User talk:Jimbobdick

helpme
 * You need to also post what you're looking for help with. xenocidic (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok well here is what I posted, I don't know where it belongs but this is the story and I need help figuring out what to do here.

I'm brand new to wiki. I've always found this to be a very valuable resource because I was under the impression anyone could edit at wiki. Upon trying to make my first 2 edits to already existing articles, both have been rejected by the same guy. Not just edited or changes but outright deleted. The first for "SPAM" second for "Non-notable entry"

One article I just let go because I really don't care even though the information was definetly notable and could lead to someone learning about the product, choosing to look for another alternative due to the "annoying quirks" and the other editing which prompted what I guess is called an "edit war" where I revised what I had to say, but each time was subsequently deleted sometimes without any explanation and always with detailed explanation.

At this point I find that that wiki is a total mess, there doesn't seem to be anybody in charge or the place but everybody. The users who have been here longer have made "editing alliances" (Isn't that pathetic) and they work together to successfully tailor the particular articles they find of interest who they see fit, regardless if anybody else has significant contributions to make. Irregardless of what those contributions are.

My opinion of wiki has been seriously compromised, my attitude of it being one of mankinds' great internet inventions is systematically being elminated day by day by the rampant actions of the "editing culture" In my eyes, as objectively as I can, I can see no bias or will to interject false or misleading information in the contributions I made. Being that my contributions were made in good faith, honest, and accurate, and true, I can't understand why, if they were formatted incorrectly they would be written off merely as "advertising, promotional, or spam, or non-notable"

Of course this is entirely from my perspective, and I will admit freely that I don't know a whole lot about the behind the scenes or inner working of wiki. I'm sure what happens here, happens as a result of what is necessary to produce the product that is wiki. However I have a hard time imaging that the entire wikipedia was created by the type individual that "xpclient" seems to be. By deleting information on the site, he is not contributing, even if the information is promotion, or is advertising, it is accurate, and valid to the article. The notability of information is in the eye of the beholder as well. A particular annoyance in a program may be so severe that it leads users to not use the program. I have Windows Vista, and I am typing this page instead of talking it into the page because the voice recognition program doesn't work with html when it could. When it should. The point of whether or not the program works with "windows" programs other than notepad or wordpad, the notability of that is not for him to decide. The opinion that speech recognition is of course, mine, and subjective, and was not part of the article. However, without that knowledge, common knowledge which isn't so common, nobody could in fact make a judgment about the value of a program like that. Which is why it is indeed notable! Simply deleting the piece of information for non-notability creates in my mind the actions of a person with a vendetta!

The SPAM argument can be disproven simply by going to the website that I was linking to, and verifying it exists, and contains links to High Definiton Dreamscenes files. Which it does. So clearly the link was not spam. Next argument they gave was... Advertising or promoting my site. Sure I was, promoting, "The existence of it" for the benefit of the readers of wikipedia, anybody interested in the files, which are legally obtainable. Not only that but the first part of the promotional argument, that I was advertising, is also clearly bogus, because I'm not selling them. I'm giving them away. I'm accepting donations, but if you come to the site looking for freely downloadable HD Dreamscene files, they are there and you can choose to donate or not. How is that advertising? Is it advertising, that Stardock, a company selling non-HD content has their wikipedia links up for Dreamscene? I don't see the basis of the advertising or promotional argument or difference between their link is ok and mine is not?

If the problem is a conflict of interest I'd understand that, but don't you want articles written by people who know what the hell they are talking about? Primary sources? I create Dreamscene, I make them from scratch, I understand how it works, I understand which file types can be used, I understand the conversion technology, I understand why standard definiton looks like crap on the desktop, where Dreamscene plays. I'm also offering something unique to the world community, that nobody else is.

So does Wikipedia want eskimos from Yellowlake Canada, talking in depth about Florida Oranges? Because the xpclient, is talking about a VISTA product, and lending group deletion talents his wikipedia from some place in India. I don't have a problem with that, except to say that if he is running Windows XP and a typical user of a computer in India, he is definetly not using VISTA, because Vista is essentially impossible to use without a genuine license. India is one of the leading countries that pirates software worldwide. So really, what makes him a superior editor or creator of information?

I really don't feel to the need to involve myself in editing wars, but if this is the direction Wiki is going to take, a place where the rules are not well organized and groups of editors who have little or no real knowledge of the product can simply write off someone who would consider themselves, nearly expert, as SPAM, or promotional, or non-notable, then I guess I'll be one of the people who should but won't contribute to wiki and simply wait for something better to come along.

A sad day indeed, when knowledge that is accurate, important, and interesting is censored by ignorant individuals with an agenda. Someone will probably come along and edit this all as spam.