User talk:PeanutCheeseBar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, PeanutCheeseBar, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - crz crztalk 00:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kerry article

I know it's frustrating when someone keeps adding in material you truly believe to be POV or otherwise inappropriate. But you don't do yourself, your position, or Wikipedia any justice by violating Wikipedia policies in attempting to right that wrong. If they're really wrong then others will step in and take issue with it just as you have done. It may take time but this article has a high profile so I'm sure that we'll collectively converge on the right balance and content. I know where you're coming from and I empathize. Slow and sure. Don't let others drag you down to that level. Best of luck! --ElKevbo 02:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I've really sunk to Derex's level when he's been cutting out statements and intentionally rendering an article POV, intentionally misrepresenting my name and attacking other users (something he's been blocked for before), and posting antagonistic comments on my page and his. I'm loathe to let him treat Wikipedia as his own personal plaything and go unpunished; matters like this can be the cause of double-standards on this site. To that end, if he's not documenting justification of changes and cutting material without discussing it, then I'm not in violation of the 3RR rule since what he is doing constitutes vandalism. --PeanutCheeseBar 02:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You absolutely make this stuff up don't you? What have I deleted today? Nothing. The only reverts going on is you deleting well-sourced on-topic facts that don't suit you. I did, as talk page consensus indicated, yesterday trim the article way down to the basic facts. Several editors supported me in that both verbally and with edits. I've given up trying to hold the line, even though the section violates undue weight policy. Rather, I'm actually adding facts to flesh out the article. That you selectively are deleting those, rather than trying to proportionally reduce the article, says it all. And let me note that Tbeatty called my initial trim "proportional", and Tbeatty is about as openly and vigorously conservative as they come around here. So your hysteria about spin is rather poorly placed. Derex 02:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am quite conservative is well, though I believe in balance, and your insistence on deleting my comments about Kerry refusing to apologize, why he refused to apologize, and the fact that Democrats criticized him as well throws off the balance of the article (and that's just the tip of the iceberg). In addition, I'm suspecting that there is some sock puppetry at work, and I'm not the only person that believes this, as Folksong has duly noted. I've asked you repeatedly in the comments of my edits and your discussion page to join the discussion page on Kerry, where we can come to a compromise; if you cannot bring yourself to be a team player and participate, especially when I and others have asked you many times, then you don't need to participate in the editing of the article. --PeanutCheeseBar 02:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PSI List

I merged the lead into the EarthBound series article. However, the list has no place on Wikipedia. We don't need to know all PSI powers in the series, let alone how much damage they do. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're able to revert my edits, you're able to respond to me. Wikipedia is not about teaching people about how much damage an attack does or what it does. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that PSI is significant to the series requires there be a list of all PSI powers in all of the games? That makes no sense. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? It'll never be significant enough to require a guide on an encyclopedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is my job to point out "no guide content on Wikipedia". Why won't you explain why this list is necessary to Wikipedia? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

FF is terrible precedence, just like Pokémon. Just because a game in one of those series has something like this doesn't mean that it is standard. But hey, even the FF magic articles doesn't just list magic and tell you how much damage they do, who can use them, and what they do. Wikipedia does not need to know how much damage PSI Starstorm does. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing the list is improving it. The list is NOT necessary. Write the importance of PSI to the series in the article. There need not be a list for PSI powers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You should just merge the article to series article until you actually make these improvements. Half the time people say they're going to do that, it's still the same months later. If you're still arguing about the list, look at Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nemu 18:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, its removal is good. Why are you forcing me to repeat this? I have told you several times that it is unnecessary to list powers. Your example, FF Magic, does not have Fira or Firaga. It does not tell you how much damage Fire it does. It does not tell you all who can use Fire. It does not tell you what Fire does. If you are trying to use FF Magic to validate the article, you also validate removing a ton of content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Would you care to explain how any of that is important to the article? Translation of opening text is cruft, stuff about the rom is original research, and the trivia is unencyclopedic. Nemu 17:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What does people having played the rom have to do with anything? That does not make it any less original. All of the trivia besides the roms size(which is pointless), and the music composer(can be readded to an audio section later), is all OR also. And we both agree that the translation of opening text is pointless. Nemu 18:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that. That tag is worthless. Nothing, I mean, absolutely nothing, good ever comes from it. Nobody actually uses it, so if you don't have sources to back it up, please just let me remove it for now. Nemu 18:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I do have little faith in the editors, especially for a small article like this. Several large articles I edit occasionally have had them for a few months to a year or so. I don't like to put messages on talk pages because I either never get a response(for literal months in the very least), or I get one or two people, like you, that want to keep everything(no offense meant), which does nothing for me. For now, can I just remove the info, and if you can source it, you can place it back up? Nemu 18:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Just a word of advice - if the argument at the AfD keeps going, it may end up being closed early. And if it's closed early, there's already plenty of consensus to delete the article. So it might be a good idea to just withdraw from the argument and let the AfD run its course. Or, at the very least, continue the discussion on your (or his) talk page, rather than at the AfD. Kafziel ^Talk 14:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point, regardless of what I say or do, the article will likely be deleted and nothing I say will change that; truth is, ALttP is not the first person that I have taken up an issue with on matters like this, and it infuriates me that such destructive (and holier-than-thou) behavior is condoned here. I believe it takes credibility away from Wikipedia when one user can make a decision to blow something away regardless of what others have to say on the matter, and without consulting them first. I have tried to reason with him, only for him to show me an attitude and for him to say why he isn't wrong. I mean, look at the Pop Star history; he's vacillated from removing content, to adding it, to removing it again, and saying that someone ELSE should open it up for discussion. He's just absolutely out of control and has control issues, as shown by the fact that if someone makes an edit he doesn't like or agree with on an article, he just attempts to blow it away or have it deleted, and I can't believe that behavior is rewarded. Wouldn't you say that I have been quite civil with him? --PeanutCheeseBar 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Verbose? Certainly. Civil? I'd say not. I find it hard to find any civility in any of your communications with him so far. Accusations of meatpuppetry, of trying to railroad your article, of destructive behavior... doesn't look at all civil to me. That's not to say he isn't doing the same, but two wrongs don't make a right.

