On 5/2/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking about > > in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather > > make personal attacks than to actually respond to the encyclopedic > > reasoning > > for my edits. > > yeah...lets keep personal attacks out of this. > id like to explore the encyclopedic reasoning.
Jay, I know you want to do the right thing and be the peace keeper. It's the exact same way I was when I came in on a dispute between Pat and Richard BF... as it turns out my neutrality in that debate was improper, I wish I would have sided with Richard BF. I just want you to understand that that's coming from not only a guy that has deleted at least every edit to the vb article once, but the guy who went through my contributions history and attempted to delete past contribs and three articles. Just be aware you're discussing merits of the material with a guy who thinks absolutely nothing has merit and has questionable merit himself. I did not make this about him. HE made it about him. He made it about him when he appointed himselve the authority on the merit of every contribution. Just be aware that it's not ok for someone to have the authority to approve or deny 100% of edits... and especially not ok when they reject 100% of edits. He would have you believe those edits I was adding back in were mine... they absolutely are not. I believe he'll suck you in as he sucked in Michael Verdi, Richard BF, myself and many others... which is to pretend that he really wants to collaborate when in fact he either doesn't know the meaning of the term or even worse is spending our energies out of spite. As proof that he's still lying I submit the book refences for the four books on vidoeblogging. They now sit in the article just as i had added them. He deleted them as irrelevant no less then a half dozen times before finally relenting. Quite the contrary to his "I never once deleted any of your information that was properly cited." Even still his argument is irrelevant, as he fails to acknowlege how out of the standard editing policy his actions of deleting edits are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy "Perfection is not required" Nor is a lack of citation a reasonable reason for deleting an edit and that is the real issue here. Noone else can collaborate, noone can source each others material when he automatically deletes every edit. His dominance and persistence with the delete button disrupts all other attempts by editors to work on wikipedia. But please... if you so desire continue to attempt to collaborate on him with this article. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong with an article with more than 2-3 items in the timeline, an article that's more than a 500 word stub. > > I never nominated the Video blog article for deletion though I did > > initially > > vote in favour of deletion after it was nominated because I agreed with the > > reasoning. That was until I decided to do a clean up of the article and > > source the definition. In the end, the voting result was to keep the > > article. Hmm... Pat, you never nominated it... just wanted to know I'm listening... I must go back and review... not that it changes anything but if i accused you of nominating it and you didn't I'll be sure to appologize. > > This was the initial reason for deleting it: > > "Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that does not > > support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists of a > > series of admitted dictionary definitions, followed by a timeline that does > > not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that > > consists > > of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to web > > syndication." > > remember too that this deletion was proposed a while ago...when > videoblogging was still really underground. I think by now...few > people could say that a Videoblog was not an artform in itself. > lets put this to rest. > > > It's unfortunate that these are pretty much the same problems that still > > plague the article. However, we've been making progress on the article > > since this group discussion has started and I think that if you were to > > start contributing again and assume good faith that we can get back to the > > issues on the article's talk page continue to improve the content. > > so before we move on, Id like to get your take on this: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions > Is this page valid to you? > it has no mainstream citations, but seems neutral, valid, and is > extremely useful. > would you delete this page? > > I think if anything, we could at least document the debate...that i > think we can agree on. > Patrick, id like to see what you're contributing to the article. we > got to start somewhere. > > Jay > > > -- > Here I am.... > http://jaydedman.com > > Check out the latest project: > http://pixelodeonfest.com/ > Webvideo festival this June!!!! > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
