User talk:Truth in Comedy/archive 1

Response
I don't take offense at all. I just don't agree with all your edits and so I made changes as well. I'm not sure what citations you're hoping to see. The whole point of wikipedia, in my understanding, is that the collective whole will lead us to truth, so incorrect facts will find their way out with time. Since you're clearly more experienced in wiki than I am, I'd love to know you're thinking behind the "citation needed" edits you've made on countless pages. For example, the wiki for "sun" begins, "The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System." There is no citation for that - yet it seems to me you believe it should have one since it is a fact. What should that citation be? How would it be cited?

I'd also like to know how a list of songs on the Gutenberg! The Musical! page, for example, is considered advertising by you. The songs in a musical are pretty inherent part of what make it a musical and that is why they were listed. Why did you delete them?

Thank you for your message and your impending response.

--Mr. Britches 01:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Mr britches
 * Sorry, I do believe I got carried away; Wikipedia editors tend to be particularly leery of people editing articles related to them. It's just that you see so many articles about non-notable people, or something they made up, that it's easy to be too critical and edit to sharply. Editors also worry a lot about articles about living people because of libel concerns and past cases of such abuse. This is not to say that anything you have done or contributed to has these problems, but it's easy to be cynical and perhaps overzealous, and I apologize. I trust your intentions and I know you to be an honorable person. I've just been editing comedy-related articles in overdrive and I will need to slow down.

These links might help:


 * Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." This comes up a lot.


 * Reliable sources: This discusses reliable sources. For instance, you cannot cite blogs or message boards or even wikis to back up a claim.


 * Citing sources: Here is information on how to cite. If you want, you can just add a link like this: [www.ucb.theatre.org] after the statement, rather than making a link out of it.

Any more questions, please ask. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I appreciate that.  Those links are very useful.  I think I understand what you're getting at.  Do we know each other?

--Mr. Britches 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, just a Wikipedian who has seen some shows at the UCB and who is trying to weed out a lot of articles about non-notable groups that I can't find any sources for, or at least clean rumor and advertising out of articles for notable groups. There's maybe one or two other editors trying to do this now. I was just blowing off steam today, and I got a little overenthusiastic. I stopped because I wasn't being as constructive as I would like to be. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 08:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please start a new section for new comments
Why did you decide not to finish the AfD on The Royal We (comedy)? Do you need help with the process? IrishGuy talk 00:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, please start a new section when leaving a user talk message for me. I chose not to pursue the AfD because I did some research on the group, and they are indeed notable, but for something that had never even been mentioned in the article. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 01:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not be a fucking douchebag
I was adding minimally more nonsense to the page than was there to begin with. Have a sense of humour, and grow up, please. 24.243.187.152 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I really wish there a template. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 08:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It would get a lot of use. 24.243.187.152 21:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Assumption of Good Faith
For all the slashing and burning you seem to be engaged in when it comes to Wiki entries, you enjoy citing Wiki-fundamentals as the motivating factor. But it's curious as to why you have not even addressed the other open and collaborative aspect of the Wiki known as working in good faith?

Specifically: "To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning."

If the assumption is that everything in the Wiki needs a strict real-world analog or citation, then the Wiki project would indeed be dead because places like Encyclopaedia Britannica already "own" that territory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpyMagician (talk • contribs) 09:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm not really here to argue Wikipedia's goals or semantics. I would prefer to work on the comedy articles, improving what I can, removing those I don't feel can be improved, all based on proper policies and guidelines. I am not interested in what my edits say about Wikipedia. Instead, I am focused on working to improve the encyclopedia based on what Wikipedia claims is correct.--Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia also says you should not assume that everything is false and done with evil intent. And the contributions you have provided simply amount to (1) joining Wikipedia less than a week ago and (2) just randomly jumping into comedy articles and barely making an effort to help improve the articles beyond tagging items for deletion or asking for a level of citation that simply is impossible to manage for anyone.  You say "I am focused on working to improve the encyclopedia based on what Wikipedia claims is correct," but are completely ignoring the concept of working with others in good faith?  I don't have time for arguments also, but looking through your comments yourself you have even said yourself you have gone a tad overboard.  So what exactly are you doing to help the Wiki other than bullying other editors, tagging articles for deletion and not even entertaining the concept of improving them and generally being contetious towards anyone who has a disagreement with the way you are going about these improvements?  If you cannot grasp the concept that we're actually all working together to improve the articles, then I have no idea what else to say.  If you somehow feel tagging dozens of articles for deletion without giving a chance for improvement is better, good luck with that attitude.  I'm sure that after a month of you doing that other editors will comment about your tactics the same way.  Heck, some have already backed me up.  And it's been less than a few days.  Contributre, but don't destroy and don't be so incredibly strict when working collaboratively. SpyMagician 09:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comedy articles
Please explain what is wrong with tagging articles that have few or no references as needing them, if I am actively working toward improving the articles and finding references for them? How is that bullying at all? I am providing links to the pages that will explain in greater detail, and I am offering my help. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For one, the fact you are hiding other discussion about you by creating and "archive" is highly dubious at best. If you are happy with what you are doing, you would let it stand on it's own. Instead, you are running to admin boards, arguing with editors, pissing off other members and generally only contributing utter contention.  I think ultimately your concept of improvement is simply destroying the works that others have creatd on the Wiki, and that is far from a valid reason to do what you have—and continue to—do. Can you please "cite" a valid reason you have chosen to hide your previous talk/discussion page? Is there a reason you don't want others to see how your less than one week history on Wiki has played out? SpyMagician 09:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me about adding the link. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that ultimately you have decided to take it upon yourself to be a judge and jury, and given your behavior within less than one week on the Wikipedia I have no doubt in my mind that others will have the same issues with you that I have had. Your contributions bellie the concept of cooperation or acing in good faith and simply show a strong desire by you to slash/burn articles you seem to have a personal investment in. Good luck to you and your run-ins with other editors. SpyMagician 10:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I am not the first editor whose references tag you removed from your own article. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 10:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed a misunderstanding based on one—and only one—edit I inadvertently made while accidentally not logged in. In contrast, you have chosen to hide a very deep page of discussion that show's your history as a contentious, argumentative and debatable editor.  The claims you have made and the behavior you engage in with less than one week of Wiki editing is highly dubious and should be brought to light.  Who suddenly jumps onto the Wiki just to delete articles?  And after less than one week? SpyMagician 10:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

