Ninja Dependence Volume 6

I'm trying to bring everyone back to the discussion and refocus back to why=
 we are here. Of course I have my bias, but I will try to be as neutral as =
possible. I was sucked into this issue a few months ago editing my first ep=
isode. I 'was' in the process of improving, adding sources, and removing PO=
V statements from TV article. The article was wiped out with no discussion,=
 no tagging, and no explanation. I had added six or so sources, worked some=
 on MOS and was moving through the main article as well as the sub articles=
 as I found info. When I tried to reason with the individual, it was revert=
ed, and redirected. Then the assistance came along to bully me. After they =
lost an AfD, the article was restored. The main issue in this whole thing i=
s the lack of communication and the sheer volume of deletions taking place =
per day. Do some articles belong in wikipedia? No...But I'm not the one to =
answer that question, but what I would like to see is AGF and spirit of co-=
operation. If an article is deemed bad, tag it, allow a month, one week is =
too short, then come back and redirect or start a discussion. The current s=
ystem is degrading wikipedia and the sides are growing ever larger and larg=
er and creating edit wars.

I want to say something about the value of the works we are talking about h=
ere. I'm a journalist and writer from Italy, I'm specialised in cinema and =
visual media. I have come here from the Scrubs episode list. I'm not a "fan=
" of Scrubs, I'm writing a book on Scrubs. That means I need all the info I=
 can find about Scrubs and Scrubs episodes, even mere plot synopsis are ver=
y useful to me, as I can recollect memories from each single episode throug=
h them, while I make connections, compare narratives and summarise styles a=
nd visual ideas. What can ben inferred from this? It's very simple: an epis=
ode overlook of ANY sort is not a mere fan service, as it can be very usefu=
l to researchers. And damn it, academic researches about pop art and popula=
r media are common ground today! And more and more will be tomorrow! It's v=
ery very very very stupid to think a "serious" encyclopedia should not trea=
t these matters, because that will turn it into a old-fashioned dumb encycl=
opedia. And Wikipedia can't be so.
But there are some other things to be noted. From an expressive point of vi=
ew, some Scrubs' (or other series') episodes are far superior to most movie=
s (and NOT necessarily the awarded episodes, nor the most appreciated ones =
by fans over the web, a very stupid way of selection for a "fan-less" encyc=
lopedia indeed). The worst movies in film history are covered in great deta=
ils here on Wikipedia. What makes some teen ninja movie a better subject fo=
r a Wiki page instead of a complex-structured, experimental episode of Scru=
bs?
And we can deep further in this area of hypocrisy showed by the "deletionis=
ts": actually Wikipedia is a place where I can find the very important info=
rmation "[Amanda] Bynes, who has a dog named Midge and drives a white Lexus=
 SC430", or "[Paris] Hilton is known for her love of small dogs, including =
a Yorkshire Terrier and a female Chihuahua named Tinkerbell". After reading=
 that, it looks very silly indeed to call for an encyclopedia without fan c=
ontent. I can know all about every American starlette, but I can't have a p=
age about an episode of Scrubs, because the latter is "for fans only". It a=
sks for some serious meditation. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2008 =
(UTC)Reply[reply]

ninja dependence volume 6
Download File https://urllio.com/2wH6eN


 eebf2c3492