User talk:Dragonfiend
Hi, Can you give a valid reason why you and your friends from Comixpedia continue to edit out an example of a 3d webcomic? That comic happens to be a 3d comic and I noticed there were no examples in the article. I added it as an example of a 3d webcomic. I would hate to think you are all claiming ownership over an article in Wikipedia which is open to edits and improvements. I might feel the need to consider reporting your over edits as abuse of wikipedia.org User:141.155.205.74 05:41, November 7, 2005
- Hi, first let me say that I'm not one of the people who reverted your edits of the webcomics article; the revert I made was from the edits of User:201.124.131.79 not you, User:141.155.205.74. Also, I am not in any way affiliated with Comixpedia, nor am I friends with any of the other Wikipedia editors except in perhaps the very loosest use of the term (we share some common goals but often disagree on how to best reach them; I've never met any of them offline nor even traded any e-mails with them). I do, however, agree with the recent reverts that User:Nifboy and User:Kiba have made to the webcomics article. I don't believe that the addition of a plot summary of a single webcomic has a place in an article on the general topic of webcomics. I also don't believe that this webcomic you refer to is notable enough for a mention in an article that is this general -- all of the webcomics in a general webcomics article ought to be major works. There has been an attempt to mention major works of differing styles and genres (popular video game comic strips like Penny Arcade and 8-Bit Theater vs. more experimental comics like Cuentos De La Frontera and Fetus-X). Keep in mind that Wikipedia is built upon consensus; I hope that you can take the opinons of three different editors as an indication of such a consensus behind the idea that your addition is innapropriate to this article. If you think that there ought to be a couple examples listed of 3D webcomics, perhaps you could find some more notable examples -- like maybe the webcomics of Modern Tales and American Splendor artist Joe Zabel. For more information on webcomics and notability, see WP:WEB. And I know that seeing your edits changed to reflect the consensus of the community can be hard, but that's the nature of Wikipedia. Everyone here has their articles edited by everyone else. Dragonfiend 02:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, Thank you for your polite response. I apologize if I came off rude. I was just confused as to why an example of a 3d comic was being constantly removed. I addressed kiba on his page about the whole vanity thing as I was sure he was confusing my additions to the article with something else for some reason or other. Regardless, I hope that perhaps he can address the questions I have regarding the group of individuals who currently monitor and control the webcomics article. I happen to enjoy webcomics as well and it seems to me that to it seems odd to state "everyone has their articles edited by everyone else" in one breath, yet when someone does edit kiba's articles - they are reverted back to kiba's original article as if he is above edits. Like I said, I'm new to this so forgive me if I'm failing to see why it's not ok to edit kiba's articles but others can be edited. Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.User:141.155.205.74 05:41, November 8, 2005
Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages. You may also want to check out Wikipedia:Merge, for information about merging, renaming and moving pages. The Wikipedia directory is also quite useful. In addition, you might want to add yourself to the new user log; if you made any edits before getting an account, you may wish to assign those to your username.
By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.
Finally, here are some open tasks:
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
Other links for reference: Wikipedia:Wikiquette, image copyright tags, Wikipedia:Merge
Hope to see you around the Wiki! Remember to be Bold! with your edits, and if you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page!∞Who?¿? 03:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Hello, you voted on this VfD which I had accidentlally pasted Gillian Slovo instead of JDizzle Comics. I cleared all votes in order to remove any bias because of my stupidity so please vote again knowing that it is about JDizzle Comics. Sorry and thanks. gren グレン 21:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
As a member of WikiProject Comics, I thought you might be interested in the Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight we have set up. Please feel free to vote on the articles listed, although bear in mind that a vote for a particular article means you are pledging to help improve the article. The goal of the collaboration is to improve articles to Featured Article status, as we feel Comics is under-represented in that area. Thanks for your help. Steve block talk 15:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Request for Comment
User:Snowspinner has opened up a RFC over my general behaviour. You have been commenting on various afds that I have started, and so should have a general overview of my behaviour on those threads. I'm sure you can provide some decent balanced commentary on the affair. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hahnchen - Hahnchen 17:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out to me -- I left my comments over there. Dragonfiend 02:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
RfC for Hahnchen
Over at Wikipedia Webomics, Hahnchen is being put on an RfC debate due to his recent purge of the webcomics section. You seem to be knowledgable Throw in your two cents Requests_for_comment/Hahnchen
Also, I took the liberty of adding 8 1/2 by Eleven and Able and Baker to the deleted list on your userpage. Hope you don't mind... wanted to keep it up to date Tedzsee 23:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I just left a comment onn the RfC. Thanks also for helping keep my list up to date -- feel free to make other additions or updates. Dragonfiend 02:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Possible compromise
Take a look at Tedzee's compromise proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Websites#A_modest_webcomic_proposal. I'd like to request your support for it, in principle, as a way out of this mess that addresses the potential conflict-of-interest issues. I'd also like to suggest not arguing with Snowspinner's rseponse; let his views on a compromise proposed by someone who's actively working to expand webcomic coverage stand for themselves. -- SCZenz 21:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC) (P.S. Sorry again about the pronoun.)
