Scottyl

Welcome

Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Wikinews:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly.

Scottyl, welcome to Wikinews! Please refrain from using content pages for testing. Here are a few good links for newcomers on how to edit Wikinews:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!

• Wikinews:Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
• Wikinews:Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced

Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:

• Wikinews:Introduction - overview of the site
• Wikinews:Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
• Wikinews:Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
• Wikinews:Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
• Wikinews:Contents - the contents page.

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

• Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
• The front page lead articles often need updating
• Developing stories need finishing and publishing
• Discussions need your input
• And of course, stories need writing!

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for the links Brian. Scottyl 22:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Scott, please keep in mind that articles need to conform to the Neutral Point of View Policy. I've retained some elements of your changes, but reverted most as unsourced opinion. Please keep in mind that if this article is to survive it will likely need to conform meticulously to Wikinews policy since Wikinews generally are leery of articles about Wikipedia dustups. JoshuaZ 00:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've written here has been neutral and factual. I'll take a look at what you reverted as unsourced opinion and add sources if necessary. Scottyl 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I should probably clarify that part of NPOV is also not putting in information that is not terribly relevant that comes across as smearing. The section on Dragonfiend certainly came across that way. JoshuaZ 00:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

How could Dragonfiend not be terribly relevant or unsourced? She's the leader of the anti-webcomics jihad and everything I added about her was taken directly off here Wikipedia profile. Scottyl 00:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The key word is neutral. Whether or not your information is accurate, Dragonfiend's personal interests have no bearing on the incorrectness or correctness of her moderation, and can only be construed as smearing. --Hurkyl 01:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your neutral point of view policy states that one should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly. This requires that we present both sides of this issue, Wikipedia's and the WebComic community's which is why I provided sourced quotes from both Wikipedia moderators and WebComic artists showing their respective attitudes. And how can you possibly say quoting someone accuarately is smearing them? It's time you guys stopped deleting and censoring the truth when you don't like it. Scottyl 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It fails to be neutral because Dragonfiend's personal interests have no bearing on the incorrectness or correctness of her moderation. I can see no possible purpose other than slander for posting that quote from her user talk page. (Furthermore, it fails to be factual because the quote was made only a few hours ago, and not by her. You have been tricked by a vandal!)

