User talk:Yy-bo/notaskedfor 1

While looking at your article "Squeaky Rat" and the related category I also looked at other recent contributions you have made. I applaud your enthusiasm in creating articles, but I disagree with your interpretation of the criteria for notability. I hope very much that my nominating everything similar to the rat article for deletion is not something you will take personally. Instead I hope you will look at this as potentially the need to think differently when creating an article, or to create substantially stronger articles at the outset in order to assert notability.

Wikipedia is not in indiscriminate collection of information. In order to survive an article or a category has to be notable. I realise that my opinion and yours are different, which is why I have taken the action I have taken: to put the articles and categories up for peer review.

As you know, you are welcome to strengthen the articles in order to assert notability. Should you achieve this and the community recognise this by ensuring that they survive I will be very pleased indeed. One major outcome of the deletion process is that articles are turned by diligent editors from weak into strong articles. This would be an excellent result.

Fiddle Faddle 07:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to increase notability. User:Yy-bo 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I am sure you understand, that is all I ask for. I find it hard to believe that these items are notable at all and feel that you may wish to clarify precisely what makes a subject of an article notable. I cannot conceive that the subjects of these articles are anything other than transient fripperies. The best thing to do is to prove me wrong according to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fiddle Faddle 19:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I truly recommend that you read User:Uncle G/On notability again, this time as if you were to teach it today to a class of students. I think you will find a secnd or third read of it valuable and will start to concentrate on properly notable articles. Your skills are needed; please apply them in a productive direction. Fiddle Faddle 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You write about it like if it would an official policy. User:Yy-bo 14:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patently it is not. Nonetheless it is useful. It is of no concern to me whether you read it or not. What does concern me is the multiple trivial articles you have added to wikipedia, and having them reviewed to see if they should remain or go. Fiddle Faddle 14:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say i do not like several articles (i.e. explicit nature). It is not effective to wrestle with it. Because they are backed by groups. Personally, i do not want certain things here on wikipedia. But, it is not me, it is the community consensus which decides. User:Yy-bo 15:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is the community consensus which decides. Yes. That is precisley what I have been saying to you all along. But the creation of trivia wastes other people's good efforts. If you were better aware of what is and is not notable you would be an even more valuable commmunity member. Fiddle Faddle 15:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a backwards-spelled, dead-wished community member (self-reference) can hope fully have a valueable burial one day. I assume some countries are completely unaware of squeaky rats, halloween haunt etc. - It was not my intention to spread non-sense. I hope for others to create more articles about halloween. User:Yy-bo 15:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Halloween article the one for people that know nothing about the topic. There are many other related article too. i think they are well served without Squeeky Mouse. David D. (Talk) 15:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am now using the article's talk pages. User:Yy-bo 13:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given your previous nominations for AfD, I am surprised to see you creating all these trivial halloween articles. It all seems to be less notable than articles you have nominated for AfD. What direction is this heading? At the moment, you have to admit, it looks like AfD material. Or worse, future spam. David D. (Talk) 19:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to. What's so trivial about animated coffin? There are individuals who like halloween. Though you are not one of them. I do not know your personal spam experience, for what it is on wikipedia, see W:SPAM. User:Yy-bo 14:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial because it is unencyclopedic. In fact it reads like unencyclopedia, for example: "Unprepared people may get a heart attack, loose apetite etc.". With respect to spam, it is not spam yet. But as soon as people start adding links to their web site to buy this stuff it becomes an advertisement. Since halloween is approching it does not take genius to predict this will happen soon. David D. (Talk) 14:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a stub article. Just saying safety means are taken very seriously. I believe safe halloween is important, even if it can be, at times, trivial. User:Yy-bo 15:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a stub article, though it has "stub" on it twice. It is a trival article written in a style that is inapproriately informal about a topic that has no place here (my opinion). It is close to WP:BALLS, I'm afraid (again my opinion). And no, that is not an official policy either. Fiddle Faddle 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are not completely wrong. However, because of the included link, it is verifyable. Like heavy-metal music, explicit movies etc. it is a special breed of sub-culture. It is discrimination to call it trivial. User:Yy-bo 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it passes an AfD I'll be more convinced but at present, whether it is verifiable is irrevelvant. WP:BALLS seems about right. David D. (Talk) 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's meant to be a stub, that's why I asked you where it was going. Safety? More like tongue in cheek. Cite me one reference of people dying from the fright of halloween coffins. Possibly you should check out WP:NOT? Specifically read the sections on Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. David D. (Talk) 15:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally i am very interested in halloween. For me it was not trivial to find a link to cyberhaunt.com. Remember this stuff is all fake and makebelieve. It is not for real. User:Yy-bo 15:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is? Wikipedia is not in the marketing business. How about we give you a week to get these article up to scratch, per the discussion on my talk page? David D. (Talk) 18:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the AfD process whcih I have just set in motion since there is obvious disagreement about the Prods, the week, albeit a short week, is there. Fiddle Faddle 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your information the AfD is located here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skeleton garlands David D. (Talk) 19:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, that was careless of me. I should have mentioned that. I should also mention that I hope very much that the articles can be strengthened such that they survive the process if they can meet all the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. My purpose in nominating them has been to ensure that they get a fair hearing. The prod process was not the right process in this case since it is much more of a "delete by default if it stays there for 5 days" process than a discussion process. Fiddle Faddle 20:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is, in my perception, ridiciolous, how the articles have been brought to afd. The talk pages of the articles are ignored. Nothing against to take one article to afd. I have argued to the nominating user, that my newly created articles have lead to a new article, which is not trivial Animated property. There is no response to this, just the idealistic quest to create non-trivial, high-quality articles from scratch.
I would like to express my opinion that there a loads of trivial articles on wikipedia. Sometimes they expand, this is a process which takes months.
A bit i believe User Fiddle Faddle just does not like halloween, particiualary the attractions of which i have created new articles. This user perceives them as content no one is looking for. I believe he should take one article to afd, one by one, and just give them some time. I have changed the cyberhaunt link, and i believe this is high-quality artwork, not spam adverts. I am not willing to let them call a link to this site advert spamming. User:Yy-bo 12:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I am now using the article's talk pages. User:Yy-bo 13:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you appreciate that my various nominations and comments have not been directed at you personally. I have a simple objective: to improve Wikipedia by contributiing good articles myself, and by helping other editors contribute good articles.

