User talk:MalikCarr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, MalikCarr, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  TomStar81 (Talk) 09:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] metalocalypse trivia

would you support Metalocalypse trivia plz .thank you very much

[edit] Personal attacks

Stop Calling users "vandals" without any policy to back you up is considered a personal attack, and is a blockable offense. I recommend you stop, and enjoy editing at Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this some kind of a joke? "Enjoy editing at Wikipedia"? You blank sections of an article, then accuse me of violating Wikipedia policies? Where do you get off, anyway? MalikCarr 00:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't read your latest rant on the Mario Kart 64 talk page before I made the above comment; I was operating under the incorrect guise that you were civil and could be reasoned with. You can blank entire sections of that article to your heart's content, I'll be fine with forgetting it even exists if you agree to never message me again. MalikCarr 01:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You do a great job humoring me. For instance, you do not act civil, and yet you demand that everyone else treat you with the utmost respect, as if you were superior to them in any and all ways. Ironically, one who accuses another of violating policy is mortified by the idea of being accused of it himself (even though the accusation of policy violation by the offended is structurally unsound and thusly proves the other person's accusation). You may not enjoy Wikipedia if you confront people by name calling when they make an edit to an article that you object to. One is not supposed to bite the newbie, but you have the arrogance of someone who has actually earned the right to be arrogant about themselves. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
What kind of uncivil person offers a parley to someone they disagree with? It's not my fault you decided to continue your destructive efforts against that article well after I'd offered to end this revert war before it got too far off the ground. It is laughable to suggest that since I accused you of violating a Wikipedia policy, and, in your mind, it was "structurally unsound", that means that your accusation must be correct. A default setting, if you will. Ho ho. As for the rest of your argument, it isn't even worth debating. Now, are you going to let me have some peace or would you honestly prefer I go find a bunch of dorks who happen to think the Mario Kart 64 article is perfect at the revert? The whole "concensus, not a vote" aspect of Wikipedia's democracy is such a farce, it would prove an excellent point too. But let's not do that, okay? I have bigger things to worry about that your meatheaded opinion of how a N64 article should look. Like some people with an axe to grind nominating dozens of articles for deletion because they do not believe they have real-world notability. MalikCarr 20:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, almost forgot. After calling me a "child" "uneducated" and making remarks to the effect of "shouldn't be allowed to post on edit Wikipedia" what grounds have you got to stand on to say I've made personal attacks against you by suggesting vandalism? MalikCarr 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're so civil to offer a parley AND declare that I am intentionally "doing damage" to an article with the intent of lowering its quality. And... are you daft? So when you were declaring me as a vandal, you didn't accuse me of violating WP:VAND? And what the Hell? Wikipedia is not a democracy, people present arguments and debate various things. Even if you have the majority of people gunning for a bunch of lists (which the FAC discourages) on this article, people aspiring to make the article - you know - GOOD, will say "well, you know, we like good articles, not bad ones". Simple as that. And meatheaded? You sure are being civil. Are you also going to tell me to "stifle it, dingbat"?
The difference is that you ARE uneducated and a child of Wikipedia. You don't know most Wikipedia policies and don't seem to understand the ones you know. You call people vandals for making edits you disagree with. What am I supposed to do, tell you how educated you are in Wikipedia policy? And you are being a child by calling names over a disagreement. And you, who has called my opinion "meatheaded", that my edits are destructive (not because they are, but because my edits make you upset). I've helped feature five articles - Wario, Henry Fonda, Katamari Damacy, Lakitu, and Cat. I believe Wario and Lakitu reached the FARC, but Katamari has not. You've never featured a game article - heck, I bet you've never been involved in featuring AN article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
So you've decided to drop the article and start trolling my user page now? That's amazing, a true testament we can add to your belt of achievements. What is this, SomethingAwful's forums transplanted into Wikipedia? In any case, you've already got me off your article, isn't that enough? Or am I going to have to deal with you until I register a new account? MalikCarr 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your AfD comments

