User talk:Dragoneer/OkashinaOkashi2

Speedy Deletion Contest
I'm not sure what the original version of this article looked like, since I didn't even know there was an original version. However, this one has 3 secondary references, which would seem to meet the WP:WEB criteria for notability. Also, several of the reasons given in the AfD mentioned in the speedy nomination (VANITY, NPOV, NOR, COPYVIO, AB) no longer apply. So a speedy isn't appropriate. Buspar (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay!
Hopefully, nothing will result in a change of opinion in this regard, because I kinda like the OO article. But I shouldn't hope, because "Hope is as hollow as fear." Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What is "Bored this Summer? Try Webcomics!" Tech News, 2002-04-23.
I am unable to find this source through my library. --Dragonfiend (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm removing it then. --Dragonfiend (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It comes from OO's Comixpedia page, where it's listed as a reference. I got in touch with the person who added it and according to them Tech News was a newspaper/magazine in Massachusetts aimed at the 20-something crowd. It printed a series of articles reviewing webcomics, including OO, back in 2002. They say it ceased publishing in 2003 or so, which is probably why you don't have them in your library. I can ask them for a PDF of the article and email it to you if you want. Since I've now verified where it comes from, I'll add it back. Buspar (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Someone else on the internet says it is true" is not verification. This is an encyclopedia that requires reputable sources. --Dragonfiend (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All right. Since I know what to look for, I'll try and get a copy of the issue through my library. Once I do, I'll add back the source. Buspar (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, don't add it back without discussion here first because this doesn't sound like a reputable source at all. --Dragonfiend (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss sock puppetry
The correct place to file and discuss possible sock puppetry is WP:SSP. The user in question was already reported and discussed. Filing a duplicate report could be vexatious and harassing. If you suspect, conflict of interest editing, please report the details at WP:COIN, where experienced editors will take a look and try to help. Again, please avoid violating Wikipedia's strict privacy policy. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 14:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
Dragonfiend says parts of the article fail WP:NPOV. This is where we should discuss it before deleting large chunks of the content and making it a stub. Since other comic articles have plot and character sections, we should definitely keep those. Not sure about the references in other websites - I thought that was like "references in pop culture" that some other articles have. If Dragonfiend can point to the specific parts and sentences that are POV, I think we can fix them so they don't have to be deleted. Ancemy (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Note - I have removed the request at WP:3o now that a third opinion has been given. ƒingers on  Roids  02:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see from your user page that you're "kind of new here," yet still in your newness you seem to believe you are familiar with many of our policies. Therefore, it should not be a surprise for you to hear that we need content cited to reputable third-party sources, rather than the original research written from the POV of this webcomic hobbyist's many accounts. Do not simply revert the article back to the COI/POV/OR version he/they/whatever wrote about himself/themselves/whatever. --Dragonfiend (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I did remember to read some of the important policies when I came here (notability, sources, etc.). That's just good sense. If I'm reading you correctly, your point is that an editor had a conflict of interest, so everything they wrote is automatically POV. I agree it's hard for someone with a conflict to be neutral (again, that's just good sense) so you're likely right that the sections have a POV issue. However, deleting them wholly seems like overkill, since that's a version that survived AfD which I assume means it has consensus backing it. Also, WP:COI doesn't say a person with conflict can't be neutral, only that they're unlikely to be. So we have to assume good faith and sift through what was written to pick out what to keep and discard, not just throw out everything. That's why you need to give specific examples from the text. Once we have those, the POV can be removed through editing and rewording. I think that's better than stubbing it.
 * The manual of style says that plot and character descriptions don't need 3rd party sources, since they're just summations of the primary source, so that simplifies problems with original research. 3rd party is for interpretations and stuff not literally taken from the work, like "what does scene x mean," so we need to remove sentences like that. I'm going to go ahead and add in a version of the original text that's edited for POV I can spot. Then you can go through and bring examples here for us to work on together. Ancemy (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OR

 * Okay, looks like the NPOV issues are taken care of. Dragonfiend, you're now saying the plot and cast descriptions are original research. I read WP:OR more closely this time and I don't think WP:OR bars descriptions. It says under primary source: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." I also found WP:NOTOR (not a policy, but a supplemental essay on OR) which expands on this point: "Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading the work itself, without interpretation, is not original research, but is reliance upon a primary source. This would include direct quotes or non interpretative summaries, publication dates, and any other patent information that can be observed from the work." I also checked the manual of style for fiction (WP:WAF, took me a bit to find it) and according to that, plot and character summaries can rely solely on the primary source.
