Admin bio to appear on the front page

[Mason]

Sarah Stierch (T-H-L), a recently created article about SarahStierch (T-C-L), has survived a deletion attempt by OrangeMike, and has been nominated for a "Did You Know" slot.

[Tippi Hadron]

Sarah Stierch (T-H-L), a recently created article about SarahStierch (T-C-L), has survived a deletion attempt by OrangeMike, and has been nominated for a "Did You Know" slot.

Excellent. They just ran out of excuses not to have biographies on Roger Bamkin and Ashley van Haeften!

Oh, look. Chris Keating aka "The Land" aka Ashley "Fae" Van Haeften's successor as Chair of the infamous WMUK was among the few people who voted Delete. What a surprise.

[Alison]

Excellent. They just ran out of excuses not to have biographies on Roger Bamkin and Ashley van Haeften!

Neatly pre-empted just yesterday ...

[HRIP7]

Sarah Stierch (T-H-L), a recently created article about SarahStierch (T-C-L), has survived a deletion attempt by OrangeMike, and has been nominated for a "Did You Know" slot.

Excellent. They just ran out of excuses not to have biographies on Roger Bamkin and Ashley van Haeften!

Oh, look. Chris Keating aka "The Land" aka Ashley "Fae" Van Haeften's successor as Chair of the infamous WMUK was among the few people who voted Delete. What a surprise.

Risker said much the same a few days ago when people discussed this bio on Gendergap, though perhaps with opposite sentiments:

I find my thoughts about this heading in so many different directions, I'm
not really sure where to start.

Of all the people on Wikipedia, I would have thought that people on this
list would be intensely aware of the hazards of having a biographical
article about oneself on Wikipedia, particularly one that will likely be
little-watched, and for whom huge numbers of editors will have significant
conflicts of interest in editing. This is particularly true of articles
about women, it seems, and especially women of borderline notability. This
is a target painted on Sarah's back. She may not realise it yet, but
having spent a good chunk of the last several years dealing with "vandals
and trolls", she's a really juicy target.

[...]

I'm sorry but I think this was a bad idea. It seriously increases the risk
that other wikimedians will find themselves with an unwanted biography that
will be pretty well impossible to remove from the project.

What I don't understand is why this concern should only apply to Wikimedians. It's not as though other women (and men for that matter) don't have people coming after them on Wikipedia (see current blog post or this earlier one on flagged revisions).

To be fair, Risker did close her post by saying –

I'm afraid this low bar to notability is so unhealthy that it's had an effect
on our own community.

[Tippi Hadron]

Risker said much the same a few days ago when people discussed this bio on Gendergap, though perhaps with opposite sentiments:

Of all the people on Wikipedia, I would have thought that people on this
list would be intensely aware of the hazards of having a biographical
article about oneself on Wikipedia, particularly one that will likely be
little-watched, and for whom huge numbers of editors will have significant
conflicts of interest in editing.

In other words, Risker, a member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, is perfectly aware of what a nightmare having a Wikipedia biography can be. Funny I don't recall her ever turning up in discussions where marginally notable people begged and pleaded with Jimbo's Faithful to have their biographies deleted and were met with wikijargon and spite. This is just one more example of the well-connected trying to look after their own.

Oh, and Risker, if you and the other "feminist" subscribers to the Gendergap mailing list are reading this, please go and compare the huge vanity piece on your beloved Ms Stierch to that of a few actually accomplished female academics and authors. Pathetic, innit?

I take it you are aware that Stierch aka Missvain voted to keep the Donkey Punch animation on Wikimedia Commons and threatened to put Jayen466 on moderation on the Gendergap list for mentioning the site's massive porn problem? Ah, but she's on the Wikimedia Foundation's payroll, so that's all right. Oh the hypocrisy.

[DanMurphy]

Perfect:

In 2004, she was named one of the 30 artists under 30 years old to watch in Indianapolis

It's actually a wonderful example of a promotional autobio that ends up making the subject look trivial and insignificant. As for vandals and malice? Since she's a Wikipedia insider (rather than a member of the general public) she will receive special protection.

