User talk:Equalityforall

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link,  you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.

Please stop trying to rewrite Coming Soon as an article about your film. That article is about the 1999 film, not yours. If you want to write an article about your film, you can try creating one at Coming Soon (2006 film) or something of the sort; however, I doubt that it will meet standards for notability. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 19:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Following on from the 'Coming Soon' deletion debate, May 2007
I thought having read the results of the deletion debate, and comments, I would write here slightly less formally, about it. I don't know if this is a good idea or a bad one, but you clearly care about the film, and so it might be something you'd want, to discuss the matter more.

So this note is to try and recap on the question and give you some background to what is up and how to work on it better (See: Assume good faith). If you want to discuss, feel free to email me or comment on my talk page - the links for both are in my signature. I have written on 3 things: some background why your editing style ended up being criticised; the problems with EFA/CS in Wikipedia pages, and how these might be resolved in future with some real research and work.

What happened and why it went wrong
As with many problems, one's own conduct has made matters more of a problem. By not stopping, discussing, listening to others concerns, ignoring the reverts or talk page requests and warnings, you left very little alternative but to deal with it by other means. You probably came close to a short term block for spamming despite warnings and requests, as well. If the matter had instead been discussed properly, there might have been a talk page debate where Zetawoof and others would say "this is what is needed to show it is notable" and you would have said either "yes I can find that evidence" or "no I can't".

That discussion never happened. Wikipedia works on consensus; only when someone doesn't read policies or follow communal standards, do reverts, warnings and more formal processes happen.

As to the film itself: you need to read WP:COI since it does seem there is a conflict of interest. You have a strong motive to have the film you wish to promote made visible in Wikipedia; but posting to Wikipedia is not like posting to a "blog". It requires judgement, some neutrality, and a willingness to listen to others views and discuss in policy terms, what is a good approach.

What is up with CS and EFA entries in Wikipedia pages
None of this means the film is or isn't "intersting" or "important". What matters is:


 * 1) Your own views on the film, are unimportant. Whether you think it (or something related to it) is interesting or important, doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what independent reliable sources say about it, and what kinds of independent reliable information exists that anyone can check. For example, anyone can check if it appeared at a film festival, and if it is a well known reputable film festival where appearing means something important. Anyone can check this. By contrast, a quote by Peter Singer on the films own website is not a reliable source, since we have no evidence independent of the film makers' claim, that Peter Singer ever actually said it. If there is an independent reliable source or place it is quoted, that we can cite, then that quote becomes verifiable under Wikipedia policy, and can be used.


 * 2) Your comment on whether "EFA" has "sparked an international zoophile-rights revolution". If it had, then again, there would be independent sources. Like for Gay Rights, where 30 years ago one could see evidence of a movement, membership figures, discussion of "gay rights" in the press. In global terms, "EFA" and "Coming Soon" have had none of this. If there is some kind of surge for "zoophile rights" in the Czech Republic, then again, there should be supported verifiable evidence that there is, in fact, a "revolution" of some sort happening, there, now. Again, there seems no evidence of this. It's a new thing, but being new doesn't mean it is a revolution, or big enough to be "notable". As you say, it is hard to corroborate. But without some hard facts, a claim of "revolution" is just words.


 * 3) Ultimately, Wikipedia's judgement is based on neutrality, verifiability and reliability. This is how these work in respect of "Coming Soon" (CS) and EFA:


 * Neutral point of view says that we mustn't give small things, the biased appearance of being bigger than they are. In an encyclopedia, a lot of small detail is missed out - the aim is to give a good overview of subjects to a reader. At present, CS and EFA are minor, even in the subject of "Zoophilia" or "Human rights" or "Sexual equality". They are very very minor factions of big subjects. They may be important to those involved, but in terms of an encyclopedia, they are not yet important enough to take note of, really. One must be neutral in assessing them against their subject, neutral in representing them in a balanced not-exaggerated manner, neutral in how they are described in words.


 * Verifiability, Reliable Sources, and their companion, Original research, say that it's not enough to make a claim, even if we think its true, or it is true. We are not documenting our own informal information, but what other sources have written or commented. We are very careful what we base Wikipedia views on, to try and avoid over reliance on "hearsay".

How to work on this topic in future
Now, on the plus side, nothing is final in Wikipedia. What was judged less important yesterday might be judged important tomorrow; what was not spoken yesterday might have a reliable source today. So, this is what would be needed perhaps, on examining CS and EFA:


 * 1) Some significant, notable press mentions of EFA. If they have any effect, or have a revolution in zoophile rights in society, then there would be comments in the media of that society, a significant ongoing debate or discussion (not just silence or a few articles). if not the press then non-zoophile media. And not just responses to posts made by EFA here and there (anyone can post 100 posts to newsgroups and get 2000 replies, it proves nothing), but genuine cultural discussion, people choosing zoophile rights/EFA/CS to write articles on, etc. If they are significant but not discussed in the media, then in what sense are they a notable kind of "revolution"?
 * 2) EFA to be notable amongst zoophile organisations. Are they huge? Do they have great influence on the zoophile world in general? Are they notable for more than just being an interesting idea, in any real sense?
 * 3) CS would need to meet the requirements for notability for films and movies. Here it's easier. But since most Wikipedia editors don't speak Czech, they have no way to verify the quotes and such. They don't have a way to check whether its true that a significant number of Czech film commentators and critics singled CS out as important or noteworthy. So for them, it's not verifiable. That is sad but honest. Again, that can be worked round, but it will take work to do. I've sometimes spent a week putting together cites to back an article I wanted to write on. Quotations on the film-makers' and EFA own web pages aren't really evidence of anything because they aren't independent of the subject matter (EFA/CS). But here's how you can do it. If the quotes are genuine, then... For example, if you researched a list of evidence that it really was considered notable in the country, for example links to web pages connected with the mass media, social commentators, and the film industry, in the Czech Republic, where these comments are made. And under each, the relevant part of the quote and a rough English translation, with a note if this is an important (reputable) source or an important critic... that they are a "reliable source" for a view on a film... yes it's hard work. This is how good Wikipedia articles get written. With that, then CS might be agreed by others to be notable.

I hope this helps - its brief only, but might give you some ideas. If you want advice on matters connected with EFA, CS or other fringe issues such as Zoophilia, in Wikipedia, please do always know its fine to ask on my Talk Page or by email. I'd be glad to help!

FT2 (Talk 12:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)