Misplaced Pages

User talk:A Nobody

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wizardman (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 26 June 2008 (→List of Dragon Quest VIII characters DRV: k). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:45, 26 June 2008 by Wizardman (talk | contribs) (→List of Dragon Quest VIII characters DRV: k)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages.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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

References


VG Newsletter

The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games Newsletter

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume I, No. 1 - April 9, 2008

Archive After

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
Project at a Glance

As of 2008-04-07, the project has:

Featured Articles, Lists, and Topics Candidates and Reviews

Featured Article Candidates

Featured List Candidates

Featured Topic Candidates

  • None

Featured Review

Changes to Featured and Good articles, lists, and topics in March

Promoted FA:

Final Fantasy XI, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Defense of the Ancients, List of Halo media, Giants: Citizen Kabuto, Grim Fandango, Spyro: Year of the Dragon, List of songs in Guitar Hero

Demoted FA:

Metal Gear Solid

Topic:

Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow

Promoted GA:

Grim Fandango, Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Metroid series, SimCity series, Characters of Halo

Demoted GA:

Final Fantasy III, Star Fox 64, Star Fox Adventures

News

Current proposals and discussions

Feature

The Importance of the Lead

The lead is one of the most important parts of any Misplaced Pages article; its job to summarize the article in 2 to 3 paragraphs in order to familiarize the reader with the structure of the content that you will providing them as well as to give a quick one-minute overview of the topic. Many articles that are processed through Good Article or Featured Article assessments will be heavily scrutinized for a poor lead section.

For articles dealing with video games, a common practice has developed for leads, being a 3-paragraph discussion.

First paragraph
The first paragraph should state the name of the game (using both bold (to identify the article's name) and italics as per the manual of style), along with any other alternate names the game may go by. The genre of the game should be clearly identified as well as the developer and the publisher. If a notable person has been cited by the game as having worked on the game's development (such as Tim Schafer or David Jaffe), this should also be noted. Release dates should be given, along with the release of any ports, remakes, or sequels.
Second paragraph
The second paragraph should summarize the plot briefly in one or two sentences; a high level overview is only needed to set the stage for further discussion. One or two sentences should be included to discuss the gameplay, including any notable features of the game.
Third paragraph
The third paragraph should cover the reception of the game, citing its general critical reaction and any significantly notable successful or failing elements in the game. If the game has won awards, this aspect can be noted, but specific mention of any award is discouraged.

This approach should help you to write a good lead for nearly any game, though this may need to be altered for other games. If there's not a lot of reception information for a game, it may be worthwhile to combine the listed first and third paragraphs into one paragraph. There may be need to talk more about an aspect not normally covered in video game articles (such as with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)) which should be noted in the lead.

Things you can help with:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Project Navigation
VG Project Main pages
VG Project Departments
 

The WPVG Newsletter (May 2008)

The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games Newsletter

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume I, No. 2 - May 7, 2008

Archive before | Archive After

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
Project at a Glance

As of 2008-05-06, the project has:

Changes to Featured and Good articles, lists, and topics in April

Promoted FA/FL:

Guitar Hero, List of songs in Guitar Hero, List of songs in Guitar Hero II, Halo: Contact Harvest, Age of Empires

Topic:

None

Demoted FA/FL:

None

Demoted GA:

Air (visual novel), SimCity (series)

Promoted GA:

24: The Game, Chocobo Racing, Crackdown, Crush 40, Dynasty Warriors 4, Geneforge, Gravemind, Guitar Hero (series), Half-Life (video game), Martin O'Donnell, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Music of Final Fantasy III, Music of Final Fantasy VI, Music of Final Fantasy X-2, Music of Final Fantasy XII, Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Resident Evil: Extinction, Sega Mega Drive, Super Smash Bros. (series), StarCraft: Ghost, System Shock 2, The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures, The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game), Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, CD-i games from the Legend of Zelda series, Xbox 360, Voices of the Lifestream

News

There were 256 new articles in April 2008

Current proposals and discussions

  • Well, gee, thanks 1up!
    1UP.com has recently changed their rating scale. A list of affected articles can be found here. See discussion for details.
    • About 14% of the articles on the list have been checked and updated.
  • Inactive project cleanup
    Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here.
Feature

Writing about Gameplay

The Gameplay section is a crucial component of a good video game article. Although it may be relatively easy for an experienced gamer to write such a section, care must be taken to maintain an appropriate focus and balance. The section should be written for readers with little or no knowledge of video gaming and should not be filled with detailed information about weapons, levels, or other such topics that are only of interest to the video gamer or that might be found in a game guide. Your goal for crafting a good section is to have people who have never picked up the game understand the basic mechanics. Do note, however, that it's safe to assume the reader has at least a minor knowledge of what a video game is.

This section often begins the body text after the lead, but is sometimes placed after the Plot section. Games with little or no story can cover the plot in the Gameplay section. When writing about a game, use your head and common sense about the ordering. Generally, start off with a broad stroke—is the game a RTS or an FPS, etc. Don't talk about why the gameplay is like it is; generally, that is better placed in the 'Development' section later on in the article.

Images can be added to better illustrate some aspects of gameplay. Generally, a single screenshot will suffice. Because of screenshots are non-free content, usage should be minimalised. Multiple images can be used, but all images should add something to the article beyond what the prose states. All non-free images require a fair use rationale to be used on Misplaced Pages.

