User talk:Dave.seidner

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a  fist  16:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your Article's AFD
Info that avoids things like this should be part of the welcome message, but I won't be able to change it again for a few weeks(long story). Situations like these are not uncommon. Your site is on the border of WP:WEB, probably on the losing end. You broke WP:AUTO, which is broken by just about everybody nowadays (the "head" of the website broke it on himself), but also makes anything you did a target, which has been exasperbated by all the sockpuppet votes in your favor(they don't have suffrage there) which usually guarantees that something is deleted.

I'm sorry, you're new here, you don't deserve this treatment. Right now, if a few more people vote keep(I doubt you have suffrage yet either), it'll get a no consensus and survive, but that's going to be tough -- if you know anyone in favor of your site with more than 50 edits or so, discretely tell them to go vote on that afd.

If you can't garner that, i'd suggest userfying the article (make User:Dave.seidner/everyonesacritic.net, user space pages are rarely deleted, but the bastards are getting bolder every day, it still may meet WP:CSD), and recreating it when your site is more notable or in a few weeks when people have forgotten that you're new here, in the meantime building connections on here.

Unfortunately, that's how it works. I've been saying that the rules of this place are broken for months, but if nobody's going to listen to me, I might as well be an engineer on the Underground Railroad of Wikidom.

Wikipedia has become an invisible bureaucracy by people who say they hate bureaucracy.

Do me a favor, tell people about what happened here with you. Nowadays on Wikipedia, the rules are vague enough that they are usually superceded by WP:IAR at will, and when that sets in, intimidation by more entrenched users sets in, and if that continues, this place will have an onslaught of stagnation and resentment, which would suck. Karm a  fist  15:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUTO
Eh, that's not a big deal. I mean, go check out Jimbo Wales. He breaks WP:AUTO all the time and he co-created the site. Ultimately, most of the rules here aren't anything more than reasons to justify "punishing" people because those who are doing it have no real lifes of their own and they need to feel powerful somewhere. Whether it's your site or not is irrelevant, if it seems it it's autobiographical, they'll assume it is and jump on it so they can feel better about themselves by making someone else feel excluded.

To me if someone follows WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, I don't care if someone writes about themselves, but that's just me. There are way too many mobs on here nowadays. I'm sorry if this has soured your experience to this place, the best thing to do is not to take it personally. Karm a  fist  21:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

AFD vote
First off, as I said before, I registered the AFD because you removed the prod tag. That makes it a "controversial delete" and pretty much requires it to be taken to AFD to validate one way or another. No malice was intended or should be seen as such.

Secondly, when I said "we", we means the WP community (including youself, if you are intending to stick around after this), not "I". Again, I have no problems with the articles as they stand there, which is why I left them as is, but by speaking for the other editors, I meant the community at large, not myself as an individual. If you stay, you may find a situation where you are speaking "as the WP community" vice yourself. It will happen.

I also mentioned that your finding the errors in the rules will help tighten them, but will not bring you notability. That much is true. Myself and others have been complaining for quite some time about the holes that are in there, and if I may say so, your article just drove like a huge tank through those holes, validating my point. If those rules had been tightened up, your article wouldn't be anywhere as divisive an AFD as it has been - normally, they are far more simple than this.

Furthermore, I still do think that your article reads like ad copy. Did I neglect to put up an advertisement tag? Yes, and I will fully admit that error. But look around at the other pages on WP. Yours stands out clearly as advertising. I don't know if you've had experience writing things that are not ad copy (that's not a slam), but I highly recommend you look at the Style manual, as well as other ads. For example, the site logo should just be that - an example of the logo. Putting the slogan underneath it "screams" advertising. Likewise, your section headers need work. Things like "EaC's Beginnings: The Experiment" would look less "ad-like" if you said something neutral, such as "Origins" or such. "EaC and Charity: Words of Hope" belong on a pamphlet, whereas "Public outreach" sounds more akin to what is in an encyclopedia.

I also urge you to look at some of the other articles around the AFDs. Many of them are nn and are "advertisements" in much the same way as yours is. You will see this is why we delete quite a few of those kinds. Bringing it within standards faster will ensure its survival. Likewise, I must caution you to not advertise (and I do not know whether you did or not) the article AFD and have other EaC members come and "defend their turf" as I mentioned before. That kind of action is usually done by less notable sites whose people almost always do nothing but spam up the place, and WP editors have, as a result, grown wary of it (which is why the afd-newbies tag exists). Whether that was your intention or not, it's not helping things much.

