JonnyQ123

Welcome

Hello, JonnyQ123, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, JonnyQ123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Rob Baker (producer), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Rob Baker (producer) has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9u5c20mPQ0. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Placing warning notices is not "pretending to be an administrator"

I have never claimed to be an administrator. Any editor can place notices and provide information to other editors who do not appear to know (and when they continue the action after having been notified) or care to follow wikipedias policies and guidelines. Also note that you cannot tell other editors not to edit articles. Active Banana (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And also, since the article does have an AfD tag it should NOT be removed (per policy) and all relevant discussion about the notability of the article should continue there.  Dspradau → talk  04:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This tag has been added by an overzealous editor who seems to have a long history of other such behavior - see his "talk page." The tag was clearly added after he created an "edit war" and it is obviously a "punitive" tactic which should not be allowed here. This article should be "fair enough" by most standards and several of his edits are based on his subjective opinions, which I first tried to resolve, but it seems he is trying to assert some "authority" here. This is now bordering on harassment which is legally actionable and I once again request that the edits to this article by this user should cease and desist. Also, I have reviewed the list of articles scheduled for deletion and did not see this officially listed, thus I assume that "anyone" can place any odd warning they wish on any page. This is abusive, disruptive behavior and it will be acted upon. JonnyQ123 (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take note of our policy of no legal threats and strike your comment or face the consequences.you will find yourself facing the consequences. Active Banana (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Identifying harassment and stating that it is legally actionable does not constitute a "legal threat." However once again, you are a fellow user and not a Wikipedia admin, yet you threaten "consequences" and refer to this as "our" policy. Unless you are employed by Wikipedia in some official regard, you should not represent yourself as an official Wikipedia representative. Once again, please stop what is now clearly abusive, and harassing, behavior.

I am assuming that you did not yet have a chance to read the policy page. The "consequences" that I soo bluntly (and I am sorry for that) referred to are as follows "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding." And further down the page you will find "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording." So if you wish to credibly withdraw the comments in your two responses above which have been taken as a legal threat, please do so. Active Banana (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A current discussion involving you at the ANI board

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Active Banana (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Potential_legal_threats.2C_NPA_violations_by_User_talk:JonnyQ123 Active Banana (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from an uninvolved editor

Hi, JonnyQ123, I'm an uninvolved editor and I'm here because I've read Active Banana's thread on Ani. I'm not an admin, but I'd like to point out that admins are just editors like anyone else. They've got more tools than the average editor, but they're not in a position of authority, rather of authoritativeness, because they're experienced and trusted by the community. However, this does not necessarily mean that an editor who is not an admin is not experienced or trusted. So, you shouldn't disregard their suggestions, just because they don't have the mop.
Then, you really should retract what appears to be a legal threat. It doesn't really matter that you meant that as a threat; if it is perceived as such, it may lead to blocks, per Wikipedia:Nlt#Perceived legal threats. And you shouldn't make personal attacks on other editors, such as calling their actions "editerrorism", because that's a violation of WP:NPA and may lead to blocks too. I'm not here to make threats, I'm only trying to let you understand our policies, so that your time on Wikipedia can be pleasant and productive.
Moreover, Wikipedia policies are our policies, because we're a community and those are the rules the community chose to give itself. You don't have to be a member of the Foundation or an admin to be a member of the community and to have a say in its policies. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. N419BH 14:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Your lengthy comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Baker (producer)

Your comments are at the point of being disruptive. Please let the discussion proceed without incessant interjection of your opinions and feelings of persecution. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As I review this, Toddst1, I find the totality of your actions in this situation to be below the standards set on this site for an administrator. I would ask you to please strike your comments and edits, as I will detail:

First, you weigh in on the discussion with: "Speedy delete. Notability not even asserted." This is dismissive and, as an administrator, your response ought to be more thoughtful. This is at the very least open to some debate, but someone who is the producer of a notable TV show should clearly not be so readily dismissed. There are many references within Wikipedia to make a good case for this, particularly within http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia as with the #3 item under "creative professionals": "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." A notable TV show is "a significant or well-known work." And the producer/writer of a TV show is a primary creator of that content. And further, "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is fulfilled by at least a dozen published articles about the show, including Emmy Magazine, Broadcasting & Cable Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times, among many others. To be so dismissive is to completely ignore this. (Of course the articles don't need to be referenced for Rob Baker's entry, but if you question the notability of the work in which he is a creator, then these sources are available, and are referenced on the talk show's site.)

