Revision as of 12:06, 7 July 2008

Archives

August 2006 to December 31, 2007 January to March 2008 April 2008 —

GTA IV violence

I am attempting to build consensus about the "Pre-launch violence" section in the Grand Theft Auto IV article. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion -- JediLofty 10:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Plot summaries

I would actively welcome your participation in this page so that we can attempt to establish an inclusive consensus. I would also welcome the views of anyone else you know of who do not believe their views are adequately represented. Thanks, Hiding T 12:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment on the talk page, but I'd like to ask here as well if you'd be interested in writing up a section at Misplaced Pages:Plot summaries on what we should do with articles that consist solely of plot summary. Hiding T 10:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

You've changed three redirects to point towards Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I do not like it instead of their correct targets. Please do not do this. Firstly, it makes the shortcut inconsistent with the documentation at the (correct) target page, and secondly, people often memorise the shortcut, and rightly expect it to point towards the appropriate page. If you disagree with people who use these shortcuts, then state your concerns; don't disrupt the discussion by trying to undermine their arguments. I've reverted your edits. Jakew (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please look at where WP:ITSCRUFT redirects to. It follows that any variation of ITSCRUFT should redirect to the same location. --Pixelface (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface, there are many WP shortcuts, and there is no particular reason why vaguely similar shortcuts need to point towards the same location. They each have their own purpose. You need to consider why people use these shortcuts. When people type WP:ITSCRUFT it's a shorthand way of saying "I think 'it's cruft' is not a valid argument for these reasons". But when people type WP:GAMECRUFT (for example) it's a shorthand way of saying something "I think this material goes beyond the scope of WP's coverage, as explained at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information". And it's very unlikely that one would ever type one while meaning the other.

The problem is that, by changing the shortcuts, you're changing the apparent meaning of people's arguments. It's like going through an AfD and actually editing other people's rationales. Jakew (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If saying something is "cruft" is not a valid reason for deletion, neither is any variation of "this is cruft" — be it "gamecruft", "listcruft", etc. If someone wants to say "I think this material goes beyond the scope of WP's coverage, as explained at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information." then they should say that. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information doesn't even contain the word "cruft". I'm not changing the meaning of people's arguments. If someone says "this is gamecruft", they are saying "this is cruft" — which is just another way of saying "I don't like it." --Pixelface (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface, when you type WP:ITSCRUFT, are you actually saying that you think that something is cruft? I very much doubt it. What you're actually saying is something along the lines of "here is a link to an essay that explains a viewpoint that I wish to express." There's a lot more information in the link than the name of the shortcut itself.

Similarly, if someone types WP:GAMECRUFT, they aren't simply saying "this is cruft about a game". Just like the person citing WP:ITSCRUFT, they're providing a concise link to an in-depth explanation of their argument.

Now, if you read the last paragraph of WP:ITSCRUFT, you'll see that it reads as follows:

Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Misplaced Pages. "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it is cruft.

So, in linking to WP:GAMECRUFT or whatever, editors are actually giving more information than simply saying "cruft": they're explaining (in shorthand) their rationale. Jakew (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your note on the article guidelines page

Hey there,

From your note on WT:VG/GL regarding some edits of mine in 2007, I gather you may have some questions to ask me. Feel free to post some questions on my talk page, and I'll answer them as soon as possible. User:Krator (t c) 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. Regarding your comment, on the issue of consensus judging, I actually thought we had achieved consensus at Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV on the issue of leaving it with "Eastern European", which is why I stated at "List of..." that consensus was reached. Perhaps I should've pointed them to the consensus, as not everyone is up-to-speed on all talk pages at all times. Anyhow, I've considered your statement and I will ensure that I look at all sides of a debate before making a determination with regards to consensus. Your suggestions about including all sources (both "Eastern European gray-area" and "Serbian" and contrasting them) also made a lot of sense. There were some other issues at my RFA, which I've examined here. Your comments are welcome. There's also some templated rfa thank-spam below. happy editing, xenocidic (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Standards

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. It was last substantively updated 14 August 2008. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. It was last substantively updated 14 August 2008.

My RFA standards are still being refined, but I rarely base my support on arbitrary cut-offs like number of edits, or length of time editing. More often I will attempt to determine the clue level of a candidate. If high levels of clue are present, they will earn my support, regardless of whether or not they have 5000 non-huggle edits and 6 months of regular activity. This is based on a fairly brief review of their contributions, moreso on their answers to the questions. I have an optional question that I often pose to candidates that helps with this.