I also want to point out again that this is not a case of one user making a decision to blow something away. Eight editors agree that the article should be deleted. That's a pretty sound decision by a number of unrelated people. It's not just him. Regardless of what he's doing elsewhere, this is the only article relevant to this particular conversation.

Keeping up the argument isn't going to lead to anything but trouble. You're not going to change his mind, he's not going to change your mind. Sometimes you just have to walk away. Kafziel ^Talk 15:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid I have to disagree with you on the civility count, as I believe I was quite civil with him when this discussion originated on his talk page. Though I have been rather tactful going further into the discussion, I DO have a limit for how much arrogance I can and will tolerate from an individual, and I make few exceptions to that rule. That aside, I am sorry if you do not like how wordy my responses are; given that we are communicating in a forum where it is difficult to convey different degrees of emotion (such as increasing frustration, for example), I make a lot of effort to make sure that things are quite clear, and sometimes there really is no way to say something without being very overt.

I also have to disagree again with the fact that this one particular article is subject to this AfD debate by sheer virtue of the fact that if you check the user's edit history, he has attempted to "railroad" other articles in the past when other editors have disagreed with changes he has made, and he has attempted to do the same to those articles. Regardless of whether or not the article should be deleted, recommending an article for deletion is simply a tactic he employs when he does not get his way, as you can see from his past and from talks on his page. To me, that suggests a much deeper problem since it affects multiple articles, and if you cannot recognize that and understand that, then he gets off scot-free and gets to do it all over again. The end result is that the quality of Wikipedia suffers, and given that this certainly isn't the first time this has happened (including the perpetrator going unpunished and the objector being warned and discouraged), I'm just less inclined to contribute. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't give the same "warning" to him (it's really just a suggestion), because it would suit him just fine if the AfD is closed and the article gets deleted. You're the only one who has anything to lose by continuing the argument.

At some point, you're just going to have to accept the fact that he had nothing whatsoever to do with this article being deleted. I listed it. He didn't ask me to. Several other editors support deletion. He didn't ask them to.

To be honest, I don't really play video games. I have a PS2 that I use to play Star Wars: Battlefront, and that's about it. So I don't have a lot of interest in the articles he's merging and I'm not really the right admin to appeal to about it. I'm just here because I know Wikipedia policy, so I'm only interested in this as far as that goes. The deletion of the article is pretty well assured, and that is in keeping with Wikipedia policy. At this point, I'm just trying to save you a little aggravation. There's no shame in backing down on this one. Nobody is going to think less of you for apologizing (for the meatpuppetry remark) and conceding the deletion of the PSI List. You may have more to discuss with ALttP, but not in this particular situation. I assure you, if you just walk away from the situation for a few days, it will seem a lot less important when you come back. Kafziel ^Talk 16:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that the issue will be less important in a few days time, but in the long run, he'll just be able to do it again in the future. You listed the article for deletion, but he put down the template and made the suggestion that it should be done. Regardless, I'm saying he should be warned for the nonchalant and arrogant attitude he has taken towards those who object to him from several articles, not over particulars of one article. I really don't have anything to "lose" in this by virtue of the fact that this is an open-source encyclopedia that suffers due to how self-referential it is, from anonymous editors who aren't always qualified to make decisions on the content of some articles (as you've no doubt heard on the news), and those who are in a position of power to do something and correct some of these issues, but are too busy promoting their own views (such as whether or not someone supports anon users doing editing, how some things should be categorized, etc); it's more of a loss for the people who contribute something useful, only to have someone else decide "it's not Wikipedia material". I use to have the same view on the Larry Seidlin article that you have on the PSI List article, only to learn that people will continue to say "this is notable", or "I want to know more about this", and even if you don't believe it is, it does not change the fact that they still want to know. Shooting it down will only make it that much harder for interested individuals to find, and reinforcing (or the lack of inhibiting) another person who works to eliminate that information doesn't really help anyone in the long run (unless they're looking for bragging rights). If nothing else, I will not apologize for calling someone out when I believe he made a mistake, and especially when that person is too arrogant to discuss it in a civil manner; to do so would only reinforce his delusions of grandeur, and in all good conscience, I can't do that. I'm glad you were a little more civil than ALttP was, but I still have some disagreement with your belief that there is not a bigger underlying issue with that particular user; knowledge of policies may have put you where you're at now, but it doesn't do a lot of good if you can't spot a problem user like ALttP and put him in his place. All you've given him at this point was the warning to "play nice" the one time, and that's it. I hardly find that to be adequate or fair, especially in light of the long talk we've been having. That aside, though we cannot see eye to eye on some things, I am glad you are much more civil and somewhat more logical in expressing your views. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't need a warning. He's been blocked 12 times for edit warring and incivility. I think he's well aware of his shortcomings at this point. But in this case, you have committed more blockable offenses than he has. You can argue that all you like - nobody ever admits it, because everyone always thinks their situation is somehow unique and excusable - but it's a fact. I'm not issuing any warnings or blocks to anyone because I'd like to think this talk is productive. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's what I'm hoping.