[The Joy]

Perfect:

In 2004, she was named one of the 30 artists under 30 years old to watch in Indianapolis

It's actually a wonderful example of a promotional autobio that ends up making the subject look trivial and insignificant. As for vandals and malice? Since she's a Wikipedia insider (rather than a member of the general public) she will receive special protection.

As long as she remains "in good standing" with the community. Otherwise, she'll be thrown to the proverbial dogs.

[DanMurphy]

Risker said much the same a few days ago when people discussed this bio on Gendergap, though perhaps with opposite sentiments:

Of all the people on Wikipedia, I would have thought that people on this
list would be intensely aware of the hazards of having a biographical
article about oneself on Wikipedia, particularly one that will likely be
little-watched, and for whom huge numbers of editors will have significant
conflicts of interest in editing.

In other words, Risker, a member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, is perfectly aware of what a nightmare having a Wikipedia biography can be. Funny I don't recall her ever turning up in discussions where marginally notable people begged and pleaded with Jimbo's Faithful to have their biographies deleted and were met with wikijargon and spite. This is just one more example of the well-connected trying to look after their own.

Oh, and Risker, if you and the other "feminist" subscribers to the Gendergap mailing list are reading this, please go and compare the huge vanity piece on your beloved Ms Stierch to that of a few actually accomplished female academics and authors. Pathetic, innit?

I take it you are aware that Stierch aka Missvain voted to keep the Donkey Punch animation on Wikimedia Commons and threatened to put Jayen466 on moderation on the Gendergap list for mentioning the site's massive porn problem? Ah, but she's on the Wikimedia Foundation's payroll, so that's all right. Oh the hypocrisy.

She comes off as really stupid (or perhaps naive, it's hard to tell the difference). She apparently believes there is a sexual act called a donkey punch?

Keep I hate to say it, but, it is being used and regardless of "not being censored" it's acceptable to have this image on Commons as it is (thankfully) our only illustration of this sexual act. Better a drawing than real people! Missvain (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

[dogbiscuit]

She comes off as really stupid (or perhaps naive, it's hard to tell the difference). She apparently believes there is a sexual act called a donkey punch?

Keep I hate to say it, but, it is being used and regardless of "not being censored" it's acceptable to have this image on Commons as it is (thankfully) our only illustration of this sexual act. Better a drawing than real people! Missvain (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, thanks to Wikipedia, rather than being a vague urban legend, it is now fact and no longer can people be suggested to be stupid or naive in accepting such activities exist.

How do you capture the slow degeneration of the real world caused by Wikipedia?

[thekohser]

How do you capture the slow degeneration of the real world caused by Wikipedia?

That's simple... register at Wikipediocracy.com.

[dogbiscuit]

How do you capture the slow degeneration of the real world caused by Wikipedia?

That's simple... register at Wikipediocracy.com.

Hmm, I was pondering how you could capture "stuff that is not fact but is now so well defined as to be indistinguishable from fact." and how many of these things are on Wikipedia? I guess the real fertile ground is the propaganda of Prioryman or the many and varied religious/political battles that rage. It is one thing Wikipediocracy having these occasional examples, but the proof that Wikipedia is providing a general degradation in knowledge is a very hard issue to deal with. There would be various categories too: stuff that is entirely invented, through to "well known fact" that acquires its legitimacy through Wikipedia.

[Peter Damian]

Sarah Stierch (T-H-L) Ludicrous.

Stierch began working with May Department Stores as a make-up artist for Chanel and Shiseido products, later specializing in MAC Cosmetics (OK, so she had a student job on the pong counter).

Stuff about her undergraduate and master's degree in Museum studies (so she was a student).

Stierch began working (aged 17) in club promotions in Indianapolis, Indiana with Matt Chandler. Stierch and Chandler were professionally known as "Temporary Structures". Google doesn't tell me anything about "Temporary Structures" Sweep the Leg Johnny a garage band, article written by an IP. Even the bands she promoted were hardly notable. "This article reads like a news release, or is otherwise written in an overly promotional tone. (December 2011)"

In 2007, Stierch began serving as the director of the Domont Studio Gallery in Indianapolis, where she curated The Contemporary View: The Midwestern Landscape and Director's Choice 2008 exhibits of John J. Domont." When a gallery is named after an artist, it's either a very famous – usually dead – one, or it's a 'vanity' gallery. Check out Domont's gallery http://www.domontgallery.com/gallery/st ... ing-bowls/ to work that one out. Why is she called a 'curator' when she is actually working in a shop, i.e. she was a shopgirl for a bit.