Part of this is looking carefully at my own work, and part is improving other articles where I have the skill to do so. Where I see an article that I am unable to improve that I feel deserves to be improved then I tag it for improvement, or, in cases where I feel it fails on one or another of the Wikipedia guidelines and cannot easily be improved I tag it for deletion, which is really for review by the community.

Tagging an article for deletion has one of three effects, unless no consensus is reached, when it is kept by default:

• I am judged by the community to have nominated in error - a good outcome since the article has received community review, and I have learnt something
• Various editors improve the article and it survives - an excellent result, and the most desirable for notable articles
• The article is judged to be worth deleting - again an excellent result because it removes articles that the community feels should not be present

When I looked at the various Halloween articles I felt that they were without substance, without citations, and were articles which were about things where an encyclopaedia entry was simply not appropriate - I mean in any encyclopaedia, not just Wikipedia. That made me sad because I could see the obvious effort you had put in to create them, and can see easily your great enthusiasm and energy for Wikipedia.

I hope very much you will continue with your energy and enthusiasm. The reason for this message to you is to ask you to think very clearly about notability while planning an article and before posting it. In part the title of the article is important here. A title such as Squeaky rat is bound to get the attention of any new page or recent edit patroller, but a title of (eg) Halloween ephemera is likely to attract less attention since it states more clearly that the items discussed in it are ephemera. I make no prediction about the ability of an article with this title to survive, since that depends on the content.

It is my hope that you find this message useful and helpful. I wanted to use the short period after the various deletions were made in order to set matters straight with you.

Fiddle Faddle 07:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. In return to your suggestion to read the essay about notabilty, i wrote an essay myself. That's an excellent result too. About the Squeaky rat, rats play a big role in Harry Potter. If you do not know HP, then you may be unable to understand this matter. I do not believe at Hogwarts everything is set straight, though it is clearly a parody. And i do not mean the preferences of the Dudley's. They are just ridiciolous. Harry should never have returned to them.

For some of us, is is important to know everything about rats.

Your judgement about my articles was a bit too quick: they just have been created hours before, maybe even a day or so. But it is true: to put the animated properties (like the coffin) into a section of the main article Halloween yard. A halloween yard is not: a Spooky walk, especially it is not a charity, and definetively not run by christian people. I fell halloween a bit water diluted by those. A Halloween yard is not always meant to be walkable.

