Talk:AnimeIowa/Archive 1

Maintain the Events Section
First, I would like to point out I am currently in no way affiliated with AnimeIowa staff.

Secondly, Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia for useful information about notable subjects. AnimeIowa is the biggest Anime Convention in the state, with nearly 2,000 visitors. Because of this, I will soon be finding secondary sources for this article.

Thirdly, the events section. Having a list of events is valuable information for any person researching this Convention. It is not advertising, but a listing of the possible venues a person can visit while at Anime Iowa. It is also the clearest, and easiest way to sum-up how fun a convention might be. Other cons, [Youmacon], contain similar, but less detailed information. It is useful, notable information for the inclusion in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kopf1988 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC).


 * First of all, I'm not disputing the notability of the convention. If I did that, I would have put a notability tag on it back in December. I do, however, view the "Events" section has the wrong tone as it is written in a form that attempts to "sell" the convention. But Events sections generally don't add anything relevant to convention articles except to pad it out. --Farix (Talk) 03:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was arguing for the notability of the events section, however, and that source is the reasoning that the Events section is appropriate. If you read the entire link's article, you'll find some good reasons that the event section is important. A small Iowa convention would be expected to have few events and little excitement, however AnimeIowa is different, which is something important to note. The information about the events gives a much more detailed overview of the subject of the article. I would personally argue that all Convention pages have them, that way users can use Wikipedia to compare these event, and find out more information about each one. Would you feel it to be less of advertising if all the convention pages had the same information? If so, I could add that. Kopf1988 17:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Most cons will have the same events, so there is little point in including them into every convention's article. And again, a events section is mostly there to "sell" the convention. The very fact that you said, "A small Iowa convention would be expected to have few events and little excitement," indicates that the only reason the section is there is in order to "sell" the convention to other readers. If you want to tell people what events are going to be at the con, then that is better handle by the convention's website.


 * As a template, I would advice that you take a look at Anime Boston and Tsubasacon as examples of how a convention article should be organized. The Anime Boston article makes no mention of events outside of its infobox and the Tsubasacon article briefly mentions some of its events in its lead. But in both cases, the articles focuses on the histories of both conventions. --Farix (Talk) 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look a little closer, however, you will also notice a list of events in the lead for Anime Boston. Although I understand that a list of events is a good way to sell a convention, it is also of good merit for inclusion on Wikipedia because of a wide variety of reasons. The events list consists of encyclopedic-level, verifiable (and verified) facts, that would be of interest to more than just a select few. These are usually the most important factors on whether or not something should be included in Wikipedia. I know it's a horrible comparison, but if you use your argument, having information about McDonalds having drive-throughs would be mostly there to "sell" McDonald's. Also, take a look at Anime_Detour to show that the AnimeIowa article is not the only one to list the events.


 * For the Anime Boston article, would the lists of guests of honor be used in the same way to "sell" the convention? Your argument could be applied to nearly anything. There is no reason that the events should be excluded from this article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is no limit to the amount of relevant, encyclopedic, and factual information that can be included. Kopf1988 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The main difference I see is that those other articles don't just have a bulleted list of events. It seems to me like there's a big difference between a bulleted list of events and a paragraph written about what various events take place at the convention.  --PatrickD 00:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You missed the link I provided to Anime Detour. Kopf1988 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * He ignored it because Anime Detour is nowhere near the standard of an "ideal article" and absolutely should never be used as a template to write other convention articles. --Farix (Talk) 01:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was simply stating that another article did have a bulleted list of events. (also AVCon Again, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so don't try to limit it! A bulleted listing of events is the clearest, most concise way of presenting the information that is relevant to more than simply a select group of people. Kopf1988 04:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources Added
Two secondary sources of information have been added, one verifying notability of the con, to prove what is put here is more than an advertisement, and the second verifying the events at the convention. Kopf1988 02:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, make that, more sources have been added! A lot of information from the same site, although a reliable source of information (you can see the author's done his work several times, and knows his stuff). Kopf1988 06:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A few other sources for you to take advantage of: ...and I'm sure Anime Iowa was in other printed issues of Protoculture Addicts too. (Just trying to help remove any doubt of notability.) --PatrickD 04:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=B9F64110-AFC7-4277-B333B87C506B2062
 * http://www.protoculture.ca/PA/PA60TOC.htm
 * http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?cPath=1_322&products_id=15153&
 * http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?cPath=1_322&products_id=15140&

Remember Wiki is not paper
When considering deleting the History section, remember the information included might be valuable information to someone. It is clear, concise, and factual, and if someone doesn't care about it, they can simply skip past that section. Read the article Wiki is not paper in case you might disagree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kopf1988 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC).


