User talk:Kisai
Welcome!
Hello, Kisai, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Straw Men
[edit]Could you explain what you see as being a straw man argument? I don't see anyone creating fictitious positions for others just to easily strike them down. -- Dragonfiend 23:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- You have made several unproven statements regarding KeenSPOT, citing it's unknown outside of webcomic community, yet the site itself has copies from several of the times it's been in print
here and here, what I see frequently is you or one of two other editors nominating a webcomic entry for deltion, then you and the same 5-8 people that I can't prove are sockpuppets. Once WP:WEB struck alexa/google ranks as a reason for notability, they are still nominating webcomic entries for deletion of unnotable, without knowing anything about it and now use [WP:V] as the excuse. I don't know anything about sports, so that makes me unqualified to determine what is notable in sports. The editors nominating webcomic entries for deletion or voting 'delete' with nothing other than "not notable" or worse yet "death to webcomics" suggests they didn't even look at the article or webcomic and just voted "delete" because it was a webcomic article. I don't delete 99% of the webcomics off comicgenesis just because I think they are crap, but the wikipedia authors suggest that comicgenesis is just another geocities with comics that get a handful of hits. The Top 25 comics in comicgenesis serve over millions of pages views a month, not hits. The top 25 comprises of less than 0.3% of the comics on the site, yet is responsible for well over 1/3rd of the traffic. The comics stay on comicgenesis because they like the community. Hence citing "comicgenesis/keenspace is just like geocities - not notable" is also false.--Kisai 08:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure what you're refering to as a straw man argument. I also think you're making numerous unsupported assumptions regarding sockpuppetry, people not knowing anything about things, using WP:V as an excuse rather than a principal that is fundamental to building a worthwhile encyclopedia, the importance of traffic, etc. You seem to have a lot of complaints about Wikipedia; if you seriously want to discuss how to build a better encyclopedia, I'd suggest picking one topic for discussion at a time. -- Dragonfiend 17:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Primarily: Civility Assume Good Faith
1) Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged to assume good faith in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
Passed 8-0
6) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users.
Passed 8-0
All parties cautioned to remain civil
2) Aaron Brenneman, Dragonfiend, Snowspinner, and Tony Sidaway are all cautioned to remain civil even in stressful discussions.
Passed 7-0
It makes me sad to see stuff like this: [1] Another webcomic, found here. Using a google search to look for "emerald winter", the best source I could come up with was a review on a podcast[1]. It's Alexa rank is 1.2 million for those interested. - Hahnchen 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Delete — Cruft death to webcomics. SynergeticMaggot 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Which is the exact same comment
[2] Although giving your webcomic a transgendered theme is a sure fire way to ensure its success, it fails here. Take a look at the webcomic here, it's 40 google links here and lack of Alexa rank here. - Hahnchen 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) * Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) EVEN the same TIMESTAMP, how is it possible that you even looked at the page?
[3] Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic fan fiction webcomic found on the free web host Smack Jeeves, here. Although the free web host Smack Jeeves claims to host over 2000 websites on its article, the entire domain only manages a paltry Alexa rank of 120,000 of which this comic is the most popular. Even the most popular website on Smack Jeeves only manages to return 30 Google hits for "Totally Kotor". I think I'm going to have to nominate the host next. But that's for later, what's certain is that this is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC) * Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
And the timestamp is yet the same. You guys are not even looking at the articles, you are still using Alexa to nominate something for deletion when Alexa and google is not WP:NOT WP:V policy and not in WP:WEB.
Although I agree on the DELETE's themselves, having never heard of them, I find it distasteful that the people nominating the comics aren't doing any research and simply voting delete. Your own page here invites people to delete webcomics.
Have you done a search for "Dragonfiend wikipedia" on google yet? I note at least three instances where things have blown up. I do believe that this kind of thing wouldn't happen if the deletions were put up citing [WP:WEB] and [WP:V] and not disparraging the comic or it's host, since that makes it bad faith. Also, when people vote delete, to again remain civil [WP:CIVIL] and not put bad faith comments like "death to webcomics" in them.
