 Messages
- Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). If you're new to Wikipedia, please seeWelcome to Wikipediaandfrequently asked questions.
- I will reply to messages left here below your comment, not on your talk page.
- Please do not reply to archived messages, but instead create a new topic on the main talk page.
Archives (in blocks of 100):
- Archive 1(25 January 2006 - 04 September 2008)
Advising Blofeld to use Twinkle instead of rollback to revert non-vandal edits is high on the list of "worst ideas suggested to users", even for you. Come on - I know you're not stupid, and take a look at that page - there are five images, all face shots, of which only one (the first) could realistically be considered as possibly passing NFCC#1 even in the loosest terms of the policy. I know that NFCC can be argued about and disputed sometimes, but those four images fail so many parts of the policy that I don't know where to begin. It really would be a good idea if you focused your pro-fair-use somewhere that it would actually be useful, like on actually debatable images, or even on the policy talkpage discussions?Black Kite23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but for me, 4-5 images is reasonable considering that the whole lists concept was a compromise to having individual articles about characters. If each character had an individual article, there would be no controversy. I feel lists are being abused by the fair use opponents. You shunt all the characters to a list and then complain that lists have too many images. In any event, I dispute thereplaceable with textrationale in NFCC #1 based on my experience with persons with learning disabilities. Remember, not everyone learns or understands through the written word. If a picture can help to describe a character to an individual with such a disability, then it should be used. We mustn't allow this freedom ideology to trump our ultimate goal, to be a repository of information for anyone to access. I think it would be best if those concerned with too much fair use spend their time helping commons, which has theprimarygoal of creating freely redistributable content. The replaceable with text clause was a recent addition by POV warriors at NFCC and thus is not a provision that has community consensus. Thank you for reminding me about something that needs to be done, namely getting rid of that portion of NFCC. Text is never a suitable replacement for a picture! --Dragon695(talk)23:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but you're missing the point. I agree that text is never suitable replacement for a picture, but when that image is non-free, that can only beif the picture is adding something to the article that is clearly necessary.Pictures of what are, in the end, just random ordinary-looking people don't hit that necessity, I believe (which is why I think the first picture had some validity). As far as lists go, my mindset would be as follows - if a character isn't independently notable enough for their own article, then they're probably not notable enough to warrant a non-free imageunless it's really necessary to illustrate some facet of their appearance that can't easily be described in text.Hope you can see where I'm coming from? Incidentally, it'd be appreciated if you'd go back to Blofeld's talkpage and fix your comment - he's a really productive editor and I'd hate him to lose his rollback edit-warring with it when it's not necessary.Black Kite23:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are missing the point. To be practical, I will refer to something that happens to me often. I remember seeing a movie or whatnot but I forgot a character's name. Now how can I find that character just based on text? Can I even be assured that there will be the correct description or series of events in that character's profile for me to put a name to a face? Often, only a picture will do. In that case, that of identification, I am strongly asserting that the pictureenhances my understandingof the article. As for notability, I find that argument to be a bunch of crap. Like everyking, I believe that characters in fiction are notable enough to deserve an individual article. I really fail to understand why it is necessary to shunt them to lists. I find TTN's editing to be quite vexatious, in fact. It makes no sense, since we are in no danger of running out of room or resources. To your last point, Iwas not encouraging edit warring.I pointed out that since server rollback is for vandalism only, using twinkle would be more appropriate (AGF rollback). I don't see what the problem is. Hell, you could just use the undo button, it is all the same. --Dragon695(talk)23:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but using Twinkle to edit-war is also likely to get it removed from your monobook. Why run the risk? If you're going to revert, use a proper edit summary. As for lists, it isn't as cut and dried as you make out. I'm quite aware of the "everyking" theory, but I can't agree with it (and nor does Wikipedia policy, whether you or I agree with it or not). If "every character" in fiction is suitable for an article, where do you draw the line? You know as well as I do that we'd soon end up with articles for any named character that appeared in one episode of a TV program for five seconds. A quick look at a lot of the "List of minor characters in..." articles reveals two things to me - firstly, that yes, some of those characters would justify an article if someone could find enough real-world notability for them, and secondly, the corollary, which is that most of them couldn't. Incidentally, my answer to some of the "images for minor characters" issue would be that for a lot of fiction (especially science-fiction and anime) there is a spectacularly good independent wikia devoted to those series. Many of those couldn't give a stuff about fair-use images, so why shouldn't we link our "List of..." articles to those instead?Black Kite23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike server rollback, Twinkle's AGF rollbackdoesallow for proper edit summaries it pops up a dialogue asking you for it right after you hit the AGF Rollback link. As for linking to Wikia, I just can't accept that. It makes no sense to keep information pushed off to other projects. I would much rather the people who edited on wikia do so here instead. Plus, while I believe in quantity, I also believe in quality. It is not ok to have poorly written character sketches, but those wikis are often terrible about having any basic standards. Plus, wikia has those annoying ads and doesn't have SUL. --Dragon695(talk)00:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi whats upMallory claybaugh(talk)00:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
My name is Natalia Ioana Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University, Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of user motivation to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals.
I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 1st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too.
Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel.
Thank you,
Natalia Olaru
Email: [email protected]
MulgaEscu(talk)14:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How are you? I don't know if you remember me, but we met once. Have a nice day!— Precedingunsignedcomment added by130.127.255.224(talk)18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are going to have to be a little more specific about it than that. All I know is you have a Clemson IP address.--Dragon695(talk)12:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