 * It has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia is paper or not and everything to do if the bulleted events list makes the article appear like an advertisement for the con, especially in the absents of other content. And if WP:NOT is the best argument that you can make in keeping the bulleted list, then it's a very poor argument. --Farix (Talk) 12:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that this section is regarding the History section, which someone might claim is unimportant as it stands and delete information. As for the events section: refer to the layout section of the Wiki is not paper meta essay. "Wikipedians should use lists to present list data." The events section has been formatted in the easiest to read format to present the information; writing it in prose is definitely not going to present the information more efficiently. Although an article can not contain advertising, it can "report objectively about such things so long as an attempt is made to approach neutral point of view."1 Additionally, "articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style."2


 * In no way does the events section solely represent advertising for AnimeIowa. It is unbiased, objective, clear, and concise. It begins with a factual statement about the convention, as it does have events and does require a badge. Then furthers with a statement from a credible source (he has been a guest at several other Anime Conventions, so he is notable in this area). It concludes with an easy to follow list of events... the purpose of the events section. My not paper argument was for an entirely different part of the article. Kopf1988 02:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

New Section Ideas
How about some ideas for new sections possibly? Kopf1988 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Under Construction
Please see This Page for a suggested change, and discuss here or there. Kopf1988 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes
The recent changes have come from a page I have been working on to replace the old page here with a new layout and new style... much more encyclopedic. Kopf1988 02:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Changes
I am aware that because of the open nature of Wikipedia that all my changes are recorded, so I wanted to set the record straight now, and make sure that this process is open to review.

My name is Cverlo and I am a member of the AnimeIowa convention staff. It is my intention to revise this wiki page to bring it in line with the standards of the wikipedia community, so that it is comparable to the wiki pages of our peer conventions.

Anyone who objects to this is welcome to voice their objections to the convention staff personally via the AnimeIowa forums. My screen name is Celebrimbor. You may send me a personal message, open a thread, or contact one of the convention executives if you feel I am overstepping my bounds.