The rest of the article is about her work with Wikipedia. Everyone who writes for Wikipedia must have an article about them.

And behold her website. Here is the page listing her 'publications' http://sarahstierch.com/pp

"American Association of Museums: “TrendsWatch 2012,” 2012" is nothing more than a Museum report, by multiple authors. Sarah is only mentioned at the end: "And special thanks to Sarah Stierch, who helped shape this report, conducted background research, tracked down illustrations and secured photographic permissions." http://www.aam-us.org/docs/center-for-t ... _final.pdf

Wikimedia Foundation Blog: “Ada Initiative’s Quest to Bring Women to Open Source,” is a blog post.

"SOPA Blackout: Why Wikipedia Needs Women" is another blog post, mostly propaganda about SOPA.

Archives of American Art Blog: “A Very Wiki Summer,” yet another blog. Everyone who writes for Wikipedia and has a blog, and who worked in a shop selling kitsch to tourists, and who worked 'promoting' clubs when they were a teenager, must have an article in Wikipedia.

[Volunteer Marek]

Sarah Stierch (T-H-L) Ludicrous.

Stierch began working with May Department Stores as a make-up artist for Chanel and Shiseido products, later specializing in MAC Cosmetics (OK, so she had a student job on the pong counter).

Stuff about her undergraduate and master's degree in Museum studies (so she was a student).

Stierch began working (aged 17) in club promotions in Indianapolis, Indiana with Matt Chandler. Stierch and Chandler were professionally known as "Temporary Structures". Google doesn't tell me anything about "Temporary Structures" Sweep the Leg Johnny a garage band, article written by an IP. Even the bands she promoted were hardly notable. "This article reads like a news release, or is otherwise written in an overly promotional tone. (December 2011)"

In 2007, Stierch began serving as the director of the Domont Studio Gallery in Indianapolis, where she curated The Contemporary View: The Midwestern Landscape and Director's Choice 2008 exhibits of John J. Domont." When a gallery is named after an artist, it's either a very famous – usually dead – one, or it's a 'vanity' gallery. Check out Domont's gallery http://www.domontgallery.com/gallery/st ... ing-bowls/ to work that one out. Why is she called a 'curator' when she is actually working in a shop, i.e. she was a shopgirl for a bit.

The rest of the article is about her work with Wikipedia. Everyone who writes for Wikipedia must have an article about them.

And behold her website. Here is the page listing her 'publications' http://sarahstierch.com/pp

"American Association of Museums: “TrendsWatch 2012,” 2012" is nothing more than a Museum report, by multiple authors. Sarah is only mentioned at the end: "And special thanks to Sarah Stierch, who helped shape this report, conducted background research, tracked down illustrations and secured photographic permissions." http://www.aam-us.org/docs/center-for-t ... _final.pdf

Wikimedia Foundation Blog: “Ada Initiative’s Quest to Bring Women to Open Source,” is a blog post.

"SOPA Blackout: Why Wikipedia Needs Women" is another blog post, mostly propaganda about SOPA.

Archives of American Art Blog: “A Very Wiki Summer,” yet another blog. Everyone who writes for Wikipedia and has a blog, and who worked in a shop selling kitsch to tourists, and who worked 'promoting' clubs when they were a teenager, must have an article in Wikipedia.

I just took a look at this. Isn't most of this article sourced to an internet forum? Throw that stuff out and let's see what remains.

[Randy from Boise]

I advised Delete Without Prejudice during the notability debate on the S.S. bio.

Friends and acquaintances (and those with an impaired understanding of notability guidelines) voted Keep and she got a closer who was willing to overlook the fact that there weren't any, y'know, things like independently published sources dealing substantially with the subject.

That said, I'm not too stressed about her bio being there as I'm sure such things will emerge eventually.