- Agreed, Kisai. I, too, have noted Dragonfiend's acts of WikiHate both against myself personally and against many other webcomics. Perhaps more publicity about this steady purge - which was attempted before a year ago and is now being resumed after a lull of notice - is in order? I'm sure if Comic Genesis started throwing its weight behind maintaining webcomic articles, the editorial quality would improve and the minority of rogue Wiki editors like Dragonfiend who operate outside the standards of the Wiki community would be checked or at least balanced. Then Wiki's information about webcomics might grow once again and not be subject to the misapplication of Wiki policies by people who simply don't understand the art form of webcomics. (Yes, there's some pent up anger here - but when dealing with an editor who's gone off the deep end to justify apparent WikiCrimes, it's hard not to feel a little frustrated.) Xuanwu 04:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- My perogative is not to defend comicgenesis comics in Wikipedia, it's to blow the whistle on what appears to be the lack of research going into the deletions. I'm not here to represent comicgenesis. There might be at any point in time, 50 or so comics on Comicgenesis that might be Wikipedia notable, and the rest are a hard case to make once they get past 100 on the list unless they stopped updating. I have realtime data, but like Alexa, the data over time favors only current comics, not hiatus'ed or ended comics. It's easy to validate what is a notable comic among comicgenesis, drunkduck and smackjeeves just by finding their top pages and going from there. What I'm seeing though is "death to webcomics" comments and nobody bothering to check their facts. [WP:V] suggests that there be some tangible proof that something be notable verified (ie awards, appearance in other mediums), yet dragonfiend and a few other editors are quick to dismiss the validity. It's not like there is a comicbook reviewer in the new york times. Independant sources seem to imply that for something to be notable, it be headline news on CNN or something. The local papers here for example, make their content subscription only, even if a webcomic was reviewed in it, you'd never be able to prove it short of buying the paper for that day, cutting it out and scanning it. If you missed it, the online edition will be hidden behind a subscription page, and then deleted after a few months, which would then flag [WP:V] again.
- Actually, while it is the repsonsibility of those who wish an edit to remain to provide sources, I generally look for information on each comic in my library before discussing whether to delete it. For example, the first article you just linked to was fairly easily found through my library after some research. It apparently went out over the CanWest News Service wire, and was picked up by The Star Phoenix of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and a few other papers in Canada. It continues "Unless, of course, that strip is online. Corny comic strips and forced newspaper funnies be warned: your magic bottle of inoffensive puns is emptying. The Internet is the future, right? Daily comics have found a new audience on the Internet, where size restriction and censorship dare not roam, and anything goes: dark humour, extended plot lines, bizarre Surrealism, etc . . ." It then discusses webcomics including Boy on a Stick and Slither, Penny Arcade, and Perry Bible Fellowship. To address your comment above about the brief span of time between some of my AfD edits, that's because I generally take time to look at multiple articles, then look for info on them, then come back later and comment on them all at once. So, just because you see a several comments from me in a brif span of time does not mean I only spent a brief amount of time thinking about them. You have no idea how many hours I've spent in libraries looking for even the briefest mention of the most obscure webcomics. Also, I think you'll notice that the people making "death to webcomics" comments are 1) in the extrem minortiy of only one person, 2) not me, and 3) probably wouldn't say that about an article with reliable sources. Oh, and also, you may notice in that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics, there was no finding of fact that I'd been uncivil, failed to assume good faith, or made personal attacks. One party was found to be engaging in uncivil behaviour and personal attacks; it was a (in my opinion) fairly extreme webcomics inclusionist frustrated by our content policies, not me. So, to summarize: I find that the best way to find sources for an encyclopedia article is to do some research at the library, don't assume that a series of comments made in quick succession had little thought behind them, and don't blame me for the incivility or personal attacks of others. Oh, and also you should sign your comments with four tildes. Have I addressed your concerns? It seems like you have a lot of problems with me, so let me know if I missed any. Happy editing, -- Dragonfiend 07:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I still believe you are side-stepping the issue of no research, as deletion comments from you and others don't reflect any research being done at all, or using only google or alexa at a "it's less than what I consider notable" reason. I would more likely agree with delete / speedy delete if the articles were transwiki'ed to comixpedia, as opposed to the current trend of deleting things just because they are not notable to the wikipedia editors, but are far more commonly known among the webcomic community. Webcomics promote each other through the use of fanart and cameos, something that google can not do since it can not read images or recognize common elements. These elements are usually noted in a comment or forum posting on one or both comic sites. Strange Candy for example I originally discovered from the megatokyo forums back to when Strange Candy started years ago and was still in greyscale. However excluding forum posts from the megatokyo site would then require you to actually read both MegaTokyo and Strange Candy to find the overlap point, which Emi had permission to use. Maybe the article itself was too much of a advertisement for itself, but because of a percieved anti-webcomic sentiment on Wikipedia, webcomic fans have been advised to not contribute or use wikipedia at all (see websnark comments from the Checkerboard Nightmare issue), All three times that I've looked closely at, were all comics that started on comicgenesis (Checkerboard nightmare, strange candy, sorcery 101), which suggests that comics hosted on comicgenesis are being targeted specificly for deletion "because it's comicgenesis". A free hosting provider is no less notable than a stand-alone host that is paid