- I just posted my support for the proposal. No problemn with the pronouns -- it's not the first time it's ever happenned. And I'm starting to think that Snowspinner has no idea what "conflict of interest" even means. Dragonfiend 03:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is worth nothing I also support this proposal. See? We're capable of being on the same side of an issue. Honestly. ;) Eric Burns 18:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I am concerned that your nomination of Checkerboard Nightmare for deletion could readily be taken as disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Perhaps it was just a lapse of research or judgment on your part - I certainly hope so. But in the future, please try to be more attentive before nominating articles for deletion. Phil Sandifer 02:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- You have given no basis for your concern that this AfD violates WP:POINT. Your concern is wholly unfounded and far outside of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I nominated an article for deletion based on the clearly stated reasoning I gave; the only point I was making was that I thought the article ought to be considered for deletion. Reasonable editors can explain their disagreement on an AfD without resorting to personal attacks. Please use wikipedia to discuss the contents of articles, not your ill feelings towards other wikipedia editors. Please familiarize yourself with the policies of Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility. Dragonfiend 03:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Checkerboard Nightmare
I don't know how else to put this, so I hope you will forgive my bluntness. Your nomination sucked. It was one of the worst and most inappropriate AfD nominations I have ever seen. This, coupled with your insane claims about conflict of interest and insistence that your ignorant perspective needs to count just as much as that of experts combine to make it so that, in my view, your AfD nominations regarding webcomics ought be opposed on sight. Aside from the vast number of notability reasons that had been expressed, that was my primary reason for wanting to keep the article - because you specifically should never nominate another webcomic for deletion again. Phil Sandifer 02:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is important that we discuss wikipedia articles, guidelines, and policy with civility. Accusations of "insane claims" and "ignorant perspective" are innapropriate. See Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility. Please keep your assumptions and accusations regarding my webcomics expertise and sanity off of wikipedia. I find your continued personal attacks to be innappropriate. Please stop. Dragonfiend 04:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Webcomics
How exactly did you think that Checkerboard Nightmare, a webcomic that's been in both Keenspot and Blank Label, 2 of the 4 examples of syndicates listed as indicators of notability was non-notable?
Anyway, some constructive criticism: having the Alexa rankings, which are unreliable, and often changing, on your page. It really creates the impression you've got something against webcomics. Plus Alexa is decidedly skewed against feed readers, non-IE/netscape and non-windows users. Not to mention those who use anti-spyware, which is decidedly a lot people.
