User talk:Interrobamf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not around.

• User talk:Interrobamf/archive zero
• User talk:Interrobamf/archive one

Contents 1 Your Battle Royale Edit 2 The Creeper (Jeepers Creepers) 3 Headless Horseman 4 Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-selling computer and video games 5 Organization XIII changes

[edit] Your Battle Royale Edit

Hi there, you deleted a section in the page Battle Royale relating to the novel's similarities with other texts. There are no references for this because it is not something that has ever been specifically credited, however as an active member of most parts of the BR fan community it is generally well and truly accepted that there is indeed influence. I don't see how that needs a reference, and I don't see why it needs to be deleted. Perhaps just a note adding that it has not been specifically mentioned by the author - are there any cases like this where there is factual evidence other than almost literally every opinion on the subject in the fan community agreeing?The similarities are undeniable and I see no problem with stating them addy 17:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Creeper (Jeepers Creepers)

I reverted the changes you made to the page and left a note in my edit summary and on the talk page. Cbrown1023 15:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your vendetta against film characters by removing all the information from the page and creating a redirect without discussing it. Cbrown1023 16:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay , but you are basically "deleting" articles without an WP:AfD. This is a definate breach of policy. Put it up for an AfD and then you can delete it. Cbrown1023 18:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may be needed: The first one should be sufficient. Cbrown1023 18:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the may is referring to deletion and you are certainly deleting the pages. Cbrown1023 18:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

But you are deleting the content of the article (it can still be reverted but then again, the same thing applies to vandalism)... More, you are redirecting pages... the point of an AfD is to decide if the page: kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, or another language's Wikipedia—please note that it cannot be transwikied to WikiTravel [1] or Wikinews), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. (from WP:AfD). As you can see, redirect is one of them. Cbrown1023 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headless Horseman

Hello! I got a request to do the following steps:

• Move Headless Horseman (disambiguation) to Headless Horseman
• Move The Headless Horseman to Headless Horseman (Washington Irving) or similar

I see that you reverted some moves. I don't want a revert war. So could we talk about it? Thanks in advance. NCurse _work 09:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-selling computer and video games

Sorry I didn't reply while the debate was open. I was just too distraught.

What I was getting to this debate was simply this: AfDs are not supposed to be debates about how the article fits the policy. That's of secondary importance. They're supposed to be debates on whether or not the subject warrants discussion in an article of its own, or, indeed, in an encyclopaedia at large. That is the primary reason why AfDs are conducted at all.

My big point is this: If the subject can be demonstrated to be notable, lack of verifiability becomes a cleanup issue instead of a solid deletion rationale.

Now, the big question, which I would like a honest answer from you, ignoring verifiability issues for now: Is the topic worth of encyclopaedic discussion?

Personally, I believe an encyclopaedia should have a list of the best-selling games. The details of implementation of that should be left to people who can find sources for the numbers, yes.

So no, I'm not advocating adding unsourced information. I just felt it was a topic worth discussing in an encyclopaedia. I don't care what the article says now, it can always be improved further.

Last I checked, the Policy didn't require us to purge the unsourced facts from the article history. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization XIII changes

I never changed anything in the first place. I have absolutely no clue what Organization XIII is and the fact that you traced my IP to it is somewhat disturbing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.176.58.42 (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC).