User talk:David Peterson

You have completely misunderstood what is happening. I have not "nominated your article for speedy deletion" - if I had, it would have been deleted (as an admin, I can do that). Instead, for all the thanks I get, I saved your article from speedy deletion and instead asked the community to discuss the matter.

You appear to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. I refer you to the following pages:


 * the official policy on what Wikipedia is not What Wikipedia is not
 * the essay Notability
 * the guideline Notability (web)
 * the proposed policy Non-notability
 * the official policy Deletion policy
 * the description of how the AfD process works Articles for deletion
 * the guide for users whose are is proposed to be deleted Guide to deletion

The AfD process lasts about a week (there are processes for closing early and extending discussion). No rules have been broken in the nomination of your article for deletion. Indeed, it was saved from summary delete by me because I wanted community input into the discussion.

The discussion will not be closed early because you have misread Wikipedia's policy on inclusion. Please note that Wikipedia gets thousands of articles on non-notable subjects every day, including websites seeking publicity through higher Google rankings by placing their external links several times in bold throughout the article.

These articles are usually deleted without discussion. If they were not, Wikipedia would move from being an encyclopedia into being MySpace in about 2 to 3 weeks. Worse than that, Wikipedia is funded by charitable donations. MySpace is part of News Corporation. Wikipedia is completely advertising-free. Other services are not. So, in effect, letting everything and anything through just because it can be said to exist is stealing from a charity. That's not something I wish to be involved in.

For the remainder, we ask the community for input - it is, after all, a community-built encyclopedia. The community will decide either way.

Your opinions on our processes are noted, but it is unlikely that Wikipedia processes will be changed because you don't agree with them. I've been here 3 years, am an elected administrator, and have changed exactly 0 policies in my time.

Thanks. ➨  ЯEDVERS  18:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Who are you talking about when you made this edit? I haven't seen any socks, unless you are suggesting that Redvers or I are using an ip address to somehow "sink" your article. Syrthiss 15:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Article revisions
Hi David

We have a motto here: sofixit. If an article doesn't seem correct, or has been vandalised, or has problems, fix it.

Alternatively, you can ask someone else to fix it, by attaching an appropriate tag to the top of the article. The tags are listed here but the main ones are:


 * Disputed - The contents of this article are being dispute on its talk page
 * contradict-other - This article contradicts another article on Wikipedia
 * npov - This article doesn't conform to a Neutral Point of View
 * off-topic - This article has wandered off topic.

Pick one or more of those, and put the entire tag - everything between the curly brackets and the curly brackets themselves - on the top of the article. Save it and a message will appear and the article will be sorted into a clean-up category for expert attention.

Hope this helps. ➨  ЯEDVERS  15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear REDVERS and Syrthiss:

Apologies for the delay in responding.—

Syrthiss wonders whom I was referring to when I made a specific comment about the revisions introduced to my original entry for ‘Jay the Joke’.

I was referring to the revisions introduced by anonymous user “64.50.38.194.” (See ‘Jay the Joke’ – History. Specifically beginning at 19:27, 17 August 2006 and thereafter.)

Nor am I suggesting that either of you is using an IP address to somehow "sink" my original entry.

The fact of the matter is that “64.50.38.194,” as a user of the Wikipedia website, appears to have come into existence on August 17 to post revisions to two separate though closely related entries (the latter of which is a proposed entry): ‘Jay Mariotti’ and ‘Jay the Joke’.

In the first case, the revision deepens the deep bias already evident against the ostensible subject matter, the Chicago Sun-Times’s sports columnist, Jay Mariotti. In the latter case, the revision transforms an entry about a website that has served as a platform for a hate-campaign against one and the same Jay Mariotti into an entry about something dramatically more benign.

In both cases, I regard these revisions (largely—I mean, the names are spelled correctly, and all of that) as falsifications.

However, in response to something that REDVERS recommends, please note that I am uncomfortable with the Sofixit remedy. I do not like to change somebody else’s work at a website such as this. Even though I find it inaccurate. (And don’t trust it for one moment.)

I will continue to mull over this advice, though.

As for the issue of "Sockpuppeting": Let us not forget that there is something that we might call negative (or black) sockpuppeting, too.

Thanks.

David Peterson 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (Chicago)

RE: Thanks
That wasn't me. I have never used any other id besides this one to edit on wikipedia. The only connection I have to User:Geffb is that I welcomed him back in January when he first edited under this name. What you are implying is called sock puppetry, and it is frowned upon here, and I certainly don't appreciate being accused of it. You are a fairly new user here, so I will consider this accusation to be an innocent mistake on your part. --rogerd 02:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded overly harsh. I figured it was just an innocent misunderstanding.  --rogerd 22:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging 'Jay the Joke' into 'Jay Mariotti'
Hi David.

Yes. The explanation is that the consensus of the community was that the "Jay the Joke" article had no notability aside from Jay Mariotti. Therefore, it was merged by one of our most experienced editors into the other article.

Please remember that Wikipedia is international in reach: the majority of readers and editors would not be aware of who Mr Mariotti is/was. Even fewer would be aware of a website about him. We have to consider this when considering notability.

I'm sorry that you remain unhappy with the changes to your text. However, this is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. We positively encourage people to edit text here. All of it. We want people to change stuff. We like things to be shaped, moulded, improved by multiple hands. We believe that the wiki system of open, community editing is the future for the internet (imagine the day when an annoying typo on CNN.com can be edited away in an instant by a reader... ah, that would be nice!).

Because we believe that, we genuinely believe that you should edit something if you are unhappy with it. Someone was unhappy with your text and edited it. Now it's your turn. If you don't, no one here will do it for you (sorry). So, get in there and sofixit! Otherwise, the text will continue to read how it reads now.

We don't have any truck with "not wanting to edit other people's words" - we actually tell people: don't put your words up here unless you don't mind them being edited, changed, deleted and otherwise messed about with. That's what we do. ➨  ЯEDVERS  16:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)