- Hello. I do not have anything against webcomics. I love webcomics. Please don't assume that just because I nominated a webcomic for deletion it means that I have never heard of the comic before I saw its wikipedia article, that I know nothing about the comic other than what's in its article, or even that I don't like the webcomic myself. I've been reading webcomics for almost ten years, I was one of Modern Tales' first subscribers, I read comixpedia regularly, etc. Yet while I love hundreds of webcomics, I recognize that not every webcomic that I love belongs in an encyclopedia because the usefulness of an encyclopedia is hurt by articles on non-notable topics. You specifically asked about "2 of the 4 examples of syndicates" -- that proposed guideline was not part of WP:WEB when I made the nomination (it was just added at 02:40, 21 November 2005). The issue of syndicates was not in the guidelines because, among other reasons, consensus was that membership in a notable group did not automatically make every member of that group notable. For example, the webcomic "Big Dick's Ball" is not notable even though it was once part of Graphic Smash. Also, I know Alexa is not a perfect system, but the reason I made the list on my user page was to see just how accurate it was; the reason I kept it was because it seems extremely accurate and I found it helpful to have all the Alexa rankings in one place. There's no question that if we had the logs to each site we'd probably find that comics 1-50 are somewhat out of order, but I don't think we'd find that the order is so bad that a comic that's ranked 100th really ought to be in the top ten. And, as I've stated on my user page, as I've stated on the Checkerboard AfD, and as it's stated in the WP:WEB guidelines, Alexa is only one thing to be considered. Dragonfiend 05:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm sorry for everything that's gone in your direction about this, you do seem like you have genuinely made a mistake. I just saw the fact that your page featured a list of "webcomics articles deleted so far", which, along with this nomination and your abrupt tone made me think you were going over the top on this. Websnark's been rather annoyed about wikipedia's deletion policy of late, and seeing this made me think it was too far. I said some stupid things, but I'm sorry for anything bad I've caused. J•A•K 16:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- I appreciate and accept your apology. Dragonfiend 17:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Your general suck-itude
Appears to have gone up seven degrees with the nomination of this last webcomic. Congrats! I'm at a loss as to exactly what it is that you've done so wrong, but perhaps I simply can't see the FNORDs.
I've added a "socks beware" notice to the top of the page, put contribution information on most of the users, and am generally watching this page now. I've also asked a few others to have a look and see what they think of the discussion to date. Regardless of the outcome of this nomination, I'd imagine that re-listing wouldn't be out of line as the process is pretty contaminated. Often things go cleanly the second time around, when passions have cooled a little, e.g. LeveL. Always fun, when things like WP:V seem to be just too hard...
brenneman(t)(c) 06:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, there is some confusion as to the google results, have you mis-pasted the search you used?
brenneman(t)(c) 06:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)- Oh2, I'd move that list on the main page to User:Dragonfiend/Comics or something, it does give the appearance of a purge...
brenneman(t)(c) 06:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)- Thanks for helping civilize that AfD. I've clarified my Google search on the AfD -- I was looking at unique sites rather than total pages. I've also moved the Alexa ranking list. It's ironic that Comixpedia keeps their own Alexa rank charts [1] but mine is Exhibit A for how I totally suck and don't know anything about webcomics. Dragonfiend 07:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Did you look at the page you linked to? It's on Comixpedia, the magazine, not Comixpedia, the wiki. Those are two separate sites. Factitious 21:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm very aware of the differences between the dot-com and dot-org Comixpedia. I've been reading Comixpedia (the online zine) for years, which is why I still refer to it as just "Comixpedia" as opposed to "The Comixpedia Wiki." Dragonfiend 02:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Did you look at the page you linked to? It's on Comixpedia, the magazine, not Comixpedia, the wiki. Those are two separate sites. Factitious 21:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping civilize that AfD. I've clarified my Google search on the AfD -- I was looking at unique sites rather than total pages. I've also moved the Alexa ranking list. It's ironic that Comixpedia keeps their own Alexa rank charts [1] but mine is Exhibit A for how I totally suck and don't know anything about webcomics. Dragonfiend 07:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh2, I'd move that list on the main page to User:Dragonfiend/Comics or something, it does give the appearance of a purge...
