User talk:Vic dood

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Vic dood, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{[[:Category:Wikipedians looking for help|helpme]]}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in User talk:Ioeth, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. You forgot again! :-) Keep up the good work. You might want to go add some sources to your Mandy Meyer article. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as you did to Mandy Meyer. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. --Evb-wiki 20:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Scales

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Terry Scales, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.blueforce.demon.co.uk/terry.scales/profile.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 17:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resort link

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Chandler, Arizona do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nyttend 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes wiki link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_changes_patrol

Being nice Throughout the entire process of RC patrol, it is important to remember not to bite the newbies. Far from being a monolithic horde of vandals, trolls, and spammers, the available evidence seems to indicate that newcomers write most of Wikipedia's content.[1]

If you see a new user or IP address contributing, welcome them if you're so inclined, and include a pointer or two of feedback about how they can make their contributions even better. Most will gladly welcome the support.

It is also important to assume good faith as much as possible, or, minimally to assume incompetence instead of malice. For example, remember not everyone is as computer literate as you; some people will accidentally blank or damage pages when attempting to cut and paste material from Wikipedia. Others may not understand that, yes, their changes really are visible to the entire world.

Recent Changes Patrollers must maintain a level of respect for fellow editors.

Vic dood 04:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers wiki link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Wikipedia improves not only through the hard work of more dedicated members, but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers. All of us were newcomers once, even those careful or lucky enough to have avoided common mistakes, and many of us consider ourselves newcomers even after months (or years) of contributing.

New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things Vic dood 04:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish some of the patrollers would re-read this. Not you Ioeth, thanks for your courtesy. I am now re-considering participating here. If the point of Wikipedia is to give a bunch of sneering elitist patrollers a place to make themselves feel important by putting others down, then no I won't bother carrying on. OK Nyttend...

Vic dood 04:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Stub sorting

If you are interested in stub sorting I would first check out this page User:The_Transhumanist/Virtual_classroom/Stubbing_how-to. It was written as a guide to stub sorting. The main page for the stub sorting project is WP:WSS and all project pages can be found from there. Waacstats 08:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Casey Ryder deletion during creation and editing

this is the entry from the deletion log:

18:24, 19 October 2007 Merope (Talk | contribs) deleted "Casey ryder" ‎ (content was: '{{Infobox Album | Name = Here | Type = cd| Artist = Casey Ryder| Cover = | ...' (and the only contributor was 'Vic dood'))

my post on User talk:Merope Casey Ryder Why did you delete the new article I was working on as I was editing it, within seconds of it being created? would it not be more courteous and civil to discuss it first, and at least view the finished product before doing this?

Vic dood 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So far no response.

I was in the process of creating this page, and in the middle of an edit to to it. I went to save the revised info and the page had disappeared. Within seconds of creating and in the middle of editing it Merope deleted it with no comment or discussion or guidance or anything. what is going here at wikipedia?

Just totally discouraged and fed up. Vic dood 20:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain. One of my first articles I created got deleted, that I was in the middle of working on, too, but at least the wikipedian that did it to me was nice, and merged the content into another page.

Here's a trick you can use, if you're just creating a page. You can make most of it with comments and stuff on the discussion page. You can create a discussion page for a page without having to create the page itself. Here's an example: Talk:Casey_Rider. People will be less likely to delete it. Or, you can create a page that's part of your username. I made an example here: User:Vic_dood/Casey_Rider_Sandbox.

Something you should do is Assume Good Faith, on the part of the person who deleted your article. Who knows, maybe they're a newbie, too. Fredsmith2 00:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it was this person, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Merope A rouge admin. there was no good fiath, just abuse of power. but I dont care I am deleting my ID and packing my suitcase and leaving this dysfunctional madhouse. Vic dood 00:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go, but thanks for quoting Charlton Heston before you did. Fredsmith2 00:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: an online encyclopedia torn apart

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/10/11/dlwiki11.xml

Tireless volunteer effort has turned Wikipedia into the world's most popular information source. But increasingly acrimonious arguments about what it should include threaten to split the online encyclopedia in two. Ian Douglas reports

There's a war going on behind the pages of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia written and edited by its readers

Submission of new articles is slowing to a trickle where in previous years it was flood, and the discussion pages are increasingly filled with arguments and cryptic references to policy documents. The rise of the deletionists is threatening the hitherto peaceful growth of the world's most popular information source.