Cverlo 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Farix: What convention page do you recommend we model the AnimeIowa convention page after? I'm not opposed to simply reverting to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AnimeIowa&oldid=69305035 Cverlo 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you are staff, I would advice that you only do minor copyedits to this article, but any major rewrites or additions should be done by someone not affiliated with AnimeIowa. If you know of a reliable third-party source that has been published, you can added it to the list above. Any more would be a conflict of interest. As for an example of a good article, we actually haven't gotten any convention articles up to Good Article standard yet so we really don't know what it will take. --Farix (Talk) 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Farix... Kopf1988 has a conflict of interest regarding AnimeIowa as well. Cverlo 21:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you must contact me, you can find my email address on the ACML. My real name is Carlos Myers. --Farix (Talk) 23:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please just make whatever changes you want and we'll go from there. As a staff member, and more importantly as a regular editor, I'm sure you'll do an excellent job of bringing this page up to standards. Jussen 03:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeap... I just wanted to give people fair warning about it.  I was pretty concerned when I heard the topic had come up for deletion without a single member of the staff being aware of it, especially considering that Kopf's modifications were partly responsible for it being considered for deletion.  Ordinarily I would leave a page like this to the community, but in this specific case, where one person's modifications are monopolizing the entire article, I think it's necessary for someone to step in.  Cverlo 21:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for trying to help with the article, but I'm pretty certain that's what you do here on Wikipedia. In case somebody forgot, Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusive of most information. I'm not even going to cite anything for that, because it should be pretty obvious. I mean, this isn't just some run-of-the-mill have one paragraph about everything encyclopedia. By the way, at least 1 Mindbridge member was informed of the nomination. Kopf1988 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, look at the deletion discussion. Absolutely none of the discussion involved the content of the article, but simply the notability of it to be included in Wikipedia. Kopf1988 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put together an alternative version of the page for consideration on my user talk page User:Cverlo. I think the recurring guest list is worth keeping but I've pared down everything else to a much more manageable size. Cverlo 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Emergency Domain Announcement
The AnimeIowa domain name is experiencing difficulties at the moment and we are unable to spread the word to people that this is the case. We ask that Wikipedia's maintainers take the magnitude of disruption caused by DNS issues when deciding that error announcements shouldn't be listed on wiki pages. We have no way of telling people our domain is down because our domain is down. If it wasn't we would be making the announcement here. Cverlo 03:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not your convention's personal webpage, and this information does not belong on this site. MikeWazowski 05:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish to let people know about your problems, then send out a press release to Anime News Network, AnimeCons.com, and other anime news reporting outlets. --Farix (Talk) 12:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because by the time they go through the motions it will already be fixed. We can't send animeiowa.com email out right now because the mail server was impacted by the domain name failure. Cverlo 12:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * NOT#WEBSPACE does not preclude the announcement of news on wiki. I do not see how announcing something of the nature of "Our domain is down, but we're still alive" constitutes social networking.  Cverlo 12:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Further, I feel that the two of you need to refrain from reverting our message until you demonstrate in THIS DISCUSSION that it doesn't belong on wiki. Because right now I'm not convinced and will continue to defend that message until it's no longer valid.  Cverlo 13:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not your billboard. Also see WP:NOT, especially point 6 which does "preclude the announcement of news on wiki". Also your threats to edit war will be taken up with the admin at some point. As for your problems with communication, that's not Wikipedia's problem to fix. --Farix (Talk) 13:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So, let's get this straight: you have to reverse direction to counter my point? You insist that it fails under "not personal web page" and then when I point out that it's not social networking, you fall back to "not a source of original thought".


 * It's not an original thought. It's an announcement we've already made.  You simply weren't physical present when it was announced.   It was publically announced at the "So you want to be a volunteer" informational meeting.  That makes it an event that occurred and the retransmission of it here is not an original thought. Cverlo 13:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And where is this announcement published? If it hasn't been published already, then it's originally published material, which is not allowed on Wikipedia and the whole point of that section. Once a press release is issued and published and sent through the standard channels, then Wikipedia may add a sentence about the problem. But that's it. --Farix (Talk) 13:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then that hoop will be jumped through very promptly. When it is and a properly cited reference is made, I expect YOU to abide by it and to hold your partner-in-arms to it as well.  Cverlo 13:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not responsible for other editors actions, however the PR must be through proper channels and not something put up on a blog or your own personal webspace. Also, when the PR is published, you will probably be disappointed in the extent of Wikipedia's coverage. In other words, it will only merit one sentence in this year's section, but it will not be at the very top of the article. --Farix (Talk) 13:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a PR site or a talk board - we are not here to make "emergency Announcements" on behalf of the organisers. --Fredrick day 14:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a publically maintained repository of publically availble information for the purpose of making that information availible to the world. This is information.  Wiki is the most expedient means of making that information availible.  Cverlo 14:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:NOT covers this - we are not here to help you conduct your business (WP:NOT directory) - it's irrelevent to us that it's the most expedient way for you to contact your customers, we are not encyclopedia not an annoucement service.--Fredrick day 14:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not just a repository of information, it is an encyclopedia. It cannot publish anything that isn't published elsewhere through a reliable source. I encourage you to read up on the policies What Wikipedia is not, Verifiability, No original research, and the guideline Reliable sources. Your "announcement" violates all four of these policies and guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 14:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And I am in the process right now of taking steps to get that information syndicated through a channel that will be considered reliable. As soon as I have a reliable, external source to cite, well, I believe that would satisfy all the arguments you've made thus far.  Cverlo 14:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As soon as I get that citation, it will no longer be "Original Research" because they'll be the ones syndicating the information, not me. Cverlo 14:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If their syndication is done through a press release, then it will still be unuseable, since your press releases are themselves original research. Corvus cornix 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not if it's released to a third party (Anime News Network) and subsequently announced by them. Cverlo 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, in that case it *would* still be classified as original research - it's not news that they've assigned editorial oversight to, it's simple republishing of a first-party press release. However, the more important point here is that Wikipedia is not here for you to use to plug/promote your convention. I'm sorry you're having problems with your website, but that information is hardly encyclopedic in nature, and doesn't belong here, as several editors have tried to inform you. TheRealFennShysa 17:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet it must also be simultaneously said that this article cites material from our own site. Those citiations are arguably now invalid as the cited material is at this moment unreachable.  If you were all genuinely defending the righteous criteria that wiki enumerates for what is and isn't acceptable to post, you would at this moment be slicing out the cited content which refers to a pages that are not reachable and thus not verifiable.  I don't see that you have done that.


