Talk:DeviantArt/Archive 3

message: The intro to this article, about the technical limitation that forces all article titles to begin with a capital letter, ends thusly: "The correct title is DeviantART". It should end like this: "The correct title is deviantART". If the vandalism was inside the article itself, I could edit it, but I have no clue how to edit the "intro box". Please somebody fix this ASAP. --Peter Knutsen 17:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix this vandalism 

message: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22-awarded%20December%201999%22%20deviantart
: Those must be errors or it's just the date that is given to Deviousness awards wherein the original date is missing or hadn't been noted. --cheese-cube 04:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like a mistake. Look at the awards text on http://fuzzydemon.deviantart.com/ - joined October 2001, Deviousness Award granted December 1999 - makomk 17:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well hey! I wrote that. Think I'll just make a page  with a collection of this stuff. {Seas 01:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch date? 

message: "The second way are sponsors: that's why a deviation about documented abuses made by another corporation that one day might become a sponsor of deviantART should be seen as undesirable."
I remember seeing a news post[1] for foldershare ,and it happens to be I see ads  for this site all the time - been going on for months. I think it's really disrespectful to artist, which should be above the mere mortals, in having FREE in ads, but then, it might just be hard to find any ads but those. Something a little disturbing is viagra ads , as the average age is 15-16. Also seen in the screenshot is intimate dating and hot local single - for a site which censores (male) sexual imagery so much... Then we have poker and roulette - what kind of morals are these?
1 - there used to be "browse old news", and going to news.deviantart.com just redirects to front page - gotta love those feature additions. {Seas 17:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sponsors 

message: I believe that we should do several things. First, we should stop the shouting caps. Second, we should reword it. Third, I think the call for you to TRULY UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE SITUATION is foolhardy and should be changed.
My proposed rewrite is thus:
----
PLEASE READ THIS before editing information about SCOTT JARKOFF
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it also has rules that contributors must follow. As many who are knowledgable about the events surrounding the termination of Scott Jarkoff are also emotionally involved in the situation, we beseech you to read this.
1. Wikipedia enforces a Neutral Point of View policy.
Stated by Jimbo Wales as "non-negotiable", this is one of the core tenets of Wikipedia. You can read the whole NPOV statement here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view , but in it's essence, we fairly represent all sides of a dispute without implying one is correct. Therefore, be careful when you make statements about the situation: are you implying that your point of view is correct?
To wrap it all up, here is a comment by Karada on the NPOV page (if you have time, please read it thoroughly).
"You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources."
2. Wikipedia enforces No Original Research.
Wikipedia is not the place for original research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_original_research . Therefore, if you have your own personal theory about certain events, please don't add it in. If you know of some well known contributor to deviantART who has a theory, and many people have commented on it, and it is a major factor in the debate, cite your sources (link to that page) and add it into the article.
In fact, we shouldn't even be allowing deviantART journals to constitute as evidence, because they are generally not reputable, self-published, etc. For an academic article, links to random weblog comments would not be permissible. However, recognizing the nature of a phenomenon taking place in an online community, some relaxations of these rules should take place. For this very reason, keep your citations to prominent members of the community who are influential (i.e. magnets) for the debate.
>> Note:  I have several megs worth of IRC chat logs from the year 2000-2001.  A portion of such is now linked to the article.  Just to make a point that this stuff is, to a point, knowable beyond speculation and opinions.  "DMN's answer to skins, customize..."
----
— Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
:It's OK with me. It is more in-depth than the one I did. Use it ;) . A.K.R. 04:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the comment 

message: The 'Criticism' section is the biggest and most boring. No one gives a damn about half the stuff in there, it's just dA users getting pissy. I recommend a serious cutting and cleaning which I'd do myself were it not so late.
:Could you be a bit more... specific? For instance, I know the Termination of Scott Jarkoff was a large issue. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:18, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
::the termination of jark required about 3 sentences. maximum 10. what's all these massive sections on "concerns over deviantMOBILE"? and such. i couldnt even bear to read most of it, it was so dull and almost laughably pedantic.--alfakim 18:53, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
:::You can't deny how Jark's firing was very important. Most companies don't fire their founders. For an event which sparked such outrage and exodus all over dA, as well as an  template on its sub-section, it most definetly deserves more than 3 sentences. But I think parts of it needed to be cited. I don't see how "Critics claim that the campaign was created by Scott Jarkoff himself to garner support for him." The copyright issues are still looming, even now. That's why the admins are rewriting the "simple version" of their TOS. Besides, this is an encyclopedia article. It isn't supposed to read like an ad for dA. But I think you are right about the deviantMOBILE section. I've haven't seen much concern over it, and most of what it says fits more in the corporation sub-section. "Concerns over Free Speech and Expression" needs to be mentioned. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 19:13, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
::::"For an event which sparked such outrage and exodus all over dA". Well, let's not blow it out of proportion. There was a trend among some of the older members to close their galleries or withdraw from the site, but the number of users is still increasing daily and the outrage has subsided comparitively quickly. There is rumination about the "good old days" among the older users but the majority of the site is back to normal.
:::I agree partially. Jark can have his nice paragraph. but the corporate info and devMOB sections? THEY need only be less than 9 sentences. Most importantly, these concerns are not representative. most members of DA couldnt give half a doodaa about this kind of stuff, and dont even notice it. the massive paragraphs for these 'concerns' is misrepresentative; it's a tiny minority of dA users who want to factualise they're petty, insubstantiable concerns over what no one cares about.--alfakim 11:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:I am not a deletionist, but I think the best thing to do is be bold. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does everyone use this article to whine? 