Still, it was a bad close to a really bad debate...

RfB

[Volunteer Marek]

I advised Delete Without Prejudice during the notability debate on the S.S. bio.

Friends and acquaintances (and those with an impaired understanding of notability guidelines) voted Keep and she got a closer who was willing to overlook the fact that there weren't any, y'know, things like independently published sources dealing substantially with the subject.

That said, I'm not too stressed about her bio being there as I'm sure such things will emerge eventually.

Still, it was a bad close to a really bad debate...

RfB

Which is a funny comment considering all the bullshit in the close about, quote: "The quality of this debate was very high, with almost all of the comments being based in the deletion policy. " and "d like to say how delighted I am in the quality of the discussion here," (I'd expect better from OrangeMike) - the quality was atrocious, with it very quickly becoming a "let me do a favor for a bro" kind of discussion. It was very much favoritism over policy, even from people who should've known better but they dressed it up as "high quality debate", which I guess means "thank god no one showed up to spoil this party". Pathetic.

[everyking]

This girl is not notable. I'm sure she's a fine Wikipedian, but that has nothing to do with notability. If I had known of the discussion, I would have voted to delete. A look at the sources shows that either they are not significant or that her mention in the sources is not substantial. Am I missing something? I don't understand how Wikipedians can vote to delete articles on events that get attention across a nation, or even the world, but can vote to keep this article.

[thekohser]

I don't understand how Wikipedians can vote to delete articles on events that get attention across a nation, or even the world, but can vote to keep this article.

That's funny, because I can understand this perfectly well.

Elonka Dunin, a little-known game developer = article defended and kept, three times. Why? Because she's a Wikipedian.

Arch Coal, a company with $2.5 billion in revenue in 2005 = article deleted by the co-founder of Wikipedia. Why? Because he didn't like the guy who wrote the article, which had been copied with permission into Wikipedia by another user altogether.

Everyking, I thought by now you would certainly know how Wikipedia actually works. It's not an objective compendium of knowledge. It's a collection of content battlegrounds, won or lost based on who is doing the arguing, and how many friends they have on Wikipedia.

[oscarlechien]

What I want to know is : who is Crisco 1492?

If this isn't a Benjiboi sock, I'll eat my hat!

[Alison]

This girl is not notable. I'm sure she's a fine Wikipedian, but that has nothing to do with notability.

"Girl"? She's 32 years old

And yeah - she's just not notable. I really cannot understand why she actually *wanted* a BLP, given that it's now become a magnet for all sorts of garbage, trivia and vandalism that nobody wants to have to read about themselves.

[Tarc]

This girl is not notable. I'm sure she's a fine Wikipedian, but that has nothing to do with notability. If I had known of the discussion, I would have voted to delete. A look at the sources shows that either they are not significant or that her mention in the sources is not substantial. Am I missing something? I don't understand how Wikipedians can vote to delete articles on events that get attention across a nation, or even the world, but can vote to keep this article.

Everyking, you make some of the most insipid "keep" votes I've ever seen short of the ARSehole crew, so oyu have no leg to stand on criticizing how others vote.

Rachel Utchitel: "notability seems well-established by the sources"
Editing 2009 DC Snowball Fight Gun Controversy: "clearly notable based on press coverage."
Romnesia: "Press coverage indicates notability."

My god, if well-argued opinions created sparks, we could safely store dynamite in your office.

[EricBarbour]

Don't forget the ugly war over Heidi Wyss, aka Gwen Gale (T-C-L). Not to mention her awful lesbian fantasy novel, which also had its own Wikipedia article, despite never being actually published anywhere except on her website......

Dan "Gwernol" Crow still has a BLP, which he wrote himself, plus an article about the company he co-founded. There was a COI report on him, which you will not find, because it was oversighted.

And don't forget Andrea James (T-H-L) = Jokestress (T-C-L).

Most WP abusers and insiders work hard to cover up their identities. It takes a special kind of extraordinary ego to want to glorify yourself like that.

I suspect that Sarah represents the future of the WMF. There will be Wikipedia articles about all WMF employees, if they want them. Because they can have it. Nothing would be a more obvious indicator of Wikipedia's irreversible decline.