Then, you have edited the article to remove the "Official MySpace" link, noting it as a "spam link." This might not be a reference for verifiability or notability, but it is a relevant link relating to the person, as many, many, many other pages see fit to include. Referring to a person's MySpace page as "spam" is pejorative and even inflammatory.

Then, you have taken the ongoing discussion relating to the AfD itself and "collapsed" information within that was most definitely on-point toward the discussion -- effectively censoring the arguments meant to favor the inclusion of the article. Further, you use the pejorative term "rambling" which tends to speak toward your distaste for the content, which would not seem to be proper as an administrative action. If you disagree, then you should engage and discuss.

Then, you've come back to my page and declared my on-point discussion with the pejorative term "disruptive" and further added your own opinion of my discussion about the validity of the AfD's existence as a "punitive action" as -- "persecution," another pejorative, dismissive term.

Meanwhile, as I have tried to protect this article from vandalism and disruption, I find no one addressing the behavior of the editor who initiated these actions -- and I would hope that as an administrator, you would exhibit the care of one who might care about such actions. And so far, you have not, as seemingly the only administrator to visit this matter. You further seem to allow the feeling of a "cabal"-like essence among the participating editors by not only tolerating their intolerance and pedantry, but even seeming to encourage it. There are so many principles of Wikipedia that are being ignored within that discussion and you are not championing any of them. And you are not censuring the behavior of an editor who helped escalate the problem to the state in which it currently exists. By failing to recognize that and further insulting the victim as crying "persecution," you seem vastly insensitive. You also seem to ignore what seems to be this editor's delight in further antagonizing and escalating the "fight" here. Yesterday, for a brief moment, on this page I felt that he had perhaps relented and exhibited a bit of thoughtfulness -- but he used my response to him as the opportunity to continue that behavior.

You even clearly missed the point within the discussion about the introduction of good evidence to establish "verification," instead diminishing that point by saying it did not denote "notability," which was not the point in that part of the discussion. You have not even weighed in ANY opinion on that matter -- and clearly the three specific points mentioned toward verification should be seen as valid. Your remark there seems to further your own dismissal of a fair argument as a whole.

The inclusion of the Dick Cheney quote on your own user page does not inspire the visitor that your decision making process as an administrator would be thoughtful, if you admire such a context-less quote standing alone as it does.

You may be doing good work as a whole for Wikipedia, but my experience with you as someone I might look to for help, good faith, reasoned judgment and someone who ought to be concerned with upholding the MANY different facets of Wikipedia -- as might be referenced in WP:NOTPERFECT -- your behavior now many times over has proven to be a disappointment.

Perhaps you disagree -- partly or in total -- however I am addressing this on my own page rather than yours, and trying to discuss it with you here rather than involving a steward or other site authority -- so that you might re-assess your actions and make corrections on your own.

The article DOES have a right to exist here, and I believe a fair argument has been stated to support that claim. Several points of "verification" exist; the article does not exceed any reasonable point of view or make any outrageous claims, and the claim to "notability" also clearly (as stated above) appears to fall within the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. And aside from the technical parts, common sense and the intentional vagueness of Wikipedia's guideliness, with "be bold," "ignore all rules," and so many other things stated in its own mandates for itself, seem to favor welcoming such articles rather, and those principles also seem to clearly discourage the high level of pedantry I've observed within this sampling "cabal" of editors. At least within the arguments I've found some of them to be more sensitive toward trying to discuss the matter, however I've mostly found more a willingness to stomp down, discourage, exert authority, and outright ignore what this site would seem to be.

As for functionality, so many smallish articles seem to not bear the requirement of "inline citations." If an editor finds one to be incomplete, it seems fully within his judgment to simply declare it a "stub." The citations, as mentioned on the site, are needed "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." So perhaps the article COULD include inline citations -- but there seems to be nothing outwardly and distinctly requiring of them, once the fact of his existence and occupation are clearly established. And thus far, nothing beyond "verification" of the person and his "notability" has been specifically challenged -- not the content within the article, which is within reason. If someone were to challenge any of the reasonable claims within the article, according to WP:SELFPUB if Rob wrote about himself then by its uncontroversial nature what is stated there should be acceptable -- however again, the content itself has not been at issue.