 * Citation 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9 reference material that is not reachable as a direct result of the inaccessability of the AnimeIowa site. That means this wiki article is broken too.  Either remove that content for the same reason or let the announcement stand.  Cverlo 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually you will notice that I have already drawn attention to the fact that the sources are rubbish by adding a tag to the article. If better sources are not presented I will be sending the article to AFD to suggest it is removed from wikipedia - but thanks for your admission that the sources are poor - that is very helpful. --Fredrick day 18:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken if you think I object to you making changes or supporting deletion. We (AnimeIowa) didn't make most of the changes to this page.  Ryan Kopf did.  Mr Kopf was not asked to do this work, and we'd rather he hadn't touched this page.  If wiki is of the impression that the article should be deleted, then go ahead.  Cverlo 18:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * DO NOT Talk badly about my edits to this page without me present. It is not within Wikipedia style to talk badly about others, especially behind their backs. Kopf1988 20:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC) (By the way, I'm not just some random person, I am a mindbridge member and thus do have some idea of what I'm talking about when updating this page. Even though on Wikipedia my personally credibility is not important, you seem to be flaunting that you are AnimeIowa, when you are not.).


 * I am the cohead of technical operations at AnimeIowa. You're welcome to find me at our forums (when they're up) as Celebrimbor, or at the convention itself.  Find Dan or Lucky and ask them where I am.  Usually, in the Video Ops center.  You're welcome to come discuss whether I am part of AI then or not.