One Thing You Continually Miss
On the top of each guideline you are pointing to, it clearly states:


 * "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."

What that basically means, is that rigidity is not the norm on the Wiki. Guidelines are simply guidelines. And common sense holds as much sway in the Wiki as anything else. What then are you trying to achieve? And why are you seeing the Wiki as a fascistic set of rules in which people are punished and berated if they don't "fall in line" with your mindset? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpyMagician (talk • contribs) 11:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Edit conflicts with SpyMagician
(reposted here from my talk page) Wow. OK. SpyMagician, calling someone and idiot is a violation of WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK. If you are Jack Szwergold, FFJ is correct, you really shouldn't be editing that article per WP:COI. FFJ isn't hiding his talk page by archiving it as long as he has a link to the archived page. Now, all that being said, FFJ, you probably could ease up a little on being so black and white about some of the notability guidelines. At bare minimum, a little discussion on the article's talk pages before adding numerous tags might be helpful to other editors. But seriously, guys this fighting isn't helping anything. IrishGuy talk 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the fighting isn't helping, and I really don't want to do so. I will be sure to make comments on talk pages now. I have been focused and didn't understand that my following guidelines was hurting people. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Annoyance Productions
What do you specifically think is unverifiable on the Annoyance page? If you have a problem with some part of the article, tag that sentence with, otherwise the page doesn't need the a blanket unreferenced tag. Everything on there can be found on the annoyance home page. It's written per Wikipedia's guidelines.--Twintone 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedies
Sure, I'll have a look. CAT:CSD has been so backlogged lately, it's hard to look over each one specifically, but I'm glad I caught that one! Perhaps you can also go over your own taggings to see if any have survived AfDs, and also see if you can introduce references to articles that don't quite come under speediable guidelines? That'd be fantastic. All the best, – riana_dzasta 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding speedy deletions, you clearly said the following on 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC). "I agree that the fighting isn't helping, and I really don't want to do so. I will be sure to make comments on talk pages now. I have been focused and didn't understand that my following guidelines was hurting people." It's now 10 March 2007 (UTC) and the main contribution you seem to be making is tagging tons of articles for 'speedy deletion' as the first method of improvement without any talk or discussion as you previously claimed you would provide. Can you step back and realize that many people don't disagree with the items you are targetting as much as the level of initial response you are dealing out. Just tag specific facts or something else and then at least start a discussion.  But I can't see how tagging for 'speedy deletion'—which are as quickly rebuffed and revoked—with no attempt at discussion helps anything. You have good instincts, just maybe be a bit more tactful in your efforts. --SpyMagician 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have speedied around 30 entries. These were because the subjects were not notable. If they are not notable, there is little that can be done to improve the articles because they shouldn't be here. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 01:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. If that's the case why have the vast majority of 'speedy deletions' you've made been denied with the admins explaining that discussion, citations or cleanup should happen? For someone who claims you don't want conflict and would rather discuss these articles, your behavior speaks otherwise. Plain and simple. If you're unhappy with me pointing out the hypocrisy of this, sorry.  But at the rate you're going it's clear that others will start noticing this well and commenting as well. --SpyMagician 02:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, as I have said, the majority of the articles I have tagged have been deleted. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 02:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Best of luck to you in your endeavors and goals. Whatever they might be. --SpyMagician 02:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree with you more. You are saying "If I do not find these articles notable, nothing will fix that." This is not true. If a bunch of published material were linked and referenced regarding the article, suddenly you would be proved completely wrong. Cernansky 00:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I look forward to such information being presented. If these are, in fact, notable groups, then it would be great for them to have articles they deserve. However, these articles need to at least claim that the group is worth a mention; if they do not, that is an automatic speedy deletion. If they do, it would have to go to AfD if the information is not verifiable. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 16:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

ADC Theatre
I see your point. I'd still be more comfortable with this one as an AFD listing rather than a speedy delete candidate. Thanks, NawlinWiki 12:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 12:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comedy Corner
Hi. You recently tagged this article for speedy deletion under critera A7: no assertion of notability. I've removed the tag as this article does assert notability (they claim to be the oldest college improv group in the United States). If you still think the article should be deleted, I'd suggest AfD - this doesn't seem like a clear-cut enough issue for CSD. Natalie 16:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You're right. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We meet again. :) You recently tagged N (game) for speedy deletion under A7 (no claim of notability). Again, there is a claim of notability in the article - the first sentence says it is award winning and even provides a reference. Please be more careful when tagging articles as CSD and make sure they actually fit the criteria. Natalie 02:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)