You have here someone who not only would appear to fall within "notability" as the producer/writer i.e. significant content creator, of a TV show which has attained its own notability and has been well written about. Further, you have someone who has been perhaps the only person in history to group four former "Tonight Show" writers, from every host of the show, together to provide comedic writing for one monologue. That could even be notable in itself -- but surely adds to the whole package.

I will be interested to see your response to this. Again, I am asking you to correct your improprieties and hopefully engage in productivity rather than encourage negativity among others. If you cannot do that, then I request you recuse yourself from this matter and ask a different administrator to participate. JonnyQ123 (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about many areas of Wikipedia policy and conduct. Please read WP:COI and WP:NPA. Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Bringing your discussion points here. Re "Igore all rules" - People seem to latch on to those three words and ignore the rest of the proposition: if it prevents us from improving the encyclopedia. How would ignoring the rules in this instance improve the encyclopedia? Active Banana (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

All righty -- When I read that article, I see almost exactly the case I have been trying to make there -- I hadn't read that particular article before; just the sentiment echoed elsewhere. It seems that to this point, virtually everyone is displaying a "pedantic" interest in following the "rule" of the notability section. Obviously everyone posting here knows that -- as mentioned -- there are many, many people noted on Wikipedia whose notability factor wouldn't pass muster with that page. And who knows when that page was written? Maybe before the age of YouTube, which has certainly redefined what is "notable" in the public eye.

You know, with what Wikipedia "is" as a model, I've seen so many people with little pages here and there, and I worked with Rob at the charity. I told him he should have a page, too. He wasn't sure about that, but I put one together for him and now he likes having it there -- since he doesn't like to blow his own horn, it's sort of a calling-card way for him to offer a link to some info about himself that isn't self-aggrandizing. And there's so much more I wish could be put there that really wouldn't pass muster -- he basically saved that charity. It was on the verge of collapse when he started there and he got it re-energized, he recreated most of their presentation package, fought for grants, and put a lot of energy into the "Vision Awards" by seeking out, and getting, powerful honorees for that award -- like Clive Davis, Ahmet Ertegun, Burt Bacharach, so many film actors and producers from major films (heck, you can look at the past honoree list for '99-'05 at www.visionawards.com) and it has maintained that momentum since he left. He also helped re-energize the descriptive TV and films project, and one of them was of "It's a Wonderful Life" audio described by George H.W. Bush and aired on NBC's SAP channel for the blind for several years. (All the TheatreVision "honoree films" for those years were also described for the blind, often by celebrities from the films.) The charity also supported a "school" for elderly blind in the Valley, and Rob's pulled their fat out of the fire by fighting for their funding from the City of LA a number of times. For the Kerwin show, he got a meeting for them with NBC and they became really the only other candidate considered for the "Late Night" job after Conan O'Brien left. And he helped put that show on the map and got a higher calibre of celebrity guests by reaching out to so many agents and managers, and he was responsible for the partner channel and the YouTube presence it enjoys -- and he also got it on the LA Cable 36 channel after the death of public access in Los Angeles. Those people wouldn't have been guests if it was "just a public access show." He also tried to save public access TV in Los Angeles, and he pitched that article to the L.A. Times, which was supposed to originally be about the show, but once he got their author excited about it, the scope of the story widened and he at least got a mention and that photograph within what became a front-page article.

So maybe I can ramble on about that stuff here on my own "talk page." I've seen who the man is and what he's done, and most of it, unfortunately, doesn't "work" for Wikipedia. So of course I'm upset that what little there is that could be put, is being so challenged. If you went into a store and wanted to buy something that everyone else seemed to have and were told, "No, you can't have one," and you complained and were told "Well, all those other people got through somehow" -- wouldn't you be upset about that? Especially after you'd seen a sign on the front door which said "Welcome! Come in and buy this product, there's enough for everyone!" -- That likens to this site. There are SO many examples of people being listed here for minor accomplishments or just for "being a socialite" or for having popular videos on YouTube. Or for even being a "meme" -- without looking, I'll bet the "Numa Numa" guy has his own listing here. Rob understands what a "visionary" is after getting so many of them honored for all those years -- working 14 hour days and weekends while at that charity, too -- and I believe he himself is one. So when I see a bunch of people pedantically trying to remove his listing on a technicality, after reading through a lot of Wikipedia and seeing all other indications point toward his article being welcomed here -- and seeing how much the idea of "Ignore all rules" is stressed, seemingly to support the idea that this is "the people's encyclopedia" -- it just feels so very discouraging to see all the self-appointed "keepers of the rules" working so hard to knock down what this site really seems to stand for, and welcome. It says that "Ignore all rules" isn't a paradox and yes, there are rules offered as guidelines -- but it also seems that outright ignoring "Ignore all rules" IS a paradox. So you have my own outrage over having this little article threatened -- and now it's compounded by the higher principle of seeing pedantic behavior on a site that really doesn't want that to exist. So, take all that as you will. I was very upset with you, but the fact that you came here to ask this at least tells me that you are intrigued by my arguments. If you look at the "rambling" item that was collapsed by that other fellow, you'll see my more specific argument toward "notability," and I really think someone ought to re-write that page so that it isn't so contradictory to what is actually on the site -- rather than making it something which inspires so many to work on destroying the work of others.