Things to remember

  • Don't add in cruft about weapons, levels, and minute details of trivia; gameplay sections should serve as a primer to the game, not an exhaustive list of every facet of the game.
  • Don't use gaming jargon which can be confusing to readers, such as "NPC" or "MMORPG". If you use these terms, state the full name and the abbreviation the first time it appears. For example, "Halo is a first-person shooter, or FPS."
  • Wikilink! So you don't have to describe what a god game is, link it.
  • Talk about what makes the game different from others; if you only talk about why StarCraft is a real-time strategy game, then readers could just visit the article about the game genre and be better served.
Things you can help with:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Project Navigation
VG Project Main pages
VG Project Departments
 

References


The WPVG Newsletter (June 2008)

The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games Newsletter

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume I, No. 3 - June 4, 2008

Archive before | Archive After

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
Project at a Glance

As of 2008-06-04, the project has:

Changes to Featured and Good articles, lists, and topics

Promoted FA/FL:

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, List of acquisitions by Electronic Arts, List of Harvest Moon titles, Riven, Myst,

Topic:

Characters of Halo, The Orange Box

Demoted FA/FL:

Devil May Cry series (FT)


Promoted GA:

Air (visual novel), Crash Boom Bang!, Driving Emotion Type-S, Einhänder, Half-Life 2: Episode Two, Metal Gear Solid, Off-Road Velociraptor Safari, Team Fortress 2, Grand Theft Auto (series), Kratos (God of War), History of video game consoles (seventh generation)

Demoted GA:

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Cloud Strife, Super Smash Bros.

News

There were 203 new articles in May 2008

Current proposals and discussions

  • Well, gee, thanks 1up!
    1UP.com has recently changed their rating scale. A list of affected articles can be found here. See discussion for details.
    • About 28% of the articles on the list have been checked and updated.
  • Inactive project cleanup
    Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here.
    • WikiProject Dragon Quest has been redirected to WP:VG.
    • WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games Guild Wars task force has been deleted.

Interested in a specific video game series or company? Check out some of our task forces to help improve the related articles.

Feature

Writing about Development

Development content is very important to include in an encyclopedic video game article. It provides a history of how the game came to be and provides real world information needed for an article to claim comprehensiveness. However, writing this section can be difficult because the amount and type of information available will vary for each game. One of the best sources for such information is a developer interview. These can provide insight into the thought process of the designers and give examples of influences and obstacles encountered. Previews can also be helpful by giving a snap shot of the game before it was released and may mention development issues that were still being addressed.

When writing about development, common sense should be used to organize content to maintain a sense of flow for the reader. Most times, it is best to give the information in a somewhat chronological order—though information can also be grouped by topics like audio, promotion, graphics, etc. If one such topic gets large enough, it can be split off into its own subsection or regular section. For example, Kingdom Hearts#Audio is a separate section from the rest of the development information because it focuses on the game's musical score and voice acting. Portal (video game)#Soundtrack, however, does not have as much content and is a subsection of the main development section.

What to include about development
  • Who are the developers? Which company or studio developed the game, and are there any prominent designers involved?
  • When did development begin?
  • When and where was the game first announced? (e.g. Tokyo Game Show, E3 Media and Business Summit, etc.)
  • What influenced the game's story, characters, music, and/or gameplay ? (e.g. past games, movies, books, etc.)
  • Were there any delays?
  • Was anything excluded because of time or technological constraints? (e.g. extra levels, game modes, characters, story arcs, etc.)
Things to remember
  • Avoid proseline. Though maintaining a sense to chronology is important, this section should not read like an ordered list of events.
  • Images in this section should be relevant to the information given and should add on to it.
  • Source everything to avoid information being tagged as original research.
Things you can help with:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Project Navigation
VG Project Main pages
VG Project Departments
 

Fun!

Hey, more power to you. I'm still trying to recover from being up a bit too late on Father's Day! *yawn* BOZ (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We saw the new Hulk movie yesterday. Definitely worth seeing and after having seen the Iron Man movie. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, cool! I haven't seen either yet but would like to. Have you heard that they are supposed to be parts of an overall Avengers movie series? That is a frickin awesome idea, and there is no cooler or more appropriate way to do it. BOZ (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I definitely recommend both and that you see Iron Man and then Incredible Hulk in that order for continuity purposes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Alien/Predator Sources

I used the movies as the primary source, but then as I look back AVP-R never had a date that I know of. Maybe I saw it the first time around but not the second time. The timeline was helpful, but it did need those other sources. I myself do not know how to obtain sources that don't even excist. --Tj999 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For AVP-R, what about this? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that the first AvP film? --Tj999 (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, but I believe AVP-R occurs in essentially the same year, i.e. really soon after the events of the first film. Regarding the timeline, if you rewatch the special edition of Aliens, in one scene Ripley holds a picture of her deceased daughter on which are dates for birth and death (even the days and months) and Burke says she died two years ago. Given that other dialogue says Aliens takes place 57 years after Alien, we should be able to correct or verify at least a few dates. Otherwise, the sequence of events can remain with a format like how we do with Star Wars, i.e. x number of years later and so on just to clarify the chronology. And we can then add a section which we can use reviews of the films that mention continuity to serve as some out of universe balance. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, everything you said there is right. When I created the timeline I watched those first two Alien Films to retreive the information and when Burke gives the picture is where I got those dates and all. What I was saying about AVP-R is : what day and month does it really take place? The year has got to be 2004 but the remainder data is unknown. I thought I once came acrossed it because why would it be so exact on the timeline? --Tj999 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
My feeling at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 14#Alien and Predator timeline is that we should have some additional time to cite the artilce. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah that would be good. And also, this article has been up and running since the begining of this year. It has been saved I think twice and they are still after it. What about the other fictional timelines? --Tj999 (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
They have tried to delete those as well. Anyway, hopefully we will be able to adequately convince them at the DRV, but I'm taking a break from that per the suggestion below. I did start expanding the source coverage somewhat, but I have to teach today (first class of summer quarter), so don't have much time. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I have been working on other articles lately. You're a teacher? How cool. Well talk to you later! --Tj999 (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a professional historian, which is why I'm usually good for finding sources others don't. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Karanacs

