|
|
|
Angela afd: Giano 2, Durova 0, ...and that's nil, not love |
|
|
Piperdown |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined:
Member No.: 2,995
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175982258QUOTE * Keep See no reason not to, enough notability and citations, plus it survived six previous votes. This will set a bad precedent for those that want their article deleted.Heavytundra (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Note to closing admin: this account has only 22 edits. DurovaCharge! 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
What does it matter how many edits I have? I've been around for a bit, and could easily have over a 100 or more edits if I setup a bot to do nothing but revert recent changes. But I have better things to do with my time. Heavytundra (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't understand the reasoning for pointing out the number of edits the user had either. Maybe Durova could explain what that meant for both of us? Thanks. Rray (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes the closing admin discounts input from participants with very low edit counts. That's entirely at the that person's discretion. DurovaCharge! 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC) It matters not one jot how mant edits s/he has. We all have to start somewhere. This is the encyclopedia all are welcome to edit. No matter what Durova suspects or feels. Giano (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep "Beesley founded a for-profit Wiki hosting service with Jimmy Wales called Wikia. She sits on the advisory board of the media archive Ourmedia and is a co-author of the book Wikis: Tools for Information Work and Collaboration" this alone makes her notable. Deleting this page would be setting an unwise precedent. The project cannot be seen to favour its own in these matters, otherwise who next will want to be deleted? We already have articles on women who have achieved far less in their lives. Notability has its advantages, if some people feel one of the disadvantages is having a page here then so be it. The page though does need to be expanded. Giano (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: Giano is involved in a high profile dispute with me and this is his only AFD vote in his last 500 edits. DurovaCharge! 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Durova. This just goes to show then how important I regard this matter. I was rather under the impression the dispute was over. Never the less, I am surprised you are still mentioning your obviously private connections with the Wikipedia hierachy [13]. I hope they bear you in good stead. Giano (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
PS: I would imagine most of my last 500 edits have been in dealing with your lamentable behaviour. Giano (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Piperdown |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined:
Member No.: 2,995
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 5th December 2007, 10:40pm) I think Giano is a troll after all. He should have voted to delete Angela's bio — because she wants it deleted. Unless you're Charles Manson or George W. Bush, this alone should be enough.
I think that's a good point, but I dont think Giano's trolling, I think like BadlyDrawnJeff, he's just taking the WP notability criteria and applying it equally. I wouldn't like a piper BLP splashed across vandalpedia either, so I can certainly see the Brandt/Beesly (nice ta-ta's Angie! Don't let guy see your wikis) angle. I created the following BLP's from what I can remember, and did so with "good faith" as I was editing articles that cited them, and they all turned out to have extensive googlng-reliable sources on them, but could fully understand if these people wnat it deleted. some of them probably dont as any publicity they'd consider good publicity i would guess: Georgiane Walken David Rocker Thom Calandra Anthony Elgindy Herb Greenberg I like to think I "cleaned up" and improved several more existing BLP's that were in sorry shape: Steve Kilbey (the man deserves better! lol) Stephen Fry (fanboy city, and I mean that in a very oscar wilde way) Liz Clayman (i think her mom or sister was pumping up that one, but nice ta-ta's) Becky Quick (geez, delete it) Jim Cramer (holy cow, what a clusterf*ck of a blp it was) Foster Winans (a real-time out of the closet auto BLP! eat your heart out mantan!) Mark Cuban Patrick Byrne (I quickly learned to leave that snake pit BLP alone after getting samimorelanded. hell hath no fury like a journalist/hedge fund cabal scorned!) Twiggy and many many more BLP's that were in very sorry shape. I wouldn't have alowed a child to submit them as book reports for school they were/are so bad.
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Wed 5th December 2007, 8:33pm) Could the bios on wikipedia really be worse than the bios on ED lol? Well I suppose wikipedia may be more dangerous because some people take it more seriously. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smiling.gif) WP's impact on the internet is orders of magnitude greater than ED's... And yes, some people take it more seriously. (Not me, of course...) It's counter-intuitive, particularly if you're not pre-disposed to believe it, but a personally damaging lie or distortion in a Wikipedia BLP article is vastly worse than any ED parody, no matter how ridiculous or offensive the ED parody is. If anything, an ED article is more damaging to the person if it's actually funny than if it's merely insulting... An article that's merely insulting is just as likely to gain the subject more sympathy than anything else. And you could just as easily say the same thing about Uncyclopedia - people generally don't realize how nasty they can get over there, when they really want to be. Also bear in mind that ED is still bound by libel laws, even if it often seems like they don't know they exist... but if someone who's operating under a psuedonym is made the subject of an attack piece, that person generally has no case regardless - even if they're accurately identified elsewhere on the internet. The author doesn't have a burden of due diligence as long as the piece is about the pseudonym. On the other hand, many of these legal concepts haven't been adequately tested, and they only await someone with very deep pockets and a vindictive streak to turn the whole mess upside down.