 * As I recall we've had a couple discussions on the forums as well. You should remember them.  Cverlo 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No policy or guideline that I know of prevents the use of press releases as sources, though Wikipedia naturally prefers independent reporting when it is available. Still, given the current structure of this article, the press release wouldn't be useful. --Farix (Talk) 18:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No argument there. Cverlo 18:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Link removed
Since the AnimeIowa link no longer points to a website about AnimeIowa it has been removed from the article. Hopefully this is the best way to stay within policy in this situation. If you disagree, and think it should be left, please put it back, I won't mind. I just think this is the best course of action at the moment, but I may be wrong. Kopf1988 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * seems sensible to me - if it ever does again point to AnimeIowa, then it can be readded. --Fredrick day 22:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this is just a talk page, I suppose I can note this here. I am in possession of www.aiowa.com. So if anyone has AnimeIowa's ip address, then I'll point that domain there. It's better than nothing I guess. Kopf1988 04:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We do not want or need your help in this matter, Kopf. It is between AnimeIowa, Mindbridge, and the entities we work with.  12.104.195.112 18:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * that sounds like an issue for you gentlemen to discuss elsewhere... --Fredrick day 18:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a way for wiki to lock out this page from editing for the time being? Say, until the animeiowa.com page is restored?  I'm concerned that Kopf may attempt to take advantage of the situation with our site being down.  12.104.195.112 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's none of our business - if he tries to add www.aiowa.com and it doesn't link to the subject of the article then it will be removed. There is no reason at this time to lock the page down. --Fredrick day 18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We hop:::::::e that the Wikipedia maintainers will assist the AnimeIowa staff and the Mindbridge Foundation in making sure that no false copies of our site are linked to on this page during this crisis. For the record, Animeiowa.com is the only official site of the AnimeIowa convention, and that will not change. Cverlo 19:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I suggest that you make some move to identify yourself as being connected with that organisation - because at the present moment you are just a random IP address, you could be anyone. I actually cannot remember the correct way to do it but if you pop over to the help desk, they should be able to help you. --Fredrick day 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot to log in. Cverlo here, AI Tech Staff Co-Head.  Those would all be my posts.  When our forum is up you can find me by the name of Celebrimbor on the convention forums.Cverlo 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, its YOU. Egh. Don't even speak to me in that tone. By the way, I offered aiowa.com to Laura for free, as in I would transfer physical control of the domain name to her, meaning I would not be able to change it or falsify it. It looks like it might take a while to get animeiowa.com back. I will be working further with the Mindbridge Foundation on this matter whenever possible. If www.aiowa.com contains the AnimeIowa website, then according to wiki policy it's quite reasonable to list it here. Wikipedia is monitored nicely, (esp this article), if I put a fake link up it will be taken down prompty, and you know that. According to reports, the new AI temp website will probably be at, but that's just what I hear. Kopf1988 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, AnimeIowa staff generally don't act as disrespectful as you, sir. I would appreciate you calm yourself down. Have I done anything about this situation yet without asking first? I don't think so. Kopf1988 04:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there was this edit where you worded your summary as if you were representing AnimeIowa. Regardless, why don't you two kids stop trying to play "Who's got the biggest thing" and just post a new link when it finally exists? Please leave the petty posturing for somewhere else. MikeWazowski 05:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Discussion closed per Mike. Mr. Cverlo if you'd like to contact me, feel free to comment on my userpage. Kopf1988 05:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Temporary AI Website
I have put up a temporary AI website at AIowa.com. It is not endorsed by mindbridge or AnimeIowa. I will leave it up for discussion per Wikipedia Editors if to add it. No one affiliated with the convention may choose, because it would violate neutrality, etc, you know. So it is up to Wiki editors to determine if the website fits within the policy of what to include external links. People affiliated with the convention can't really put much input in, because this decision has to be determined based on Wiki policy only. IF Mindbridge/AnimeIowa does endorse the website, I will find some sort of proof and then put the link on the page, but I highly doubt that will happen. Anyway, please discuss. Kopf1988 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, I'll tell you straight out - if it's not officially a convention website, it doesn't belong on the page, and will be removed. MikeWazowski 14:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. --Fredrick day 14:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I'll wait to see if I get get MB approval, or until they get a new page up. Actually, should we have a link to their temporary page? Kopf1988 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If nobody disagrees, I plan on adding this link to the article tomorrow. Kopf1988 21:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thank you, Mike and Fred for disagreeing with Ryan. Does anyone see just how backhanded he's being about this?  "No one affiliated with the convention may choose, because it would violate neutrality, etc, you know."  Mr. Kopf has attempted to join staff which would make him just as tainted a source as anyone on staff.  I thank you for seeing through the thinly veiled attempt he made to slip his own site into this page.  Did nobody read the statement: I'm concerned that Kopf may attempt to take advantage of the situation with our site being down. 12.104.195.112 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)   I meant it when I said it.  I knew last week he would try to manipulate the system to draw users to his site by taking advantage of our site being down. Cverlo 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I love reading the edit history, Cverlo. It's quite amusing. "Thinly veiled"? It wasn't veiled at all, it was put straight out in the open. I clearly asked if it would be appropriate to put my site on this page. They said no. End of story. That's what we have the talk page for anyway. Besides, this discussion was over a long time ago. Kopf1988 21:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

AnimeIowa.com Stolen Notice - Reference Found possibly?
Wait a second, I just realized this official site has a notice saying that the AnimeIowa domain name was stolen. That should be a reputable enough source to include the previous reverted notice, no? Quote from NoR - '''Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it.''' It's not original thought, and the Material is not likely to be challenged. It did happen, its currently notable, and it can be revised in the future if its no longer notable. Just wondering if that fits the bill well enough for you, since there is no interpretation of these events needed by a secondary source. Kopf1988 05:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)