Hi. You have previously indicated your interest in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Karanacs, by directly editing that page before its transclusion. In order to improve the discussion there (and without trying to persuade you either to support or to oppose), I'm simply writing to tell you that the RfA is now live, and to encourage you to participate. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the note. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Responding to every post at DRV

Hi, I like you, I really do, but you should stop replying to every post that you disagree with. You need to trust the community. You need to trust that the community is able to read the arguements already made, and that the community has the intelligence to weigh all arguments made. To repeatedly make the same points is to insult the community and to weaken your own credibility. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. If it is a discussion, then we should be able to respond and interact with each other without anyone feeling insulted. To be honest, I have a hard time regarding some posts there as credible when they seem to outright ignore some of what has been posted and in many cases themselves just repeat what others said and which still others had already challenged, which is why I keep feeling compelled to comment to them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
There are indeed posts of minimal merit. They are not hard to pick. It helps the closer if you make an argument that defaults a weak !vote, but it doesn't help to do it repeatedly. Repetition does't help any discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your suggestion; I am just baffled by some of the "arguments" there and in the earlier AfDs. I can't imagine why anyone would not want to allow me and others to make the effort to incorporate the sources not mentioned in the AfD into the article and see how that goes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You got people's backs up. You'll probably have more luck waiting, then asking someone to usefy it for you, and working on it from there. I actually think the merge as performed was sensible, and that the material is not suitable for a stand alone article. Without prose, it has to stand as a pure navigational aid, which it isn't really. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to a merge and redirect without deletion, but if you look at the bottom of the DRV (notice I didn't respond), some say that if the DRV is an endorse, then the merge must be undone, which doesn't seem right. Perhaps the discussion needs to address not only if the article should remain deleted, but if it should be merged as well and I think that whoever did the merge and anyone who edited the section since should be aware of the DRV. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Alien primary source

Hi. I don't have the DVDs available, so I looked around for sources basically in magazines and online websites. :) I understand that some specific dates or other bits of information can be found verifiable through some scenes in the films (that's quite normal ;)) but I'm unfortunately still suspicious about the verifiability of a whole timeline. As fictional timeline in general is easily liable to become original research, I often expect extensive references, preferably published by film producers directly on DVD editions, or official websites etc. But I couldn't find them. :( I think our article should have been based on a timeline fully recorded somewhere reliable. However, the fact that even the fan-website which claims to be "the most expansive timeline of the Alien films available" has to admit that part of their materials are based on assumption, guess, actor's age etc is really discouraging. I don't think we can source an entire timeline so easily just by watching scenes in the movies; if it's really that easy, an accurate timeline would have been published online long before Misplaced Pages, especially considering this is a renowned film series. I personally adopt a hard line on potential WP:OR and am very unlikely to change my opinion here, sorry. I might add that I admire you very much for all the effort you put in researching reference though. Best wishes, --PeaceNT (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Even if we had sections like "57 years later" rather than years, we could still present the information in the same chronological order. I think a concise table like that provides a clear understanding for readers of how the films relate to each other and in what sequence, if they do not wish to read the articles' plot sections in their entirety. I am not opposed to allowing the merge to take place and for a redirect without deletion to occur that keeps the edit history public and thereby allows for editors to better improve the article as additional sources turn up. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Halloween

I saw that you edited Halloween: Resurrection. I never seen the film but I have been fixing up the article a lot lately. Instead of working on the Alien and Predator stuff I've shifted gear to some horror stuff (even though Alien was considered horror). Do you think that the reception clean-up tag can be removed? --Tj999 (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, because the section needs inline citations (footnotes). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You mean it needs some references? I think the whole article needs references then it would be pretty complete. --Tj999 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I also think the details section should be incorporated into other areas of the article, perhaps a section on production, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright. I think I am going to rent the movie, since I never seen it before, and then get all this info. --Tj999 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, as my username suggests, I'm always likely to recommend the Halloween films! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Lol. Is your username French for soemthing like The Great Pumpking? --Tj999 (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I am the Great Pumpkin King of Halloween... Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Haha, that's great! I am the Imaginative King of Randomness. --Tj999 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually do grow real pumpkins where I live, too. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Pumpkins are awsome. Oh and most of the trivia from the Halloween: Resurrection page looks like it is from http://www.brimstone.org/horrormovies.php?mode=show_movie_info&movie_id=323. How do you reference all that without making it look slopy? --Tj999 (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
They are indeed and I'm still hoping some reason comes to this discussion, but anyway, I think the content of that section on the Resurrection article needs to be distributed throughout the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll think of a way to distribute the content. Also I'll check into the discussion. --Tj999 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
If you notice, I moved some of the trivia items as explanatory footnotes on casting and moved others to an all new section on the film's production. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's a great way to do it. Also, once we solve Resurrection's problems I think H20 needs the same fix up. --Tj999 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Imagine how much we'd get accomplished if we could focus on making thesse revisions, without others unwilling to make the revisions trying to just remove some of these articles altogether. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah really! "Don't delet, just complete" that could be our saying. I just added in another reference. I kind of had the code all screwed up for a while, but I fixed it. --Tj999 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
That's good. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Man, I wish contacting on here was easier. --Tj999 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Enemies in Legend of Zelda

