Talk:Dan Schneider (writer)/Archive 1

Nominating article for deletion
KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadbeesonacake (talk • contribs) 03:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This has to be one of the most ridiculous Wikipedia sites I have ever seen. Not only has this individual lacking in major awards and best-selling books, but he has apparently never even gotten anything published. And why are there something like 5 pages of writing on this person? There are Pulitzer Prize winners with articles 20% this size. At bare minimum, this article needs to be reduced to a few sentences in length. Boab (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Boab, why does it matter? The WIKI guidelines state that there needs to be outside verification for a page to exist. Dan Schneider has that via lots of online publications, Roger Ebert, Cambridge University Press, City Pages (which provided most of the biographical material for this page), and others. So, are you against this page because it doesn't meet Wiki standards, or for personal reasons? If the former, you need to make your case; if the latter, then sorry, I guess.

If there are Pulitzer Prize winners with pages 20% of this size, that's unfortunate; perhaps you need to track down some of the authors of those pages and ask them to offer more info, or do it yourself. Pointing to the deficiencies of other entries doesn't prove your point, only the fact that Wiki sometimes lacks critical, in-depth info, something entries the size of Dan Schneider's size rectify.

ObeyTheSloth (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Personal Attacks"
I note that the changes I made were deleted wholesale as personal attacks. However, the changes were strictly limited to documented statements from the articles already linked from here, and they are 100% necessary to understanding the subject. The previous entry reads as if it was written by the man's publicist. The external articles about him make it clear that he is known as a (comment deleted per WP:BLP) and agent provocateur, not as a writer, critic, etc. The article on him needs to reflect that fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.70.208.49 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
 * WP:BLP has extremely strong standards with regards to living people. Your description of the subject using an dismissive term (both in the article and on this talk page) is a personal attack. As for your other comments, almost all of them are POV. --Alabamaboy 14:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, leave out the "crank" wording--my apologies for using it. I'd like to know why all of my documented, footnoted items, which are necessary to an understanding of why the subject is known, were considered "POV," especially when there are numerous POV items in there now, including one that I deleted but was restored. This is a controversial figure, and the opposition POV, which does not regard him as a serious critic, is simply not represented at this point. I've added an "Unbalanced" tag to express my concern.
 * Thank you for apologizing. Please avoid personal attacks here in the future. With regards to your other edits, you stated that he was known for "provocative claims" yet the citation for that POV was to Schneider's Whitman comment; to claim that the statement is provocative, you must provide a reference to someone saying that its provocative (not that I'm saying the Whitman comment isn't provocative--in my opinion, it is--but to state that at Wikipedia we must have a citation to such). Your comment about the poetry group having "ongoing difficulties in attracting or maintaining membership, especially women" is a misreading of one of Schneider's own statements. The statement "on his numerous instances of deliberately disruptive behavior" is also not cited.


 * I have no problem with bringing in more info on Schneider's controversial side and other peoples views of him. But b/c we have to follow WP:BLP, these need to be extremely well cited. Feel free to edit in the issues you wish to raise. Just avoid personal attacks and provide citations for any opinion-based edits. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm?
Dan Schneider's page is too long, irrelevant.

Also, who is linking to his silly reviews at the bottom of so many film pages? This is NOT a site for plugging your own/favourite sites.(StevenEdmondson (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)).

Recent edits
I've taken out everything too irrelevant.

This is NOT a site for plugging your own work. Or massaging your ego.

Do not just undo my edits, unless you can prove why a bunch of overwritten garbage about how easy your site is to use is needed in the article. The page was larger than Ebert's!

User reported, again. For this and the spam links. (StevenEdmondson (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)).

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

What spam? This article is scrupulously sourced, unlike 90% of Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the page of the Dan Schneider (Producer). This article contains detailed info on the writer, his website, culled from the Internet Archive, detailing the progress of the site.

Again, simply because you do not like an article, or its source, is irrelevant to its claim. The website and writer have conducted detailed interviews with many major writers of the day, his commentary on films and literature is widely published online and offline, the article survived a vote for deletion long ago when it was much smaller and less popular and commented upon.