[Malleus]

I don't understand how Wikipedians can vote to delete articles on events that get attention across a nation, or even the world, but can vote to keep this article.

That's funny, because I can understand this perfectly well.

Elonka Dunin, a little-known game developer = article defended and kept, three times. Why? Because she's a Wikipedian.

Arch Coal, a company with $2.5 billion in revenue in 2005 = article deleted by the co-founder of Wikipedia. Why? Because he didn't like the guy who wrote the article, which had been copied with permission into Wikipedia by another user altogether.

Everyking, I thought by now you would certainly know how Wikipedia actually works. It's not an objective compendium of knowledge. It's a collection of content battlegrounds, won or lost based on who is doing the arguing, and how many friends they have on Wikipedia.

Something we can agree on at last.

[Malleus]

My god, if well-argued opinions created sparks, we could safely store dynamite in your office.

That's rather good. I like it and may steal it.

[Randy from Boise]

This girl is not notable. I'm sure she's a fine Wikipedian, but that has nothing to do with notability. If I had known of the discussion, I would have voted to delete. A look at the sources shows that either they are not significant or that her mention in the sources is not substantial. Am I missing something? I don't understand how Wikipedians can vote to delete articles on events that get attention across a nation, or even the world, but can vote to keep this article.

I believe the noun you're looking for is "woman." Or "person" — that would work...

RfB

[thekohser]

I believe the noun you're looking for is "woman." Or "person" — that would work...

Recently, there was an attempt to paint me as sexist because I used the phrase "the female co-founder". So, perhaps let's be safe and just call this Sarah Stierch an "organism" or an "entity". To say "person", you might get accused of species discrimination.

[Malik Shabazz]

My god, if well-argued opinions created sparks, we could safely store dynamite in your office.

That's rather good. I like it and may steal it.

Ooh, that is good.

[Tarc]

My god, if well-argued opinions created sparks, we could safely store dynamite in your office.

That's rather good. I like it and may steal it.

Ooh, that is good.

Aww, you guys...

I wish I could take full credit for it, but it is a paraphrase of an old line describing James Watt, Reagan's anti-environmental/science Secretary of the Interior.

[TungstenCarbide]

I believe the noun you're looking for is "woman." Or "person" — that would work...

Recently, there was an attempt to paint me as sexist because I used the phrase "the female co-founder". So, perhaps let's be safe and just call this Sarah Stierch an "organism" or an "entity"...

I was going to suggest "elf".

[Peter Damian]

"Volunteer Marek" has had a go on the talk page of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Stierch. But he is simply questioning the reliability of the sources, which is not really the point. I can produce a ton of independent, reliable sources that testify to the fact that I have a degree. But does that make me notable, together with about a million other people in my country?

Does an internship make you notable?

In 2009, following her graduation from IUPUI, she served internships with Colonial Williamsburg's American Indian Initiative; the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington D.C.; and the Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art. In 2011, she began working as a research assistant with the head curator of the National Museum of African American History & Culture. In September 2011, she served an internship with the American Association of Museums.

The problem is a deeper one, of how we establish whether a subject is important enough to warrant inclusion in a reliable and comprehensive reference work.

[lilburne]

The problem is a deeper one, of how we establish whether a subject is important enough to warrant inclusion in a reliable and comprehensive reference work.

That doesn't seem to be a question for wikipedia to answer.

[DanMurphy]

This girl is not notable. I'm sure she's a fine Wikipedian, but that has nothing to do with notability. If I had known of the discussion, I would have voted to delete. A look at the sources shows that either they are not significant or that her mention in the sources is not substantial. Am I missing something? I don't understand how Wikipedians can vote to delete articles on events that get attention across a nation, or even the world, but can vote to keep this article.

Everyking, you make some of the most insipid "keep" votes I've ever seen short of the ARSehole crew, so oyu have no leg to stand on criticizing how others vote.

Rachel Utchitel: "notability seems well-established by the sources"
Editing 2009 DC Snowball Fight Gun Controversy: "clearly notable based on press coverage."
Romnesia: "Press coverage indicates notability."