You appear to be passionate about this issue. Do you want to be directly responsible for getting it quashed, due to violations of NPOV? Notice that the listing of this for deletion was a direct response to your edits. --Hurkyl 02:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's so typical. Providing quotes and sources makes me a vandal with no purpose other than slander and you're going to blame me for your deleting an article because you can't stand the truth it contains? What Dragonfiend writes on her profile makes it clear exactly what kind of a moderator she is, just as your making very clear what kind you are. Scottyl 02:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(after 2 edit conflicts) Um, Hurky's comment was that the comment on Dragonfiend's userpage was put there by a vandal, not by Dragonfiend. This doesn't make you a vandal. Also, I can't emphasize enough that your combative attitude isn't going to help. I'm trying to get this article kept, but your attitude really isn't helping. People are going to call for deletion simply in reaction. In general, few things ensure an article's deletion more than proponents crying "censorship!" Also, as a piece of advice, Wikinews and Wikipedia are distinct projects and cultures. Many people who edit here do not edit on Wikipedia and vice-versa. So saying things like "Its bad enough you're deleting webcomics, you don't need to delete articles about deleting webcomics too. That looks like censorship to me" is really not going to help get the article kept. Now, as to Balder's comments which you added to the article, random flames aren't very helpful. A good rule of thumb for this sort of thing is if you woudn't expect to see it in a major newspaper you probably shouldn't put it there. I'm going to again attempt to tone things down. Finally, I strongly recommend that you only make comments on the talk page. You aren't familiar with this community or its processes, and frankly you are causing more harm than help in regard to keeping this article. `JoshuaZ 03:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Dragonfiend's comments on her profile were put there by a "vandal"? She's one of the main wikipedia moderators who deletes webcomics two seconds after they are created, and she's the first to start crying if someone says boo to her, and now when someone points out the type of crazy stuff she writes on her profile you're going to tell me someone else wrote it and she and all her moderator friends have left it there all day? I find that impossible to believe. Especially when I can't even quote her profile without some moderator deleting my edits two seconds later. And, right, my pointing out your censorship after you guys have put the big "requested for deletion" banner at the top of that article is the reason why you put the big "requested for deletion" banner at the top? I think you've got your cause and effect messed up. And Wikinews and Wikipedia are distinct projects and cultures? That explains why your profile page says "This user can be most commonly found at the English Wikipedia JoshuaZ where I am an admin." No, hold on, I think I get it now, you're not really a Wikipedia admin, because Dragonfiend's profile was written by a vandal, and if you were a Wikipedia admin you wouldn't let a vandal write her profile, so the only explanation is that a vandal wrote both of your profiles? Yeah, right, that's really believable here in Wiki land. And Rob Balder's statements are just "random flames"? No, they're not, he represents to point of view of the WebComics community. Deleting the point of view of the WebComics community in a Wiki article about the point of view of the webcomics community towards deleting WebComics? I suppose that's to be expected from you Wiki guys. Scottyl 03:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Dragonfiend's userpage was in fact vandalized, as you can see from this dif. Notice that the edits to the user page were made by an anonymous editor. I will respond to your other comments when I have time. JoshuaZ 05:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Now responding to your other comments- I'm not much of a Wikinewsian but I'm the exception in this matter rather than the rule. Many of the people who are involved with this such as Brianmc are much more connected with Wikinews than Wikipedia. So yes, they are separate even though there is some overlap- this isn't that different from having some overlap between say the webcomics community and Wikipedia editors). And no, Balder does not speak for the webcomics community as whole, he isn't elected, no source says that he speaks for everyone as a whole. Ask yourself, would CNN include these sorts of flames in an article? If not, why would you expect Wikinews to do so? The article as was written makes it clear that many elements of the webcomics community are not happy including Balder. The exact insults and flames he used are not relevant and not terribly important, and frankly putting them in if anything makes him look worse not better. JoshuaZ 15:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the relevance? You did not say in the article, nor did you say here. If it's not relevant, it has no place in this article. Furthermore, your edit is factually incorrect -- the description is not her own. So again, it has no place in this article. --Hurkyl 02:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course she's relevant. Eric Burns says she's relevant. Rob Balder says she's relevant. And if you don't know, Eric Burns edited Modern Tales and Rob Balder was in Attitude 3. And if you don't understand that these guys know this topic better than you, then you really shouldn't be editing this article. Scottyl 03:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said she wasn't relevant! Given what I know, I agree that Dragonfiend should be mentioned as one of the prominent figures on the deletionist side. But there is no place for her personal interests unless they are directly related to the moderation of webcomics articles! And it might be reasonable to include more quotes from other webcomic authors -- but it is much less reasonable if those quotes come from informal communication.

I've heard a lot of problems with wikipedia, and so this is an issue I would like to see taken seriously. It will not get taken seriously if it contains childish insults, nor quotes of webcomic authors bursting with anger. Remember that the point of this article is not to write something for those who are convinced there's a problem (nor for those who are convinced there isn't a problem) -- the point of this article is to inform those people who haven't heard about this before. --Hurkyl 03:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And now your calling Eric Burns and Rob Balder childish. No surprise there. But don't be surprised if I go Dragonfiend and delete your next insult you post here. Scottyl 04:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also a note about edit warring.

Also, you may wish to be aware that edit warring, in the sense of repeated reversions of an article is frowned upon and can get one blocked. See the three revert rule for more details. JoshuaZ 03:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Hurkyl 03:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose that rule doesn't apply to all the times you guys have repeatedly deleted the WebComics community point of view from the article. Welcome to Wikimedia! Scottyl 03:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh , it would apply if any one of us had in fact reverted too many times. None has not, nor have you. But edit warring is much more likely to lead to a block if it is accompanied by incivility. Thus, consider this a friendly warning. JoshuaZ 05:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing - signing

On talk pages please remember to sign your talk page comments. You can do so with four tildes, ~~~~. JoshuaZ 05:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

O RLY? Gee thanks I had no idea. Thats extremely useful information. Its not like Brian McNeil wrote the same thing at the top of this page already or anything. Or like I haven't signed every single one of my comments above with four tildes. Or is this something that on Wiki we're supposed to tell people that are already signing their comments with four tildes? You guys sure have some crazy customs here. Scottyl 05:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you hadn't signed every comment. See for example [1]. JoshuaZ 15:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)