User talk:Thecatman1
- I realize you wish to tell people about this story and get them to this web page but Wikipedia is not for advertising which is what the article was before. I have done major editing to try and make the article in a tone appropriate for Wikipedia and not a tone meant for an advertisement. In the future please do not use Wikipedia for advertising purposes. Xtreme racer 03:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I saw the message you left me on my talk page. If you wish to discuss changes to the article leave your discussion on your talk page, I am watching it so I will know when you update it, and then we will take it from there. But as I have mentioned before Wikipedia isn't an advertising service, it is an encyclopedia so advertising isn't permitted. My changes to the article were to preserve the article as much as I could otherwise it would have probably been deleted. I am not saying it won't be deleted though if an administrator doesn't feel the same way about the article. Please in the future don't use Wikipedia for advertising purposes. Xtreme racer 03:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what is being advertised here. I see a very lengthy pages on many books and art pieces.. Yes, I am new.
Yes, this e-book was 10 months work, and sells nothing but messages of wildlife conservation and assisting endangered species. (through subliminal metaphors and analogies)
Everything originally stated was truth, not opinion, and only by reading the work can someone realize that. I am new to this, so before you prune a huge amount out, it would be nice to discuss these now permanent changes, and a probability that a valid work of art and literature is unworthy for inclusion in wikipedia.
If I need to add 3rd party critiques, or wrtie ups acknowledging validity of quality, tell me what is needed.
The speedy deletion notice was based on me not utilizing the proper copyright assurance, to which I complied. Thecatman1 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The way you initially wrote the article is considered advertisement on Wikipedia due to the first person view you used to describe the story. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be from neutral point of view. In the future please try to write in a neutral tone instead of what you think is neutral. Xtreme racer 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure I am doing this correctly, because I am new at this. I did read this though:
This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
As far as notability, I am the Founder, Chairman and President of the National Wildlife organiztion mentioned, and to a vast number of US population, I am notable, many considering me an expert on Big Cats and other wildlife. This is not something I want to add to the Tigerman page, as I am also a very modest human. I lso noted that I made my own name, and referenced to my personal website, as seen in many wikipedia articles.. That site advertises nothing either.
I await some sort of response. Respectfully Patrick "Catman" Webb Thecatman1 04:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome! | ||||
|
Check out the links I've provided above. You should read Wikipedia:Notability, the general notability guideline. To wit:
A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability.
Most of all Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertisement, noble goals or otherwise, but an encyclopedia that requires verifiable information from reliable sources. An editor with a conflict of interest may be unable to provide content that is of a neutral point-of-view, which is Wikipedia policy.
I'd suggest, to establish proper notability to meet Wikipedia:Notability (web), find some secondary sources that review the subject and properly cite the sources. — Scientizzle 04:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop adding your signature to the article...it's not supposed to go there, just on talk pages. — Scientizzle 00:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am an avid wildlife conservationist, and many environmentalists such as myself have seen merit in this one of a kind internet literary/art project. (Tigerman Saga) After seeing the large amount of changes and links removed, I emailed Catman Webb. I saw the before and after.
It needs to be defined, yet since it is such a new concept to the net, it defies catergorization, but it has to be defined somewhere to start a niche of this type of e-literature, as it is after all, the internet.
What better place to start a "new definition" than Wikipedia? It will be a long time before Webster's dictionary will ever define e-literature and art, especially ones that operate at several level to to reader.
It is spreading fast across the 'net, and sends a positive message of conservation, and preservation of precious resources, in an entertaining and palatable format. To throw it away, and allow it not to be defined, is very counter to the original purpose of wikipedia. Wikipedia was once very small also. You will find that there is no advertising, neither here in this Wikipedia article or within the Tigerman Saga. The purpose of a piece of work like this is to simply encourage people to look within themselves to see if they can buy a better attitude about Earth.
From the tiny acorn grows mighty oak.--Tootiturtle 05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I see how that other editor, the first one wants the layout, and I have no real problem other than he wants the first NWHS link in it to go to a wikipedia page, which I can make, but first things first ok? Not all internal wiki links go to wiki pages, I use wikipedia links, a lot so I know different.
I see a table with a saller version of the thumb from the story illustration, and I could do that in html with no problem, but wiki has their own language.
The text that was chosen was ok, but I would make some changes, which migh be more appropo to wiki standards, but now I am afraid to make any changes now that 2 admins are dead on it.