Re: your comment [1]. It's pretty clear that you intent the term "deletionist" to refer to all those opposing your opinion in a derogatory manner. I've reviewed the comments by Edward321 as you suggested, and see nothing to support the argument that WP policies and guidelines require that this article be kept. Perhaps you could try to be more clear in making your point, and a little less ad hominem, and I could understand what it is you are trying to say. Pete.Hurd 03:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems I'm not alone in thinking this [2]. Pete.Hurd 03:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, second that from Pete Hurd. I have no objection to there being articles on Gundam in Wikipedia: all I have done is nominate for deletion those ones which should not be in Wikipedia, and I suspect you and I would largely agree on what those articles are. Please also note WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND: this is not a war between so-called "inclusionists" and "deletionists" ,despite what it says at mechatalk. Moreschi Deletion! 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
How is it that I am supposed to ignore overtures from "the other side" when the ranks of the Wikipedians who march lock-step with the AfD creator are also calling for WikiProject Gundam to be deleted as well? 'Tis not to say there aren't idiots on our side by any stretch of the imagination, because there are, but between two bad arguments the difference is that one is in favor of going "Ministry of Information" on the collective asses of a bunch of articles, while the other isn't. I tend to have a fairly conservative mind when it comes to making sweeping changes, ergo I tend to believe in inaction over hasty action. Is that so wrong? MalikCarr 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe two people - probably just 1 - have called for WP:GUNDAM to be deleted, none of which have any association with me. Moreschi Deletion! 20:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not yet convinced that there is an organized movement among the deletionists in this aspect, but even if they're few in number, as we've seen, it doesn't take many "delete"s to get an article blanked. I think you should know that better than anyone. MalikCarr 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I've been here a while. The chance of WP:GUNDAM getting deleted is nil, because articles like Gundam and an admittedly limited amount of others are and should be in Wikipedia. You also might like to read WP:AGF and WP:TINC to clarify a few things. Moreschi Deletion! 21:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC) And the only axe I, or any other editor for that matter, has is the improving-the-encyclopedia-axe. That's what AGF is about. Moreschi Deletion! 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I've read Assume Good Faith so many times my eyes are beginning to bleed just looking at it. The charming A Link To The Past and the tussel we've had over a certain video game article comes to mind. At any rate, no matter how often I "assume good faith" that doesn't change the effects of certain heavy-handed deletions I've encountered before. Like a movement to delete the small, concise list of ships in Homeworld because video game articles are not supposed to be "strategy guides," nevermind that Half-Life 2, a featured article, not only has lists of weapons and enemies, but also lists their health, weapon damage and console commands to add or remove them mid-game. Mindboggling. MalikCarr 21:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That bunch of links to pages with only Amazon.com links

Just so you know.

3 were total crap with less than 500 ghits total , and I put speedy tags on all of them. 1 was linked to a barely notable band, so I prodded it. 1 was a blasted straight-out copyvio. 2 were alright, just unsourced, so I sourced and edited them. 1 (the Star Trek one) was about books, so Amazon links were alright.

While I'm sure this will possibly frustrate you, your actions in pointing these out did help find a copyright violation. Feel free to show many any more such offending material. If it's sourceable, I will source it, and if it isn't, I'll nominate it for deletion. I apply the same rules to all articles. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're on the topic of Ghits, I suggest you should review this page. While it is not a Wikipedia policy, I have referenced this page often in deletion proceedings on both the pro and con side, and many I've worked with here before find it to be a good piece of material. Google hits should not be a litmus test for an article's notability. MalikCarr 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
While I agree (and I've used that page a long time) when I'm up against something that has not a single source I can find either online or in my library (which is pretty large) and when all the mentions seem to be trivial, it can sort wheat from chaff. If you find an author who has 4 solid sources but only 500 ghits, he's notable and good. If you find an author who has 350,000 ghits and no good sources, I hesitate to say he isn't notable. When you find no sources and no ghits, well..it's much harder to find examples where neither are around and yet the subject is encyclopedic. Not impossible, but harder. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 10:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on Moreschi's RfA...

..particularly this one, are skirting the edges of civility, good faith, and my patience. Last time I checked, WP:GUNDAM had about 12 core and maybe 7 or 8 occasional members. WP:SCISSORS has 24 members, and about 4 or 5 occasionals. If this was a coordinated attack on WP:GUNDAM by "rabid deletionists", not a single article would survive, I assure you.

