[Toru-chan]

Hi Everyone.

Time to get angry. We've all read ChefElf's guide to Star Wars. We laughed a lot, but we learnt a lot too. (Hey! R2D2 *is* black in space!) Well, a Cabal of Fanboys on Wikipedia doesn't think ChefElf's article is worth mentioning. *They've* "never heard of it". "It only has 24 hits on Google". "It adds nothing new or significant".

Worse, they're the sort of snivelling, self-important twerps that makes everyone else hate Star Wars fans. Hell! For the first time in my life, I know what a jock feels like when he wants to punch out a nerd.

http://en.wikipedia....r_Wars_Web_Site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars

Surely ChefElf's articles deserve a mention? What do you think?

cheers
Toru-chan.

attached letter to ChefElf:
==========================================================

Hi ChefElf,

This isn't just fan mail. You've been screwed, and I'm angry.

I read your list about a year ago and wet myself laughing. It was funny, but it was also accurate, thorough and spot on. You've done something pretty special in the anals of Star Wars I think.

Recently I thought it was worth adding a link to Wikipedia about you. I did. Just one line. And it was deleted! Turns out the Star Wars page is run by a cabal of fan boys of the sort of smug, self-importance that makes you want to turn into a jock and beat up nerds like them. I'd suggest you go to the page and read the talk (before they delete it), but, sheesh.

http://en.wikipedia....r_Wars_Web_Site

I think this is an injustice that needs to be corrected. They claim to have never heard of you, didn't think your web page contained anything new or significant, and that you only had 24 links in Google. Worse, they make *me* hate Star Wars fans!!!

But you have friends on ChefElf. We can turn this around. After all. You have Entertainment Weekly on your side!

cheers
Toru-chan

PS. I'll also post this on the BBS so others know the outrage

Attached: Wikipedia talk page where I tell them to frigging Grow Up!
=======================================
http://en.wikipedia....r_Wars_Web_Site

Nitpickers Guide to Star Wars Web Site

User "A Man In Black" reverted my edit where I added "Chef Elf's Nitpickers Guide to Star Wars - A controversial but amusing analysis of the Star Wars movies." User "A Man In Black" gave no reason for removing this, and has not contributed to this article before. The Chef Elf site is well known in the Star Wars community. He gives a very thorough analysis of every Star Wars movie, point-by-point and it's become a bible of sorts. I think it's an important contribution that Wiki should link to. Since "A Man In Black" seems to be a hit-and-run reverter and gave no reason, I would like to reinstate that link. Toru-chan 09:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I will now unrevert the change. I will edit the label to make its significance clear. Toru-chan 01:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This site doesn't add anything particularly useful or interesting. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not Google/not a directory of all the sites related to a particular subject. --EEMeltonIV 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Am going to have to agree this isnt google the links that are there some questionable are there because they add to whats already said, they dont give "controversial but amusing analysis of the Star Wars movies". If you want to add that link add it to this site if its not already there http://dmoz.org/arts...ar_wars_movies/. Leapster 14:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A Man in Black is a Wikipedia administrator - hardly a hit-and-run reverter, and has, in fact, contributed to this article before - many times, all before Toru-chan created an account less than two weeks ago. Also, as long-time Star Wars fan, and as a staff member at TheForce.Net, I've never heard of the site in question. Futhermore, a google search on Chefelf +nitpicker only brings back 24 or so unique returns, so it's obviously not *that* controversial, given the low number of mentions. I'm going to side with A Man in Black on this one. TheRealFennShysa 15:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Try searching under its better known but more contentious name: "Reasons to Hate Star Wars" and you'll get 1,580 Google hits. Did you really look at that article, or simply disagree with it? Listen to yourselves. You're carrying on like a bunch of petty tin gods. I watched the movie back in 1977 the same you did TheRealFennShya, but you've basically declared yourself A Greater Authority™. As for your 'two weeks' jab, I'm not going to get into a peeing competition with you. I'll leave you to rule your little patch. EEMeltonIV: I understand the reasons you give, and note a similar 'comprehensive listing' entry was removed from the Links too. So long as the rules are consistently enforced, I'm cool with that. As for the rest of you: You're flaunting the rules and spirit of Wikipedia, and you need to Grow Up. Toru-chan 13:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Toru-chan: 25 January 2007 - 08:55 AM

[civilian_number_two]

I disagree that the Reasons ought to be cited in a general Wikipedia article about Star Wars, since as your detractor says, they add nothing to an understanding of Star Wars itself. Where they ought to be mentioned is on the Wikipedia page didicated to the phenomenon of "Lucas Bashing:"

http://en.wikipedia....i/Lucas_bashing

So, uh, make that happen.

