User talk:Cshawnmcdonald

Image:LloydKroppAuthor.jpg

hi did you take this pic?Geni 02:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ma'am. I sure did. Cshawnmcdonald 14:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

68.89.149.2 (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Smexxor"

A page you created, Smexxor, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our

guide to writing your first article

.

Thanks.

talk) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

If a page has been marked for speedy deletion, you can argue for its notability on the talk page. Failing to do so results in, well, speedy deletion. If you feel the word Smexxor is notable enough to warrant an article (of which I am still skeptical), then feel free to create the page, however I would consider doing so in the sandbox or on your user page until it meets Wikipedia standards, then putting it up to prevent a similar issue in the future.

You can accuse me of corruption if you like, however I am sure you understand the desire to keep Wikipedia relevant and free of vandalism, irrelevant and/or superfluous information.

talk) 16:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

There's a difference between "Speedy" and "Irresponsible"

Ten seconds, Addionne. Ten. Seconds. Between the time I clicked the Save Page button and the time I launched a browser to grab a reference link, the entry had been deleted. I'm not entirely sure how you READ the entire paragraph I wrote in ten seconds. You sure didn't make any attempt to research the literary term in question during that short period of time, nor did you make any effort to determine if the argot was of any relevance to circles outside your own.

You cut and paste the "read the directions" boilerplate with a variation of the same macro you use to delete new entries, but there's still a suspicious lack of explanation as to why you made no attempt to research something foreign to you.

I never accused you of corruption. I accuse you of being an irresponsible gate keeper making uninformed and unenlightened knee-jerk decisions for no other reason than because you've been deputized to do so. I understand the need to be vigilant against vandalism. But as far as being the gate keeper to "irrelevant and/or superfluous" information? Irrelevant as determined by... Who? You? A Canadian video game code monkey and music enthusiast dictates what is or is not relevant argot for practitioners of Erotica Writing Craft? I'm sorry, is there a finite amount of space on the Internet? Are there just too darn many bits being squandered on the Wiki servers? Is there just *gasp* too much information??? Wowsers.

My intent was merely to be a good netizen and help those who came behind me who might have wanted more information on the etymology of the term. I'm not going to lobby and debate a lousy wiki entry. I'm not that emotionally invested. I made an effort to be a good Do-bee and it was negatively reinforced. Gotcha. I read you loud and clear.

I now see Wikipedia for the fascist fiefdom it has become. Ten seconds of my research yeilds that I am neither the first nor the fiftieth to bemoan the death of the notion of Wikipedia as a vanguard for sharing new ideas and concepts.

Gandhi said that sooner or later, every tyrant falls. Until that day... The fiefdom is all yours, brother. It's all yours.

Cshawnmcdonald (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing about the speedy deletion criteria...

My entry was NOT about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organization, or web content.

No idea from what anatomical orafice you deduced that a word etymology/definition met one of those criterion.

And if I'm going to explain the importance of the entry (which was my intent), I'd have required more than ten seconds of research and typing.

Cshawnmcdonald (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a valid argument as to the relevance of an article about the word Smexxor, by all means do so, but let's please not turn this into a personal attack about my job, or my interests.

To answer your accusation, I did look up Smexxor before marking the page for speedy deletion. I read your article, and Googled the term. It seemed as though the word was in relatively uncommon use on a small cross-section of blogs. I recognize it may be a term used for erotic fiction, however Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As of yet you have yet to convince anyone, let alone me, that it is worthy of an article. Do so, and I, along with the rest of the community, will gladly help you write the article, find sources or otherwise improve awareness of Smexxor writing through Wikipedia.

talk) 17:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Not a dictionary. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexicon_of_Comicana">Riiiiiiiight.</a> Any one paragraph explanation of an encyclopedic concept is indistinguishable from a dictionary definition. The second paragraph detailing the cultural relevance? Well, yaknow... that one takes more than ten seconds to write.

No support for an entry that you deleted after a lifespan of ten seconds? Go figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.229.84 (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

unreferencedBLP

}} tag. Here is the article:

Lloyd Kropp - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]