User talk:Qkslvrwolf

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello Qkslvrwolf, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Friday (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yoism[edit]

BTW, I see you're wondering what happened to the Yoism article. It was deleted following being listed on Articles for deletion. You can see a log of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoism. Because it was found unsuitable for inclusion, you should not re-create the article again. Friday (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yoism was deleted spuriously[edit]

There was no good reasons for deleting the yoism article, and a number of good reasons for keeping it. Check my damn email address if you need any evidence that there is interest outside of boston. I have never contacted Mr. Kriegman, and frankly I don't know much about him, but I'm seriously considering starting a branch of yoism out here in St. Loius. Which is more difficult to do when some fanatic decides to remove yoism based on some trumped up it doesn't exist charges.qkslvrwolf

I don't believe most people were thinking it doesn't exist. However, Wikipedia is not for the promotion of new ideas, we're here to report neutrally on things that are already well-established. Sorry, but a New religious movement with only 100 members would have to do something pretty spectacular (think Jim Jones) to get itself an article. This is not fanaticism at work, nor is it a value judgement on Yoism. It's simply a statement about what sorts of things belong in an encyclopedia. If Yoism is still going in 20 years and religious scholars are writing about it, I'm sure at that time it'll be verifiable enough to have an article. Friday (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Then perhaps you have a lot of work to do. After all there is Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, Intelligent Design,

and even the hydrogen economy. I would also appreciate if you would care to site some kind wikipedia policy on numbers of people actively involved required to be something worth finding information about. Wikipedia is an information system. The entire idea is that information about topics be available to those who are interested. If you require that everything has to be established for 20+ years before it can make it into wikipedia, than you are ignoring a large variety of ideas and notions that should be represented. I would even agree that perhaps yoism shouldn't be be included under a religion category yet, or even perhaps a cult. That does not preclude it from inclusion as a very interesting social and religious experiment. Your own personal beliefs about what religions should be are preventing people from accessing information to something about which we are interested and it isn't right. If I can find away to complain about abuse of admin powers I will. There were far more votes for keeping the article than there were for deleting it and I can assure you, they were not just from puppets. I am an example of that - I've never touched editing Wikipedia before and yoism's disappearance has spurred me to join up. I've already posted a request for an article (which I'm sure you'll delete, as well), and if I could figure out the request for undelete system, I would do it. This is nothing short of you imposing your religious opinions and your personal preferences about wikipedia articles on the rest of us. --140.175.214.33 15:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a skeptic, I'd delete every religious article, if imposing my own opinions was what I was trying to do. But obviously, that would be inappropriate. BTW, 20 years was just an example, there aren't hard and fast rules on this sort of thing. I don't know much about FSM or the hydrogen thing, but you've absolutely got to be kidding about Intelligent Design. I'm as anti "creation science" as anyone, but these topics have been covered in all kinds of media. We have a wealth of sources on them, so it's possible to write a factual, neutral, verifiable article on these topics. I don't see that this would be the case with Yoism.

Before you get too upset about this, I'd advise you to read a few things like what Wikipedia is not to get a better idea of what kind of topics we're looking for here. If you treat the deletion like a value judgement on the religion or an attempt to suppress it, most editors won't take you very seriously. However, if you're able to make reasonable arguments based on accepted policy and guidelines, people will generally listen. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you're going to cite examples of why you deleted something, you should make it something that is concrete. You have an idea of what wikipedia should be, obviously very different from other users and editors, and rather than posting that idea up in the discussions about where to take wikipedia, although I'm sure you do that as well, you are simply acting on your own beliefs.

From the link you gave me: "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

In particular, Wikipedia is not a system of law. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines."

As for making sure that something is verifiable, you qoute the intelligent design dispute, and the fact that there are many news media articles available to verrify that there is a discussion being had about intelligent design. Well, there are at least two news media articles, written very neutrally, dedicated to giving some information about yoism. Though it is on a much smaller scale, why is it your job to decide at what scale information becomes worthwhile? Is wikipedia a book store, with limited shelf space? No.

I am arguing for the rules and policies that I have been able to verify that wikipedia has. In the vote for deletion, there were more votes for keeping the article than there were for deleting it. Not to mention the fact that that was a double jeopardy vote for deletion in the first place. There seemed to be a single person voting to delete the article who actually had any discussion to present on the subject. And yet many of the votes for keeping were seen as "sock puppets". Why? Because their viewpoint disagreed with the admin who wanted to delete the article, and because they were fairly new users. Which, given that I have spent half my day arguing with you and I am a new user is a terrible reason to discount someone's vote, especially when it is supposed to be a collaborative system.

Perhaps you should read the long tail of economics. Let me explain before you go there (if you bother, which you don't appear to do before ignoring other peoples arguments.) The long tail is basically a theory where by many sellable pieces of media that in an old retail economy would not have enough value to be sold are, in total, much more valuable than their more mainstream counterparts through globally distributed sales means. The holds true with information. Some pieces of information may only be valuable to a small set of humanity...but that small set may number in the thousands or hundreds of thousands when taken as a whole. This article is one of those pieces of information, and therefore worthwhile to wikipedia and the world.

And while I realize that you have been unable to get to the yoism.org website. All I can tell you is that it does exist that I am sure it will be back up. Give it time. I was a participant there, and I intend to be so again. While its down, however, wikipedia is where I pointed people who wanted a brief description of yoism. Not only did it not give them a bad impression of wikipedia, but many people remarked on how useful the inclusion of otherwise hard to find but solid information made wikipedia.

You still have yet to present a valid argument for the deletion of the article, especially in terms of Wikipedia's stated policies. Nothing about the article violated any policy I've seen or been shown yet. Perhaps, if you were to take a very narrow and paper view of the policies, as the policy specifically states you should not, the article might qualify. But, as the policy stated, you should not take a narrow and papered view. One other question: how the hell do you get the auto sign feature to actually show your name?--140.175.214.33 16:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having noticed I wasn't signed in, the above was mine. Qkslvrwolf 16:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here's some short answers: To sign, hit four ~ characters in a row, and it'll sign and datestamp for you. Also, the reason for deletion- the article was nominated for deletion, and the result of the discussion was to delete. Except for obvious cases (called "speedy deletes"), that's the only reaon ANYthing gets deleted. I may have more responses later but I'll need to take some time to read your post carefully and think it over. Friday (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]