Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:20, 24 February 2006

All Hail Lord Squidi

What Sean Howard really needs is an agent, a publicist, and a lawyer. His problem is that he tries to be all three in addition to being an artist. He takes personal offense when someone mentions him on the web and feels responsible for everything that is said about him. He has to protect his art personally from people who want to make avatars which resemble his work, and he has to handle everything about his image himself. Some cases you settle out of court, some you ignore, and some battles are worth losing. This is why celebrities have managers.

And the sad thing is the more he messes with the article the more he stirs things up. If he's just leave things be instead of trying to threaten wikipedia to delete the article by claiming some clause of a privacy act or fighting over wording changes, this whole thing would die down. Some battles aren't worth figthing no matter how stubborn you are. --BigCow 02:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What he really needs is some prozac. And I only say that, mm, like 20% jokingly. I mean, just read him...he gets unreasonably angry, he contradicts himself, he has a serious disconnect between his actions and how people react to him. He tries to convince people of his point of view, but he insults them while he does it. And he can't comprehend the problem with that. I mean, not even from the civility point of view...you don't try to sell someone a car while you're punching them in the gut. --Spinn 04:50, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

re Spinnwebe deletion

Yeah, really. I think it's nuts deleting stuff like that, even if it is maybe marginal, because Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT paper. But there's so much cruft put in that people get a little edgy and pull the trigger too easily sometimes. Herostratus 03:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

SpinnWebe has been nominated for AFD again

As a heads-up, SpinnWebe has been nominated for AFD a second time at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SpinnWebe. I strongly encourage you to participate in the discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your facts!!

Per your contributions at SpinnWebe, you stated in an edit that " changed the name of the site to "SpinnWebe" in April 1995."

However this Usenet post archived by Google Groups clearly shows that the site was known as "SpinnWebe" as early as February 21, 1995, and that Galcik was clearly promoting the site in Usenet newsgroups as such.

You may want to research this topic further to make sure you have all of the facts correct before making any further contributions. KWH 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well crap, you're right. I was going by the comp.infosystems.www.announce post. I will be more mindful to doublecheck my SpinnWebe primary sources in the future. --Spinn 12:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoo hey Wiki drama (SpinnWebe AfD)

Wow, thanks for the research, KWH...though really, now that he's gotten his pound of flesh I don't think all that was necessary. But I think even the main DFC article cinches it because it says "SpinnWebe...uses Keane's cartoons".

I didn't even remember I was in the Washington Post for the Nipple Server. Huh. Did you LexisNexis this, or something? --Spinn 04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, good times... though Scribs probably deserves it (sorry). I used some database at the library called America's Newspapers, LexisNexis probably would have done better/found more.

I think that some of these individuals are getting some emotional payoff which I can't understand from banging out these pithy "Delete - nn, terminate it" messages on AFD. It's like they're earning notches in the handle of their battleaxe. I think this is something that needs to be reformed. There's a problem with a lot of crap articles being created, but to me these people should stop being so know-it-all vigilante... hypothetically if the article says the website was created back in 1995 when you happened to be 9 years old, maybe you should just recuse yourself from this decision and let someone else with more subject matter expertise say whether it's notable.

I think it stands to reason that if there's some encyclopedic article on a theory in Quantum Electrodynamics with equations you don't understand, you shouldn't tear in and say "Delete I googled this and only got 723 results, nn neologism-PLONK". But if you're a qualified physicist and you know it's dreck, then you should be able to say Delete with authority, and why you know it's non-encyclopedic.

There's also a serious problem I see in that I really don't think Misplaced Pages is giving proper weight to the early history of the Web. People who read the world wide web and history of the Internet articles don't gain an actual perspective of 'being there' whatsoever. If we looked at it as a matter of generations, the generation of sites which are popular now are "getting served" - they get an article recording their details since they happened to be popular now, when lots of people are writing articles on Misplaced Pages. The previous generation is like a blind spot.

Also, I've got something to say about this bit at WP:WEB - "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." - how much writing was there about website content in the early Web era? It was "Hey, here's the link... it's a great site, it's got "foo" if you click on the foo link, and the "bar" page is very good too... here's a tiny screenshot." Nobody was deconstructing the medium back then, so pretty much any media mention is going to consist of a brief review and link.

So that's my rant. KWH 06:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, for the most part you're preaching to the choir. But for your last paragraph, I think...well, if something's significant in history, there will be some writings that make their way to us in the future, usually. Not always, but having a historical footprint will generate some sort of documentation, typically.

As for Scribs...yeah, I know. If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have bothered to suggest the page should be created. In researching the defense for the SW entry I've learned more about Misplaced Pages inclusion standards. Still, it just royally pissed me off the highly obvious way JD presented it on a completely different AfD page. It was so obviously being offered as a deal, you know? I read it and actually said out loud to my monitor, "okay fine, I'll burn the other article to keep the one I want." And predictably, within hours, the Scribs AfD went up, and JD's edits to the SW AfD stopped. --Spinn 06:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)