- I went from being angry to mildly amused by the whole thing; the webcomic fandom absolutely loves CxN, anyone outside it is completely clueless. That's basically the deletionist/inclusionist battleline right there. Nifboy 10:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Image
Other people have already gone over the absurdity of thinking that Checkerboard Nightmare isn't notable. I'm more concerned with how your deletion attempts are affecting the way Wikipedia as a whole is viewed. Have you seen this recent Websnark post? Trying to delete important webcomics sends the message that deletion at Wikipedia is horribly broken, and that as a result, we can no longer be trusted to provide information. I'm a Wikipedian, and I'm also someone who cares about webcomics. In the past, I've tried to ensure that Wikipedia has useful information about webcomics. Now that the webcomics community is getting disgusted with Wikipedia, I feel like we've failed them. I don't know if it's too late or not, but could you please put more care into your deletion nominations? Perhaps you could even stop trying to delete webcomics altogether, now that you know you aren't able to judge them accurately. Factitious 21:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, indeed
If you'd only stop nominating things with fully explained, carefully linked paragraphs that support your reasoning, all of us whom love web-comics could stop foaming at the mouth. Please don't let your good sense disrupt our attempt to create a compendium of all human webcruft that anyone can edit. I'm going to make entries at websnark, dogg, and adultmatchmaker with links to this page. After all, the weight of an argument is directly proportional to the number of people making it, right?
brenneman(t)(c) 01:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I really think you're taking the wrong viewpoint on this. I mean, you suggested a comic for deletion, people were made aware of it, and reacted mostly in favor of keeping it. Just because the original proposal was well-linked doesn't mean it has to be correct. If enough people think it's worth keeping, I don't see why you think it's a loss to be kept. Bobulus 03:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's not a loss that it was kept. It's a loss that in the current climate we're unable to have calm reasoned discourse among people for whom their myopic self-interest takes a backseat to larger goals. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Looking at your and Dragonfiend's edit list, you guys seem to be targeting mostly webcomics. Don't you think that's a little hypocritical to say that the 'keep' people are only interested for personal reasons in that light? I would argue that your attitude is much of the reason things flared up as much as they did. That's not a personal attack, that's just my opinion. You're calling for citing when, other than the original Dragonfiend evidence, you don't provide any yourself. You recruit people to help you out in a deletion effort while deriding people on the other side who point out the article. I understand the need to remove self-promoting, advertising articles, but other than that, I see no advantage to a deleting campaign. I would say you're only hurting the system. Bobulus 04:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm totally fine with whatever consensus is formed during a civil, thoughtful AfD discussion. I don't expect everyone is going to agree with me all the time, I don't expect that I'm never going to make a mistake, but I do expect people who disagree with me to explain why they disagree in a civil manner that is supported by verifiable facts. That's how people with differing opinions carry on intelligent, respectful discussion in order to reach common ground and consensus. That's what all of wikipedia is based on, and that's why I (when I'm not the target of an organized smear campaign) love it. I am not at all fine, however, with other wikipedians posting personal attacks both here in wikipedia and in their blogs about me over the perceived crisis of an AfD discussion that was (with 2 deletes, 1 merge, and 1 keep) headed for a "no consensus"-type keep already before the big meat puppet attack was called in. I am not fine with some webcomics boy's club vandalizing my user page to make fun of me because I'm a girl, or throwing a Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Megatokyo tantrum. I am not fine with people assuming that, because they disagree with me in one single instance of trying to decide the sometimes blurry line between what is and isn't encyclopedic, that I must be a complete idiot when it comes to webcomics rather than someone who has been reading webcomics since I discovered "Raunchy Roach" back in 1996. I was one of the first people to subscribe to Modern Tales. I've been reading Comixpedia since it started. Right before you and your friends showed up to tell me how I don't know anything about webcomics, I was creating the article on When I Am King between adding "T.H.E. Fox" to the history Webcomics and making every edit but one to Girlamatic. I'm not sure who you and your friends think hands out the secret membership cards for the "webcomics community," but I'm not at all fine with your assumption that I don't get one. And I'm not at all fine with having to lay awake at night wondering whether someone like User:Snowspinner is going to follow through on his posts to User:Eric Burns's blog about how webcomic deletion on wikipedia makes him "really feel" "like killing" while you and your buddies all sit around and have a good laugh and accuse me of being the one that's being disruptive and making wikipedia look bad. Maybe it makes you feel like a bunch of tough guys to try to gang up and bully me just because, while trying to help make a good encyclopedia, I may have disrespected a comic that you like, but surely you can understand that this behaviour violates Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility. As well as, you know, just basic human decency. Dragonfiend 05:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Flowers and kittens for creating the When I Am King article, I was appaled to see it was a red link when I used it as an example in the discussions at WP:WEB.
