User talk:DanielZimmerman/Archives/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, DanielZimmerman/Archives/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Infrogmation 04:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your article[edit]

You should be proud of your election campaign. I never suggested otherwise. This has nothing to do with whether or not you running for Congress was a valuable thing or not. All I was saying is that if one were to summarize the election, I don't see that it would be appropriate to say all that much about you and your campaign without giving you undue weight.

As for the article on yourself, I think only the first paragraph should remain, unless you can point me to a published biography of yourself. And most of the external links you include aren't informative about you; I'd say the personal site would remain, and the coverage in the NYT of the 2004 election would remain, and that would be it. I might also mention the names of the other people in the 2004 election; at the least, I would mention the outcomes of the various elections, and that Bobby Jindal was the winner of the congressional race. But after all this, this is hardly an article at all.

The biggest problem is that you don't appear to meet the minimum requirements at WP:BIO for politicians. Articles on people standing for national election are generally okay, but once the election is over, they're not standing anymore, and they don't hold office. If you want to debate the merits of that guideline, I think you should wait for your AfD to finish, but then make your case at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). It's good that you offered not to work on your own article anymore (WP:AUTO is pretty important). But you're really not making a good impression on people by debating your own notability so much, especially as a new user.

I hope this all isn't too stressful, and that you'll be willing to continue participating in Wikipedia once it's over. Deletion is the ugliest part of the project, IMO. Mango juice^talk 18:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am fighting so hard to keep the article about me is not that my life will be horribly altered if my wikipedia entry is removed. I could really care less if my article is removed. What bothers me is the manner in which people seem to take an almost elitist view of Wikipedia and who belongs and who doesn't. Had someone just brought up the problem of me self publishing the article and left it at that then I would have no problem. I would understand (as I did not know that policy when I created the article) that writing about yourself and your family is frowned upon (even though I do not believe there are any real NPOV issues with what I wrote).

It does bug me that an article about a political candidate who got over 12,000 votes is considered to be less important than Fhqwhgads or Inanimate_Carbon_Rod. And I do feel that even after an election, retaining the history of that election is an important thing.

Three responses there. First of all, importance isn't the main criteria. It's more about the amount of verifiable, encyclopedic information. Second, having an article on the election is totally legit and often done, it just needs to treat the election neutrally and cover it with verifiable information. But third, don't take the existence of some questionable articles as approval of them. I see, for instance, that Inanimate Carbon Rod has never been nominated for deletion. If it were, I'd vote to merge it into the info on the episode that character appears in; WP:FICT makes it pretty clear that the Inanimate Carbon Rod article is inappropriate. Mango juice^talk 19:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that by keeping certain candidates who lose while removing others would be an example of wikipedia showing bias. Why dont you go through Daniel Zimmerman and make the changes that you have proposed. Then we can go back to the discussion page and see if anyone else will accept your revisions as being neutral and verifiable. This way we can show the rest of the people that we have at least found a consensus.

Fair enough, but it's like putting out fires. The fire department won't put out a fire that no one calls in, right? Are there any other losing candidates that have articles and shouldn't? If so, they should probably be deleted to; it's just that no one has reported it. :) Mango juice^talk 19:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I view it like this. Let's say someone goes to look up the 2004 Congressional Election in LA01. They to to the wikipedia page and see a list of all the candidates but they want more information on the candidates. So they click on the names. However, only one candidate has a wikipedia page. That research is impossible. Additional information should not be added to the 2004 Congressional Election page as it would make that page too long under Wikipedia standards. So if Wikipedia is going to keep a page refering to the 2004 election then it should allow pages for all candidates. If the 2004 page for Congressional Elections no longer existed then there would be no point to my (or any other) 2004 Candidates. DanielZimmerman 19:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't respond your idea of fixing up your article. My response: From counting the votes on the AfD, there are only two keep votes, one of which is yours. If somehow this article gets kept, I'll help clean it up, but I'm not going to bother if it's just gonna be deleted anyway. Now, to respond to this last; no, I don't think the 2004 Congresional Election in LA01 article would consist just of the names of the candidates. I think it should tell the story of that election, introduce the candidates, and so on. This way, people whose only claim to fame is their participation in that election don't need their own article, but the information is there somewhere. In fact, we might make articles for each of the candidates that simply redirects to the election page. Not everyone on WP has this philosophy (mergism), but I do: I really think that in terms of number of articles, less is more. The more centrally we can keep our information, the better we can avoid covering the same material twice in different articles, which wastes time, and furthermore, one good article is better than five lousy ones put together. Mango juice^talk 19:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hannity[edit]

It seems your whole argument is based on the shaky premise that the "their" in the declaration is the third-person singular possesive. But this is far from evident. It is also possible that the "their" in question is the third-person plural possesive (a common usage) in which case it would indeed have the second meaning you mention and would be accurate to use "our" in paraphrase. It is a matter of interpretation and, thus, any attempt to advance your preference of interpretation (or for that matter, any argument based on your preference of interpretaion) is inherently POV.