Instead , I would suggest that the articles (at least the one's *I* have participated in) simply don't meet standards, and I don't think they ever will. I'll try to give you an example of what I mean. Take the main article, Gundam. The second paragraph, here, hasn't got a single source, but makes no less than 5 major assertions, such as "turning point in the history", "credited for inspiring the Real Robot genre",etc. Obviously, despite the fact that the article has no good sourcing, no one is going to nominate it. If they did, it would clearly be for the purposes of being a disruptive idiot, since Gundam, as a whole, *is* notable.

When we get to the major armored suits and weapons, again, leeway is available. I can't stand Japanamation and even I know what the RX-78 Gundam represents. But for minor things, such as (and no, I won't nom it for deletion)MSN-03 Jagd Doga, it's hard to call. The article has no sources, and it has nothing to go by. With others, like MS-14 Gelgoog, there isn't a single reason why they aren't sourced -- I KNOW there are sources. It's been here since 2004. Why?

I'm not the one nominating them for deletion. Accusations towards an entire Wikiproject are very severe, and it implies you aren't reading what our WP is about. Please consider what you are saying and what the deletion debates are about. Make copies of the articles, source them in your userspace or offline, then put them back. Once sourced, properly, wikified, etc, they can't be deleted. But blanket statements will only end up turning people against you and drawing some of the REALLY trigger happy deletionists along. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 11:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've assumed good faith since the beginning of this ridiculous crusade, but after a month of deletions from the same group of people and admins closing discussions without giving an ounce of merit to dissenting arguments, good faith is high-impossible to assume now. There's also the fact that Moreschi commented that he was "done nominating AfDs" in WP:Gundam's talk page, which he has been fairly honest about. Now he just endorses MER-C's AfDs, and as an admin, I can see him closing them with just as little regard for dissenting opinion as has been given by other admins. Is it a cabal? An organized movement? I don't know, I haven't got enough proof to assert that. But dammit it sure acts like one.
Additionally, per your WP:SCISSORS comment: intimidation may work on some editors, but you'll have to do better than that to get me to crawl back into my hole. MalikCarr 18:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Jesus Christ. I wasn't trying to intimdate you. I'm trying to show you that if there was a conspiracy against you it would certainly be so overwhelmingly obvious that someone else could see it. You are not assuming the slightest bit of good faith towards anyone who opposes you. That is not acceptible. I'm trying to be as civil as I can and DISCUSS things while you only seem interested in slandering everyone as violating process and deleting Gundam articles out of some kind of idea that you're being persecuted. Stop it. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
And so it begins with the personal attacks. Honestly, the deletionists are all the same... MalikCarr 23:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Point out the personal attack. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 23:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, I'm a slanderer? That wasn't so hard to point out, was it? MalikCarr 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, why don't you take it to the administrator's notice board, then? Mm? You claim that admins are closing AfD and violating process, you claim there's a conspiracy of deletionists, and when I say you are accusing people of things without any proof and making statements that are both untrue AND misreprentative, you say it's a personal attack. Clearly, if you're right, then someone should know about this. I've tried to engage you to discuss the issue, and the sourcing, and all you want to seem to do is insult people and claim it's a vast deletionist cabal conspiracy. See what others who have no stake in this have to say, I strongly suspect you'll fail the laugh test pretty badly. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to put words in my mouth now as well? I never have, and do not intend now, to take this to an "administrator's notice board," no matter how snotty and elitist you are behaving in this inequity. I have not claimed that admins are closing AfDs and violating process; I have claimed that admins are closing AfDs in bad faith. I have not claimed that there is a conspiracy of deletionists; I have claimed that the activities of certain users resemble conspiracy nuts' ramblings due to their conduct. And here you go accusing me of slander... tell you what, I just won't debate this issue with you any further. It's not worth the effort. Have a swell day. MalikCarr 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Metalocalypse Confusion


Ummm sorry dude I think you have me mixed up with someone else... I didnt delete the whole character esction I just changed one thing pickles did...--MetalFleur 02:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow you're right... I'm sorry dude one of my friends must have messed around with my account or something when I wasn't looking or something. I really don't remember deleting all that. Sorry again. I guess Ill watch what Im doing better or something.   --MetalFleur 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/l/User_talk%7EMalikCarr_f0f4.html"