Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:05, 30 January 2008

Cloverfield

I acknowledge that it is not the creature's name per se, but it's how they identify the creature. I cited the relevant passage on the talk page that reflects this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if I understand why you're assuming that it has no actual name just because "creature" is interchangeably used with "Cloverfield". After all, the film's title is Cloverfield, so wouldn't it be possible they'd call it the creature to differentiate it from the film as a whole? I think the Manhattan Project bit is relevant and should be included, but perhaps it needs to be rewritten. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. When he said "per se", it seemed that he was referring to the government classification of Cloverfield, since the Manhattan Project was classified similarly, all secret-like. If you have the relevant references discussing Abrams' intended marketing with no actual name for the creature, I encourage you to include it at the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, then, I concede. :) Perhaps I need to update myself with sources for the film -- I have Google Alerts set up for film headlines, but they only come weekly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That analogy makes sense; I remember being informed when younger that "Frankenstein" wasn't the monster's actual name and thinking, "Wow, when I think about it, a lot of people really don't know about this." Thanks for weighing in about the name/case designate/whatever. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's hope a better source for Abrams' explanation comes up. Alientraveller (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Article for Deletion discussion

It's not a criticism of users who choose to only add "Keep" or "Delete", however as the AfD discussion is not a vote and is a discussion, I am attempting to inform users, who may believe that the AfD is strictly a vote and by putting a majority of "Keep" or "Delete" that majority will be chosen, that the AfD is a discussion and adding only "Keep" or "Delete" does not quite help the administrator on their final decision. Voting is not a part of Misplaced Pages, but discussion is. Saying only one or two words does not constitute as a discussion. Misplaced Pages is not about democracy but about verifiability. Articles should be verifiable, notable, and contain no original research. Even if 90% of users feel an article should be kept, but have no proof of verifiability, notability, and use only original research, the article should not be kept (I am not using Cloverfield (creature) as an example). Also, if users repeat the same points, only in different forms, it is the same as saying that point once. Please, check out Misplaced Pages:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy and Misplaced Pages:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

True (and I have read them), but you seemed to have missed "Misplaced Pages's primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and will not necessarily be treated as binding." from Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, on What Misplaced Pages is Not. In the example you gave, you were speaking of editing which is covered by "Misplaced Pages works by building consensus, generally formed on talk pages or central discussion forums. Polling forms an integral part of several processes, e.g. WP:AFD; in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used." taken from Polling is not a Substitution for Discussion. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than you, I have not received any complaints, nor have any other editors who have done the same thing. I am attempting to help the discussion process along, but informing editors who may believe that it is a democratic poll. I want them, if they don't know, to add to their "Keep" or "Delete" voicing. I won't put it on their talk page, as the information is part of the discussion. I'm not informing people of the "rules", but helping them to see that if they can give more information, their point of view will be better seen by the deciding admin. I understand your point of view, but disagree. Thank you for your time, but I will continue to do things in the attempted helpful way that I have. Have a good day! ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 17:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I have filed a report here regarding your 3RR violations. I'd recommend that you self-revert your most recent edit and take the discussion back to the talk page where it belongs. -- Vary | Talk 02:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating the three reverts rule on Ahmad Zahir, and the article has been semi-protected so only registered users may edit it. You may resume editing after the block expires but continued edit warring (with this account or with anonymous IPs) will result in longer blocks without any further warnings. I strongly suggest you discuss the situation on the talk page instead of reverting; edit summaries are for summarizing edits, not for arguing, and logging out won't help you get your way. Kafziel 03:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)