If you want to shorten the article, then break off the section on the website as these websites are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsters_and_Critics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogcritics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Clear_Politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffington_Post

Cosmoetica rivals the others in popularity, and, unlike those, occupies a unique niche in the arts world, rather than pop culture or politics.

Your biases are what is wrong with Wikipedia- from poorly sourced information, to editors and admins that willy-nilly delete things they dislike, while keeping things they like, and engaging in edit wars. I have scrupulously upgraded this page with sourced relevant to any reader interested in the writer and the site. Again, if you want to shorten the page, make the website its own page and link.

The amazing thing is how biased the above linked rules are: Wikipedia is often derided simply for being an "online" encyclopedia, when its problems I mentioned above. Being online has nothing to do with those problems. Yet, Wiki will not let links to online sourced- respected ones as this or dozens of other blogs (even if well written, and better so than something in the Washington Post or NY Times) stand.

This is silly and wrong. Your behavior is irrational and illogical.

Wikipedia's failure to recognize the importance of the website is amazing. Why would, as example, men like Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and winners of the National Book Award and Pulitzer Prizes want to appear and be interviewed on a site that was not important? Or by a writer they did not consider important?

They seem to recognize that the Internet is an archive that will be around from now till the cease of humanity.

So, Steve, explain why you keep wanting to shortchange such an important part of the medium that makes Wikipedia possible?

Cop 666 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, many of the contributors and other persons mentioned within the piece have their own Wikipedia pages, so, if they are important enough to have their own pages, and have histories with the website, it is perfectly fair to link to them. How else to judge the relevance of the site and writer than by the people associated- pro or con- with it? Steve, you seem to want to have it both ways- be able to act as a dictator, even though information and quotes follows guidelines, is sourced- how many articles claim they need more verifiable sources?, is internally linked to websites and persons Wikipedia deems important enough to have listings, and then complain when these listings are used as sources? There is no logic to your position, and you are using the same irrational biases others use against Wikipedia. How many other pages are as well sourced and verifiable as this one? Look at the other website pages I linked. How many of them are as well sourced, and professionally edited? Cop 666 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

few sources and neutrality disputed

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

no sources and non-notable

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

sourced

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

lightly sourced, and a list of contributors far longer than this site's, plus an accuracy warning

The Cosmoetica section is far more detailed and sourced than any of these pages. Cop 666 (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * May I ask, and answer honestly, are you, or are you connected to, Dan Schneider? That's a conflict of interest.(StevenEdmondson (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)).

From your writing style, I pretty much know you are. I've read enough of your reviews to know that! You have been told by admin, several times, to stop. So stop, simple as. (StevenEdmondson (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)).

I'm sorry Dan, as of yet your poetry and literature is unpublished, you have very few credentials and this whole article is filled with needless information. I say 'you' because I think its now become obvious (from your tone and writing style) that you have something to do with the site. This article was on the verge of being deleted a few months ago, and it was 20% as long. This vanity page has grown out of control- no page on any other writer links and quotes everything they've ever written. As of this moment, this article is actually larger than those of proper, respected, internationally published critics like Roger Ebert, Andre Bazin or Jonathan Rosenbaum. If you want to make a page on Cosmoetica, then do so if its reputation is as big as you say it is (tbh, 8th largest poetry site hardly sounds that impressive. Do all the others have pages too?), but this page should be as small as possible. Personally I think it should include the introduction and a small piece on Cosmoetica. Thats all. Please stop filling this page with nonsense, and please stop linking your reviews all over Wikipedia- you are not a respected enough critic yet. Tmwns (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

First, Cosmoetica has many readers, many of whom are Wikipedia users. Second, you manifestly do not even read the articles you edit, for even in the info left up, it is in disagreement with your claim of being unpublished.

You again have not addressed any of the points made earlier. Wikipedia lays down guidelines about sourcing, they have been followed to the letter, and you delete them for no given reason save "needless information."

Are you stating that an interview series that features Dennett, Pinker, and many other notable writers, and contains first hand sourced information, is needless?

Wikipedia claims to be seeking verifiable information. This article contains it.

