| Revision as of 21:50, 26 May 2008 view sourceA Nobody (talk | contribs)53,000 edits added← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:53, 26 May 2008 view source Randomran (talk | contribs)9,686 edits →AFDsNext edit → | ||
| Line 308: | Line 308: | ||
| :::::::::::::::If you are indeed after trying to reach consensus, then please be sure to follow this aspect of the AfD instructions regarding the nominating process: "it is generally considered courteous to notify the ] creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Also consider notifying ] listed on the discussion page. Do not notify ] or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the ] or ] of the article and/or use . For your convenience, you may use <nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:]|''Article title''<nowiki>}} ~~~~</nowiki> (for creators who are totally new users), <nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:]|''Article title''<nowiki>}} ~~~~</nowiki> (for creators), or <nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:]|''Article title''<nowiki>}} ~~~~</nowiki> (for contributors or established users). You can determine the main contributors of the articles by entering the page name at " I do not believe you did so for ] or ]. In the first case, you should notify and the same . Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | :::::::::::::::If you are indeed after trying to reach consensus, then please be sure to follow this aspect of the AfD instructions regarding the nominating process: "it is generally considered courteous to notify the ] creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Also consider notifying ] listed on the discussion page. Do not notify ] or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the ] or ] of the article and/or use . For your convenience, you may use <nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:]|''Article title''<nowiki>}} ~~~~</nowiki> (for creators who are totally new users), <nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:]|''Article title''<nowiki>}} ~~~~</nowiki> (for creators), or <nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:]|''Article title''<nowiki>}} ~~~~</nowiki> (for contributors or established users). You can determine the main contributors of the articles by entering the page name at " I do not believe you did so for ] or ]. In the first case, you should notify and the same . Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Fair enough, but contacting the article's creator can be nearly worthless if the article was created a long time ago and the creator appears to have left. If I'm less than courteous, it's because I'm trying to be efficient with my time. I've found that it's usually much more productive and efficient to tag an article and leave it there for a few months. That way the numerous editors who see the article can see how to improve the article. I wouldn't nominate an AFD without any kind of warning. It's unfortunate if some people are even less courteous, but that's beyond my control. ] (]) 21:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == I award you... == | == I award you... == | ||
Revision as of 21:53, 26 May 2008
 | A Nobody is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated. |
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A_Nobody. |
Welcome to my talk page! Please be sure to make all posts civil and constructive, as I'll revert anything I deem to be vandalism. Also, let us try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles My Talk Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
References
VG Newsletter
| The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games Newsletter | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||
The WPVG Newsletter (May 2008)
| The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||
References
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (2nd nomination)
Could you please review your comments on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (2nd nomination). I replied to your Keep "vote", but you have not responded. Keep in mind that the article has no secondary sources, so it cannot satisfy certain policies. — Parent5446 11:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Request
Please remove the phrase "Deletion gestapo" from your userpage. It is insulting, both to the editors you work with and to people who have suffered under the real Gestapo. Far from being a neutral term, Gestapo is very negative, and is an unnecessarily personal attack against those you would apply it to. I would suggest that you replace the term with "deletionist". Graevemoore (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- While I am willing to remove that red link from my list of essays, there is something to be said about history showing us that efforts to limit or stifle knowledge are simply neither good things nor consistent with encyclopedic tradition and as others have identified, "deletionist" is not really a neutral or positive term either. Nevertheless, there are those who identify as deletionists who indeed mean well and are good faith contributors; however, there are others who are in fact single-purpose deletion only accounts that are in effect a form of vandals and who do not really care about their fellow editors (I have successfully identified a number of these such accounts to belong to multiple sockfarms; and I and indeed others have been targetted by some off-wiki, which I'll leave at that). There is a difference between someone identifying as a deletionist, but who is also objective, open-minded, argues to keep articles every so often, and also builds articles and someone who does nothing but deletes or attempts to get deleted articles largely for "I don't like it" non-reasons. As a historian, I believe it is responsible to remember those who did indeed suffer under the persecution of such nefarious groups as the Gestapo by opposing any signs of similar behavior no matter how minor they may seem to some or even if these trends are not exhibited by those who believe what they are doing is wrong. Moreover, Misplaced Pages and its contributors are unfortunately not limited to the project space; editors have been quite literally harassed outside of Misplaced Pages, have indeed had violence threatened against them, and in some incidents have even had rival editors show up at places or work, post personal information on attack websites, etc. Some take editing beyond the project and I do not think such behavior is not really different from tactics used by historic fanatics. What else should we call those who wish to stfile knowledge, harass editors in the real world, and post on what can in effect be described as propaganda attack sites? And again, this refers only to those who do all of those things and not to the larger group of editors who refer to themselves as deletionists, but are in fact constructive and nice (yes, I list some deletionists on my list of nice Wikipedians). And for what it is worth, that link was not my term, but linked to an essay someone else wrote and which is now deleted (ironically enough). I would hope at the same time that editors with whom I work will not insult their fellow contributors by attempting to unnecessarily and biasedly squelch their contributions to this compendium of human knowledge. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please remove the userbox as well. Graevemoore (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks!