I was aware of that page for "Rob Baker, guitarist" because whenever you searched for the name, it would take you right to that page. I was then surprised to see it was entirely removed recently. That page certainly had a right to exist here, and someone should have helped it if it didn't pass muster, and I am sure that someone could have. Probably it, too, contained "offline" documentation that someone could have considered (as with CD liner notes), rather than exhibiting the "power" to have it knocked down because they didn't like some failing the article had by not being footnoted. Someone went to a great deal of trouble to compose that article, representing a notable man's life's work; it mentioned the types of guitars he used, the styles of music he studied and so forth -- and someone came along with a knife and doomed it because they could. It really seems a pity on so many levels, knowing there are so many other articles like this being doomed to execution by people shouting "The rules! The Rules!"

As I mentioned, I worked for a charity -- and Wikipedia is itself a charity. I am impressed by what Wikipedia is, or is supposed to be, and I've learned much more about it these last few days -- but sadly, seeing it being eaten away at from within has been a very negative experience. My thinking is that someone from "high up" needs to correct this, or the site is in danger of losing its funding as something in the public interest. So -- there's my answer to your question, and thank you. JonnyQ123 (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont even know WHERE to begin!

Nothing has a RIGHT to exist here. The content must fall within the parameters that the community has decided are appropriate for for the project. Period. The community has determained that for an encyclopedia of content generated by anybody, that article content and claims MUST be sourced to reliable sources. The fact that we sometimes or pehaps even often have had articles and content slip by the established guidelines is in NO WAY a valid excuse to let the improper content that we have found remain a part of the project.

You can help by finding that other inappropriate content and bringing it up to standards.

If you do not wish to follow the community standards and guidelines, you can make a proposal to change them to something you find meets your needs better, or you can go edit somewhere else. There are other online encyclopedia type sites that have other guidelines. Active Banana (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

RE "I worked with Rob"

RE: "I worked with Rob at the charity. I told him he should have a page, too. He wasn't sure about that, but I put one together for him and now he likes having it there"[1]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Active Banana (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, bones. Of course that is to be expected, and surely you know that most of the people who write about anything on here are likely to have some special interest in that subject, which includes "friends of people." All I hear again are, "The Rules! The Rules! Oh, the sacred rules!" On a site which expressly points out that the rules are meant to be broken if common sense prevails. Otherwise, you don't get articles written on Wikipedia by anybody if you make it too difficult to do and discourage them. Wikipedia is always content-hungry and it boasts of how many articles it has -- and you and these others are working to diminish that number by being pedantic about "the rules." JonnyQ123 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"An interest in" a topic is clearly different than having a "conflict of interest". Active Banana (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I felt yesterday that you might want to engage and explore the discussion further here rather than "disrupt" the other discussion, and I responded thoughtfully to that. You seem to have taken that response simply as a reason to find more ways to be antagonistic. With "conflict of interest," there has been nothing at issue in that regard. The site's guidelines if one is "close" to the subject is to "exercise caution," which I think is clearly evident. The article is written neutrally, offers nothing controversial and simply states its facts. And your other response which starts off "Nothing has a right to exist here," may be true in its way -- but seems a silly thing to say. You mean that articles about President Nixon, Nebraska, caramel corn, bees, Australia, coin collecting, The Mary Tyler Moore Show and so on have no RIGHT to be here? Okay then! But how does that help the discussion? It doesn't. JonnyQ123 (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Until they have been covered by third party sources, no, they dont have a right to be here. Active Banana (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Blunt Advice / Warning