[Chefelf]

I agree with civilian_number_two. While I appreciate the compliments you have given my articles I don't necessarily think that they belong on the overall entry for 'Star Wars.' My articles don't really add anything to the 'Star Wars' universe.

Without trying to sound egotistical I am actually a little surprised that there's no mention of my articles in the Lucas bashing section.

Better yet, these articles would be best served in a 'Chefelf' section of Wikipedia which would make the most sense of all.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Well, have you appeared in multiple publications?

[Toru-chan]

He must be the messiah! Only the messiah would be so modest! :-)

I agree with civilian_number_two. While I appreciate the compliments you have given my articles I don't necessarily think that they belong on the overall entry for 'Star Wars.' My articles don't really add anything to the 'Star Wars' universe.

I don't see RTHSW (Reasons to Hate Star Wars) as Lucas Bashing. I'd view it more as a critical essay, in web form. If you're calling Lucas greedy/arrogant/fat/whatever *that* would be Lucas Bashing. But you break up your objections into clear and logical form, more than anyone else has ever done I think. That makes your articles legitimate criticism. Yeah, even *scholarly* criticism.

(Hey cool! I'm disagreeing with you *and* praising you at the same time! :-)

Wiki is supposed to be neutral, and present both sides. I think you make a good addition. You point out the flaws and inconsistencies without calling Lucas' daughter fat, which is what a lot of Lucas Bashing seems to be about. You can like something but not be blind to its flaws.

[Toru-chan]

I will ask for them to review the neutrality of the wiki section, because I think they're biased towards their own sites. Your site is as good as any there! I just hope TheRealFennShyha doesn't cry when I tell him I've never heard of TheForce.Net :-) http://www.ericsink....Boundaries.html I'll avoid being sucked into fan boy flame wars, but it's enough to make me want to rip the head off my Boba Fett action figure. (BTW I always thought Boba Fett sucked too. I thought it was just me! :-)

You've probably seen the web movies for the making-of-sith movie? They explain a lot about what went wrong with Sith, albeit unintentionally. Basically, Lucas surrounded himself by Fan Boys. When he did Grievous, they slathered and blathered about how great it was. Nobody said "Hey George, this guy blows!" :-) Personally I think a leaky biro is more scary than General Grievous.

Anyway, ChefElf, thanks for your articles. It's nice that someone who is a fan but not a fan boy can get some critical analysis *and* wet themselves laughing at the Wampa Scale of Insignificance. I hope George Lucas does some more movies, just so I ruin more pants reading your analysis.

This post has been edited by Toru-chan: 25 January 2007 - 09:29 PM

[Slade]

What you describe is actually every single active member of the Wikipedia editing community for every single topic in existence. They're all a bunch of pricks. You need to contribute to articles for a while before you're taken seriously, but your stuff is deleted because you're new so you can never contribute to articles.

I would agree that the link to the Reasons site doesn't belong in general Star Wars.

And if you need any proof that the page is run by sniveling fanboys, the fact that the moderator is an active member of theforce.net is a big red flag.

And now I flee from the Star Wars portion of the site.

[miladyblue]

Unfortunately, love ChefElf's RTHSW articles though WE do, it is unlikely that any of the ass-kissing fanboys will ever grow up enough to read an opposing opinion. It is WORSE than trying to deal with Original VS Next Gen Trekkies.

I don't read Wikipedia articles as a general rule because of all the bias or outright misinformation. I prefer to have my hidden jewels like ChefElf, who is a fan of the Star Wars series, yet can see clearly that some of the stuff produced is crap, and can comment openly about it.

I went to high school with geeks who HATED Star Wars, "Because it's nowhere NEAR as good as Trek, end of subject!"

P.S. Yes, I count myself amongst the geeks of my generation, and probably the only female geek in the class of '84 at my school.

This post has been edited by miladyblue: 26 January 2007 - 12:18 AM

[Toru-chan]

I would agree that the link to the Reasons site doesn't belong in general Star Wars.

Surprised I'm the only one that thinks ChefElf's work is fair criticism, but thanks for talking me out of a flame war. Sometimes caving in can be a glorious thing! I'll put it Lucas Bashing as ChefElf suggests. That feels a lot like "You're either with us, or your with the Lucas Bashers", but life is too short.

And if you need any proof that the page is run by sniveling fanboys, the fact that the moderator is an active member of theforce.net is a big red flag.