|
RfA: Many thanks | |
| Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
- You're welcome and congratulations! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks again! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Best wishes! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks again! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/M41A pulse rifle
Hello - seeing that you commented on this AfD, could I have you give it another look?
I have two main problems with the process in this case. First off, the nominator removed/redirected all the links to these articles in the AfD BEFORE the AfD was decided. I think this is problematic.
Secondly, he lumped all of them together in one AfD, even though many of the articles have quite a bit of content in them, which makes me feel this, again, is inappropriate. This also causes an associated problem, because I have now been doing quite a bit of work on Sulaco (spaceship) in response to noticing the AfD, and feel that it has enough references and shows enough notability to stand on its own.
So as above, could you be so kind and look at the discussion again? Ingolfson (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hello! I have made an additional comment there. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A little unfair?
Hi LGRdC,
In my opinion, you're being rather unfair in this comment, particularly when you say 'many instances in which the articles nominated or argued to be deleted were in fact kept does not really looke like "good AfD participation"'.
To show you why, I had a brief look through your own recent contributions, in order to compare outcomes with your !votes. Before I became too bored to continue, I found the following AfDs:
- deleted (keep)
- deleted (strong keep)
- deleted (keep)
- deleted (delete)
- no consensus (keep)
- merge (keep)
- deleted (delete)
- merged (keep)
- deleted (merge)
- deleted (keep)
- deleted (keep)
Of these eleven AfDs, your position differed from the final outcome in six cases, or 55% of the total. Does that mean that your own participation in AfDs is not good? Not worthwhile? I don't think so. I think your participation is a valuable part of the consensus-building process, whether or not consensus eventually agrees with you. But applying your own argument, it isn't valuable.
I just thought I'd share my thoughts, and hope you won't be offended. Jakew (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, I am not offended as I welcome honest criticism and suggestions. The difference is that I have argued to delete a bit more regularly, even though I am an inclusionist and in many instances where I argued to keep and the article was deleted, I am not necessarily convinced that the closing decision was correct. Two others argued convincingly to keep in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien). The reasons for deleting ranged from the "per nom" argument to avoid to saying it fails the consensus lacking fiction shortcut that says "references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." As ofr the Avatar Characters one, it's under review. Two others argued to keep the list of songs article. User:TallNapoleon, a deletionist, said to redirect the energy ball. An editor wanted to keep the Watercraft article per my reasoning (in fact, no one argued to delete after I posted there, so no one actually discounted my argument). The claims to delete there were not really policy based either, calling it "fancruft", "per above," not interesting, and unencyclopedic are all subjective. Same thing for the Star Ocean locations. Two others argued to merge and the deletes were essentially "per nom" and "it's cruft." In any event, EVERY article that I have ever argued to delete was in fact deleted as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions (those redirected were redirections created after the deletions). My concern as indicated in my statement in the RfA deals a lot with the mass nominations of articles. Fictional characters and other topics vary considerably in regards to their notability and coverage in sources. Mario is a bit different from say random villain in one game. And I saw in some of those mass nominations that linked to in the RfA problematic mass nominations. I also saw limited instances in which the candidate argued to keep. Sure I argue to keep more than I argue to delete, but I have argued to delete and even nominated to delete over two dozen times. I could not find anywhere near as many keeps from the candidate (I looked through practically every edit to check). While we may not have a quota, I think admins need to demonstrate more objectivity. I am not running as an admin. Several editors offered to nominate me, but I declined these offers. Nor do I really see myself closing discussions. So, it's not so much about how he or I argues in the discussions, but about how he is likely to close discussions and delete articles. The only thing we can really go on is looking at what he nominates and how he argues. If there seems to be a bias against lists and fiction related articles or an unbalanced focus on deletion, I am concerned that editors will be able to with good reason challenge and question controversial closures. It would be one thing if he wants to be an admin to block vandals and there I would probably not oppose, but he says in his first sentence in response to the first question that he wants to close AfDs. Now take Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wade Load. Overwhelming consensus to keep or merge. The deletes came from an editor who has a request for comment on aggresive deletionism and another who said it's his "mission" and "goal" to delete articles and after being blocked declared that he would NEVER argue to keep. In any event, just consider the characters nominated. You go from Kim Possible's main rivals Dr. Drakken and Shego who appear in video games, toys, etc. to far less notable characters. Why consider all at once? Another mass nomination with overwhelming consensus to keep is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008. He very well may be acting in good faith and attempts to back up his rationales with links to policy pages, but again, look at the shear weight of the keep arguments in the discussion. In those you linked to above in which I participated and they closed a different way than I argued, there were hardly that decisive amount of deletes. In any event, I think there is a tremendous difference in say me arguing to keep some articles that ended up deleted versus starting the actual discussions in which editors overwhelmingly argued to keep. I see a lot of time that could have been spent improving those or other articles per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, LGRdC. It's true that you're not running for adminship, and obviously you must apply your own RfA standards. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to argue with your standards, though I respectfully disagree. I had hoped that you might consider rephrasing one of your comments in order to be less unkind to the candidate, but obviously this is your decision, not mine. I appreciate your clarification of your position. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am always happy to clarify my positions and you are welcome to link to our discussion on my talk page at the RfA in an appropriate place should you think that anyone else find our discussion here helpful. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
 Issue XVII — May 18, 2008 |
|---|
Project News
The number of stub articles has decreased to its lowest level since the project began its focus on improving them. The goal is to get the number below 600, and we're getting close. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve.
|
Member News
The article collaborations for May 11 through May 24 are Chris Benoit double murder and suicide and John Layfield. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Misplaced Pages professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, May 25.
Contributors to this Issue:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
My recent RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Misplaced Pages namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· /Cont 06:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome, congratulations, and best of luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Per your request for merging
I have userfied Cassie Keller. It can be found at the link User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Cassie Keller. Have a great day, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
RFA
I would like to nominate you for adminship. It's been a little less than a year since your unblock, and I am sure that you're ready. I saw from your "Account history" section that you have received nomination offers and turned them down, but I had to ask anyway. Malinaccier (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind, flattering, and encouraging offer. While I may reconsider in the future, I still must regretfully decline at this time. Others have suggested that I wait at least a year since being unblocked, which would mean sometime in July, although maybe a symbolic time in October (my user name means that I am the Great Pumpkin King) might bode well. In any event, it is probably best that I respect their advice. Thank you, though. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I look forward to your RFA in the future! Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks and have a great week! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I look forward to your RFA in the future! Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Pie Chart
Sure, I'll gladly create a pie chart for you. Just provide me with the data. Or if you prefer, I can show you how I made it in the first place. — C M B J 03:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you're willing, perhaps something that uses the information from that page I linked to that indicates percentages of my keep versus delete versus merge arguments in AfDs and/or of the ratio of my arguments versus closures. Incidentally, while on one hand the pie chart to some extent focuses on the AfD as if it were a vote, which it is not, but I still thought that cool that you took the time to make such an extra effort in the discussion. By the way, had I noticed that AfD, I would have argued to keep. Anyway, thanks! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Please evaluate my AfD work
I like how, whenever anyone runs for RfA, you dig up every AfD they've participated in and list instances where they made poor arguments, or nominated an article that was ultimately kept. I was wondering if you would be so kind as to perform a similarly thorough critique of my AfD work. I can't remember most of the things I voted on; I'm not interested in adminship (and have rejected calls for me to run), but I'd still like to know how my AfD work stacks up against fellow deletionists you keep opposing.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hello! Sure, I am happy to provide some feedback; however, I will comment only on your edits, i.e. not compare them with others by name as directly comparing them to specific other accounts could be rude to them. Anyway...
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series - You start out with a more thoroughly written and properly sentence structured response than some of the other deletes there that includes some suggestions at least, but I would avoid Misplaced Pages:ALLORNOTHING comments like "nuke 'em all". Moreover, "no one cares what I say" seems a bit harsh. For what it's worth, I care what everyone has to say in these discussions even those I disagree with. I don't think the editor accused of canvassing was acting in bad faith. So many of these AfDs only have a handful or half a dozen odd editors who participate in them (with ones like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination) being an obvious exception) that it is somewhat refreshing when more engage in the discussion so that we can come closer to a real consensus. You later write about "poorly reasoned votes" and about someone you say "just voted twice". AfD is a discussion and not a vote. Otherwise, you do at least approach it as a discussion, i.e. you didn't simply tack on a "per nom" never to revisit the discussion. When you suggest at the end that the user read the Five pillars or NOT, you should be more specific, because for one thing, NOT is edited frequently sometimes with non-consensus edits and so someone can go to that page when it happens to be a non neutral POV or vandalized version and not get the point you're making. And with the Five pillars, someone can go there and say, well the First pillar says Misplaced Pages is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs and interpret that phrase alone to mean a fairly broad inclusive criteria.
