Talk:Rube Goldberg

From the article

surely this should read "usable but unuseful"???

My answer:

No, I actually meant what what I wrote. The Chindōgu typically have a useful purpose (see the article), but they are so embarrassing or the like that that makes them unusable. -- Cimon Avaro on a Pogo Stick

David Borst

I have removed the reference to "David Borst" from the article for two reasons:

I can find nothing linking this name with Rube Goldberg either on the web or in any of the paper references I have on hand;
The "David Borst" redirect has been deleted several times as a probable hoax (one editor went so far as to make him first Postmaster General of the U.S.)

A citation would be quite helpful. - Hephaestos|§ 16:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again, that is fine, it's not a matter of disbelief so much as a matter of "where is this research? how reliable is it? who did it?" A book name, please (or a website, although I've looked for a website and found nothing). - Hephaestos|§ 18:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed

Modern researchers [who?] have examined other political cartoons [which?] of this time period, and have found certain similarities between the works of Rube Goldberg, and those of David Borst [who is David Borst? How is he known? Does he rate an article in an encyclopedia?]. It's not yet proven, but it is possible that Goldberg used Borst as a pseudonym to publish his most controversial [controversial in what way?] political cartoons.

Hephaestos|§ 01:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pseudonym

It's an unpublished study from the University of California, Berkeley that has examined other political cartoons published in the same time period. David Borst is not a person himself, he's a made up pseudonym for Rube Goldberg. They were controversial because sometimes political cartoons can get controversial and upset certian people. He didn't want his name on them, so he used a pseudonym.

I appreciate your taking the time to explain, and it sounds interesting, but unfortunately we still won't be able to use it right now. - Hephaestos|§ 02:19, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

Gamaliel is making newspapers and ficticious names into wikipedia links that don't exist. It merely serves to clutter the page and make it confusing for users. There are none such of these links. It's vandalism.

23:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikifying potential subjects of as of yet unwritten articles is not vandalism. In my opinion, they're all perfectly deserving of an article; this is how a wiki works. You could always create an account and log in, after which you'll be able to tweak your preferences so that red links appear whatever colour you wish.

Please note however that allegations of vandalism should not be made lightly; see Wikipedia:Civility. Calling someone "stupid" in an edit summary is also uncalled for, and violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Try to lighten up, eh? -- Hadal 04:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I never called anyone stupid. I remain that it is vandalism though. If this Gamaliel person wants to make those subjects into articles, then I can see them being made links to them, but until that point in time, it is just more confusing for potential readers. -- 01:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It may be a bit of overkill, but it is useful. It is very likely, for instance, that over time all those newspapers will have articles of their own, plus some of the characters. Sure, you could justifiably de-link a few of them on the grounds that they'll never happen, but there are already many articles on newspapers, many articles on individual characters, etc. When you have a red link, one of the things you can do is go to it, then click on "What Links Here". For instance, if you go to New York Journal, you'll find there are already four other articles linking to it. You could start an article on the New York Journal itself simply by grabbing some of the information from those pages that refer to it. That, as the edit summary says, is the way Wikipedia grows. It is the opposite of vandalism for Gamaliel to put them in. They should stay.Ortolan88 04:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "stupid" remark came from an anonymous user whose edits [1] seem somewhat similar to yours [2]. - dcljr 05:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For what its worth I got this lovely message on my talk page: "You ruined the entire Rube Goldberg page on this website you ignorant lutefisk. What do you think you are doing? You made every single thing a link that there is no link directing to anywhere else. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? NOW I HAVE TO SPEND ALL MY TIME FIXING IT YOU STUPID SON OF A BITCH!" [3] What fun.

I put the links there for the precisely the reason that Ortolan88 states. I feel that everything I linked to would make a good article and I plan on filling in some of those links myself in the very near future. In reference to the edit summary "There is no chance that there could be a page on Mike and Ike, Boob McNutt, Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, or others," I obviously disagree. At the top of my immediate to do list are articles on a couple of Goldberg's individual strips, including the very ones mentioned in that edit summary. (You can see from my user page I've created many comic strip articles.) I'd also like to get into creating articles on now-defunct newspapers, though this is a long term thing as I'm still searching for appropriate reference works on the subject I can study.

I can understand removing red links to things that will probably never become articles, but having red links to articles that will probably exist in the future is how wikipedia is designed. If you think there is a flaw in the design of wikipedia which might confuse readers, then Village Pump is the place to start a campaign for a change, not here. Gamaliel 17:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I guess we're all still waiting for those articles on Mike and Ike, Boob McNutt, Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, and others that were "ON TOP" of your "IMMEDIATE TO DO LIST" almost 7 months ago. I'd hate to be at the bottom of your to do list. - Anonymous, 19:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You caught me. I'll have to leave Wikipedia in shame because I never finished my Boob McNutt article. Damn you for exposing my secret. Gamaliel 01:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that you shouldn't have made it a link in the first place. It's quite obvious that you weren't going to make a Boob McNutt article because there really isn't an article to be written. - Anonymous, 13:26, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to month nine of this ridiculous argument. Gamaliel 8 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)

Behold, the Boob McNutt article. Perhaps you can move on with your life now. Gamaliel 8 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)

What a great article!!!!! Congrats!!!! Good luck with the Mike and Ike, Foolish Questions, Lala Palooza, The Weekly Meeting of the Tuesday Women's Club, Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, and the others that were AT THE TOP OF YOUR LIST and NEEDED to be made into articles. It was your IMMEDIATE TO DO LIST!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOOD LUCK!!! - Anonymous, 16 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

Ooooops, looks like you forgot to log out this time Equilibrium. Gamaliel 04:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't forget anything, I just don't know how exactly to put in my username. I do want to wish you good luck with your endeavors on your IMMEDIATE TO DO LIST!!! So again, I wish you good luck! - Equilibrium

You can sign your posts with four tildes. The tilde is the little squiggly thing which is probably on the upper left hand side of your keyboard. Remember to type it four times. Gamaliel 15:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, now good luck. :) - Equilibrium 18:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is one of the most famous cartoonists in history

" He is one of the most famous cartoonists in history". Is this NPOV? Alan Liefting 6 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)