It's an internet illustrated e book, and slated for deletion it seems, at any moment. I saw words saying there was a big backlog, yet this has to go very quickly I guess.
I have read all the stuff, and notability seems an odd issue since I have addressed it in other places. Publications concerning editorials that have been in regional (paper/printed) magazines are hard to link. I have sent some emails, My Talk, Admin My Talk, and fear a deadline for doing something looms any moment. Nothing I did defies any copyrights, the description of the e-book was accurate, and the links all were to noble and reliable sources. I am now too lost and connfused, to just say "read the pillars"
I surrender.. This e-book is unable to be defined in wikipedia.. I was BOLD (Some guy named Jimbo said to be that way). Guess he didnt mean it :( Thecatman1 06:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I just couldn't surrender. It's not in my nature. :)
I added Notability, by referencing a printed media editorial and also linking the archived article from the magazine "e-version". I made all external links seperate and listed them at the bottom as shown by extreme racer's example. I looked up every reference made to see if there were Wiki pages and if there were, I created internal links for them.
I made sure that the art was properly branded for legal copyright, and show it as only a thumb as to preserve page space. I kept only pertinent and succinct descriptions, using mostly the examples of the primary edit by x treme racer.
I will endevour to create (when I have time, its 3:30 AM) to create a proper addition for National Wildlife Humane Society, so it will be an internal link. I will use World Wildlife Fund, or some other similar orgs wikipedia page as a model, to ensure proper layout.
Respectfully Catman Webb Thecatman1 08:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Tigerman, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Tigerman satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tigerman and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Tigerman during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
I'd suggest that your efforts my be more fruitful if you weren't writing about your own creation (or yoursefl), but insteadworked on creating an article (that meets inclusion standards, obviously) for the National Wildlife Humane Society. — Scientizzle 16:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"You are free to edit the content of Tigerman during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you."
I'm not sure how to now. Everything has been removed when I view through EDIT,,, except the part you added. There is nothing left to edit :(
You suggest that I write an article on National Wildlife Humane Society, but would I not still run into the same problems? I am the Founder of that National (and highly respected0 Org.
Observe the Board Of Directors. These are highly respected and notable humans. Yet they serve on the board of the org I founded. To create that page on NWHS could also be construed as self-serving?
Affiliate Sanctuaries These are also very real places, many being featued on Animal Planet, National Geographic Explorer, Hard Copy, on and on. Between these 5 sanctuaries, we are sanctuarying over 1000 endangered species (one sanctuary has appx 80 tigers). Tigerman is a literary character, and has a large following. He was not created to make some big commercial corporation millions of dollars, like Spiderman, etc. Only to entertain and to bring attention to wildlife conservation and NWHS.
Question? If Tigerman e-book had been added by a different person, other than me, the author, would the conflict of interest be as critical? I am attempting to define this character. Webster's does not have the system you have. Thecatman1 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I understand that you wish to inform people about this story but my initial edits were to remove things like "Tigerman, the story hero, is a human/tiger hybrid, and although a hero, is not always a nice guy. Especially when dealing with the villains in the plotline. Parents may want to preview the online story, or DVD Show, prior to allowing very young children viewing it." These types of sentences are completely irrelevant to an encyclopedia. These types of sentences are more meant for news articles and as a response to your question it wouldn't matter who created the article because if they wrote they same way it started off someone would have determined the article to fail Wikipedia policy and would have gone through the same process we are going through now or the page would have been deleted right away, also I would suggest that if you also own the account Tootiturtle, please do not use it again or you will be reported for sockpuppetry which is considered vandalism and finally please keep your signature OFF the article page. If you continue to add it back on I will report you for vandalism. Xtreme racer 00:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I certainly Do NOT own the account tootiturtle. Why would you think that? I am a very honorable person, and have spent my whole life in volunteerism. I am a highly respected human in my 50's. She is an avid reader of Tigerman, and responded of her own accord, after seeing the rejection of it here. I assume you read nothing about me, or my life's work in volunteer wildlife conservation.
Even the sanctuary I founded and run, takes a 1/3 of my personal annual income, and I have never profited a penny off of it in almost 20 years. That should give some indication of my character.
Reading anything concerning this online Saga, or me, you will note there is NO expectation of any personal gain. The Saga is there to entertain, garner a following, and direct attention to wildlife conservation especially endangered species. It is a very unusual project on the net, and that in itself makes it Notable.
Any potential earnings from any of this, is strictly for wildlife/endangered species (can the bands whose entries are approved here, able to say that any and all their earnings are strictly for charitabe cause?).