There are around 50 different halloween attractions, some of them may deserve an article. Of course this requires notability, means more than just existence in one haunters garden. It must be a widespread, better even commercially available attraction. But do not mind, there are several specialized companies. Guess they do not have a tiny bit the need to advertise on wikipedia. Most people do not wat these things at home! The articles would be only for informative purposes. Let us close it now. If you believe you can improve the article (in my userspace), i do not exclude you. However your crystalballing about future unsolicited adverts was not appreciate. Show me one halloween unsolicited mass email. Just one. User:Yy-bo 15:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I am struggling to understand much of what you have just said.

I am not going to do a thing to any article in anyone's userspace.

A best selling book of fiction is hardly a citation of notability about a trivial toy. Harry Potter is not a parody. To be a parody there must be something to parody.

The time lag between seeing an article that is not notable and flagging it so is not important

"Advertising" on Wilipedia is not what Wilipedia is about.

Please learn from this experience how to create useful, notable, valuable articles.

Fiddle Faddle 15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quidditch not expandable

If i take a look at the HP movies, everything speaks for itself. Though i do not believe Quidditch to be that expandable. I had serious understanding lag while reading HP books... Let's say it is a fictional parody.

I will learn from this experience (watching HP movie just two days ago) how to create useful, notable, valuable articles. By the way it was Chamber of Secrets. Have you seen it for to say it is not a parody?

Please understand that, in my opinion, advertising is nothing bad, it is required and good, people are looking for adverts in good style. At least User:Yy-bo 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Parody for a proper explanation of a parody. Harry Potter is not one, so we will not say that it is. While you are entitled to your opinion on advertising, please do not advertise on Wikipedia because advertising here is not allowed. I have no idea where Quidditch comes in to this at all. Please do not seek to explain it to me. Fiddle Faddle 16:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too good at spells. The dudleys panorama is a parody. Get buried with high-quality brandy. If you do not know the dudleys, the rat scabbers etc. then don't continue to speak. User:Yy-bo 16:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a parody. The Dursley family is represented in a comedic manner as an integral part of the story. However the family is as real as any family in any comedy situation. Nothing is parodied. What s represented is a child who is not wanted, living with the people who do not want him, people who are larger than life and quite horrible in a normal manner. It may be a parable, just possibly, but it is not a parody. Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The weasley's are also represented in a comedic manner. I insist Harry must not return to the dursley family. Hogwarts is an insane place, based on centuries of tradition. This might be a parody, or just a representation in a somehow comedic manner. Call it random freebie vending machine. I do not know if we need one for the community. Once i wrote a hoax article. An admin asked me not to do it again. User:Yy-bo 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not accuse editors who make good-faith comments regarding articles for deletion of trolling. Please also read WP:CIVIL and WP:NOT before commenting on other user's actions again and before creating any more pseudo-articles. —Centrx→talk • 20:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will read it again. I have not accused a specific user, just saying (link required?) it occurs (unwanted, overly long elaborations)

Thank you for the recommendation. The link to the policies is being asked for. Policies are a neutral topic. User:Yy-bo 20:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse Fiddle Faddle of trolling directly with this edit. You should not try to deny such things after the fact. It never works. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere, the consideration a great waste of time can be found. The user Fiddle Faddle made no attempt to improve any of the Afd articles. User Yy-bo does not assume good faith. Being foolish on purpose is one stage of trolling. I am adding these messages to my comment spam archieves. User:Yy-bo 18:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason you're addressing me in the third person? Furthermore, what does this have to do with anything?

User Yy-bo has no knowledge of any previous request for comment (Afd discussion contribution of this user, reference to mysterious, previous request for comment), none which might be subject of investigation on way too long elaborations, also called trolling and spamming on purpose, unwanted linkspamming which was not required/asked for.

I honestly do not have a clue what you're talking about here. Additionally, I have no intention of withdrawing the AfD. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try this again. Please stop using third person when addressing me. Address me in the first person. It is difficult to understand you when you write like that. Furthermore, if I am understanding you correctly, it is my decision whether or not to withdraw the AfD. Your request that I do so is just a request, and nothing obligates me to do so. The AfD will finish by consensus, simple as that. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you, user Someguy0830. User:Yy-bo 18:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]