Hi, and thanks for the kind words left on my userpage. I do have to agree that the hardcore deletionists are enough to make me want to put my forehead through the keyboard, and I'm glad there are people left who are still willing to fight for the rights of the much maligned "pop culture" and "alleged gamecruft" articles. Sadly, most inclusionists are nowhere near as committed as the self-appointed cleanup crews, but hopefully Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series has gotten enough support (and revoked delete votes) that it'll be closed as No Consensus instead of keep. If it is deleted, I'll certainly be taking it before DRV. The argument has yet to end over there, by the way. McJeff (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. And, yes, you make good points. My main hope at present is that this, this, this, this, and this end with the articles kept, which are the ones I have probably worked hardest on lately. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tottering Blotspurs

Hey, good catch; even if it's not Eryian, isn't what he's outlined on his user page a sockpuppetry violation in and of itself? BOZ (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that the first three AfD posts by the account are in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Titans (Crash of the Titans), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pizza delivery in popular culture (second nomination), and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Quest VIII characters, all posts after me, I can't help but suspect it happens to be some anti-inclusionist opposed to myself and others who believe in these sorts of articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Now, having an alternate account and getting that incivil with it could lead to some bad stuff for both accounts. Nice work, digging that one up! BOZ (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, look at the kinds of posts made in the above AfDs for example. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, how clever on spotting an alternate account clearly tagged as an alternate account. You must have remarkable powers of observation. As for trouble I have not been incivil to any specific editor despite plenty deserving it, so I am not exactly quaking in my boots here. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I have listed the multiple examples of incivility at the Request for Checkuser. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This is heading towards WikiStalking as well, if it's not already there. BOZ (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You may be right. Gossiping about me on here and filing frivolous checkusers because I voted to delete some articles is definitely WikiStalking. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Boz is obviously referring to your first three AfD posts being in AfDs after me, somehow happening upon the Checkuser case, and then coming to my talk page. The checkuser is necessary as whoever you are, it is not acceptable to create an alternate account for pointed and incivil purposes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You're out of line on this one, pumpkin king. The account in question has only posted civil arguments in AfD, stating opinions that happen to disgree with yours but also happen to be well-grounded in Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. Those comments will be judged on their merits by the closing admins. I can see why someone would chose to do so anonymously if this is the kind of out-of-proportion response that reasonable participation in AfD can garner. The user page comments are not an explicit personal attack on anyone in particular. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Calling a whole group of editors "acne-ridden mongoloid fanboys obsessed with keeping every single piece of crap ever written" is unacceptable. Making further derogatory comments about teenage editors in unacceptable. Pure and simple. The account had posted incivil arguments in AfDs (assuming editors would not read his comments, calling discussion harassment, etc.), stating opinions not grounded in Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, etc. Whoever this is is not using an alternate account in a legitimate way. Period. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:30, 19 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)

Thanks for the note; I have commented accordingly. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

joining the ranks of the admins

Thanks for your thoughtful and kind words in my successful RfA. Now I’m off to do some fixin'... Pinkville (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome and good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Continue Resurrection Edits

Do you think that the remaining Halloween: Resurrection trivia info can be deleted. Some of it is useful, but I don't know how to fit it in with the other stuff. --Tj999 (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I did what I could there. Don't hesitate to reorder the sections if you think there's a more logical way of doing so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh nice, that makes it more organized. I'll see what else should be done then. --Tj999 (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright, you might wanna take a look at it now. The article has come a long way. --Tj999 (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll check it out. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Also, when I went to the rental store Resurrection was currently unavailible so I will try to get it next week. --Tj999 (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can't help but recommend any film having to do with my favorite holiday. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Halloween is the best! Also, I added a music section under production just so that the article has more information. Do you think that is good? Though, I will need to expand the music section. --Tj999 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, good call. I did correct one bit of grammar there: "it's" means "it is", while "its" is the possessive pronoun. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for catching that. I always goof stuff up like that. Also, I did have the reference wrong in the music section but I fixed it. I also just added in some more references which I believe make the article eligable for that tag to be removed. So I removed the tag and if it needs more references than we can just add them. --Tj999 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, you should go take a look at Halloween: H20. I started making similar changes to it as Resurrection's.--Tj999 (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do so momentarily. I see someone from a published book with dates at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 14#Alien and Predator timeline. I can't believe even that was dismissed by some. Anyway, I'm going down my watchlist at the moment and will look at the Halloween H20 article when I finish. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I'll check out the alien stuff. --Tj999 (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I have started going through the Halloween article per your request. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I saw. Thank you. I reformated that article so that it was in the similare look as Resurrection. --Tj999 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome and it may be worthwhile seeing if there is a horror movie wiki project to notify of our efforts. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
There is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Horror. I think I am going to join that. --Tj999 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I just joined Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Alien/Participants. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I belong to that one. --Tj999 (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I joined the horror one as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful. Now where should we go from here? Halloween 6? --Tj999 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I shall check it out momentarily. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I saw your edits. I also reorganized the article so it's in a good format like 7 and 8 are. --Tj999 (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --Tj999 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So, today I will build up references to the Halloween 6 article, but that won't be until past lunch time. --Tj999 (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't get to it today. But I will sometime. --Tj999 (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay; for better or worse, I just noted and think the article on that film should mention the alternate version. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, Cenarium 01:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for welcoming me to wikipedia! I hope we can be friends! ^_^ Missingno255 (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Username

"Sephiroth" is a reference to the Final Fantasy VII character Sephiroth and "BCR" refers to my initials. Sephiroth BCR 19:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Thanks for the reply! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

helpme

First thank you for the welcome, so nice on a sunday. I am fairly new to Wiki and still learning.

I had an article about Johnny Cooper American musician aka John Robert Cooper deleted. I am really puzzled after the history of working on the page.

Can you verify for me that I have done the right thing in going to the person who deleted the page and have ask them to let me know why? It looked as if it was deleted because "not all real people" should have a page.