 * Based on that, WP:OR doesn't look like it's meant to be used to justify removing plot and cast descriptions, just unsupported interpretations of the plot and characters. I don't think I'm analyzing the characters or plot in my write-up. If you can show here specific lines where I'm moving past description (and please post here next time before deleting), I'll be happy to work with you to clean it up. For now, I'm restoring my earlier summary, since I'm pretty sure it was merely descriptive and not interpretive. If you disagree with how I'm reading the policies, please post here and explain. That way if we hit an impasse, we can call in an admin expert to help decide this by looking at our reasons. I hope that sounds reasonable to you. Thanks! Ancemy (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You need sources for encyclopedia articles. I've removed your POV/COI original research yet again. Don't bother adding it back under any account. --Dragonfiend (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you're bringing COI and multiple accounts into a simple discussion on OR policy (and saying "you need sources" doesn't really answer the questions I raised). This is the second time I've seen you mention "multiple accounts" in a discussion with an editor who disagrees with you (the first was back at the SGVY AfD). Since we don't seem to be making anymore progress on improving the article, I've started the dispute resolution process and invited other editors to help. Ancemy (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason that I brought up COI and multiple accounts is because the content you are repeatedly adding to this article has been repeatedly added by a COI editor who uses multiple accounts. Are you unaware of this? Also, all you need to do is cite the description of this comic to reputable third-party sources that have covered this topic. Why are you having such difficulty with this? --Dragonfiend (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The plot and cast descriptions were redone from by me during the NPOV discussions. The original descriptions were based on the comic's Comixtalk page, which I thought was a good (if a bit lengthy) summary; you had a problem with it because you deemed it POV. I went through and tried to fix it to see if I could write a version you wouldn't object to. So far, I've compromised several times in good faith on length, but all you've done is delete everything I write entirely rather than try and work together here on the talk page as I asked you to. The main point of contention I raised above is whether a 3rd party source is needed for descriptive plot and character summaries. The policies I cited say they are not needed, but you insist they are. I asked you to explain your position because it didn't make any sense to me in light of all the movie, book, and comic articles that rely on primary sources for descriptions, but you have yet to explain or even acknowledge the points I've raised in your comments or edit summaries. I feel like you're ignoring my input on this article and my efforts to improve it. That's why I've started the dispute resolution process, since that appears the only way the article will move forward with consensus. Ancemy (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Third party comment WP:OR does not preclude editors from using primary sources for character details, cast lists, synopses, etc. I am not sure how such use can be cited as POV  or COI.  Chill. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is COI POV OR written by an amateur webomic hobbyist who has repeatedly used Wikipedia to try to promote his webcomic, and has done it under several different user names. For one thing, a 12 paragraph plot summary is inappropriate for this article as the length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. For another thing, these particular 12 paragraphs are filled with the COI editor's POV about his own webcomic. It appears the author of the webcomic intends for "Each realm [to be] a parody of a given genre of anime" or for certain characters to be things like "the most violent" or "very perverted" or "mysterious," but those are all judgements rather than facts. Who finds these to be perverted and mysterious? As far as I can tell, no one other the this webcomic's writer. So, yes, this is OR as this is the webcomic hobbyist's (and the COI editor's) POV interpretation of their own work. Now to solve this: The way to write a concise plot summary for this article would be to simply attribute it to a third-party reputable source. If the plot is even important to this comic (for many comics, such as The Far Side, plot is of no importance) then any independent, reliable source that has significantly covered this comic will have written a concise plot summary. So let's just cite that plot summary, as our policies require, if a plot and a reputable independent significant source for it exists. Also: There's already a concise plot summary in the article with a "citation needed" tag sitting on it. --Dragonfiend (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can prove that this alleged wp:OR is the work of the webcomic author you need to take this proof to Administrators' noticeboard Jezhotwells (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you think ought to be posted to Administrators' noticeboard or why. What is it you want to post there? --Dragonfiend (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally specifying some specific examples of what you think suffer from OR/POV, as I asked you to above. I'm glad the dispute process has motivated you to be more specific. I don't think the examples you give are good ones, though, because they're all reasonable conclusions based on the primary source, which is allowed for summaries (that's my opinion, anyway). As I already mentioned, the only two editors of this article are you and I and neither of us have a conflict (I'm assuming you have none, if that's wrong please correct me), so your argument concerning POV due to COI isn't relevant to improving the article. But please continue pointing out places in the summary I wrote where I may have strayed into interpretation over summary.
 * I understand your point about length and it is certainly worth considering in this discussion. Right now, the third party commenter seems to agree that the article should be longer, so consensus is to expand the article beyond its current length. The question remaining is how much to expand the article. I prefer my version with character and plot summaries, but it's clear you'd prefer something shorter. I'm going to initiate the next step of dispute resolution to attract more editors so agreement about the ideal length can be reached. Ancemy (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The third party commenter said nothing about the length of the article. Any independent, reliable source that has significantly covered this comic will have written a concise plot summary. There are 4 references for this article. If any of them even mention this comic having a plot, or describe in even the most basic terms any plot, then anyone ought to be able to easily cite it to one of those sources. --Dragonfiend (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion - I'm not entirely clear why this is back at 3O since a third opinion seems to have been given already, but I'll step in anyway. I agree with Jezhotwells that there is no violation of OR in the longer version of the plot summary provided (which has not changed significantly since his post); it seems reasonably well balanced with the length of the article, and is presented in what seems to me to be a neutral tone. I am, in general, opposed to overly long plot descriptions (of which there are many on wikipedia), but this does not strike me as being one. I further note that an allegation of COI was made during this debate. Obviously, that's not something I can deal with myself, and should instead be addressed by posting the complaint at the COI noticeboard, where this can be discussed properly. Anaxial (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on this review and the opinion of Jezhotwells, it's clear the longer version (and not the current one) now has consensus and that it suffers from no issues of WP:OR or WP:NPOV. Thank you, Anaxial! Dragonfiend: if you have issues with the longer version I've written, you'll have to edit it sentence by sentence to remove any language you find objectionable; in light of the dispute process results, reversion of the entire thing would now be considered a bad faith edit. Ancemy (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Hyperlink is to the wrong source"?
I added links to this webcomic writer's referenced presentations Picturevoice: Public health communication through art and Healthy Holidays: Lessons learned from a health communication community event but they were removed as wrong by User:Dragoneer who say they think they are wrong. What's up with that? The links are clearly correct. Starblueheather (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference is to a presentation at the Society of Public Health Education. The link you've been inserting is to a roundtable discussion at a different conference altogether (the American Public Health Association). The second link is fine. Dragoneer (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I see you were referring to him giving the same presentation at a different conference. Starblueheather (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Old content
The deleted content of the original Okashina Okashi article has been undeleted and placed in userspace at user:Starblueheather/Okashina Okashi per a request at DRV. Editors here may wish to see if there is any content there that can be merged into this article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)