- You're a girl? Ewww.
brenneman(t)(c) 05:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am trying to be civil here, despite what you seem to be reading from my intentions. I have no affiliation with people like this Snowspinner or the guy who (quite incorrectly) tried to use a deletion of Megatokyo to prove a point. While I don't have a great deal of edits to my name (and, just for the record, many of those that I do, I just don't bother to log in for), I do look at Wikipedia as a source of information, and not as a method of endorsing or advertising something I enjoy. I have absolutely no concerns about your gender, and have not used any personal attacks. I have tried, in the deletion thread and in this section, to concisely state why I disagreed with your position on this topic and provide evidence when necessary. That said, I am trying to say that your 'meatpuppet' argument does not seem entirely reasonable. While I have used Checkerboard Nightmare's page this week, if I had, I would have seen the deletion notice and posted in the deletion area about it. The fact that I came here when someone linked it, rather than finding it myself should not invalidate my opinion. If sufficient people are finding an article helpful, it shouldn't matter where they're coming from. Finally, it's clear we have different tastes in webcomics. That's fine. There's enough room out there for people of all tastes. All I'm asking is for you to see the other side of the issue. Bobulus 05:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I see, yet don't agree, with the other side(s) of the issue, including the ideas that an encyclopedia should cover all webcomics with 100 comics, one year of updates, membership in a "syndicate," and/or participation in a Comicon panel. But really, after that train-wreck of personal attacks, vandalism, meat-puppetry and wikipedia disruption that was that AfD, you find yourself most troubled by the idea that I might not be seeing "the other side of the issue"? Are you going to the talk pages of all the users who made personal attacks or committed vandalism, and helping them to see my side of the issue? Are you posting on User:Eric Burns blog to help him and his meat-puppet friends see my side of the issue? If you're not, then I think you've made your affiliation pretty clear. Dragonfiend 08:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Here's the thing I think you fail to understand, more than anything else. Your actions come across like you're coming out and purging the webcomics entries over here. You have lists, you seem to take pride in the numbers of webcomics you delete, and you reject arguments for differing criteria for inclusion out of hand. You continue to cling to the Alexa model -- a model which at the very least the webcomics community is strongly against due to its lack of serious statistical validity (polling those Microsoft Windows users who use Internet Explorer and happened to download Alexa as a representative sample of the internet, sans Firefox, Mozilla, the entire Macintosh platform, the entire Linux/free software community or sans anyone who never actually thought or wanted to use Alexa yields questionable results at best), and you have taken it upon yourself to clean up Dodge City. Is it any wonder that you're seen as representative of the core problem -- the application of uninformed and fallacious reasons to delete entries in Wikipedia as non-notable? The reason that we all -- myself most visibly -- reacted so strongly to this is because it seemed wholly absurd to even be having the discussion. Checkerboard Nightmare is a webcomic that has had profound impact on other webcomics. It practically defined metacomics on the web, at least in the time period it existed. It was Kris Straub's mouthpiece during many years of Webcomics and Internet drama, and it strongly influenced both webcomics and webcomics commentary during that time. (The fact that you claim to be a regular reader of Comixpedia magazine -- a magazine that publishes a monthly column by Straub on the strength of his significance, born wholly at the time he got the gig of Checkerboard Nightmare -- would seem to indicate you should already know this stuff). So, yes. When you so publicly draw battle lines and cling to models that the very community you're trying to separate into the notable and the non-notable have rejected, you get a whole lot of webcomics fans and creators lining up against you. You get a lot of people thinking that you just don't get it. You don't get the concept of artistic significance. You don't get the idea that notability is not simply a measure of popularity, and that a small idiosyncratic population does not act as a decent measure of said popularity. And you convince people who care about webcomics and want to see a decent reference work that Wikipedia as a whole just isn't worth it. It's not worth it to devote our time and energy trying to make the process better, or the entries better. It's easier by far to simply develop a resource of our own. And that might be the most important thing for you to realize -- if you look at my post, I don't say "this guy Dragonfiend is a jerk! Look at his jerk thing!" It says that Checkerboard Nightmare -- an obviously significant webcomic within the community -- has to have its inclusion in Wikipedia defended. On top of many other defenses in recent months. And that therefore, Wikipedia -- at least as a webcomics reference -- is broken. Go elsewhere for reference material. In other words, your actions are tarring Wikipedia as a whole, and tainting public perception of it. I'm truly sorry if you're offended by our offense, but if your ultimate goal is to improve Wikipedia, it's time you go about it a different way.Eric Burns 18:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, rereading that screed of mine I should have made it more clear that when I say "You get a lot of people thinking that you just don't get it. You don't get the concept of artistic significance. You don't get the idea that notability is not simply a measure of popularity, and that a small idiosyncratic population does not act as a decent measure of said popularity" it sounds like I'm stating that you don't actually understand artistic significance, et al. My intent was that you appear not to understand such things, when you act in this way, not that you don't actually understand them. It seemed I should cop to the error straightaway. Eric Burns 18:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Here's the thing I think you fail to understand, more than anything else. Your actions come across like you're coming out and purging the webcomics entries over here. You have lists, you seem to take pride in the numbers of webcomics you delete, and you reject arguments for differing criteria for inclusion out of hand. You continue to cling to the Alexa model -- a model which at the very least the webcomics community is strongly against due to its lack of serious statistical validity (polling those Microsoft Windows users who use Internet Explorer and happened to download Alexa as a representative sample of the internet, sans Firefox, Mozilla, the entire Macintosh platform, the entire Linux/free software community or sans anyone who never actually thought or wanted to use Alexa yields questionable results at best), and you have taken it upon yourself to clean up Dodge City. Is it any wonder that you're seen as representative of the core problem -- the application of uninformed and fallacious reasons to delete entries in Wikipedia as non-notable? The reason that we all -- myself most visibly -- reacted so strongly to this is because it seemed wholly absurd to even be having the discussion. Checkerboard Nightmare is a webcomic that has had profound impact on other webcomics. It practically defined metacomics on the web, at least in the time period it existed. It was Kris Straub's mouthpiece during many years of Webcomics and Internet drama, and it strongly influenced both webcomics and webcomics commentary during that time. (The fact that you claim to be a regular reader of Comixpedia magazine -- a magazine that publishes a monthly column by Straub on the strength of his significance, born wholly at the time he got the gig of Checkerboard Nightmare -- would seem to indicate you should already know this stuff). So, yes. When you so publicly draw battle lines and cling to models that the very community you're trying to separate into the notable and the non-notable have rejected, you get a whole lot of webcomics fans and creators lining up against you. You get a lot of people thinking that you just don't get it. You don't get the concept of artistic significance. You don't get the idea that notability is not simply a measure of popularity, and that a small idiosyncratic population does not act as a decent measure of said popularity. And you convince people who care about webcomics and want to see a decent reference work that Wikipedia as a whole just isn't worth it. It's not worth it to devote our time and energy trying to make the process better, or the entries better. It's easier by far to simply develop a resource of our own. And that might be the most important thing for you to realize -- if you look at my post, I don't say "this guy Dragonfiend is a jerk! Look at his jerk thing!" It says that Checkerboard Nightmare -- an obviously significant webcomic within the community -- has to have its inclusion in Wikipedia defended. On top of many other defenses in recent months. And that therefore, Wikipedia -- at least as a webcomics reference -- is broken. Go elsewhere for reference material. In other words, your actions are tarring Wikipedia as a whole, and tainting public perception of it. I'm truly sorry if you're offended by our offense, but if your ultimate goal is to improve Wikipedia, it's time you go about it a different way.Eric Burns 18:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I see, yet don't agree, with the other side(s) of the issue, including the ideas that an encyclopedia should cover all webcomics with 100 comics, one year of updates, membership in a "syndicate," and/or participation in a Comicon panel. But really, after that train-wreck of personal attacks, vandalism, meat-puppetry and