Words do indeed have meaning. In their writings, the Founders were very often both precise and purposefully ambiguous (as politicians are wont to be). To blatantly use "our" would have been too precise. This is why our Founding Documents are considered so flexible and open to extremes in interpretation. Again, for you to ascribe motive to the Founders' choice of words and then determine factual correctness (or incorrectness) based on this ascribed motive is POV.

I will not revert your POV today because of the 3RR rule. But I'm sure somebody else will. If not, I will tomorrow. I don't believe in edit wars. We will have to take this to mediation if you can't see by the above argument that your comments, as worded, are POV. If you can word it in a way (taking into consideration the above argument) that is not POV then you may fare better in mediation. But a case can still be made (again, based on the above argument) as to the silliness and irrelevance of this whole topic. --WilliamThweatt 19:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hannity quotes, not paraphrases, the Declaration of Independece as using the word "our". You claim that it is a paraphrase but there are clear examples where he is making a direct quote. For example, he questions whether we should remove "our" creator from the Constitution. That can hardly be said to be a paraphrase. My wording in the Sean Hannity article is NOT a POV.DanielZimmerman 19:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Thank you for your comment Daniel - you're preaching to the choir - if you feel strongly, I would urge you to get involved with the debate on the notablity guidelines pages. Thanks! For great justice. 19:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Daniel -- saw your comment on For great justice's talk page. There are two concerns you raise: (1) that we can do without notability guidelines at all and (2) that the notability guidelines are inconsistent. As for (1) you're not the only one who thinks this, but the truth is, the community pretty strongly approves of the notability guidelines we have. I think you've got an uphill climb there if you want to try to change the community. As for (2), though, if you can find specific ways in which you think the guidelines are unfair, I bet people would be receptive if you discuss those concerns. Cheers! (Glad to see you haven't left WP.) Mango juice^talk 16:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no reason to leave Wikipedia. I understand the reason that "my" article was pulled on the grounds of WP:BIO. But in those discussions I also saw the a certain elitism when it came to how people applied notability "standards". I mean, using terms like "political wannabe" shows a bit of a bias. There may be valid concerns that are made in the notability argument. However, I would argue (as would others) that those concerns can be dealt with with other policies that Wikipedia has. When you have the notability "standard" though, it allows other "concerns" that may not be beneficial to wikipedia. Community standards can change, and I hope I can make some valid arguments to change a persons mind. As for how the notability "standards" are unfair, all you have to do is look at what makes someone notable. I made this argument about "my" article. I can sell 5,000 votes and become a notable author. But if I get 5,000 votes I am not a notable politician. Seems kinda silly. DanielZimmerman 18:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the AfD Clarification[edit]

Hadn't realized I had misread the policy in question until I read your post (re: MacBook). Thanks for the heads-up and the clarification, and sorry for the error. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 15:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry about it. I have misread a policy or two and am still not up to speed on everything around here. Im just diving right in and trying to help out as much as I can. DanielZimmerman 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hannity[edit]

Can you give me your final plans / comment regarding Sean Hannity so I can close out the case? That's assuming you don't want to create the offsite resources. If you do then let me know if you want any help / advice. jbolden1517 ^Talk 21:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your reply to this on my talk page. Not sure about context, I had left a long comment at: Talk:Sean_Hannity#mediation_offer, that you may not have seen. Can you address the points raised regarding your belief that the source is verified? jbolden1517 ^Talk 03:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Torah Jews[edit]

Hi, I posted a defense of the article True Torah Jews, I would like to ask you to be so kind and read it, and than rethink your position on deletion.

Bloger 00:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted Keep if there was verifiable information about the group besides its own website, what more would you like me to do? DanielZimmerman 19:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you gave a condition for keeping quote “Keep if external sites link back to that organizations homepage” and I have shown it to be the case I would like you to change your opinion to a definite stay instead of an optional stay

Bloger 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes dont matter on wikipedia. The people who make the decisions to keep, delete, merge, etc do it based on the comments of the people. My comment was to keep the article as long as there are other websites verifying the "true torah jews" as an actual group. If you have shown that to be the case then there is no reason for me to change my opinion because then my vote, meeting the condition I stipulated, would be keep. DanielZimmerman 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to ask, where did you actually show external sites linking back to the true torah jews website? I do not see it. Perhaps I missed it? DanielZimmerman 20:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I recently breifly skimmed the Sean Hannity mediation case and Talk:Sean_Hannity#Our_Creator. You stated he was referring to the Preamble? My question is, Why do you think he means the Preamble? Is it just the "founding document" phrasing? Did I miss a link somewhere? If you could just point me in the right direction, I may be able to better help you folks reach some kind of solution. Thanks, Daniel. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't actually mention "preamble". He references it incorrectly when he says "our Creator" instead of saying "their creator". Hope this helped. DanielZimmerman 19:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wouldn't he be referencing (incorrectly) the Declaration of Independence, rather than the US Constitution? --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he is referencing the Declaration of Independence. Where did I mention the Constitution? DanielZimmerman 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake... I did miss a link. It's just that the preamble in the DI is rarely capitalised, whereas when people reference the "Preamble", they often mean the Preamble to the United States Constitution. I was confused. Thanks. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]