You state "respected, internationally published critics". The Internet is available all over the world, and the site has millions of readers and billions of hits. Someone obviously cares what is printed there? Do you not realize this same sort of bias would have, in the 1950s, dismissed Milton Berle, Lucille Ball, and Jackie Gleason as 'non-notable' because they failed in the film industry?

As for film reviews, it seems to me that the most widely linked website on films is IMDB and that is simply a website- it has no real world publication, which violates the Wiki guidelines, so will you remove all the film pages linked to it? Most of the film pages are paltry, or so filled with real vanity links it's a joke to claim that any improvements of them by anyone are spam or vandalism. Vandalism is when someone types fart over a real article.

Again, you have no logical reasoning behind your deletions.

How is it a "vanity page" when it is sourced, and contains information regarding people and issues that are deemed important enough to have their own web pages?

Again, look at the above websites, and tell me if they are as sourced or relevant? By recapitulating the online bias many have shown towards Wikipedia you are perpetuating the very reasons so many detest Wikipedia- its inaccuracies, its biased editors, its silly edit wars, its selective editing that favor one group or opinion over another, etc.

By contrast, this page was sourced, accurate, npov, and filled with information relevant to the arts and the individuals who have been associated in the arts and sciences. So, why delete it, especially when the page has more sourced, accurate, and relevant information when it was up for deletion. You have removed all the relevant information and still give no reason. Cop 666 (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Incidentally, the IMDB page follows much the same informational format as did the Cosmoetica section.

Contents [hide]

* 1 Overview * 2 History o 2.1 In rec.arts.movies o 2.2 On the web o 2.3 As an independent company o 2.4 As a subsidiary company * 3 TV episodes * 4 Characters filmography * 5 Ancillary features o 5.1 User ratings of films + 5.1.1 Filters and weights + 5.1.2 Ranking + 5.1.3 Ranking criticisms o 5.2 Plot-related features and spoiler warnings o 5.3 Message boards o 5.4 My movies o 5.5 The home page o 5.6 Copyright issues o 5.7 Foreign-language films * 6 See also * 7 References * 8 External links

Contents [hide]

* 1 Biography * 2 Writings and publications * 3 Media coverage and criticism o 3.1 Media coverage o 3.2 Criticism of Schneider and Cosmoetica o 3.3 Schneider's criticisms of fiction writers o 3.4 Schneider's criticisms of poets o 3.5 Schneider's criticism of literary critics * 4 Cosmoetica o 4.1 Origins o 4.2 History o 4.3 Popularity o 4.4 Contributors o 4.5 Growth and features o 4.6 Film criticism o 4.7 Interviews + 4.7.1 List of Dan Schneider Interview interviewees * 5 Radio * 6 References * 7 External links

Cop 666 (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But are you Dan Schneider? You definitely are, but I'd like you to admit it. You are not allowed to write articles on yourself. (StevenEdmondson (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)).

Right,so firstly I take it you are Dan Schneider. Leaving aside the inherent arrogance in editing your own wiki page instead of letting others do it- it is not allowed in the rules. Therefore: a vanity page. That is the definition- stop arguing and deal with it.

I'm also staggered by your comparison with imdb. The Imdb is the biggest movie site on the internet and one of the most valuable, and comprehensive tools online. Its a phenomenon. The reviews on imdb are not what the article is about. Are you seriously comparing yourself with the Imdb? You publish stuff online, thats fine (not in any respected journals, but at least you do it), but it takes more than that to be worth a page on wikipedia. Ok, so you interview a few people- but so have people in student newspapers. It does not make you special. Frankly, in all my browsing of wikipedia I have never seen such self-importance displayed by a user.

Now please listen. You have a right to a wikipedia page, you do not have a right, however, to link absolutely everything you have ever written ever and quote it on the page. I have searched the internet, and frankly you have very little recognition from anyone critically, and those who do acknowledge you do so as a crank/object of humour. Your page as a critic is longer than Samuel Johnson's. Do you not see how farcical this is? This is not some vendetta of bias wiki editors, this is just plain common sense.