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination) - the consensus was fairly overwhelming to keep in this one. In an instance where editors should "start afresh", they can be BOLD and drastically rewrite the article without having to delete public contribution history.
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination) - here's one of those unusual AfDs in which many Wikipedians participated. It's also a case in which I actually argued to delete (and I got emails requesting I change to keep, which I did not do). In any event, even though in this instance and unlike the above, I argued to delete, whereas you argued to keep, I think your keep argument is well worded and reasonably convincing. Yes, the AfD closed as delete, but your comments about the article are reasonable here. I would suggest perhaps staying focused on the article and not commenting on others in the discussion. For civility concerns, those can be expressed on the user's talk page or as a direct reply to whereever they made the questionable edit.
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture - well, no disagreement here as you acknowledge the efforts to improve the article during the discussion rather than taking the approach of some that if it has "in popular culture" in its title it somehow must automatically be deleted. And I agree with the problem of not just TRIVIA, but other guidelines as well that are totally contradictory and confusing. There are times where it is nice that not all rules are written in stone, but there are other times when the guideline and policies pages are edited so frequently and sometimes significantly that they might even change during the course of any given AfD so God help the closing admin decide which version of the policy or guideline matters as the version at time of close might having crucial wording changes from when those discussing cited it during the course of the AfD.
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction - given the improvements during the discussion, it would have been helpful to have commented on whether or not they convinced you. Looking at the article again myself, I think it should be expanded further.
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats (2nd nomination) - even though the article was deleted previously, consensus can change, unfortunately for me and my arguments, apparently the majority disagreed with me there, although most of their comments "silly," "per nom", "get real!", etc. are largely unconstructive "votes" rather than arguments. I would avoid calling the article garbage if it's likely to have been created in good faith as that can insult the article's creator. Hoaxes or liberlous articles can probably be called "garbage" with few complaining, but you can comment on it being unsourced without possibly offending its creator.
Anyway, if you notice in some of those above in which I argued to keep, I also spent a good deal of time looking for sources and improving the articles during the discussions. In the RfAs, my issues with some are usually when I see accounts trying to get articles deleted that can be improved as many keep closures reflect instead of doing what was needed for the article to be kept. I think a lot of time is wasted trying to delete articles instead of trying to improve them. Of course as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, I do think plenty of articles are in fact relatively hopeless. I hope the above helps. If I were to use the above as if it were in an RfA, I suppose I would probably be in a neutral category. I obviously disagree in some instances, but in others we agreed and even in some where we disagreed, you seemed reasonable, so based on the above, I don't think I would have opposed a hypothetical RfA, but I probably would have been neutral. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Online
Are you available now? I need to speak to you about something. Rudget (Help?) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I am. What's up? If you'd rather not say on-wiki with regards to whatever it may be, please don't hesitate to send me an email. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I'll send an email. Rudget (Help?) 10:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll check momemntarily. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I'll send an email. Rudget (Help?) 10:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
I stole your idea. Thanks. MrPrada (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cool! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Hey Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. I appreciate your trust. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome and have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Eryian sock
You might want to have a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khalida Neferher, which he started and got deleted, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Order of Mata Nui, which he voted and got deleted, and anything else you see worth looking at. BOZ (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hello! I already started a couple DRVs on AfDs that he participated in after first communicating with the deleting admins. I am awaiting replies on the ones you listed above. I hope all is well with you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Not connected, but we could use some help here too: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mathemanic. Same user has nominated others as well. BOZ (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Merci...