wikipedia disruption that was that AfD, you find yourself most troubled by the idea that I might not be seeing "the other side of the issue"? Are you going to the talk pages of all the users who made personal attacks or committed vandalism, and helping them to see my side of the issue? Are you posting on User:Eric Burns blog to help him and his meat-puppet friends see my side of the issue? If you're not, then I think you've made your affiliation pretty clear. Dragonfiend 08:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm totally fine with whatever consensus is formed during a civil, thoughtful AfD discussion. I don't expect everyone is going to agree with me all the time, I don't expect that I'm never going to make a mistake, but I do expect people who disagree with me to explain why they disagree in a civil manner that is supported by verifiable facts. That's how people with differing opinions carry on intelligent, respectful discussion in order to reach common ground and consensus. That's what all of wikipedia is based on, and that's why I (when I'm not the target of an organized smear campaign) love it. I am not at all fine, however, with other wikipedians posting personal attacks both here in wikipedia and in their blogs about me over the perceived crisis of an AfD discussion that was (with 2 deletes, 1 merge, and 1 keep) headed for a "no consensus"-type keep already before the big meat puppet attack was called in. I am not fine with some webcomics boy's club vandalizing my user page to make fun of me because I'm a girl, or throwing a Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Megatokyo tantrum. I am not fine with people assuming that, because they disagree with me in one single instance of trying to decide the sometimes blurry line between what is and isn't encyclopedic, that I must be a complete idiot when it comes to webcomics rather than someone who has been reading webcomics since I discovered "Raunchy Roach" back in 1996. I was one of the first people to subscribe to Modern Tales. I've been reading Comixpedia since it started. Right before you and your friends showed up to tell me how I don't know anything about webcomics, I was creating the article on When I Am King between adding "T.H.E. Fox" to the history Webcomics and making every edit but one to Girlamatic. I'm not sure who you and your friends think hands out the secret membership cards for the "webcomics community," but I'm not at all fine with your assumption that I don't get one. And I'm not at all fine with having to lay awake at night wondering whether someone like User:Snowspinner is going to follow through on his posts to User:Eric Burns's blog about how webcomic deletion on wikipedia makes him "really feel" "like killing" while you and your buddies all sit around and have a good laugh and accuse me of being the one that's being disruptive and making wikipedia look bad. Maybe it makes you feel like a bunch of tough guys to try to gang up and bully me just because, while trying to help make a good encyclopedia, I may have disrespected a comic that you like, but surely you can understand that this behaviour violates Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility. As well as, you know, just basic human decency. Dragonfiend 05:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Looking at your and Dragonfiend's edit list, you guys seem to be targeting mostly webcomics. Don't you think that's a little hypocritical to say that the 'keep' people are only interested for personal reasons in that light? I would argue that your attitude is much of the reason things flared up as much as they did. That's not a personal attack, that's just my opinion. You're calling for citing when, other than the original Dragonfiend evidence, you don't provide any yourself. You recruit people to help you out in a deletion effort while deriding people on the other side who point out the article. I understand the need to remove self-promoting, advertising articles, but other than that, I see no advantage to a deleting campaign. I would say you're only hurting the system. Bobulus 04:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's not a loss that it was kept. It's a loss that in the current climate we're unable to have calm reasoned discourse among people for whom their myopic self-interest takes a backseat to larger goals. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Notability: Why?
One thing I've not understood while watching this whole cXn debate (and similar, less dramatic ones popping up all over the community) from the sidelines is why notability is an issue when it comes to topics like webcomics. I understand deleting vanity articles written simply to promote a topic, but why should we reject well written and otherwise encyclopedic articles simply because they're not particularly exciting or well known? My basic question is: Why is notability a requirement with merit for our encyclopedia? I can see topics of little notability being excluded from 1.0, but why do articles on minor topics interfere with Wikipedia as a whole? TastemyHouse 20:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)