What's with those guys? I never heard of them before. But sheesh. I've never seen anything like it!

What you describe is actually every single active member of the Wikipedia editing community for every single topic in existence. They're all a bunch of pricks. You need to contribute to articles for a while before you're taken seriously, but your stuff is deleted because you're new so you can never contribute to articles.

I've been anonymously editing wiki for a couple of years; even done a few music fan articles and the response I got was "thanks for updating that!" . I've never seen anything like this before. Wow.

[Toru-chan]

ChefElf, added you to http://en.wikipedia....ucas#References

Unfortunately, love ChefElf's RTHSW articles though WE do, it is unlikely that any of the ass-kissing fanboys will ever grow up enough to read an opposing opinion. It is WORSE than trying to deal with Original VS Next Gen Trekkies.

It's beyond my comprehension. I used to consider myself a Fan Boy. Now I realize I'm not even close! :-)

I prefer to have my hidden jewels like ChefElf, who is a fan of the Star Wars series, yet can see clearly that some of the stuff produced is crap, and can comment openly about it.

Me too. I love Star Wars, buy I'm not blind to its many faults. Adults can like something, yet accept its flaws. Ahhh... "Adults". Now I understand! :-)

I went to high school with geeks who HATED Star Wars, "Because it's nowhere NEAR as good as Trek, end of subject!" P.S. Yes, I count myself amongst the geeks of my generation, and probably the only female geek in the class of '84 at my school.

My '80 high school class had star wars geeks. One of us scraped up enough to buy an 8mm short of the movie. We'd watch it during lunch time, make jokes and laugh throughout. We enjoyed it, but none of us confused it with religion. Those guys who write 'JEDI' on their census forms, I'm thinking now, might actually believe it! :-o

[Despondent]

That's great. I visited that page earlier yesterday afternoon. Well done.



Incidentally, the Holiday Special aired in the month of November.

[Toru-chan]

Incidentally, the Holiday Special aired in the month of November.

Ah thanks. Corrected. Over the next year I'll help clean up that page, bit by bit. Fans vs Fan Boys need a page they can call their own! :-)

[Jordan]

Lucas Bashing? hhahaha man wiki is such a joke. I'm sure that article is disputed and always will be.


edit--- it is lol!

This post has been edited by Jordan: 26 January 2007 - 02:20 PM

[Chefelf]

Well, have you appeared in multiple publications?

I suppose you could say I have but the multiple is certainly low and definitely in the single digits.

Wiki is supposed to be neutral, and present both sides. I think you make a good addition. You point out the flaws and inconsistencies without calling Lucas' daughter fat, which is what a lot of Lucas Bashing seems to be about. You can like something but not be blind to its flaws.

I agree but I don't know if there's any room to have criticisms in wiki entries. You could link to my rant about Bob Dylan in his wiki entry but that wouldn't do any good. Linking to an article critical of a piece of work doesn't really belong in wiki. Wiki should be reserved for cataloging information about a subject. Nearly every subject has a critical argument against it. Wikipedia would get bogged down if there was a link to critical information for every entry.

What you describe is actually every single active member of the Wikipedia editing community for every single topic in existence. They're all a bunch of pricks. You need to contribute to articles for a while before you're taken seriously, but your stuff is deleted because you're new so you can never contribute to articles.

Agreed. Wiki, like any large tiered community, has a lot of potential to breed people who grow insane with power. It's pretty lame and the majority of people who do it are mentally no older than 14 and probably never will be. I think a large number of people do it well, but you'll always have a group that thinks they're the king of the world rather than just an admin on Wikipedia.

I think that some sections (Star Wars is probably a great example) lend themselves a little more to being run by people in this category for some reason.

Surprised I'm the only one that thinks ChefElf's work is fair criticism, but thanks for talking me out of a flame war. Sometimes caving in can be a glorious thing! I'll put it Lucas Bashing as ChefElf suggests. That feels a lot like "You're either with us, or your with the Lucas Bashers", but life is too short.

What's with those guys? I never heard of them before. But sheesh. I've never seen anything like it!
I've been anonymously editing wiki for a couple of years; even done a few music fan articles and the response I got was "thanks for updating that!" . I've never seen anything like this before. Wow.

I don't even know if I'd consider it Lucas Bashing. I don't really like that term. I love George Lucas. He may have ruined his movies in my eyes but he certainly gave me a lot of great work to admire throughout my childhood and early adult years.

[Despondent]

Fair Criticism of the Prequels sums it up pretty well.