My god, if well-argued opinions created sparks, we could safely store dynamite in your office.

The "snowball" one captures what a hopeless and warped worldview "Everyking" has (or perhaps had; maybe he's coming around?)

You're missing the point: of course we'd expect the second scenario to generate greater attention, but we're imagining, for the sake of argument, that it doesn't. Is murder intrinsically more notable than non-murder, or is it just ordinarily more notable because ordinarily it would attract more attention? Try an even more extreme scenario: the cop shoots these people, and it garners no more than a line or two in the local newspaper, whereas the original scenario 1 gets international news coverage. Everyking (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[The Joy]

What I want to know is : who is Crisco 1492?

If this isn't a Benjiboi sock, I'll eat my hat!

We certainly know that Benjiboi has a thing for Crisco...

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35732&hl

This is supposedly him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crisco_1492.jpg

He appears to be more interested in Indonesia than wangs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crisco_1492/Gallery

[DanMurphy]

What I want to know is : who is Crisco 1492?

If this isn't a Benjiboi sock, I'll eat my hat!

We certainly know that Benjiboi has a thing for Crisco...

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35732&hl

This is supposedly him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crisco_1492.jpg

He appears to be more interested in Indonesia than wangs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crisco_1492/Gallery

The chance of that person being that disgusting, abusive excuse for a human being Benjamin Hohlmann ("Benjiboi") is zero.

[Randy from Boise]

Here's an attribution for the "dynamite" quote above:

"If clear thinking created sparks, we could safely store dynamite in James Watt's office." -- Wayne Shannon, KRON-TV


KRON is in San Francisco.

From: http://www.textfiles.com/humor/JOKES/best.frt


RfB

[Moonage Daydream]

What I want to know is : who is Crisco 1492?

If this isn't a Benjiboi sock, I'll eat my hat!

We certainly know that Benjiboi has a thing for Crisco...

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35732&hl

This is supposedly him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crisco_1492.jpg

He appears to be more interested in Indonesia than wangs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crisco_1492/Gallery

The chance of that person being that disgusting, abusive excuse for a human being Benjamin Hohlmann ("Benjiboi") is zero.

Less than zero. Meet Christopher Allen Woodrich of Wikimedia Indonesia. He is "a Wikipedian who does freelance work for Wikimedia Indonesia" according to this.

[DanMurphy]

The Indonesian bio on Woodrich says the following:

Christopher Allen Woodrich is a student of Indonesian literature at Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta. The man from Canada has been a user of the English language Wikipedia since 2005 and has written more than 100 featured articles, among them the 1740 Batavia massacre (T-H-L), Sitti Nurbaya (T-H-L), Melly Goeslaw (T-H-L), Langit Makin Mendung (T-H-L) and Saman (novel) (T-H-L).

100 featured articles? That's quite a lot, no?

Adding: Actually, it's quite clear he hasn't written 100 featured articles. The nomenclature that the Indonesian Wikipedia uses for "Featured Article" is "Artikel Pilihan" ("chosen" or "selected" article in this context) and for "Good Article" is "Artikel Bagus." In his brief Indonesian bio, he is described as having written more than 100 "artikel sempurna." Sempurna usually translates as "perfect." I guess it's possible he's written a great many "good articles," as assessed by anonymous wikipedia contributors.

[Randy from Boise]

On a whim I dropped by Wikipedia to see if they had a bio on Wayne Shannon, he of the James Watt quotation that people found witty...

They did. I prettied it up a little. It's sort of an interesting story, although the bio remains skimpy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Shannon

A TV commentator of the 1980s, more or less.

RfB

[TungstenCarbide]

Sarah Stierch (T-H-L), a recently created article about SarahStierch (T-C-L), has survived a deletion attempt by OrangeMike, and has been nominated for a "Did You Know" slot.

at least there is an excellent selection of images for the article.

[Tarc]

Here's an attribution for the "dynamite" quote above:

"If clear thinking created sparks, we could safely store dynamite in James Watt's office." -- Wayne Shannon, KRON-TV


KRON is in San Francisco.