I started the article several months ago and thought I had resolved the issue that he should have an article. He is a real person, living, and musician, singer, songwriter. His work is with BMI and copyrighted, not to mention that he has won awards.

I appreciate any insights into the process of restoring the page.

Cheers Sharon Sharonbrain2 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! The main thing is to indeed discuss the article with the deleting admin, which it looks like you have done. Keeper76 is a reasonable person and if you are able to find additional sources, you may request that he userfy the article for you, work on it further and then see if the revised version is acceptable. The key is to add as many inline citations with newspaper or magazine sources as you can to clearly indicate notability and verifiability. I hope that helps! By the way, my mother is named "Sharon" also.  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

i have a question

do you know how to take an image on commons, and find out every location it is at on wikimedia?

Hello! Unfortunately, I have never used commons and so am not sure. What I would recommend doing is to try Help:Contents. Best wishes! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Dorftrottel

Following this AN thread, and after abandoning my former account, I've decided to file a request for comment on my user conduct. Due to our common past, I figured you may be interested in it. If you can find the time, your input would be highly appreciated. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will comment there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you may be mistaking RfC for RfAr. You didn't make any suggestions or anything as to how I should iyo improve my behaviour. And please stop stalking my contribs. You wouldn't want your own to be stalked. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Before either of you go crazy here. --Dorftrottel, you first: Two dancers needed for a tango. LGRdC isn't stalking you anymore than you are stalking him by commenting on many RFAs AFDs to counteract what you feel is poor logic of Le Grande. Second to LeGrandRoideCitrouelle: That was quite a flame on the RFC, and I agree perhaps a suggestion for improvement could have replaced the 100s of diffs you provided as evidence for arbitration instead of comments for a user. Dorftrottel started the RFC himself, deserves some criticism for his actions certainly, and asked you to comment there (he didn't have to do that). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Keeper76, thank you for the comments, but after looking at the history of twenty-two blocks, including indefinites, and for serious matters, the ignoring of warnings and suggestions from admins and the continued incivility, I am not sure that whatever positives here outweigh the negatives and that simple suggestions will work. I have tried to discuss civily with him in the past and sometimes we seemed to be maybe getting somewhere, but ultimately it just hasn't worked. I really do believe in giving people second chances and all, but the extent and nature of the blocks and warnings are pretty severe and so I do not believe a simple "try to be more civil" is going to work. I of course do appreciate and respect that he did ask me to comment. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You asked me to comment there, which is why for the purpose of the RfC I looked at your recent history. As for suggestions, I am not sure what to say, honestly, given the history. Obviously I would prefer if you argued to keep at least occasionally (after all, even as strong an inclusionist as me still does argue to delete, and if I can argue to delete, others can make the effort to argue to keep, which if nothing else shows balance and an element of being unbiased) and not in a sarcastic manner. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I am always for keeping when there is any justifiable basis for doing so. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
What would be helpful would be if you could point out any good or featured articles you created to off-set the negative stuff, i.e. if then I could say, "Okay, there's a behavior concern, but he has done x, y, and z and so we should try to work with him further." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (I put this in the RfC, but don't know how closely you are following it.) Other problems include disruptive/sarcastic comments in RfAs and AfDs. — Don't you see anything questionable about your own behaviour at RfA and AfD? Wrt the RfA example: Sorry if it offended you, but don't be oversensitive. Yes, it was a jab at you, but wth. As to the AfD example: What makes you assume that I was being sarcastic there as opposed to honest? (For the record: I was honest there and there is nothing sarcastic about that AfD comment whatsoever.) Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hold your horses there! I just told you that that AfD comment was nothing but honest and didn't play on or refer to anything, and you still assume bad faith with me??Wrt adopt-a-user: Would you like me to adopt you and teach you about notability and such? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think making a logical connection is "assuming". I am suggesting that you seek an experienced editor who is neutral on notability to adopt you as I sought out Chaser (who has argued to delete plenty) to adopt me. And again, if you can point to examples of articles that you have made good or featured as evidence off setting the behavior issues, I will gladly take that into account. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Didn't you see the hidden note that says KIDDING MODE ? I'm aware what you are suggesting, and tbh, I think I know more about Misplaced Pages than you. A lot more. If one of us needs help, it's you. Did you have to respond to a comment marked with capital letters as kidding with no humour at all? Also, assuming a logical connection where there is none is assuming bad faith in a presumptuous manner. That connection does not exist, for the third time now. Consider that you have now called me a liar twice in this thread, about something I told you in this thread. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think asserting that you know a "lot more" about Misplaced Pages than me helps? Throughout your dispute with me, I have attempted to send peace gestures, whether it be agreeing with you in an XfD, or at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 10#continuing our friendship when you wrote "I'm absolutely sure that you will add something after this comment, and I'm also sure it won't be actually conciliatory, in my own opinion" I instead in fact responded in a cordial fashion, or when I emailed you, etc. Durova suggested we talk on Skype, but I don't have that and money is tight with the unacceptably high gas prices and all so I can't afford getting a computer microphone for giggles. Then she suggested we avoid each other and since I have not commented to or about or after you in any AfD or DRV that you commented in first; by contrast, in RfAs you had a few "Support per LGRdC" when I opposed and as for Durova's suggestion we avoid each other, for two days in a row (June 11 and 12) your only DRV or AfD posts were in ones that I had commented in first. I don't know what more I could reasonably do to make peace with or just ignore you. But if there's anything you do get from this, please note below where someone makes a comment on me in an RfA and I respond by not insulting him, but by civily explaining my position and then ammending my comments in the relevant RfAs based on his concern. As for AfDs, when I try to persuade people to change their stances, I am not asking them do anything I haven't done myself per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis. It really is not that hard to be civil and that really is all I think I and others want here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, what do you say about a (imho agreeable) comment like this then? I'm not sure whether or not you are aware of this, but apparently, not only I do sometimes get the feeling of 'talking to a wall' with you. A very polite and civil wall, yes. But it drives some people crazy because you appear not to reply to what is at the core of other people's concerns about your behaviour (not that this is the issue right now, but while we're at it, I figure I might as well talk you honestly). Another thing I feel is quite relevant is the striking congruency between some of those walls of diffs you frequently post (like including the never-blocked IP addresses in your 'evidence' in my RfC, as just one minor example), and your attitude towards notability and inclusion: By including too much in your comments, you are actually making them weaker, as perceived not only by myself. And by fighting for the inclusion of a lot of stuff on Misplaced Pages (using e.g. arguments like GFDL concerns in a rather doubtful manner (saying since I believe you are not so much actually concerned about GFDL violations as rather using them as a handy argument in deletion discussions), you're imho doing the same to the project (weakening it, watering it down, contributing to its dissolving in entropy). Did that congruency of including too much in your comments and arguing to include (imho) too much in Misplaced Pages ever occur to you? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It's because of comments like that I still found somewhere where I could help them out in a civil and proactive fashion, which has had a positive result. Thus, being civil and helpful even to those we disagree with can be fruitful in the end. Remember the fable about honey rather than vinegar. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
What about my other points? And why do you want me banned? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
My proposals did not include banning "Everyme". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, what about my other points above? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
We've already discussed our differences regarding deletion/inclusion many times. If we aren't going to avoid each other, which both Keeper76 and Durova suggest, then why not look to articles we might try to bring to good or featured status or something proactive? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Email