Jonny, I think you need to realize that at this point, you have contributed nothing that the community feels is useful to wikipedia. However, in the short time you have edited here, you have violated a number of policies and guidelines, been discussed as a problematic editor on ANI, antagonized a number of editors, and disrupted an AFD discussion. Rather than continue to rant about how everyone else is doing something wrong here and how we have these oppressive rules, perhaps you should try learning a bit about how things work, then trying to do something constructive. I'm afraid that if you continue down this path, you will likely become a former editor, either voluntarily out of frustration, or involuntarily after being blocked. Please take this seriously. Toddst1 (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point I've found no one here has treated me fairly nor reasonably and barely even cordially. And in the past several days, believe me, I've read up on this thing quite a bit, thus my earlier letter to you. The more people here try to antagonize, the more of a "cause" it becomes here. Telling me to quiet down, calling me names, and generally behaving rudely on your part and these other editors -- is NOT designed to resolve a problem. I have proven the case WITH WIKIPEDIA'S GUIDELINES yet most of you here behave as if you're tending to some OTHER set of criteria. If you can't behave as an administrator ought to, then don't expect me to "fear consequences" here -- YOU are leaving the bad example and evidence of your own unfitness for your position. Keep adding it on! Keep trying to impress me with your power of the click button. At least, I also did as the guidelines suggest -- try to discuss the matter first before taking it to another level. I see what I am doing as CONSTRUCTIVE for this site and its mandates, while what the people I've encountered so far seem to mostly be doing appears to be DESTRUCTIVE. Flitting about, tagging and deleting articles as you go. I didn't come here to fight -- but the mistreatment combined with condescension combined with antagonization brings me to a nice froth. You want me to settle down? Try listening, responding reasonably, and actually act like you UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN CHERISHED SITE'S RULES. I get the feeling I "get" this site much better than most of you. JonnyQ123 (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You obviously have not read or understood characteristics of problem editors. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything else you think I ought to read here? Okay, I read it, and it's another sign that you seem to wish to point out that you believe something is wrong with my behavior without addressing my own good faith comments regarding the actual subject, or even addressing my inquiry to you about your own behavior here. That "opinion essay" article mentions editors who frequently revert, which might be one of the most egregious of my own acts in trying to protect that article. Meanwhile, the other editor whose aggressive edits of that article which essentially started said war seems of no concern. Look at the history of edits. You'll see he came to it one day and fixed little inconsequential bits and pieces, then came back and tagged something, then came back again and tagged something else. This, after he was responsible for the virtual deletion by redirection of another nice, informative article about another person named Rob Baker. Sound odd at all? Seems slightly so to me, at least. I discovered the tags and endeavored to spruce up the article. He returned and tagged it some more, and we went back and forth. I finally lost patience with trying to "in good faith" satisfy the problems as he became more aggressive, and admittedly I summarily removed his persistent tagging of the article. He then made the move to mark it for deletion. I looked at the page where such items are discussed and did not see it listed then, so I removed it -- once I had determined that he had no particular supervisory authority and seemed to just be availing himself of the ability to post any old notice on a page he wished to. This seemed at that point HIGHLY antagonistic, and he had done nothing to try to discuss the matter. Mainly, his ongoing behavior exhibited high aggression and even anger. I believe this is clearly evident in the edit history.

I've looked at his "talk page" and noticed to no surprise, a history since just February of this year of people warning him about unnecessary edits, edit wars, and generally creating controversy on the site. Yet now, no one seems willing to stand up and try to correct HIS behavior; especially as (theoretically) a now more-seasoned editor who ought to know much better.

I'm sure this matters very little to you and likely you'll see this as more of me exhibiting feeligns of "persecution" here. You seem to have adopted the attitude that folks who complain are the problem -- not whatever it is they're complaining about! Well, as I've searched around I find that this very thing I'm dealing with here is a rather common occurrence and seems to be the very reason why many well-intentioned editors have stopped trying to help the site, because of the pedantry and the arguments and the "hierarchy"/"cabal-like" problems -- all things which it seems Wikipedia has taken care to try to warn AGAINST in its editors.

I invite you to read this particular item I found: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/25/wikipedia-editors-decline This was written by the technology blogger for the UK's "Guardian," somewhat in response to a now-much-discussed Wall Street Journal article from last November which drives at much the same idea. More notable than the item is the responses from so many people below it, the majority of whom claim this same type of problem is why they stopped contributing to the site.

