purpose in my string of actions. As you can see, I condemned authors for placing a reference to Maddox in articles that do not concern him, because this is an Encyclopedias, and in my general experience, they do not list comedic mockery of the subject matter of their articles. At the same time, I am criticised for suggesting Jeffree Star deserves an article, because he has not achieved a level of fame worthy of an Encyclopedia reference. There is a clear contradiction here. Either Wikipedia IS striving to be as "official" as written Encyclopedias or it's not. There should not be a blurry line where you are unconventional (to gain appeal?) for the famous but not the underground, because then you are accused of censorship (which it is) and hypocrisy (which it is).

Ask yourself this question: If this were World Book and there was an article on Loose Change, would Maddox be in it? Definitely not. Another question: Does Wikipedia reference Maddox in every single article with subject matter he has criticised? Doubtful. Another question: Is every well known social critic who parodied the video referenced on the Loose Change page? Clearly not. There are a number of problems to address. But generally, it just seems like some random Maddox fanboy has more say than a group of people who want to create an article for a music artist they appreciate. It's evident that Jeffree has fans on Wikipedia because the Talk Page had to be protected due to protesting post deletion of the article. So you can't say it's a rogue article no one cares about. And me? Well, I just think he's one of the few "real" artists on the scene today. Nothing more. Personally I don't care if his article ever comes back, he gets plenty of attention as it is (www.jeffreecuntstar.com is not really his main online habitat, his MySpace profile is as it has his music/photos/videos; I found it funny that the Wiki user who provided those stats chose that website instead of his MySpace). Furthermore, I was using him to point out this (in my opinion) censorship and bias.

Granted, you seem to have a problem with people advertising themselves on Wikipedia and see these "guidelines" as a way to restrict it, but I honestly just see that as an excuse. I feel such articles are easily picked out and with due cause can be erased and/or protected. The simple fact is that Indie artists (example off the top of my head? Shiny Toy Guns!) who are also internet-based like Jeffree can exist here as long as they don't offend the people with power. Wikipedia is run with bias, condones bias, and enforces bias.

[my opinion only]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I would clarify "knowledge" does not entail everything and "sum" clearly points to editing, summarizing and selection. Your intepretation is superficial. Wikipedia is at times hard pressed to keep pace with notable information; allowing everything would make it very hard to manage... as it is free and has limited resources, we do have to pick and choose.

As to Indie bands such as (Shiny Toy Guns!) getting an article, I cannot speak to that as I'm not familiar with that band; nor even with the musical notability criteria. I would say there are many people involved with Wikipedia who have bands of their own and really love music and indie music in particular. While they (and myself) are not perfect, they do have a sensibility for bands which are notable enough for an article; and that has zero to do with power and bias (unless they know the band personally, or have seen them in concert). Simply put, demonstrate notability and an article will practically create itself. On the note of self-promotion... that is bias; hence why we don't allow it. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Sophia Demiurge, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]