beaucoup, O Grand roi, pour votre appuie dans mon RFA. I will do my best to ensure that it isn't misplaced! --Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- De rien et bonne chance! Sincerement, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
AFDs
Read this version of the article guidelines from 2007 and understand that you've crossed a line. You're always entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts. I'm assuming good faith and chalking your recent comments on the AFDs to a misunderstanding. Try your best not to let this mistake happen again, as it is incredibly misleading to other editors. Randomran (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you did add that bit about the weapons right before nominating weapons related articles that was not in the same version. If anything, a disputed tag needs to be added to the guideline as it clearly lacks consensus. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Click on the link. Do you see the part about "The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game." That's been the policy since 2007. I didn't add anything but a summary. Do you understand? Randomran (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Which does not say "All weapons in every game are never relevant." The problem is that the GUIDELINE, not policy, that states on its top: "it is not set in stone" lacks actual consensus. The real consensus that matters is that of the hundreds if not thousands of editors who in good faith made video game weapons articles and continue to work on them. A minority of our community not liking those articles does not reflect actual consensus and as even the guideline itself says is "not set in stone" and even includes the key word of "exception" at top as well. Military themed games or games that have weapons in their actual titles are indeed such exceptions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right, and I never said "all weapons in every game are never relevant." Of course there are exceptions. That's not my issue. My issue is that you're saying this guideline is something I personally invented yesterday. Was that a mistake, or a lie? I'm asking you directly. Randomran (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am saying that you personally inserted "weapons" into that one particular line, which you did in fact do. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, you said I added the "section". Three separate times. The section has been there since 2007. Are you going to keep saying that I added this section, or are you going to admit that this guideline has been there since 2007? Randomran (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I meant "word" (I am getting over a pretty intense head cold this weekend, so I may have had the occasional typo); the larger problem is that you nominated some weapons articles for deletion based on reasoning that does not uniformly apply, especially the Soul Calibur ones that exist beyond appearances in the video games. Plus, the guideline itself has been edited constantly since 2007 in such a manner (including accusations of revert warring and other disputed edits) that suggests it really does not have definitive consensus. Something that "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" should not be used as a rationale for something as decisive as deletion of non-copy vio and non-hoax articles that in even an extreme worst case scenario could be merged and/or redirected. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Like I said, you're always entitled to your opinion and AFD discussions are where these opinions collide. Go ahead and say you don't like the guideline, that you don't like deleting articles created in good faith, that an article constitutes an exception to a policy or guideline. But don't misrepresent the facts. The guideline about (generally) excluding lists of weapons and items has been there much longer than I've been around to see it. If you want to say that this guideline doesn't have actual consensus, that's another good discussion to have. But please don't act like a single editor just created it last week. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a matter of simply not liking the guideline, it is that it does not reflect consensus as practised. The facts are that the guideline has been edited constantly since its creation and I only pointed out that you recently expanded that section to more explicitly include the word "weapons" last week and before nominating a number of articles for deletion that should not be deleted. Maybe merged, maybe redirect, but certainly not deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Like I said, the word "weapons" was already included before I got there. My edits have strictly been for clarity. Otherwise, nothing else you said is actually false. But I can disagree with you. And so let's keep our discussion to honest disagreement from now on, rather than falsehoods. Randomran (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, please do not disagree with me based on falsehoods as I prefer honest discussions. By the way, Happy Memorail Day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Like I said, the word "weapons" was already included before I got there. My edits have strictly been for clarity. Otherwise, nothing else you said is actually false. But I can disagree with you. And so let's keep our discussion to honest disagreement from now on, rather than falsehoods. Randomran (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry about me. I may be opinionated, but I'm not a liar. Looking forward to further honest disagreement. Randomran (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wonder though if all this time spent disagreeing is wasted, i.e. would be better spent working together to improve and reference articles? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry about me. I may be opinionated, but I'm not a liar. Looking forward to further honest disagreement. Randomran (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do spend time improving and referencing articles. I also tag untagged articles to suggest that they need improvement. And of course, I participate in AFDs to save good or potentially good articles, and delete the rest. I think disagreement can be productive as well, even with a minority or single opinion, as it can be used to reinforce established consensus. Randomran (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you are indeed after trying to reach consensus, then please be sure to follow this aspect of the AfD instructions regarding the nominating process: "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Also consider notifying WikiProjects listed on the discussion page. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} ~~~~ (for contributors or established users). You can determine the main contributors of the articles by entering the page name at Misplaced Pages Page History Statistics." I do not believe you did so for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Superweapons of Ace Combat. In the first case, you should notify any user of IP with more than one edit and the same for here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but contacting the article's creator can be nearly worthless if the article was created a long time ago and the creator appears to have left. If I'm less than courteous, it's because I'm trying to be efficient with my time. I've found that it's usually much more productive and efficient to tag an article and leave it there for a few months. That way the numerous editors who see the article can see how to improve the article. I wouldn't nominate an AFD without any kind of warning. It's unfortunate if some people are even less courteous, but that's beyond my control. Randomran (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I award you...
|
The Socratic Barnstar | |
| I hereby award you the Socratic barnstar for your brilliant— almost scary— excellent arguments in both RfA and AFD. Although I may have disagreed with you in the past, I admittedly realise that you have always come out right in the end and intend to help the project. We need more eminent Wikipedians like you. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 09:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC) |
- Thank you! :) Happy Memorial Day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)