Self-noms and the acceptance line

• Neglecting to follow the bolded instruction #6 to delete the acceptance line in the self-nomination instructions will cause me to register a neutral unless a preponderance of clue has already been detected.
• I do this because it is a fairly simple and easy instruction to follow. Not following it is (in my opinion) indicative of a deeper tendency to not thoroughly read and follow instructions generally. Adminship is no big deal, but applying for adminship is. The fact that a candidate hasn't fully versed themselves in the process of RFA prior to jumping in doesn't build confidence that they will accurately follow guidelines and policies in applying administrative actions.
• An example of how this could apply to a real-world admin situation: When blocking for an inappropriate username, it is customary to uncheck the "Prevent account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used" boxes. However, an admin who doesn't thoroughly follow instructions might not do this and as such Misplaced Pages could lose an otherwise constructive contributor.
• One user has mentioned that leaving this line in could be justified by ignore all rules. Quite frankly, I disagree. There is no good reason to ignore this rule, and following it is painless. Attention to detail is a quality I value in an administrator.
• As I mentioned, leaving this line in isn't always a deal breaker and if the candidate's actions indicate to me that this oversight is an anomaly, I may change to, or otherwise support. Furthermore, if they remove the line using only a herring, I will most certainly lend my support, though I may ask that they first bring me a shrubbery.

Participation

1. Thingg - nom, support (69/32/4)
2. WBOSITG 2 - support (114/10/4)
3. Zginder - neutral became moral support in the neutral column and then oppose (8/34/9)
4. Ro098 - oppose (0/3/0)
5. Jbmurray - support (161/1/2)
6. Vivio Testarossa - oppose (8/25/7)
7. Bluegoblin7 - neutral (6/13/10)
8. Guest9999 - support (48/31/4)
9. Paulyb - oppose (0/4/0)
10. Strennman - oppose (0/6/0)
11. Tyw7 - oppose (with moral support) (0/1/0)

    Tyw7 2 - oppose, switched to strong oppose (3/14/1)

12. Xenocidic - candidate (72/13/2)
13. InDeBiz1 - moral support (5/15/2)
14. Useight (RFB) - support (28/16/6)
15. Tinkleheimer - moral support (15/16/8)
16. Ironholds - oppose (12/24/10)
17. Kevin - neutral, switched to support (54/2/0)
18. Pinkville - support (54/0/1)
19. Ali'i - weak support (70/55/14)
20. Cenarium - support (42/2/2)
21. Soxred93 3 - neutral, switched to support (87/7/3)
22. Avruch - support (104/35/10)
23. Cedarvale1965-08 - oppose (0/2/0)
24. Karanacs - support (119/4/3)
25. Plyhmrp - oppose (0/4/0)
26. SarekOfVulcan - support (76/11/2)
27. Golich17 - support (19/36/11)
28. Headbomb - support (17/38/11)
29. oren0 - support (67/21/13)
30. Ryan - support (17/36/2)
31. EricV89 - support (13/43/9)
32. Frank - support (59/11/4)
33. Masterpiece2000 - neutral (10/19/3)
34. JeanLatore - neutral (0/12/1)

    JeanLatore 2 - oppose (0/6/0)

35. RyanLupin 2 - support (32/28/4)
36. Blakegripling ph - support (9/30/9)
37. Lomn - support (54/1/1)
38. Shoessss 2 - support (23/26/7)
39. Tanner-Christopher 2 - support (64/3/4)
40. the demonhog 2 - support (100/1/1)
41. TomStar 81 3 - support (80/18/2)
42. Cailil - support (66/8/5)
43. Lady Aleena 2 - neutral, switched to oppose (28/31/10)
44. Red Phoenix - support (13/7/2)
45. No longer updating, see my RFA participation report

Optional question

Thanks

Thank you for your support

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Misplaced Pages as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of my RFA

Wikiquette alert

I have opened a Wikiquette alert for your behavior in the WP:FICT discussion. Please understand that I respect your opinion of how fiction should be handled and am trying to work with everyone involved to resolve this; that is not the point of this WQA. Instead, I believe your commenting approach is souring the discussion as it is very defensive and aggressive and falls into uncivil behavior, as I commented on previously. However, if the community doesn't believe that is the case, then I preemptively apologize for bringing this up to that board. I'm trying to find a solution here that works for Misplaced Pages and everyone involved, and that means calm and rationale discussion instead of what I feel you are providing. --MASEM 03:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal basically seeks to wipe out millions of hours of volunteer work via a remote corner of Misplaced Pages, so if my responses seem defensive, I hope you can understand. And considering the sheer size of the Oppose section and all of the comments from aggresive supporters that people have to deal with in the Oppose section in comparison to the Support section, I hope you can understand. You may want to consider whether all of your replies to people in the Oppose section and your repeated mention of "derivative works" is souring the discussion. Thank you for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Brevity

Hey there Pixelface. I have taken a look at the Wikiquette alert referenced above. Now, I for one have stopped participating in policy discussions altogether because I find them impossible to abide. So, I can't really comment on whether Masem's concerns are valid or not.