|
|
|
|
wikiwhistle |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined:
Member No.: 3,953
|
I just looked at the ED article on Mr.Brandt. It's perhaps suspiciously nice. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Or maybe they genuinely do consider themselves on the same team completely. I disagree that ED is not factual- the painful thing is when it is factual. And even in Durova's case and a lot of the other WP admins- they had Durova weighed up long before these latest debacles and actually said something along the lines of 'she bans people using seekrit evidence. Since she doesn't have checkuser access, this means she just makes things up.' As to 'libel' on Wikipedia- surely you could usually get it taken down if it's actual libel? But I must admit I didn't see the Brandt article and what they did there. As to Angela- it goes without saying that it just seems ironic, doesn't it, lol. She helped make the wiki what it is, seems a bit like she can dish it out but not take it. Also, has her article really had that much vandalism? Or does she just not like the thought that it could?It's a shame the public perhaps don't see wikipedia as it is. To an extent Angela's a victim of wikipedia's own hype. As the public become more aware of Wikipedia's inaccuracies, then when an article says someone 'is a gay' or whatever, people will perhaps see such edits as they are- the random pranks of kids. Or is the problem that the wikis become too accurate, so people become afraid? I certainly wouldn't like my life there for all to see lol (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:
|
|
|
|
AB |
|
'...I will be generous and give you a week.'
Group: Inactive
Posts: 888
Joined:
Member No.: 2,742
|
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Thu 6th December 2007, 3:27am) As to 'libel' on Wikipedia- surely you could usually get it taken down if it's actual libel? Considering that if [redacted], the ArbCom won't do anything about it, I seriously doubt it, unless you are willing to hire a good expensive lawyer. This post has been edited by AB:
|
|
|
|
Nathan |
|
Retired
Group: Inactive
Posts: 1,609
Joined:
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 17
|
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Wed 5th December 2007, 9:33pm) Could the bios on wikipedia really be worse than the bios on ED lol? Well I suppose wikipedia may be more dangerous because some people take it more seriously. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smiling.gif) Well, if anyone actually takes ED seriously......(I won't go there) Somey said it a lot better. Those exact reasons are why ED can't be taken down (not without real names being named, and not without expensive lawyers), and why subjects of "articles" (it depends how you define "article") can't take much (if any) action against them. Although I don't want to shift the conversation to ED but now that you mention it... (if the topic continues, I'll start forking to another thread)
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Wed 5th December 2007, 9:27pm) I disagree that ED is not factual- the painful thing is when it is factual. I never said ED isn't factual, did I? I'm not saying it is, either... It's a mixed bag. But it's certainly possible to be offensive and factual at the same time, no question about that. People don't read it for factuality though, or even to be offended - they read it for laughs, mostly. At some point, they sort of lost their way, and got bogged down in their weird need to put porn images and words like "butt-rape" in sooooo many articles. Maybe that's funny for some people, though. Me, I'm in my mid-40's... QUOTE As to 'libel' on Wikipedia- surely you could usually get it taken down if it's actual libel? Of course you can - that's not the issue. The issue is how long does it take for them to notice it, and why you should have to keep monitoring it yourself constantly in case they don't. It's an public annoyance, or more accurately, an attractive nuisance... though I'll admit, it's noticeably better than it was 2 years ago. Even Jimbo realizes (or pays lip sevice to the idea?) that they don't have to finish writing the "encyclopedia" tomorrow. Still, sometimes they act like every word is sacred in these things, and heaven forbid that someone might come along and try to "censor" their uncompromising brilliance... Pshaw, I say!
|
|
|
|
AB |
|
'...I will be generous and give you a week.'