I am somewhat offended that you would make an allegation that I created a fake account, especially since you can easily check IP numbers, and clearly see mine is from Arkansas, and her's is from a northeastern state (not sure which one).
Also, I have observed bands and artists who created their own entries. I submitted my own entry, and made no indications that it was not me doing so. I have been very honest and up front. The Saga is on the net and free for anyone to read. Even the material available on a DVD is able to be downloaded for free, in the event someone doesn't want to donate anything for the wildlife org.
Who better to supply the entry? I was able to give direct and irrefutable permissions for the art used on the page, because I have that right as the creator. Most people would consider "advertising" as doing something for some sort of personal gain, which is NOT the case here.
I kept my discussions about a band that put their own addition in, and was marked KEEP, in a private email with Scientizzle, so as to NOT direct any negative focus on that entry, which was just a random pick I made as an example.
I come here with a tremendously strong background in animal science, wildlife conservation, genus and species knowledge of endangered wildlife, and felt after this entry I would make a good editor for all of the entries I have seen with vague and/or incorrect information concerning these areas, in Wikipedia.
I am not sure how old you are Xtreme Racer, but your fast and inaccurate assumption that I am of such low character as to create a fake account, without even checking IP's (or doing so only to strengthen a point, or denegrate me) makes me question your maturity level here. It should be noted that my real name and exact geographic location is evident. I know you only by Xtreme racer.
I originally appreciated your edits, and even said so. I submitted my entry in good taste and intentions, but possibly a lack of knowledge concerning typical article submission protocol. I did note someone of stature here, saying Be Bold (numerous times). My entire life is based on that philosophy.
I have been extremely polite, candid, honest and forthright in my comments here, and in personal emails with Scientizzle. I expect the same consideration and courtesy whether the submission fails or Keeps.
I realize also, that my candid remarks in this comment, will probably add to the possibility of rejection of the Tigerman article. I did however take offense at your comments questioning my character, when validation of IPs of the 2 different accounts would be so simple, that it makes me wonder why you made the reference without doing so first. Thecatman1 14:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- What you don't realize is when you have a user account your IP address is hidden and can only be looked at through an administrator on suspicion of sockpuppetry. Since the comments looked similar and were made in the time it would take to switch accounts I figured I would comment on possible sockpuppetry. Xtreme racer 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"and finally please keep your signature OFF the article page. If you continue to add it back on I will report you for vandalism. Xtreme racer 00:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)"
My sincere apologies for adding that on the article page, I was reminded several times to use my signature by Scientizzle.
"and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~)."
So, I used my sig everywhere, not as vandalism but as a mistake in understanding, and diligent effort in compliance.
"
- What you don't realize is when you have a user account your IP address is hidden and can only be looked at through an administrator on suspicion of sockpuppetry. Since the comments looked similar and were made in the time it would take to switch accounts I figured I would comment on possible sockpuppetry. Xtreme racer 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"
"I figured I would comment on possible sockpuppetry."
That's assumption, and you know what they say about assume.
The suspicion of "sockpuppetry" sounds like an extremely serious offense (and I am sure it should be, to protect the integrity of Wikipedia). So should also, any allegations of that accusation.
I may not understand all of the variables of proper etiquette of conversation and replies here yet, but I certainly do understand the respect this website deserves. Enough so, not to fabricate a fake account. Again, my real name and location is posted numerous times here, so creating a false account should be obviously something I would not do.
I am certain that a quick request to admin. could have cleared that suspicion without making it a part of this public internet discussion.
Is Scientizzle admin? He appears so, and has been active in the discussion. If he is not, he should be. He seems to be extremely knowledgeable of protocol here, and very responsive. I would say that you could have gotten a fast response on this IP/sockpuppetry subject, without fast assumptions. Thecatman1 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Scientizzle isn't an administrator. If he was his main page would have the administrator userbox and since it isn't there he isn't an administrator and also sockpuppetry investigations are only meant for severe cases of sockpuppetry as an administrator then has to go through the server log of Wikipedia to see if it is sockpuppetry. Since this takes a long time and a lot of effort hence the reason for it's use only in severe cases of sockpuppetry. Xtreme racer 14:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I did check into designations of positions here after posting that, and do see that he is not currently admin, but appears to be heading that way, and seems to be knowledgeable enough to have earned it. maybe that's why I felt he was before learning how to check. My own interactive sites are easy to check IP's on members, taking only a moment, with a lookup of their original application upon joining. The IP is attached.