for, and comicgenesis comics are purged when there are only one or two pages, to avoid the same issue wikipedia has with "stuff I made up at school", there are 7800 comics, if none had been deleted there would be around 30000 now. Comicgenesis is much harder to signup for as it requires the person signing up be able to understand email, html and ftp clients, it's not a hosting service for people who don't know how to to use the internet, that by itself eliminates most of the would be "lets start a webcomic right now" people since they won't recieve a password for a few days, and by that time, they have moved on to better things. My issue with Wikipedia and webcomics is more focused on the lack of research (and not citing any research), and I have a hard time beliving any research is being done when comments suggest they aren't even reading the article or webcomic site, and suggesting delete simply because it's a webcomic. If you don't want webcomics in wikipedia, transwiki them to comixpedia or to the comicgenesis wiki, and people won't complain about their time and effort being wasted on wikipedia, and conflicts would more than likely disappear. In my opinion webcomic artists or fans are mistakenly creating wikipedia articles thinking it's a directory of everything, when it's not. --Kisai 20:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, while it is the repsonsibility of those who wish an edit to remain to provide sources, I generally look for information on each comic in my library before discussing whether to delete it. For example, the first article you just linked to was fairly easily found through my library after some research. It apparently went out over the CanWest News Service wire, and was picked up by The Star Phoenix of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and a few other papers in Canada. It continues "Unless, of course, that strip is online. Corny comic strips and forced newspaper funnies be warned: your magic bottle of inoffensive puns is emptying. The Internet is the future, right? Daily comics have found a new audience on the Internet, where size restriction and censorship dare not roam, and anything goes: dark humour, extended plot lines, bizarre Surrealism, etc . . ." It then discusses webcomics including Boy on a Stick and Slither, Penny Arcade, and Perry Bible Fellowship. To address your comment above about the brief span of time between some of my AfD edits, that's because I generally take time to look at multiple articles, then look for info on them, then come back later and comment on them all at once. So, just because you see a several comments from me in a brif span of time does not mean I only spent a brief amount of time thinking about them. You have no idea how many hours I've spent in libraries looking for even the briefest mention of the most obscure webcomics. Also, I think you'll notice that the people making "death to webcomics" comments are 1) in the extrem minortiy of only one person, 2) not me, and 3) probably wouldn't say that about an article with reliable sources. Oh, and also, you may notice in that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics, there was no finding of fact that I'd been uncivil, failed to assume good faith, or made personal attacks. One party was found to be engaging in uncivil behaviour and personal attacks; it was a (in my opinion) fairly extreme webcomics inclusionist frustrated by our content policies, not me. So, to summarize: I find that the best way to find sources for an encyclopedia article is to do some research at the library, don't assume that a series of comments made in quick succession had little thought behind them, and don't blame me for the incivility or personal attacks of others. Oh, and also you should sign your comments with four tildes. Have I addressed your concerns? It seems like you have a lot of problems with me, so let me know if I missed any. Happy editing, -- Dragonfiend 07:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- My perogative is not to defend comicgenesis comics in Wikipedia, it's to blow the whistle on what appears to be the lack of research going into the deletions. I'm not here to represent comicgenesis. There might be at any point in time, 50 or so comics on Comicgenesis that might be Wikipedia notable, and the rest are a hard case to make once they get past 100 on the list unless they stopped updating. I have realtime data, but like Alexa, the data over time favors only current comics, not hiatus'ed or ended comics. It's easy to validate what is a notable comic among comicgenesis, drunkduck and smackjeeves just by finding their top pages and going from there. What I'm seeing though is "death to webcomics" comments and nobody bothering to check their facts. [WP:V] suggests that there be some tangible proof that something be notable verified (ie awards, appearance in other mediums), yet dragonfiend and a few other editors are quick to dismiss the validity. It's not like there is a comicbook reviewer in the new york times. Independant sources seem to imply that for something to be notable, it be headline news on CNN or something. The local papers here for example, make their content subscription only, even if a webcomic was reviewed in it, you'd never be able to prove it short of buying the paper for that day, cutting it out and scanning it. If you missed it, the online edition will be hidden behind a subscription page, and then deleted after a few months, which would then flag [WP:V] again.
Research, Transwiki
[edit]Regarding your view that some comments during AfD discussions "don't reflect any research being done at all," please note that per WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Also, per WP:WEB, "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria." That is, the point when research ought to be done is while writing the article; the only research that is absolutely necessary during an article's AfD is reading the article that has been nominated. You'll also note that typically quite a bit of additional research is done anyway on AfD, such as google searches for sources, etc. As far as your idea that "comics hosted on comicgenesis are being targeted specificly for deletion," I don't believe that's true, though I can't speak for anyone but myself. I do know that plenty of unreferenced articles on webcomics that are not hosted by your site have been deleted, and I know that if there were an article about a comic hosted on your site with some reliable sources I certainly wouldn't suggest deleting it. As far as transwikiing articles to Comixpedia goes, editors are free to do that at any time; you can also ask for already deleted articles to be restored in your user space so you can transwiki them. Is there anything else? -- Dragonfiend 05:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)