Group: Inactive
Posts: 888
Joined:
Member No.: 2,742
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 5th December 2007, 10:40pm) He should have voted to delete Angela's bio — because she wants it deleted. Unless you're Charles Manson or George W. Bush, this alone should be enough. I agree. Additionally, for those who think she is notable, the only Encyclopaedia Britannica article in which she is even mentioned is the Wales, Jimmy article. See search. Still, I fear Giano's vote may be discounted for the wrong reason. This post has been edited by AB:
|
|
|
|
Poetlister |
|
Poetlister from Venus
Group: Inactive
Posts: 1,018
Joined:
Member No.: 50
|
It seems to be running neck and neck at present. QUOTE Yawn. <sarcasm>I believe this article has been nominated for deletion before.</sarcasm> I wonder what has changed? If this is a delete-by-attrition, it's way too early for that, we need at least wait until the 15th nomination, or whatever. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC) QUOTE Delete if she would like to have it deleted. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Disillusioned Lackey |
|
Unregistered
|
She's really losing it.She never was such a ninny during Brand'ts deletion or Seth's. This is a desperation move designed to keep her in the cabal. Kind of sad. Leading to the.. "Giano and Durova Show(TM)"QUOTE QUOTE *'''Keep''' "''Beesley founded a for-profit Wiki hosting service with Jimmy Wales called Wikia. She sits on the advisory board of the media archive Ourmedia and is a co-author of the book Wikis: Tools for Information Work and Collaboration''" this alone makes her notable. Deleting this page would be setting an unwise precedent. The project canot be seen to favour its own. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 17:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
QUOTE **Note to closing admin: Giano is involved in a high profile dispute with me and this is his only AFD vote in his last 500 edits. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Um **IS INVOLVED***??? (was, was, was, was). And WHAT person on the planet (or Wikipedia) doesn't know that? And why make his ONE vote into a personal issue. SHE IS LOSING IT. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
QUOTE :::Thank you Durova. This just goes to show then how important I regard this matter. I was rather under the impression the dispute was over. Never the less, I am surprised you are still mentioning your obviously private connections with the Wikipedia hierachy . I hope they bear you in good stead. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
QUOTE ::::: PS: I would imagine most of my last 500 edits have been in dealing with your lamentable behaviour. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 17:34, 5 December 2007 (UT
QUOTE ::*I don't see why this is disconcerting, we are talking about a woman who feels she is sufficiently notable and of interest to the public to put up her own biographical details, complete with photographs on the internet. [http://wikiangela.com/blog/] [http://wikiangela.com/] So we are not talking about someone wanting privacy or being fearful of others knowing what she looks like. Which I could understand. However, the difference between the biography here and the biographical details that Angela herself publishes is, in theory at least, she has less control over the content of the bio here. If a deletion here is permitted where will this precedent take us? [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 08:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Giano Zingers
QUOTE ::Trust me on this one, I would prefer not to direct any comment ever to the nominator but one does have to answer her, as she seems everpresent in Wikipedia. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 09:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano. Don't taunt the mentally ill.
After this, she went over to the ANI, told people how to behave, voted in a ban, and put herself on a list of admins with a high number of edits :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: Then she edited about 50 Commons articles (or pictures, I can't be bothered. to look)
[indent]QUOTE ::I suppose the wink-smiley is meant to suggest that's humor, but I don't think the joke is particularly funny. Please refactor. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 03:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If you ask me, the Afd, her erratic behavior, and desperate commons editing is a desperate attempt to get someone to talk to her. I'm sure now the Arbcom is over, she's not getting a lot of communications. She probably is on the outs, and is freaking out. This post has been edited by Nathan:
|
|
|
|
Disillusioned Lackey |
|
Unregistered
|
Erases unhappy comment from her talk pagesQUOTE Durova has been getting a lot of messages, so we'd like to ask everyone to please check the village pump first, and maybe discuss and ask questions there, otherwise Durova's talk page would fill up in no time, and she wouldn't be able to do much anymore. --[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] ([[User talk:Kim Bruning|talk]]) 05:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC) QUOTE :How about releasing the archive of the mailing list, with names and UIDs scrubbed, so the average, non-"elite" Wikipedians can see what out overlords have been planning in secret? Actually this is already in progress... [[User:Sukiari|Sukiari]] ([[User talk:Sukiari|talk]]) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Aaaaaaaaaaaaand she erases it.QUOTE :How about releasing the archive of the mailing list, with names and UIDs scrubbed, so the average, non-"elite" Wikipedians can see what out overlords have been planning in secret? Actually this is already in progress... [[User:Sukiari|Sukiari]] ([[User talk:Sukiari|talk]]) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC) This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |