User talk:Kinitawowi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Kinitawowi and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Ah, cheers for that. I always wondered how the sig thing was done... ;-) Kinitawowi 14:52, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 The Settlers 2 Why, in the description of Richie as a "self-obsessed, perverted, wittering git", does git link to Jeffrey Archer? (Apart from the obvious.) 3 Re: Warcraft characters 4 Manchester United/History of Manchester United 5 Psycho Pinball 6 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 7 The Game (game) DRV closure

[edit] The Settlers

Great work in The Settlers. Congrats :). Rvalles 17:35, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) I just spotted it in [[Category:DOS games]] and figured it needed a bit of an overhaul. I'm debating whether or not it would benefit from a list of buildings and object types to illustrate the build trees and prioritisation factors... or whether that's something best left to GameFAQs. Kinitawowi 00:07, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

We're writting an enciclopedia... as it is now, it's better than it was, but still a stub ;) Rvalles 01:18, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why, in the description of Richie as a "self-obsessed, perverted, wittering git", does git link to Jeffrey Archer? (Apart from the obvious.)

Who's to say?--Crestville 18:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Warcraft characters

Hi, see Talk:List of Warcraft characters. There is no reason whatsoever to have all that information centralized. In a pedia you want information to be linked together and be able to navigate from one article to another, but you do not want every piece of information on the same place (centralization). We have followed this convention of many many fictional characters before. There is no reason to merge this article nor any other article referring to fictional characters. Or do we have all the Harry Potter articles inside list of Harry Potter characters? Please, before you try to be a policeman try to think about the logic that someone followed before working on articles.

I have noticed that you are kinda new to the pedia so let me take a little bit of my time to explain something about consensus...

Firt of, consensus is not a Wikipedia policy and will never be (it goes against the principles of Wikipedia itself). In this case, the "consensus" was to keep the information (although around seven users expressed their opinion to merge it). The consensus of Wikipedia is based on opinions and ideas rather than on scientific research, because of this these opinions are not often for the best of the project. However, many of them are excellent ideas and many of us incorporate them to the pedia when we beleive that they will help the project.

In this case, merging the characters into a single article is not for the best of the project. That alone would set a precedent regarding fictional characters, which if big enough, are given their own article as they deserve it. That is what I have done by splitting the article, what many of us have done in the past, and what some contributors originally did for the Warcraft characters. The only list of characters that I have seen to follow that format is Light Characters in the Wheel of Time series, but I do not know anything about that so I left it how it is for those that are working on them. Since I know about Warcraft I work on them and split them for the best of the project.

It is kinda hard for me to explain, but one of the main principles of information design tells you that you should never force someone to chew on information that they are not looking for. In the pedia we follow the concept of data hiding to some extent, but not completely. For example, in an article about Jesuschrist why should you describe in detail the Virgin Mary and the Twelve apostles? You either follow the convention "Virgin Mary (small description)" or simply link to her through a wiki-link. By having all the information cramped in the same place you force users navigate manually on a same page when looking for information about other characters, instead of providing them with a wiki-link that takes them to other article.

The main reasoning for us at the project to split content is for those users that wish to print the information. What would happen when a user wants to print information about Sylvannas but her information is merged with all the other characters? The user must find which pages on his printer are of Sylvannas alone, and even after doing that he will be printing information about other characters in the same page of Sylvannas. That is what we avoid, that is why we prefer to link information around rather that jamming it in the same place.

—Joseph | Talk 17:51, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

You say "consensus is not a Wikipedia policy and will never be (it goes against the principles of Wikipedia itself)"? What? Quoting Wikipedia:Policy: "Wikipedia policy is formulated for the most part by consensus." Promotion to adminship is by consensus. New policy is reached by consensus. Wikipedia is all about consensus: consensus is at the very core of Wikipedia. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 22:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Additional to Lowellian's comment; if consensus is to be completely ignored, then VfD is a complete waste of time. I'm sure that there's plenty who would agree with that sentiment (you included, judging by this discussion), but while it remains a part of Wikipedia: Deletion policy it should be adhered to. Hell, taking Sylvannas Windrunner as an example, it's currently a candidate for speedy deletion under article 5 (recreation of deleted content). Kinitawowi 09:45, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester United/History of Manchester United

Hi,

I noticed you'd been working on Man United-related pages and could do with your opinion on something.

The history section was split out of the page last year (I think) but someone then wrote another history section in the main page. Both pages are now well over the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article, and it's getting to the stage where I suspect people are editing them without reading them all the way through (which would explain why the Glazer takeover is mentioned twice in Manchester United, in roughly the same amount of detail each time.

So, my idea is to create new pages for different eras in United's history, merge the relevant bits of Alex Ferguson, History of Manchester United and the History section of Manchester United into each new page and put summaries of each new page on Manchester United, with comments asking people not to make the summaries too long. The new articles would have titles like:

• Manchester United pre-1945
• Manchester United 1945-1968
• Manchester United 1968-1986
• Manchester United 1986-present

I think something like this is necessary to keep the pages manageable, but obviously don't want to make such big changes to other people's work without hearing what people think first. Please let me know what you think, at the Manchester United talk page.

Thanks, Cantthinkofagoodname 11:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Psycho Pinball

Good job expanding the article, if you feel like adding more (particullary on the PC version, as I don't remember playing it at all) go ahead. ^wS;✉ 13:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Shall do, although I'll probably need to find a Mega Drive version from somewhere to make sure I don't end up ripping out anything version-specific. Kinitawowi 00:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Operation Wolf Compiler directive The Kids Will Have Their Say Hugh Blumenfeld East Peninsula, Sulawesi Liza Tarbuck WCWM Brave Saint Saturn Bubble Symphony Battle Chess Populous Montgomery Gentry Bubble Memories St. Thomas Mount List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois Bill Morrissey The Beloved Pearlash

Cleanup List of monuments in the United States of America List of British pop musicians of the 1990s Gareth Gates Merge List of best-selling albums in the United States Smash Mouth La De Da Add Sources Beautiful (song) List of U.S. state beverages Ask those who know (book) Wikify Stahlhelm Marcus Brigstocke Steve DeVito Expand Donkey Kong Jr. (arcade game) Scrolling shooter You're either with us, or against us (slogan)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Game (game) DRV closure

I'm not trying to start another fight, I'm just interested... what led you to the decision to keep this article? Kinitawowi 09:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The debate in question was a deletion review, which reviews deletions and the outcomes of deletion debates. In this case, the action being reviewed was a deletion by User:Zoe, after this deletion debate. I merely interpreted the result of the vote in the review, and since a majority voted to restore the article, that was the outcome. --bainer (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed you about something that others have been preventing people from telling you. If you do not receive it, please respond on your talk page. Dagedzil 08:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)