This discussion is not pertinent to the matters at hand though, so I will just end this with a comment that my real life is far larger than the internet, and I am not accustomed to any allegations of impropriety. no cabal
I hide nothing in my real life, nor on the internet, as I have nothing to hide. I am somewhat a public figure, and live my life accordingly (sometimes it seems like living in a fishbowl).
Back to matters at hand. I went to Jimbo Walespage and started from there on definitions. I followed it to advertisingto see how it is defined here. Since the Tigerman article sells nothing, and is provided for education and entertainment, the closest it can come to being construed in a not for profit manner(amongst the advertising definitions here) is promoting an interest group or non-profit organization. Since it does indeed provide many links to National Wildlife Humane Society, I would say that comes as close as any, for definition.
Even that's a stretch though, because the specific content of the site and the character, still remains "education and entertainment". Much like thousands of other entries here.
Notability was established with only one Reference, but if that was a strict criteria, then many articles here would be subject to deletion. Many show none. Also, so many articles have been entered by bands and such, concerning their own arts (with Keep), this seems also to be hair splitting.
So, quoting Jimbo Wales I will digress to "nothing is set in concrete" (wise words for progress) and "Be Bold" (also wise words, for the advancement of human spirit). So, the only issue that remains, is that I am the writer of the story, am also the submitter of the article (by-passing all copyright issues on the article and accompanying art), which can allude to neutral point of view.
At this juncture, in the article, nowhere does it give opinion on the quality of writing or art. No where does it say the art is "fantastic" or the writing is "awesome" nor any descriptions of any nature, concerning the level of competence.
So, if we are splitting hairs over this possible lack of neutrality, that can be negated simply by any editor deciding if changes are applicable to obtain NPOV if they feel it is needed. Considering the rapid growth of readership of The Tigerman Saga, and the very unique nature of it's presence on the net, I would hope for a consideration of editing of the entry, before consideration of deletion.
Prior to other editors making a Delete or Keep decision, I would like to refer them to these comments, prior to their decision. I am making a case for my submission, and my comments should be taken into consideration on a decision making process.
I am not sure how to accomplish that, without simply pasting these comments into the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tigerman. That seems a waste of space, and much here on MyTalk page is not pertinent to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tigerman Thecatman1 17:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest all dicussions of the deletion of the Tigerman article, point to a more appropriate page, to make it easier for editors to meet in the same place.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tigerman
Thecatman1 05:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Fresh start
[edit]As you've probably noticed, Tigerman was deleted. If future sources arise that support claims of notability, it may be appropriate to recreate. If you've any question on whether a source cuts the mustard, contact me and I'll give it a look.
Hopefully this hasn't discouraged your future participation in this project. Maybe you can lend your knowledge to improving articles on cats, Animal sanctuaries, or animal welfare. In any case, sorry you had a rough first round here... Regards, — Scientizzle 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Fresh start - Reply
[edit]- I chose a difficult path, and am still exploring the protocol, the vagaries, and the borders of expression here. There may be possible current sources that support claims of notability of Tigerman (click - needs editing). I always have much on my plate in many other endeavors, and tend to get "stretched a bit thin" sometimes.
- As noted of my continued desire, that a link to Wikipedia always remain in the National Wildlife Humane Society's (NWHS) Educational Links Page (along with many other Notable Educational Resources) is out of a continued respect for this website.
- I tend to always test the boundries of myself, and what I encounter in my life. Possibly, I end up testing other people's boundries as well. This is never meant to offend anyone, as life itself is merely a test.
- Even this reply, to your above comment on my User Discussion page, tests to see if you still have this page on Watch *wink*. I certainly do not consider this a "rough first round here", as I have far rougher conditions in my life than this. I invite you to reply to my email (if you desire), and consider more mentoring, in my efforts to explore the boundries of Wikipedia, it's protocol, and perhaps most important, flexibility. There is a difference between a "trouble maker" and an "explorer". My hope is that you will view me as the latter, and not the former.
- Yes, I am an "old guy", but see many areas in Wikipedia where my maturity of years, and varied experiences might prove valuable. My verbosity (still needs editing, lol) is also a benchmark of my determination.
- I invite you to post to my User Discussion Page at any time, and make yourself feel welcome to express your views on any matters, related to Wikipedia or not. I look forward to your advice on being the best of editors here.
Thecatman1 08:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Tigermanatnight.jpg
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tigermanatnight.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Catandtigs.jpg
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Catandtigs.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