And please- I don't know if it is you or not- stop linking your reviews throughout wikipedia. This is how I came to this page, because of my frequent annoyance with the repeated spamming of film articles. Tmwns (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not. As I stated, Cosmoetica has many fans and I am one. Clearly, the article has many third party sources- or did, and you have removed them. Again, an article that is about a person and website that has interviewed major scientists and writers ism by definition, notable. They contain many firsthand sources. How many articles on Wikipedia are unsourced totally. I linked to one above. I mentioned another vanity page for another Dan Schneider, above.

As for recognition, Schneider is quoted in the New York Times, in a book published by the Cambridge University Press, in numerous articles, all which were sourced. The article was declared notable many months ago, and that was before the site started producing firsthand information on interview subjects. This bizarre hostility you have toward the expansion of information, totally within Wikipedia guidelines, is simply, well, bizarre.

And, of course I can compare Cosmoetica to IMDB. Like Wikipedia, its information is unsourced and often inaccurate. It links to reviews by other critics, like Cosmoetica. The only difference is Cosmoetica is not a corporation, but a mom and pop website. Nonetheless, IMDB produces ZERO original independent material, whereas Cosmoetica does, and it comes directly from the people involved with the site or interviewed.

It serves a valuable purpose, and seems to tick off only narrow minded folk like you. It also shies away from the celebrity culture that most film sites endorse. Roger Ebert interviews Hollywood celebrities of no depth. Schneider interviews philosophers, award winning journalists, lauded writers, and tv hosts.

Again, in all your arguing, you have not demonstrated one single reason, other than you do not like the site/writer, for why you have deleted sourced primary information on a page when one of Wikipedia's greatest flaws is the exact opposite.

Do you really believe that a popular website is not going to have fans that want to find out information about it and its creator? I have shown you links to persons and website far less notable and far less sourced, yet you obsess on this. Why?

All it demonstrates is willful bias and a dedication to ignorance.Cop 666 (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha- to show how utterly bad your editing of this page is, you now list, in the text:

Schneider’s outspoken critiques of academic-style writings and political correctness in publishing have caused him to be recognized in a number of media outlets, including Cambridge University Press, The New York Times, and City Pages.[citation needed]

while below, in the few references you restored, you give the citation below:

Dan Schneider vs. the Rest of the World by Brad Zellar, City Pages, Twin Cities Reader Winter Books Issue, Volume 20, Issue 990, November 24, 1999. Accessed Sept. 7, 2006.

Similarly, you have removed all of the other sources that back up all the quotes and claims in the article.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

Schneider passes easily.

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]

Schneider passes easily.

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7]

Schneider is an interviewer with the only in depth interviews many of his subjects have given. Schneider passes easily.

In short, the article, even in your truncated forms, meets both Basic Criteria, as well as many secondary ones.

So, again, if the article easily meets notablilty requirements, has survived earlier deletion when it was even less notable and popular, and is heavily sourced with direct links to the sources quotes and information is taken from (or was, before thee vandalism), then why are you trying to remove it?

All articles- on celebrities, films, books, writers, politicians, scientists, have their own fans who try to improve the articles. Are you seriously suggesting the improvements I made, fully sourced, have not made the article better, expanded information on the subject, and generally given a reader information to better find out things about the writer, the site, and the many contributors to the site?

The only argument should be which of you wants to make the page for the website? That's the best way to shorten the page, not by trying to pretend the article is not up to snuff, because you've hacked it because of your biases. Cop 666 (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Dan if you want to make sock puppet accounts, it would be a good idea to change your writing style, your aggressive tone and your overuse of the word manifest. Please don't pretend its not you. I'm going to try my best to be respectful here, because its very hard to make you see any sense. You have every right to an article. You do not have every right to edit it yourself to a ludicrous length. Just because you've interviewed a few people on the internet does not make you as important as them- if that was the case then my student newspaper should have a massive article too. If cosmoetica deserves a page (which I don't believe it does) then let someone else make it. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your comments, a) because they're all waffle (another of your traits) b) because the fact that it is yourself negates anything you have to say on how to edit your page.

Please stop pretending you're not editing your page- it only makes you look more ridiculous. This will be the last I have to say on the subject as now the admins have been notified and they can sort it out. Tmwns (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tmwns: So, now that your sockpuppets have been outed, as deleting wholesale, and without justifiable reasons


 * Ack. It looks like there's more than one type of SPA at work here. In addition to the ones already :noted, user Ovenknob (talk · contribs) (who commented above) has been removing every mention of Dan :Schneider without regard to whether it was legitimate content, citing this discussion as his/her :mandate. The article is now an orphan. I don't know about the user's motivations, but it sure :doesn't look like good-faith editing. - Eureka Lott 04:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

it looks as if my plan to out the pathological Schneider haters worked. Two times and both times your collective overzealousness led into a maddening descent. Now a responsible set of admins can handle the article without the interference of people like Ovenknob, you, and Steven. And folk like you cannot wreak the havoc you do on all the articles you touch. Except this one. Sort of like the Witness Protection Program

If only I'd thought of this during the Swift Boat edit wars of 2004, we may have averted the last four years. Cop 666 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "plan" to out the "pathological Schneider haters?" That seems to me like you're disrupting wikipedia to make a point. In any case, two wrongs certainly don't make a right and SPAs reacting to SPAs won't help the wiki. Dayewalker (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Disrupting? No. A point? Yes. But, as I stated, I've been thru this before, long before Schneider's page was ever made. I spent over a year making damned fine edits, all as scrupulously sourced as these. I improved many a history page and others concerning politics, only to have people with agendas ruin them. These were editors and their admin friends. I followed complaint process that fell on deaf ears, because I was not in a "gang". I even got a barn star before I grew too disgusted. I got emails to my home account from Wiki editors who agreed with me, but similarly gave up in disgust, after similar harassment, including threats to my personal email: a dead one now. I don't list such info any longer for that reason. So, what choice, when deaf ears? Once bitten, twice shy. Then I saw history repeating. Dayewalker, you know that this happens all the time. Just look at all the SILLY arguments above and below the Schneider argument on the bulletin board page. This is one of 1000s of such arguments.

My many other edited pages have long since become junk pages, with National Enquirer sort of gossip replacing history. I don't even look at them any longer. That's why I chose Cop666- the role I took, and those I was against. Really, I made 100s of edits on this page in a few weeks. Do you really think I was TRYING to hide them?

I knew the pathological types would come and vandalize the page, and it would have to be restored and protected. Do you really believe that these 2 AFDs are unrelated? Same types of pathologies, same reckless edits. Whether or not these sockpuppets are the earlier ones, or Steven (who is British, too; look on his page and spellings) or Tw (likely tag team rogue editors, as a scan of their reverts shows), with others, too, as Ovenknob shows, or merely "useful idiots" of the anti-Schneider crowd, is irrelevant.

Clearly, there is a pathology many Wikipedians have toward this page, this website, and this writer. I may not have been able to save history, but I saved this page, because these admins, on this board, seem more earnest than the ones I dealt with in the past.

I did what I did for the greater good of Wikipedia. Any fair and unbiased look at the edits, reckless reverts, and pathological obsessions of those contra shows that they cannot claim the same. If Wiki were more open to quality based editors, rather than bands of thuggish goon squads, I would never have had to reappear. And you know that I am not the first to complain of this behavior.

Lastly, I've been far more honest about my reasons and claims than the reckless editors have been.

Cop 666 (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. This has turned delusional. This is the last time I ever get involved in anything like this again. I don't see why anybody would care so much about the page of a minor writer (unless they were trying to get rid of the spam linking) - this would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. Cop666(Dan) grow up- the argument was settled days ago, stop trying to bring it up again (with more nonsense about sockpuppets). The funny thing is, if you hadn't had made so many edits no-one would be having this argument. Anyway, I said I'd leave this alone now, and I will. Tmwns (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI Discussion
Just so everyone will be aware, I've opened up a discussion about this page at WP:ANI. You can follow the discussion here. Dayewalker (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA Warning
Since I'm pretty sure that there are several SPAs who edit this page who could all be the same person, I'm going to make the warning here in the open for everyone. Comment on edits, not editors. Let's try and stay civil about this. Dayewalker (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)