Talk:Vlog/Archive 2

message: Sull, I want to thank you for advancing the discussion.
All my edits are done in good faith and I appreciate that you were polite in your edit summary.  I've been trying to get feedback on the following edits.  How-to books aren't considered very notable.  Since the article was 75% unsourced, i thought i would do a general cleanup.  I'd much rather see the books sourced in the article if they really do contain valuable information.  I'm very much willing to comprimise however and I don't mind leaving them in as Further Reading.
The reason I didn't leave your revert alone is because the revert war going on isn't due to one edit on my part.  It's due to a number of edits that occurred over the last few months.  That's why i'd rather leave the article as it was before the edit war began and talk about putting things back in instead of the other way around.
I've summarized the rest of my edits below.  The discussion entitled "Ehdrive and the definition" will also give you an idea of what has been discussed over the last few months.  
*I removed the timeline events that were unverifiable or non notable.
*I removed the terminology section as it was unsourced.
*The genres section was removed because none of it is sourced.  None of the existing sources referred to vlogs, only blogs.  This section should perhaps belong on the blog article.
*News articles.  None of these were sourced in the article.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information.  Please see the guidelines on "what wikipedia is not".
Thanks Sull! Ehdrive 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup 

message: I requested feedback on the article. Click here to see the request.
Any additional input is welcome. Ehdrive 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for feedback 

message: *I removed the Common genres section from the article.  The quote in the introduction has to do with blogs and doesn't mention video blogs.  Also, none of the genres are properly sourced.  If this section is to be reinsterted, everything needs to be properly sourced.  Personally, i don't feel that this section belongs in this article. I've placed the original content below... Ehdrive 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Genres 

message: I have been accused several times of not contributing to the article.  I felt the need to highlight my contributions.  I am not looking to compare or show off but mearly show that my edits are in good faith and to hopefully allow people to view my contributions in more positive light.
*I created the references section and sourced the definition:
**17 August 2006, Edit Summary: (corrected and sourced the definition, cleaned up and corrected the name section. videoblog is not a portemanteau of video and log.)
*Asked Steve Garfield to source his Timeline event then helped him properly reference it in the article
**31 August 2006, Edit Summary: (wikified the reference to steve, woohoo, sources!)
*I searched and found a better source for the definition
**7 September 2006, Edit Summary: (rv def back to stevegarfield's edit - not sure why it was replaced, the other source didn't relate to the text)
*I researched the use of the term vlog and initiated the request to have the article be renamed to Video blog
**21 February 2007, Edit Summary by GTBacchus: (moved Vlog to Video blog: per move request; see talk page for discussion) Ehdrive 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video blog contributions 

message: I added the underconstruction template.  I thought it would be good to leave up for a couple of days because the article was mentioned on the Yahoo Videoblogging group.  It's big and ugly and I already hate it.  If anyone wants to take it down go ahead. :P  It might be useful though for people who aren't aware of what's going on. Ehdrive 00:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underconstruction Template 

message: This is a dispute about the value of different sections of the article. 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Video blog 

message: ;Terminology
* Article currently consists of a series of admitted dicdefs, followed by a timeline that does not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that consists of original research. Serpent's Choice 02:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by editors previously involved in dispute