message: I noticed an older edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeviantART&diff=26347317&oldid=26345122 was reverted to its original form, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeviantART&diff=26424499&oldid=26417144 additionally saying that there needs to stop being bias in the issue. Well the phrase is back again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeviantART&diff=26427041&oldid=26424499
Personally I'm getting sick of this. It ALMOST borders on vandalism, if not just being a sick edit for the sake of adding things that don't need to be there. Is there a way to temporarily lock a section of the page, instead of the whole page?
: No, there's not. But there is a way to split an article, where the contoversy takes up too much space in the main article. But that's how some people who edit WP are like, we call it POV pushing, and it usually results in a NPOV Dispute. As I can definetly see a few things wrong with it. The first is the complete ommision of the matteo day paragraph. It is taboo in WP to delete full paragraphs of articles, and is sometimes viewed as blanking vandalism. The sentence "Anyway, it is important to notice that Scott Jarkoff, aka jark, wrote in his staff bio this:". The first word "Anyway" not something you'd write in an enyclopedia. It makes it look as if it's a conversation, more than an article of information. It is not the article's role to tell what is and what is not important. WP isn't a soapbox. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 06:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is need of harmony. Alas, the problems with dealing with anonymous users! Your comments (and those of the other guy whose edits you dispute) would be far better appreciated if you got an account. I'll take a look at the edits in question, but it's a large chunk of edits, so it probably won't get reverted. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 01:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose you're right, I am historically negligent to signing up for things, but this site keeps coming back to me so I suppose it wouldn't hurt. :) For the record I'm Toastypk
I've had enough of this. The next time I find the edit in question restored in its unencyclopediac form, I will have this article (and possibly the the user who restored it) RFC'd! --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 23:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok, this is getting sickening. 

message: ... but IMHO, as of this minute this article gives a remarkably balanced outlook on a controversial subject. I'm gonna watch it, and unless it oscillates too much this way and that away from the Golden Middle of NPOV I'm gonna someday propose it as a Featured article. (And for the record, I have my own POV on some of the issues but I'm not trying to force it on anybody. I might even be misinformed so I'm not speaking up further here.) - Tonymec 05:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe I'm lucky... 

message: Do we really need this section on here? I mean if you were going to include every notable deviant then why not include some of the more prominent members throughout the community (not just depending on Page Views), i.e. Chris Weeks, Scott, Angelo, or the other admins to the site? I think maybe this section might be a tad bit unnecessary, that's just my opinion though. --ImmortalGoddezz 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable deviants 

message: Well, the article seems to have simmered down a bit, and I have not seen any real problems.  Everything is updated regularly and information seems to be correct.  I think wikipedia has really served its purpose!
--Mgw854 00:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article doing well 

message: It would be interesting if a section was added for features which will be added soon, such as the Party System (previously known as Groups) which lolly and spyed have both continued to talk about.
:Problem with that is there is so little information about these new proposed features which would lead any section covering them to be mostly speculation rather than fact. I think we should rather wait until the new features are released before a new section is considered.Tyhopho 23:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Features 

message: This is my first visit to this article but I've read the entire article and talk page, and it appears that controversy has died down. Accordingly I removed the disputed tag. The verified tag had also been on for a very long time and no longer appears relevant so I removed it as well. If anyone disagrees and thinks these tags should be readded please state your reasoning. Vicarious 04:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Good job. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 05:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  outdated tags 

message: Ive been reading through the talk page and I think its due for a wipe.  The majority of the talk here is out of date or been solved and new issues are being lost in amongst all this.  Any objections to a wipe? Tyhopho 13:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to archive Talk page (March 06)