And I also invite you to read the rather passionate and well-reasoned writings of Jorge Stolfi near the upper part of Active Banana's talk page. He has expressed many good thoughts, and probably more eloquently than I might be able to -- although the lack of replies makes it seem that his words fell on deaf ears. Meanwhile, I am responding to you as someone I figure MIGHT care, given your own apparent interest in the site for having been given admin status -- but so far you haven't exhibited such caring; seeming to choose instead the path of fault-finding and like-minded aggressive tactics to squelch what you only see as an irritant.

I've assumed good faith until given reason to change that assumption, and have seen very little "good faith" afforded to me. Other than offering my own heated responses to apparent discourtesy (to say the least), within the discussion I have tried to keep a level head and present on-point discourse, which ought to be fully my right to do as it is the article I wrote being discussed (and which is only really there for discussion due to the "punitive" act placing it there in the first place) -- and which you censored by "collapsing." Discussing on-point within a discussion area should not be regarded as "disruptive editing." And you'll note I am also trying to discuss these things within my own talk page rather than on your page or even his page. Although that might not be a bad idea -- I am also conscious that your own "reputations" are much more visible within your own pages and therefore don't really wish to display criticisms of you there -- despite the fact you and others seem to have no compunction against drubbing me on mine. And at least I figure I can't be accused of being "disruptive" on my own page. You don't HAVE to read this and you don't HAVE to reply to this -- but I hope if you do, it will be in the spirit of discussion rather than just returning to re-state disparaging opinions you have of me. JonnyQ123 (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Toddst1's comments are forewarned in the section heading as being blunt; perhaps they are a bit overly blunt, but they are an a pretty accurate assessment of the situation. Active Banana (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Suggestion

Re you most recent post to the deletion discussion. Yes, we have heard (several times) your perspective of "the rules" as you have applied them to an article you wrote about someone you know personally. Coming in with a fresh view is great and all, but Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, and as you can see in that discussion, that your new view is not the view currently held by the community.

I see four options:

1. You can continue to rant and rail against the way things are (which will leave you frustrated and likely blocked), or
2. You leave and put your efforts elsewhere, (I see you have a lot of passion that would be nice to have as a constructive addition to this or other projects), or
3. You can attempt to work with the community to bring the the rules and your interpretations within something that you more easily accept (note that this option will require quite a bit of investment of time and effort and working with people), or
4. You can decide if you can live and participate within the way things are.

If you decide on the final option (or decide on the 3, you will need to do this to build your credibility as someone who actually cares about the project and not just someone who wants to promote an article they created about their friend), I suggest that you take some underdeveloped article about which you do not have a strong investment, and work to improve it.

Some articles that need help and are not likely to engender over-emotional ties, or be likely to be considered promotional or require the strictest application of rules, but should not be too difficult to find sources for:

• Birthday cake
• Studio album
• Street sign
• Abraham Lincoln High School (Denver, Colorado)

Or just click on random article a few times. Taking your time to show you are interested in improving the encyclopedia is likely help you understand why the community has developed the "rules" it has and why they are interpreted and applied the way they are. Active Banana (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I am aware, but thank you for pointing out, the problem with notability for people responsible for creating notable works, but who are not a part of the notable work itself. For myself, i wish we had articles on the individual publishers and editors of great books, but those people are often out of the limelight and let the work speak for itself. I had searched the references given for a mention of Rob Baker, such as in the staff credits for the tv show. I couldnt find his name there, though maybe he is no longer a producer. thats the problem with websites that arent archives of data, they may change. If John Kerwin had written somewhere, "thanks to rob for creating this show", say in an interview, i would have started to see this as a possible keep. really, any tiny indication of public acknowledgement of his role as a producer would have tipped me towards keep, and i will still defend this article if future refs appear, though i see it would have to be recreated. His work as producer on the show doesnt have enough attention given to it by others yet. Sadly, the role of producers is usually not focused on as it should be. i know that some producers are hangers on, given the credit in exchange for some favor or funding, some are hands on, helping like a director. i knew, as a child, a really good producer who started out as a film editor, then director. I was lucky enough to go to lunch (with my father) with Robert Wise and Nelson Gidding, whose son i believe ordered me a Horses Neck. i got to meet Paula Kelly backstage after she performed in "dont bother me i cant cope", at the main theatre in downtown LA, as robert was scoping her out for his pic Andromeda strain. its obvious to me he was a hands on producer. If Rob Baker is such a person, i have no doubt he can do more work, and with some luck and guts, become notable. so thats my producer story, but its definitely not anywhere near what i do for a living.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Howdy again -- don't know if you see this if I reply here, but it seems better than crowding your own talk page! Again I appreciate your thoughtful response. I think the primary distinction here with creative professionals -- which I think is the main point of contention as well -- is that the guideline does not seem to insist that they be "in the limelight" in such roles, i.e., inasmuch as most don't have publicists to seek news article coverage. They just do their jobs -- but the lack of such coverage shouldn't impede on their "notability" -- and then, you're right, all that would then be needed would be proper verification of that role.

