Sebastian Vanier

zeitgeist

Thanks so much for bringing it to the discussion page as requested twice before. In lieu of that, instead doing the ever helpful starting-a-discussion-with-in-article-html-comments, we'll discuss it here. Criteria for adding new links to a page include as a subset: (a) the link presents content which is unique, being not presented in the page nor pre-existing links; (b) the links should not be to temporary internet content.

On point a: i read nothing of new content in the link that doesn't pre-exist; the argument you provide of "there's other links too", doesn't apply in wikipedia-land. For example, the page on Complex number has a few pages that link externally to content concerning complex number; surely you'd see that there are thousands of other pages with ~valid content concerning this topic on the web, but they're not going to get linked in wikipedia.

On point b: a web site hosting a single page, whose domain was registered less than a month ago, and is hosted by GoDaddy for free, does not exactly ring of long term content. It's someone's project - i appreciate that; projects are a great thing of creative energy - but they are often short lived.

If over a year or so, this site develops into some wide sweeping monument to Zeitgeist with new innovative content that can't be included in the article, then it would definitely be more arguable as an external link to the article, but not as it stands now.

Please keep replies on this page so that they may be easily tracked. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Elaborating on the German word Zeitgeist

Dear Quaeler,

I appreciate your work in attempting to make sure Wikepedia is not abused. The comments below is a rejoinder to your remarks as to why the Zeitgeist Memorandum external link should remain.

1. Given your criteria please tell me why the first two external links have not been deleted?

I'm totally fine with the first two links being deleted. There's (at least) two types of editors on wikipedia - ones that repair broken windows in the ghetto, and ones that make sure that new broken windows aren't made. I'm the latter. Quaeler (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

2. With regards to the criteria you site for deletion can you please direct me to an official Wikipedia document that sites the criteria you list.

#1 here / #3 here, and #16 here respectively. Quaeler (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Just because the external link article on the word Zeitgeist, Zeitgeist Memorandum, is hosted for free does not mean necessarily that it is not long term and therefore this reason alone does not warrant deletion.

Again, it's like 3 weeks old, hosted by a famously ownership-whimsical company, for free. The age of the domain alone makes the likelihood of long term existence statistically unlikely. Again (again), check back in a year. Quaeler (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

4. The word Zeitgeist, for whatever reasons, is a difficult word for some people to understand and unfortunately it is becoming associated with the Zeitgeist Movie. Why the Producers of this movie chose to use the word Zeitgeist is beyond me. It is not an appropriate word for this particular movie. Hence, the reason for adding an external link which attempts to bring greater clarity to this elusive word. People come to Wikipedia for information and if an external link can offer more insight for a particular article then in the SPIRIT OF WIKEPEDIA an external link should be allowed to stand if in fact it offers more information than what the Wikepedia article offers.

Actually, the spirit of wikipedia is that the article itself is improved, unless there is a copyright issue preventing the addition of external material. I see no such issue here with the content on your page; please improve what exists in the article with your energy. Quaeler (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

5. You claim that it does not offer any new content. Please find me several other websites that is explicitly dedicated to defining and explaining the word Zeitgeist and furthermore offers historical examples of past Zeitgeists like the Zeitgeist Memorandum does. It is for these reason why they Zeitgeist Memorandum is helpful.

I would say that the existing UVa link more than suffices. Again (*3), were this not honestly smacking of a whim-of-a-project just put up in recent days, maybe there'd be a greater argument here. If you feel there's a lot of difference between the two pages that i'm missing, then my next argument would be - why don't you add this missing information to the article? Quaeler (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

--Sebastian Vanier (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Charles vanier for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Quaeler (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)