Even though anyone can edit all but the most controversial pages, the English-language Wikipedia is governed by a group of a little over 1,000 administrators drawn from the ranks of enthusiastic editors. Only they have the power to finally delete an article or bring it back from the dead.

The group is forming itself into two factions: inclusionists and deletionists. The deletionists say that an encyclopedia is not a dumping ground for facts; standards of notability have to be upheld or their pages will fill with trivia. Inclusionists reply that Wikipedia's great advantage is that it has no space limit and that an entry of interest to just a few people is justified. Niche articles will never trouble most people, since access is through search.

From the articles explaining the principles on Meta-Wiki, a website discussing how to manage Wikipedia, it is clear that both groups find the other a little ridiculous and enjoy poking fun at each other.

It's on the discussion pages of articles nominated for deletion that anger creeps in. Policy documents are referred to only by abbreviations. There's WP:NEO (avoid neologisms), WP:NOR (no original research), WP:NOT (what Wikipedia is not, including a dictionary, a crystal ball and a democracy) and the favourite of the deletionists WP:NOTE (notability).

The notability debate has spread across the discussions like a rash. As well as WP:NOTE itself, CSD (Criteria for Speedy Deletion) has a lot to say about what qualifies for an entry. The often-quoted CSD article seven bans any "article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not state why its subject is important or significant".

Short articles intended to be a seed for future edits (known as stubs) might not state why the subject is important, say the inclusionists, but that does not necessarily mean that it's insignificant. It might just need expanding.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, created a stub entitled Mzoli's Meats. It was one sentence: "Mzoli's Meats is a butcher shop and restaurant located in Guguletu township near Cape Town, South Africa", with a link to a blog.

It was deleted in 22 minutes in a unilateral action by Chad Horohoe, a 19-year-old Wikipedia administrator who goes by the name ^demon.

The two weeks of furious debate that followed was summarised by user Kelly Martin, who said: "The Wikipedia that Jimbo [Wales] originally created takes short stubs like the one he created and turns them into articles; stubs should only be deleted when there is no reasonable hope that they will ever cease to be stubs. Unfortunately, in the past few years Wikipedia has changed; it now takes short stubs and throws them in the trash can, and excoriates those who have the temerity to create them. This stub is being saved only because it was created by Jimbo."

Mzoli's Meats now has an extensive entry and is unlikely to be deleted.

Andrew Lih was a well-known deletionist until recently when he became embroiled in the row over the entry for Pownce, a messaging and bookmarking website from Kevin Rose, the founder of the popular site Digg.com. The entry for Pownce, which had been written up in Business Week, was deleted as advertising until Lih resurrected it. He wrote about the row on his blog and has become a de facto spokesman for the inclusionists, and says he feels like an old hand.

"The old timers remember the early days when we used to say 'ignore all rules' and 'assume good faith', but people tend not to emphasise that now. The third or fourth generation of Wikipedians has only heard Jimmy Wales talk about the problems.

"So now, mixed in with the euphoria and positive energy it's a lot of cutting, fighting, referencing, cutting back while leaving the good stuff in. New priorities are arriving. Newer folks feel like they're wielding a machete, not planting new trees.

"A lot of the veterans see established articles nominated for deletion. They try not to be arrogant, try to be inclusive, but it's tedious after six, seven or eight times."

At this year's Wikimania conference in Taiwan, a 6ft model of Wikipedia's lettered globe logo dominated the entrance hall. At the end of the three days it was smashed and the delegates rushed to take a piece home, signed by fellow Wikipedians.

Splinter websites are already springing up to rescue articles removed from the mainstream Wikipedia. As a new generation rises that edits with an axe, the old timers' hopes of maintaining a unified Wikipedia are beginning to fade.

Vic dood 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]