So, in my longer argument that was "collapsed" within that deletion item, I posted the various places where such verification was possible, which I'll repost here for convenience: the evidence offered toward verification does not seem to be in further dispute, but in summary: Articles exist at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/05/entertainment/et-publicaccess5 as well as http://www.thejohnkerwinshow.com/general_webdocs/WaveArticle.jpg which name Rob Baker as the producer of the John Kerwin Show. His IMDb page at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0048869/ details his credits on that show as producer and writer beginning in 2005. And, any number of complete episodes of the show are posted at http://www.youtube.com/johnkerwin2000 which include the credits roll at the end. Here is a specific episode link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9u5c20mPQ0 -- this is the Ed Asner/Kevin Sorbo/Keaton Simons episode from May, 2008 (including the monologue with contributions from former Tonight Show writers from each host). Rob's name in the credits appears at 27:20. You can also simply Google search Rob's name along with the Kerwin show and find many results, but these mentioned here should sufficiently establish "verification."

Rob's name is specifically mentioned in the articles linked as producer. Someone didn't like one version of the LA Times article that was stylized and hosted on the Kerwin show site and removed it as potentially "illegally hosted," so I found the original item on the Times' site itself. The other article for the LA Wave does not seem to have an online counterpart, but the information should still be viable there.

Then, as you mentioned, the title of "producer" is sometimes iffy and you often hear of them being "awarded" as little gifts or whatever. When working at the charity for the Vision Awards (where I worked with Rob), we had to make that distinction as each year films and cast/crew were given those awards. What became most clear was that the "executive producer" titles were often given to people "on high," either execs or financial people who helped make the movie happen, but didn't usually work on-set. The title "producer" by itself holds a different type of regard as a key role in the actual production process, bringing everyone together, worrying about sets and wardrobes, script, basically a piece of everything. That's more along the lines of what Rob's done with that show -- as the "2nd credited" on the show, well, you know that the host didn't do a lot of the behind-the-scenes organization himself! Rob also booked most of the guests himself and promoted the show, basically helping put it on "the map." True, producers have varying roles, but some significant level of "work" often accompanies that role (as described in the TV Producers article here).

So, I hope this exchange doesn't bore or irritate -- I'm just trying to figure out how best to overcome the hurdle that seems to come along with the voting toward "notability" not actually considering the intent written in the guidelines. Most DO seem to think that it goes hand in hand with "fame" to a degree. If I mention "Conan O'Brien's producer" you likely would not know who he is -- but that role would still be notable, and that's what I believe is intended in this creative professionals section, that notability is conferred upon whoever occupies a significant role on a project whose notability is not in question! At least, seeing as Rob is named as the only "producer" within the show -- there'd be little question as to "how much producer" he is on the show, especially being specifically named in the occasional article. And yes, he's no longer with the show, which is why the site doesn't show his name in the current listing -- though archive.org would surely help there, too. So my question -- considering this, does the point seem to be made, or does there still seem to be a flaw in the reasoning? Again, not just for the sake of this article, this distinction would surely make a difference to so many other key creatives whose articles could likewise be questioned because Wiki editors don't think they are "famous enough." Thanks again! JonnyQ123 (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your tenacity, but at the end of the day Wikipedia doesn't consider producers of (or other contributors to) shows notable unless they're recognized on their own (fairly broad interpretation there, but I'm trying to help you understand). So, if a producer has a great show, they're not notable. If they have a string of great shows and are recognized in the media or are called out by the media for their role contributing to a great show, then they can be notable. Examples are Norman Lear, Garry Marshall, etc. Other roles supporting notable works follow the same pattern. You may be the key grip for a supremely notable show, but frankly that's not enough. If you were written up as an incredible grip in a publication like Variety or won a major award for grippery, then you might be considered notable.

So following your example above, Conan O'Brien's producer isn't notable because he's Conan's producer. He may be notable but not because of that affiliation alone. Nor is his cameraman, make-up dude or chauffer. I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)