Got your e-mail - I'm not ignoring it but am rather busy IRL and am watching some tuff on WP. Just to let you know. I will reply. Pedro :  Chat  13:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

The WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Issue XIV — June 22, 2008
Project News
  • A pay-per-view event chronology has been added as a feature to the Wrestling event infobox, please assist the project in adding this feature to professional wrestling pay-per-view event articles.
  • The C-Class rating has been introduced. The rating falls between articles that are more than Start class, but less than B-Class.
The Month in Wrestling History Professional Wrestling Article Stats

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.

Professional wrestling
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low Total
Quality
FA 2 3 5
FL 1 5 15 21
GA 5 17 42 64
B 1 13 67 206 287
C 1 7 36 44
Start 2 53 211 2312 2578
Stub 1 24 604 629
Assessed 3 74 333 3218 3628
Total 3 74 333 3218 3628
Member News Current Events
  • Vince McMahon was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Promax|BDA Conference for "for his remarkable accomplishments and innovations in global marketing, advertising and promotion."
  • WWE is currently holding "Million Dollar Mania", where they give out prize money totalling $1 million on Raw to viewers watching the show at home.
Collaboration of the Week

The article collaboration for June 22 through July 5 is James Yun. The Featured article collaboration is Candice Michelle . 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, July 5.

Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved!
Articles for Deletion From the Editors

Contributors to this Issue:

Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback
Delivered: 17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Your RfA supports

Support due to no negative interactions
I don't want to disrupt any particular RfA, since you seem to use this rationale quite commonly. I'm concerned that this support may be read as meaning "I have no idea who this candidate is, but I support them anyway." and I wonder if you could find a less ambiguous way of saying what you mean (which I do not presume to guess). But, for example, if you support someone because they are an inclusionist (or because there is no evidence that they are a deletionist) then I think you will be respected for saying so clearly and distinctly. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! In RfAs, I like to say something that no one else has said, so in the case of those where I say I support "due to no negative interactions" it means that I have looked at their AfDs, but see nothing there to persuade me strongly one way or the other and so there's nothing I can add about those, I agree in effect with the other reasons as to why to support, but do not want to just repeat what someone else said, and I am also pleased that I have never had any bad experiences with them (which sometimes means that any experiences I have had were obviously therefore positive). Plus, I like to vary my comments in RfAs:
Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism

Thanks for the reverts. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR 19:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Edit Summaries

>>Hello! Just as a suggestion, could you please be sure to use edit summaries, even as simple as showing whether or not you're making a keep or delete argument in an AfD? << Citrus! How nice of you to drop me a line. I'm sure you know me well enough by now that you know I won't even give the suggestion a second thought. However, you're a friend, and I'll tell you my reasoning. Not everything is a keep or a delete. Sometimes, I'm watching a newcomer getting beat up unmercifully by some people who want to delete an article that I agree should be deleted, but I don't want to kick a man while he's down, so I make a comment instead. And sometimes, it's a worthwhile topic that has potential but the article is poorly written; I suppose I could say "weak keep", but that's a lot like saying delete. And sometimes, I can't see compelling reasons to argue in favor keeping or deleting an article, although it's worth commenting on its potential, or on a principle that isn't being followed. In those situations, it's better to go for a laugh, especially if the conversation is getting ugly. If it's something I really care about, however, then I'll opt for a label that even the dumbest dumbass would understand. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply; anyway, I thought I'd let you know per Help:Edit summary as I figured it might save you the trouble of having someone else tell you about it, as someone did to me once :(. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I thank you for your kind greeting. I don't know who is giving me a second chance, but I thank them. Can you assure me I have your blessing to create a new account to start over with, so I can start fresh?68.236.153.166 (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, but you should discuss with whoever blocked you in the first place so that you are not re-blocked for block evasion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's almost term end here at ESC, so now I can return to active editing if allowed a new account. 68.236.153.166 (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I would suggest using the help template indicated in the welcome message on your talk page to ask for help from an admin. Good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

new source

Not that I'm really interested in Halo. But good find. I wish I had a crystal ball, so I could see what would gain coverage in future issues of EGM. Randomran (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I also posted it in the talk page for the Halo series as I'm not sure if we have a weapons article or which one it might be appropriate in. I too wish I had a crystal ball! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the find. I'm not sure where it will go either, but it's always nice to have extra sources for later use :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I have subscriptions to a few game magazines at present, so I am apt to come across a good deal of sources on such topics that may not appear online. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cheshire Cat in popular culture (2nd nomination), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Do not delete other's comments, as you did here — Dædαlus /Improve 07:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

