Talk:SpinnWebe

message: Just a comment... I just can't believe that, of all people, I am the one who created the Wikipedia article on Spinnwebe...  Schuminweb 02:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I, too, am amused by this. There's a certain connected irony to it.
Thanks, Ben. (Incidentally, not something I ever thought I'd be saying, either.)
--Spinn 01:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  hah! 

message: Mrlukeplease 20:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goodbye, please! 

message: I'm vagually certain that Mark Rosenfelder of Zompist.com is a sometime contributor or is in some other way connected to this site... How? and is this notable enough to add to the article? --86.135.217.213 02:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Rosenfelder and Zompist.com? 

message: This article was already voted for deletion with the decision to delete (Spinnwebe AFD). It seems that some people from the website again came back to recreate the deleted material. This is not acceptable. User:JohnRussell in particular participated greatly in the recreation of the page, though it can not be said if he was aware that the page had already been decided to be deleted.--Jersey Devil 06:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is John Russel's involvement significant here? And for that matter, who is John Russel? --Spinn 15:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also: followed Wikipedia's guidelines for If you disagree with the consensus (third paragraph), so this should not be considered unacceptable. --Spinn 18:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not recreate already deleted material 

message: Posted it on the Speedy deletion page. --Spinn 18:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion defense 

message: Please don't remove the speedy delete template. It is incredible that users would sink to that low to try and save this article.--Jersey Devil 00:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not remove Speedy delete template

message: If the Scribs article doesn't survive its AfD, its text will be unavailable.  For convenience, I've pasted it below, as source material for a shorter section within the SpinnWebe article. Zompist 05:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scribs article text 

message: And thus does Ruby and Jersey Devil's (Mostly ) Ill-Informed Deletion Run of Aught-Six     come to a close.
Until someone else trips over the SpinnWebe article and nominates it again, anyway.
--Spinn 18:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a "meatpuppet". Nor is Tony Sidaway, who thoughtfully contributed to the afd discussion. Nor were many others. Go edit another page which you find more interesting and notable, and have a nice day. KWH 19:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least it appears he read something someone else wrote.  He didn't understand it, but that's a good start.--Notmydesk 19:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not what I would consider part of The (Mostly) Ill-Informed Deletion Run of Aught-Six. But sure, here it is anyway if anyone cares. And I thought you weren't going to be bothering with these pages anymore? I wasn't trying to start a whole argument, I just figured you weren't going to be reading it. --Spinn 19:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say spinn was expressing frustration, not pride.  Several people worked to add verification to the article and to bring up reasons for notability in the Afd discussion.  As the admin in charge, you'd be in a great position to explain why this didn't meet your standards.  Zompist 22:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, yeah, without getting into a big gripefest...just me venting some steam. It'd been a long and arduous, er, discussion. --Spinn 01:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, but Zompist has a point. I'd concede the article might not be that great, but the AfD was about notability and verifiability, and in my opinion both of those were satisfied. Not really sure what else can be done there. --Spinn 01:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoo a non-decision has been not-made! 

message: The consensus of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scribs was to merge Scribs into this article; I have now done so.  Chick Bowen 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scribs 

message: This article needs a picture. Since User:spinn = Galcik (apparently), perhaps he will consider releasing a picture into the public domain? Maybe a picture of Galcik himself, or a representitive shot from DFC or IDL or scribs or whatever. The old screenshot pic was enh. Just a thought.Herostratus 15:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is that photo of Galcik from the Starbucks trip, but something tells me that's not exactly suitable for an encyclopedia.  However, with this article being about a Web site, a screen shot, or at least the SpinnWebe logo, would be most appropriate.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: Knowing what I know now about Wikipedia's notability standards, I cut out a bunch of the article, because frankly it was kind of embarrassing being there. Scribs probably never deserved its own article in the first place, and just merging it here made it kind of obnoxious. I just bulleted the highpoints of some of the site that could be considered vaguely notable, and removed quite a lot of the rest.
I like the structure I put in, but not so much the writing. Feel free to reword things. 
During the AfD process, Zompist said something about the site being notable for being an early example of user interactivity. I think that might be kind of useful to put in "origin" or "history" or something, but I couldn't think of a way to do it that didn't sound egotistical of me. Not sure if it's worth mentioning or not.
--Spinn 21:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits/removals 

message: I've added an out of date template to the article.  Neither AmeriCaptions nor Brainshots appear to be current features -- there may possibly be other issues with the content.  71.62.123.39 (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  + <nowiki>{{Out of date}}</nowiki> 

message: "Spinnwebe" might not be the most common or current word for a spiderweb, but it is certainly not an infamously bad translation. Most or all German speakers would understand immediately and recognize it as a legitimate word, even if it wasn't their first choice. It's in Duden, where it isn't tagged as regional, old fashioned, or any other tags for that matter.
Therefore I'm removing the claim about bad translation. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Infamously bad machine translation"??