However, what I can say with certainty is that I think you would communicate your message better if you used shorter posts, ideally with more paragraph breaks. You may be interested in WP:TLDR. You may find that your message is more effective and received much more readily if you try to abide by these points. I know it's difficult; I tend to be very verbose myself :)

Anyway, just a suggestion. As I've said, I have no comment on the Wikiquette alert either way. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Another editor has previously told me similar points about my long comments and lack of paragraph breaks so I will take your note into consideration. --Pixelface (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal on Wikiquette alert

Pixelface -- please take a look at WP:WQA#WT:FICT compromise proposal, which I believe would address Masem's concern and allow us to put this issue behind us. (I also incidentally think it could make your arguments more effective) Let me know what you think. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This question

Hello! A couple of quick things: 1) we actually have 7 million editors? Wow! 2) I think it should be standard to notify all article creators and contributors of AfDs and DRVs, not simply a courtesy. 3) As you can see at this somewhat mind boggling ongoing discussion, some do indeed aggresively challenge you, I, and others about whether the plot section is disputed. I wonder if there would be a non-canvassing way to request that those who edit plot sections voice their opinions in the policy discussions in order to gain a more decisive consensus one war or the other? When I see comments like this posted in AfDs, I am not convinced that it's really just a couple of editors in any given discussion who dispute the sections under question, but a larger disagreement (lack of consensus) among the community? And as a general aside, I just don't see why so much focus on what Misplaced Pages is not rather than on building what Misplaced Pages is. And the way in which some assert that some articles are hopeless and cannot be improved is somewhat disquieting. Take this fictional character's article. Notice the lack of sources and context, i.e. in a state that surely some would use as cause for deletion if given the opportunity. Now look at the article after I did a search on a log on university search engine, i.e. something other than Google. No way would it possibly fail an AfD now. And it hardly took that much of my time to do, albeit it did require searching beyond Google. And there were even more sources (see Talk:Jim (Huckleberry Finn)) available than I used at the time. I just wish we could somehow encourage greater help in these efforts. I don't wish to "make enemies" or "get people banned" with whom I disagree. I really hope that all of us on the various sides of these discussions can coexist if not cooperate better and I really believe that what could help would be if more of the larger community were to chime in on these discussions as I at times feel like I don't know how many more times I can say certain things and I'm sure those with whom you and I usually disagree may even feel the same. Anyway, have a nice night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 08:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, but the sentence shows up as "Áö³­ 1¿ù Áß±¹¿¡ ¼öÃâµÈ '¿¡À̽º ¿Â¶óÀÎ'Àº Áö³­ 9¿ùºÎÅÍ °ø°³¼­ºñ½º ¸¦ ÁøÇàÇÏ¸ç µ¿½ÃÁ¢¼ÓÀÚ 2¸¸¸íÀ» ±â·ÏÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù". But if you haven't got it all ready translated, you may want to send an email to jimmy0704@naver.com.(no spams, please)Jimmy0704 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation

It seems to mean this; Ace Online, which was exported to China on last January, provided open service since last September, and has had 20000 simultaneous players playing the game at a single moment. If you are not sure about a part of my translation, just tell me.Jimmy0704 (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You may want to be aware of this discussion in NOTE

There is currently an active discussion in WT:NOTE here regarding if there was a proposed rewrite of NOTE, what would people want to see. Knowing your stance on fiction topics, you may want to add your two cents here (I'm trying to make sure to note that there people that want inclusion of fiction in WP but right now that side is not well represented). --MASEM 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. --Pixelface (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Dorftrottel

The above has been started by a user with whom you were apparently in dispute and so you may wish to comment there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts

You seem to be documenting the history of notability, which means documenting some of the things I did. Let me try and explain some things if I can. this edit was made because I'd seen, um, WP:CORP, which by the way, heavily influenced my rewrite of WP:WEB, in January of 2006. That's when WP:WEB came to cover all web content. So then the phrase became inserted into most of the notability guidance. Back then I never really imagined it would become what it did become. Misplaced Pages was smaller, a lot smaller, and it didn't seem that important, after all, if I could just make this stuff up, anyone could just change it at a later date if they liked. That was the way we worked. Mea culpa. The staggering thing to me, is that words I wrote have become, I really don't know how to put this, but they appear to have become almost religiously followed, raised to some sort of biblical meaning that I just never intended. If I had my time again, I would never have done any of it, but it is too late now. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Also, you mention wanting to see the history of UGOPlayer. I've transwiki'd the page to ] so you can have a look. It was never my idea to equate notability with reliable sources, that's an old idea, that's an academic standard. Uncle G is, to my mind, the biggest proponent on Misplaced Pages. I tended to follow the thinking to a certain degree, but I've always had doubts as to how far it has extended. I was looking to guard against creating articles on everything. On you, on me, on the pencil on my table. I should not have worried, and should have trusted common sense. I apologise. I certainly agree with what I have written in my essay. Notability is subjective. Hiding T 12:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)