AFD for Cheshire Cat

It appears that some text entered by me was removed. Diff. This was probably a mistake. Please take more care next time. Protonk (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

"Hello, A Nobody, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)"

What were you talking about? Could you please write me back and not use a generic message, as i don't understand why you wrote me, but it's obviously generic because i signed my posts. JimmyWuzHere (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, as you were a new user with no messages on your talk page, we typically post a welcome message, welcoming you to the project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well thank you then, sorry about that. JimmyWuzHere (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome and happy editing!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

Notwithstanding, it appears plain to me that you have a specific set of foundation principles and guidelines which you are willing to accept with regard to article deletion. Beyond those, you seem unwilling to accept that consensus on the subject may have been formed in the community already. In just the last day you've responded dozens of times to afds with what is effectively the same point: that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be free to retain information that isn't hurtful or false. That is a perfectly valid opinion to express and I'm not trying to belittle you for expressing it. but by the same token it is not the consensus view of the project, as reflected in the policies and guidelines. Sometimes, as you suggest, it behooves us to ignore all rules and take an action, but that ought to be an exception and ignoring all rules in order to retain an article through an afd seems to be sort of a 'standing exception'.

To be perfectly honest, this has been frustrating to no end in afds. I understand that one can never "win" an argument. in other words, I can't compel you to agree with me just as you can't compel me to agree with you. the best we can hope for is either a situational agreement or hope to convince an observer of the debate. But it is no help to watch the same response offered over and over again, or to see literal gainsaying employed rather than discussion.

Protonk (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to second that. I apologise for my frustrated reply the other day. I admire the tenacity you show in fighting for what you believe in, and I see that you have your heart in the right place. However, I think the way you passionately assert your opinion, makes it appear very much as if you disregard and show no respect for other people's right to have their own opinion, especially when it differs to yours.
I'm not a deletionist. In afd I would certainly say I argue to delete more often than keep, because I select the afds I comment in carefully. But on the other end of the scale, with regard to speedy deletion, more often than not, I decline the vast majority of speedies I encounter. Take this for example. I declined the speedy and then wrote the article myself!
Your stance on afd deletion is completely different to my own and I would prefer that in future, you not respond to me at afd. If my vote needs discussion, someone else will reply to me. In addition (and this is just an opinion I hold), the way you repeat someone's words back to them is disheartening, and serves to frustrate and inflame a debate unnecessarily. If someone believes an article consists of original research and you think it doesn't, that's not an invitation for you to tell that person that their opinion is wrong because you disagree with it. Stating your belief once or twice is enough to let the people in the debate know, understand, and appreciate your position.
I hope you can respect my request. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I will consider your comments above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your consideration in that matter. I am disappointed that you carried on repeating people's comments back to them, especially as I was not the first to say that it's frustrating and inflames the situation. I conclude that you are doing it deliberately. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Seraphim, the one account has said he would never argue to keep. How can anyone take seriously or actually try to discuss with someone who is absolutely not open to new evidence presented in AfDs? As far as commenting on every post of those with whom we disagree, don't you see in the same discussion that is exactly what the nominator and a couple of those arguing to delete are doing as they do in other discussions they participate in? If you suggest I limit my comments in AfDs, then I hope that you would be willing to request that others on the deletion side who do the same if not worse (notice a couple have actually posted more times than I have in that discussion) also do the same. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The thing is if they really had consensus then I would not be the only person arguing to keep in these AfDs and to be honest I see in the same AfDs you making the same point over and over again as well and I don't know to what end. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
What a joke. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you feel our project and the viewpoint of its contributors are a joke. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The AFD process is a discussion not a vote. The trouble seems to be that points which are not opposed may thought to be tacitly accepted. What we have is like per nom - a formality which becomes wearisome because it adds little to the discussion. Myself, I usually try to find something new to say rather than repeat a routine formula but perhaps I don't attend as many AFDs as LGRdC. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    The trick is learning when to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Expressing your position clearly in an AfD is good participation. Responding to one or two other participants with appropriate clarifications is understandable. Responding repeatedly to everyone who does not fully agree with you suggests that you might be refusing to 'get the point'. As multiple contributors have made comments above, it may be time to seriously evaluate where you are on this spectrum. --Allen3  20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

suggestion

The following is a mirror of the section on my talk page. You may respond either here or there, whichever is easier.

