My work space

Articles to have transwikied

Struck through means complete; however, leaving here should I discover other wikis to also transwiki to.

This one has no history at all to copy over. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackadder_Hall&action=history Dream Focus 18:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Creatures in The Sword of Truth to wikia:annex:Creatures in The Sword of Truth

This list wasn't deleted. I got what appeared to be its longest point, and copied that over though. Dream Focus 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no history for this article, just a redirect to a place that list all the action figures, and list which ones are part of the Power of the Force collection. Dream Focus 11:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of other wikis to transwiki to

Articles to have userfied

Articles to have undeleted for merge and redirect

Articles from which to merge and redirect

Request for feedback

On the main page of this userspace page, I list all of the AfDs I have participated in since my rename. Any good faith suggestions or advice from editors in good standing regarding my participation in AfDs is appreciated and can be made as a reply to this post. Constructive criticism is welcome, but not trolling or baiting, which will be reverted or ignored. Please provide feedback that is realistic, fair, and not hypocritical. Obviously, a comment like "leave Wikipedia" is unhelpful and unwelcome. I am seeking good faith suggestions for how I could realistically improve as an editor. By "not hypocritical," I mean, for example, given that I nominate and argue to delete articles (even ones for fictional characters) as confirmed at User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions, if you argue to keep less frequently than I argue to delete, telling me to argue to delete more would be hypocritical. Put simply, unless if you are willing to argue to keep more frequently, please do not hypocritically tell me I need to argue to delete more frequently. Finally, if you have ever been blocked for harassment, referred to any renamed users by anything other than their current username to mock them, and told me you want nothing to do with me but for some reason keep going after me, offering suggestions here would also be a bit on the hypocritical side and likely reverted. Again, I am asking for good faith and constructive feedback in my userspace only. I am open to advice from and willing to reconcile with past critics who have not been blocked for harassment or mockingly referred to me by other usernames only (that should preclude only about ten editors whom I know have done these things and for whom I could easily be able to pull up diffs to that effect discrediting them anyway). Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki requests

List requests for articles you would like me to transwiki here:

Notable, schmotable

When explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia, Denis Diderot wrote, "In truth, the aim of an encyclopédie is to collect all knowledge scattered over the face of the earth...All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings."[1] Nowhere does Diderot declare that only "notable" subjects can be included. And that goes for a paper encyclopedia, let alone the paperless one. Concerning the latter, Jimbo Wales said, "All those people who are obsessively writing about Britney Spears or 'The Simpsons' or Pokémon -- it's just not true that we should try to redirect them into writing about obscure concepts in physics...Wiki is not paper, and their time is not owned by us. We can't say, 'Why do we have these employees doing stuff that's so useless?' They're not hurting anything. Let them write it."[2]

Wikipedia has its share of baffling and dangerous ideas that are out of touch with actual encyclopedic tradition. One is the needlessly strict adherence to a concept of "no original" research. Anyone who looks at the Enlightenmnet encyclopedias or the yearly updates of Britannica will indeed see many articles that would fail some Wikipedians' idea of "no original" research. The purpose of encyclopedia is to collect knowledge as Diderot explains above and that means that primary published sources can be used to collect certain kinds of knowledge. Wikipedia should not feature articles on topics that any one editor just made up on the spot,[3] but fictional elements that are covered in published strategy guides and official encyclopedias absolutely should be covered as these types of sources are indeed reliable authorities on the subjects they discuss. The real reason why some Wikipedians challenge these sorts of articles is once again not so much because they constitute some bizarre definition of "original research", but because they do not think it is notable.

Now at least hundreds of Wikipedians openly oppose "notability" and thousands more do so in practice based on the articles they create as do millions of readers based on what they come here to read, which means that ultimately "notability" as an inclusion criteria is exactly what we suspect it to be: an elitist and therefore unacademic and dangerious concept by and large supported by a vocal minority. It is no wonder we have such proposals as Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Non-notability to challenge the absurdity of basing inclusion on something's "notability." The truth is that as Diderot indicates all things must be worthy of consideration in the ultimate encyclopedia so long as they are not hoaxes, libelous, or copyright violations. Paper encyclopedias had to be limited for practical reasons. "Space" cannot be a valid consideration for limiting inclusion of articles on Wikipedia if we are only replacing the article with a deletion discussion. Instead what we have is essentially Big Brother trying to determine for everyone else that only what they think is "notable" matters, which no serious intellectual would ever subscribe to. Censorship and the stifling or knowledge in any form is one of the most disastrous aspects of just about any civilization. Whether we as individuals believe something is important ("notable") does not matter. If it is verifiable through at least two reliable sources, which again could be secondary or primary published sources and we can write an article based on them, it is worthy of inclusion here.

References

  1. ^ Denis Diderot as quoted in Timothy Gregory, Exploring the European Past: Text & Images, Second Edition (Mason: Thomson, 2007), 33; Lynn Hunt, R. Po-chia Hsia, Thomas R. Martin, Barbara H. Rosenwein, and Bonnie G. Smith, The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures: A Concise History: Volume II: Since 1340, Second Edition (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2007), 611.
  2. ^ Jimbo Wales as quoted in James Gleick, "Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists," The Wall Street Journal (August 8, 2008): W1.
  3. ^ Original research we should avoid be say having articles on The Fantastic Fourteen in which a full legion of superheros team up with recently promoted Colonel America to stop the vile mechinations of the Drs. Doom and Franco-fascist sympatheizer The Red Gaul, or The Special Dark Knight in which Hershey bio-engineers a chocolately vigilante to deal just to his nemesis The Smoker, aided as usual by bike enthusiast Harley Schwinn, only to have the nefarious Fatwoman put the squeeze on everything. Now as far as I am aware, these films do not yet exist and unless if someone wants to make actual movies out of these ideas I just dreamt up a few minutes ago, we should not cover such faux film. THAT is the kind of original research to avoid!
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A_Nobody/Deletion_discussions
No tags for this post.