Lastly, do not take it personally if your article is deleted. I've had many articles that I've submitted that did not survive AFD. That's just the way things are here. It's not a perfect system, but people are trying to do their best. But they are just that, people trying to form a community based on knowledge.

I hope that clears up anything. For the record, as I said before, I submitted it because it needed to be done so. But my vote is for delete still based on what I see. If you can convince me otherwise, I have no problem changing my vote. But it has to look more like an encyclopedic entry and less like an advertising pamphlet for me to do so.--み使い Mitsukai 04:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

An explanation
Hi again! I saw the message you left me and I feel I must clarify that I have not voted on the AfD. You are surely confused with the comment I made about changing the Proposed to Deletion into an Article for Deletion process so the article could have a chance for surviving. I'll take a look and vote according with what I think of the article. Anyway, I'm glad to see how much effort you're putting on this; be sure that if you continue doing so, no matter if this article is deleted or not, you will become a very good contributor. --Neigel von Teighen 00:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Everyonesacritic.net
Since your vote, the article has been cleaned up by a Seasoned Wikipedia Editor and I've cited additional sources to show notability. Please visit the article. You may reconsider your Delete vote. Thanks. --Dave 15:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the discussion and article, and I do not feel inclined to revise my vote. Stifle 16:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Stifle, you're right. I posted the offending comment while frustrated over this situation. As a newbie, I didn't realize refactoring on an AfD is acceptable. I don't expect you to change your vote, but I do apologize if I offended you. I have stricken the offending comment.--Dave 17:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. I've struck out my delete vote also; I've kinda lost interest in it. Stifle 17:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cdcon, Since your vote for delete on this AfD, I have since cleaned up to adhere to NPOV and provided evidence of Notability. Also, please note that the newbies that chimed in were not doubles of the author, but people coming over showing there support of the site and it's validity. There was no bad faith on their part and AfD guidelines welcome newbies to chime in, even if their "votes" won't be considered. Could you please change your vote to keep?

Thanks,

Dave


 * What you demonstrate, by fighting hard on your AfD, willingly changing its contents to satisfy common voter demands, and on top of all messaging me personally about the situation, is that you are making a good-faith effort to improve the article. I will retract my delete vote. Cdcon 21:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dave, let me look into the Standford University source you cited a bit before I make a decision. On the bright side for you, regardless of what I decide, it would appear that this article is headed for a "Keep" or "No Consensus" decision (which is a default keep) based on the votes, so in all likelyhood Everyonesacritic.net will be sticking around.  Cheers!--Isotope23 01:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * After looking at the latest sources, I still don't see enough evidence to convince me this site meets WP:WEB, so I can't vote Keep. I am however changing by vote to Abstain, which will virtually guarantee that this stays on Wikipedia because by my count Keeps outnumber the Deletes.--Isotope23 17:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You did it!
Wow, I must congratulate you: it is very rare that someone new to WP can persuade so experience users in an AFD as you did, by making the effort of defending your article! Continue so! --Neigel von Teighen 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

See also removals
A week ago, I added Everyone's a Critic to the See also list on Metacritic and vice versa. You removed Everyone's a Critic from Metacritic's list, but left Metacritic on Everyone's a Critic's list. My thinking in adding the See also to each article is that they are similar enough to warrant the reference to each other. So, I'm curious, what was your reason behind reverting the edit? FYI: since your edit, I removed the Metacritic reference from the Everyone's a Critic article, to keep it even, since this was a cross-reference to begin with.--Dave 11:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your efforts to publicize your site have been admirable. I think you have respected the bounds of the community while asking the right questions about why things can or cannot stay.  As others have noted, you are have not been the norm in self promotion and I applaud your efforts. That said I do not think that they are similar enough to be crosslinked. While EAC does community film reviews, Metacritic compiles professional reviews of films and books and albums and TV shows.  Rottentomatoes is a more comperable site in its compilation of reviews published in other places. Additionally, "see also" should not be for a place competitors listings.  Category navigation (Category:Film criticism), is more appropriate for those items which are in the same field, but should not be mentioned in the article itself.  If you have any other questions feel free to ask.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)&bull; 15:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Logo5b.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Logo5b.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Logo5b.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Logo5b.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

File:Critics2.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Critics2.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)