  • that is a perfectly admirable suggestion. I'm prepared to disengage from the cheshire cat afd. I'm also prepared to agree to disagree. but the WQA is not about our disagreements. It is about behavior. I would have been inclined to withdraw the WQA had this message been posted before you created an exact, word for word copy of my message and inserted your diffs and accusations. That, to me, is a much more potent sign that you are inclined to continue in the same direction than these entreaties on my talk page. So. I'm sorry but I can't strike my comment on the WQA. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The reason I posted the comment about your behavior there in a similar fashion as to your post is because if you really sit back and look at the examples I provided, you'll see that in the Cheshire cat AfD and others that I linked you also went back and forth with not just me, but also other editors and thus the same criteria you claimed against me could be claimed against yourself. If you look at the nominators' approach to the Cheshire cat AfD, with even more posts than I made and even more accusatory of others in the discussion, you have to see that even you and I are not the only ones to spiritedly engage others in AfDs. If we both are willing to realize that and indeed withdraw our comments from there, then I will honestly reconsider how I approach AfDs and will invite others whom I consider neutral to offer me greater guidance and suggestions, which I believe is after all what your seeking. Keeping our comments there will not help. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't believe that. You, of course are entitled to that opinion. I would also ask that you refrain from further renaming the WQA. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith and as for the title, it needs to accurately reflect reality and that is a disagreement between you and I regarding the same kind of behavior that I believe we can resolve between us. If we let it drop, then maybe we'll accomplish something. If we don't, then we'll just augment whatever tension and bitterness between us. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I do assume good faith. however assumption does not mean that when I am shown a pattern to the contrary that I am required to continue down the path. How about we both refrain from commenting further on the WQA? Also, with regard to the title, I refuse to agree that it should be changed to a disagreement between us. A change like that implies that the actions taken were not contrary to policy by themselves but instead stem from some personal distaste between us. So I don't accept the implied diminution of the accusations. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Titans (Crash of the Titans)

Yep, no probs; It's now here: User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Titans (Crash of the Titans)‎. All the best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to lety you know I have done some tidy up to remove the FU images (wiki links still there so can be easily fixed) and removing the tags as I'm sure you don't need them and we try to avoid having tagged articles in userspace. Spartaz 23:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Precedents

Absolutely. I'm not implying that we can never get along again or never did. That's why I SPECIFICALLY didn't want the WQA titled as a disagreement between us. I don't think we are doomed. I think that the specific actions you took in those diffs represented violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you really think that then the specific actions I indicated regarding your own edits would also be violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. So, either it's about both of us, or we're simply zealous in AfDs, which are discussions and not votes anyway, and so should take that into account. I really think the best way to move forward would be to either disengage altogether at this point or find somewhere where we could indeed work together proactively. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I honestly believe that a reasonable observer looking at the diffs and afds in question would come away with the notion that one person violated those guidelines, not two. That is why I posted the WQA title as it was. That's why I wrote it as a series of examples, not of an ongoing dispute. If the REAL problem here was the two of us not getting along, then the solution would be simple. It isn't. Protonk (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
And I of course believe that if such an observer saw one person, it may not be the one you think they would see, which is why I really believe it's not about me. I am not willing to allow myself to be singled out when I see the same behavior or worse from others in the same discussions. But again, as they are discussions, there is no "problem" per se. No one has to respond to me in any discussion if they don't wish to discuss with me. If you and I are willing to disengage from some of those discussions, then that settles any disageement between us. As far as rewording comments back at people, I am indeed willing to reply to others in a different manner. So, again, whatever you hoped to accomplish with that thread can indeed be achieved by discussing between us and not trying to make matters worse elsewhere. You really will have a much greater impact on me if you do consider my joint proposal that we withdraw the thread and just discuss here or on your talk page. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WQA title

Ok. I'm sorry you refused to leave well enough alone. I'll be bringing that up in 3RR. I'm sorry it has come to this. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to sit by and allow someone to attack me or misrepresent me. You have the ability to resolve this disagreement civily by withdrawing the thread altogether. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is the thread: This isn't venue shopping. The title isn't appropriate. As I explained in the WQA and in multiple talk posts, the substance of the WQA is not the disagreements between us. Please, please do not continue to threaten me, even implicitly. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The title is misleading and false. Your diffs do not show "incivility" in any reasonable person's interpretation. Spirited discussion, perhaps, but it is dishonest to characterize it as "incivility". Why when I have tried multiple times here, on your talk page, on the WQ thread, and even in the AfDs to defuse things would you continue to try for escalation? And who's "threatening" you? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
GRC asked for my assistance, but I do think that the title would best have been left alone. If A post with a title of B's unpoliteness to A & it turns out the other way round, or more usually reciprocal, the title does not prejudice the discussion. Everyone here who is likely to respond knows the frequency at which the problem is not exactly what it seems. It's rarely a good idea to get these things running off into side issue like this. Discussions of problems like this are difficult enough when the people stick to the main point. DGG (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Now, granted Protonk is a new user with an account created in late April of this year, so I'm going to assume that some of these things are just what happens with new users, because, for example, 3 edits are not 3rr violations. Plus, when we are trying to discuss things on our talk pages, it serves no benefit to venue shop elsewhere. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Dragon Quest VIII characters DRV

Consensus was unanimous to endorse deletion. I would not have closed it if it was controversial in any way. --Stormie (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, given , it stills just seems somewhat of a conflict of interest. Regarding the discussion itself, while I am willing to acknowledge that it was not going the way I would have liked, it was not really "unanimous" in that you had at least one (me) opposing the closure. In any event, I would appreciate if the article were at least userfied. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Closure reverted, I wash my hands of the affair. --Stormie (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, cool. Have a pleasant night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I gotta keep a closer eye on your talk page, LGR; you're always involved in fiction AfDs that I need to put my two cents in. How do you manage to keep an eye on everything? GlassCobra 01:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have watch listed the relevant Afd pages. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Cryptic gave permission to unblock. Plus it wasn't a good block anyway.

Request handled by: Wizardman 01:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking with Cryptic about this now. Hopefully he'll reverse the decision. Until then I'd rather that the above message remain unanswered. Give me 30 minutes. Wizardman 01:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've put in my two cents too. This block was a really bad call. GlassCobra 01:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I politely requested he userfy an article and he responds by calling me a "spoiled child", which if not a personal attack is downright incivil as a response to a polite request which is why I gave him a warning. Again, that is totally unacceptable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
User talk:A Nobody Add topic