I do find it amusing that every time there's a content dispute, the loser drags out the old "This Will Hurt Wikipedia" argument. Hundreds, if not thousands, of articles just like this one have been deleted and Wikipedia is none the worse for wear. If you know of a more successful Wiki on the web, I'd like to see it. For that matter, try looking up EarthBound in Encyclopedia Britannica. Not one single mention. Does the fact that they don't have comprehensive coverage of every video game ever made make them less successful? Nope. And we have 100 times more information about video games, TV shows, movies, and comic books than any encyclopedia. We're doing just fine in that department. We've given a lot of inches, but you're trying to take a mile.

But, aside from all that, if you honestly can't see the difference between an actual live person like Larry Seidlin and a list of imaginary powers from a video game, I don't think this conversation is really worth having. Kafziel ^Talk 17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If ALttP didn't need a warning due to being blocked several times in the past, then I don't see why he was not warned or blocked after the first few signs of hostility in this case or previous cases in the recent past (and why he is still allowed to edit even now). I don't like to exclude people from discussions if they have something productive to offer, but judging from this case and previous cases in ALttP's history, he has some issues with civility, and it looks like he's been given and burned through several chances.

That aside, I think you misinterpreted my so-called "This Will Hurt Wikipedia" remark; the loss of the article isn't what would cause harm, but the continued existence of a user who incites controversy by changing around articles without regard for civility and compromise and exudes arrogance and megalomania while doing so would. My case is neither special or unique in that I am not the only one that has made it (in general, not for the particular article), and that people like him do stuff like this all the time and continue to get away with it while the objector gets reprimanded. One article is not a loss when you consider that there's a rogue user who's butchering several rticles and changing them to his liking (or simply trying to have them axed, as is the case with Frank Grimes).

As for the Larry Seidlin article, you must not have read the history of the AfD debate or of the article itself; the point I was trying to make was that the article was not notable at the time it was recommended for deletion (and it was horribly POV, for that matter), but had Seidlin not began acting up in the courtroom (as later reported in the news) or people not taken interest in the matter, the article would likely have been gone, or more of a stub than it is now. I'm sorry you can't see what I was attempting to infer , but I thought you might understand.

Lastly, if you don't remember, I did say that the article was lacking in material relevant to the story, and needed improvement. As I also told ALttP, I didn't so much take issue with the page being deleted as I did with his attitude in this matter; I certainly don't like to see pages get deleted, but it bothers me more when people conduct themselves in the way that ALttP did, because I simply have very little tolerance for arrogance. You certainly don't see me arguing with the other users who voted to delete it, both because they are unrelated to the matter and because they have not been inherently hostile towards me; I only took issue with the one who had to have a nasty attitude. All I ask for is some decent logic along with a helpful or civil attitude, and I will return the kindness and gracefully accept defeat. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there IS the simple fact that few, if not all of the articles I merged/redirected had no controversy to their merge/redirection in the first place. Which you continue to ignore simply because it kills your argument that I have a "disregard" for the opinions of others, just because "your" article was AfDed. I recently stopped edit warring over people disagreeing with the merging of articles or redirecting of them, but certainly not because of you claiming that I have no concern of other peoples' opinions. I have been far more civil than you in this situation. I'm sorry for being arrogant, but Wikipedia would be worse for wear if I wasn't here - an inestimatable amount of lowered quality, but the Kirby articles and Katamari Damacy possibly wouldn't be as good as they have become since I began work on them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy; I don't completely agree with some of the statements that you've just mentioned, but I'm much more inclined to listen when you're civil about it, and saying you are sorry goes a long way to show that. I graciously accept your apology, and I want to put this behind us, for the good of all parties involved. To that end, if a dispute between us should arise over another article or otherwise, I hope we can be this civil when dealing with it. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)