From: http://www.textfiles.com/humor/JOKES/best.frt


RfB

Ahh yes, that does click now. That file at textfiles.com is what the old *nix "fortune" command used. Good times, esp if you gave the cmd a "-o" for obscene witticisms.

[Malik Shabazz]

Here's an attribution for the "dynamite" quote above:

"If clear thinking created sparks, we could safely store dynamite in James Watt's office." -- Wayne Shannon, KRON-TV


KRON is in San Francisco.

From: http://www.textfiles.com/humor/JOKES/best.frt


RfB

Thanks Randy.

[everyking]

This girl is not notable. I'm sure she's a fine Wikipedian, but that has nothing to do with notability. If I had known of the discussion, I would have voted to delete. A look at the sources shows that either they are not significant or that her mention in the sources is not substantial. Am I missing something? I don't understand how Wikipedians can vote to delete articles on events that get attention across a nation, or even the world, but can vote to keep this article.

Everyking, you make some of the most insipid "keep" votes I've ever seen short of the ARSehole crew, so oyu have no leg to stand on criticizing how others vote.

Rachel Utchitel: "notability seems well-established by the sources"
Editing 2009 DC Snowball Fight Gun Controversy: "clearly notable based on press coverage."
Romnesia: "Press coverage indicates notability."

My god, if well-argued opinions created sparks, we could safely store dynamite in your office.

The "snowball" one captures what a hopeless and warped worldview "Everyking" has (or perhaps had; maybe he's coming around?)

You're missing the point: of course we'd expect the second scenario to generate greater attention, but we're imagining, for the sake of argument, that it doesn't. Is murder intrinsically more notable than non-murder, or is it just ordinarily more notable because ordinarily it would attract more attention? Try an even more extreme scenario: the cop shoots these people, and it garners no more than a line or two in the local newspaper, whereas the original scenario 1 gets international news coverage. Everyking (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It still seems like sound reasoning to me. Things are not intrinsically notable; notability is something that is assigned by people, by societies. The best way to gauge notability is to review the attention it's received from mainstream, reliable publications. If, in an extreme case, mainstream and reliable publications extensively cover a snowball fight but ignore a shooting, then the first is notable but the second is not.

Sometimes seemingly trivial things get a lot of attention from mainstream, reliable publications. Sarah, on the other hand, has evidently never attracted such attention, therefore she is not notable.

[EricBarbour]

Sometimes seemingly trivial things get a lot of attention from mainstream, reliable publications. Sarah, on the other hand, has evidently never attracted such attention, therefore she is not notable.

Okay, then put a speedy-delete box on it. Good luck.

[Moonage Daydream]

Sarah Stierch (T-H-L) is now one of the 400 or so articles under pending revisions protection. I suspect that the addition of "nose model" and "rhinoplasty candidate" by an IP were the reason. It's good to be connected.

[Poetlister]

Sarah Stierch (T-H-L) is now one of the 400 or so articles under pending revisions protection. I suspect that the addition of "nose model" and "rhinoplasty candidate" by an IP were the reason. It's good to be connected.

As long as nobody calls her Pinocchio.

[EricBarbour]

Don't forget to point out the strangeness of Crisco 1492 (T-C-L), aka Chris Woodrich, protecting Sarah's article from "abusers".

He is an administrator, an obsessed Wiki-gnome, and was a Canadian schoolboy when he first showed up in 2005. Did almost nothing on
Wikipedia -- until early 2011, when he suddenly started grinding 50-100 edits per day, leading to adminship last June. Lives in Indonesia, and
what little content he does generate in recent months involves Indonesian subjects. He's also a DYK page gnome, helping to explain how
Sarah's bio ended up being nominated. Still doesn't explain why he's helping Sarah. Nor his amazingly ironic username (in the light of
Benjiboi's later abuses).

Do I need to write a book-wiki article about Sarah now?

[Fuzzgun '91]

I hadn't seen this thread or the AfD (having completely ignored all Wikipedia goings-on for the past month-and-a-half) when I happened to see the Stierch article headlining the DYK section of the Main Page. My jaw dropped, although it's hard to justify my incredulity given my familiarity with all the precedents for this sort of thing. Still, it's pretty ludicrous that this kind of thing still goes on in 2013.