Talk:Ambition (card game)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

See also:

  • (Two of the following links were formerly in a section headed "Posts until May 13, 2004", referring to posts moved off Talk:Ambition or Talk:Ambition (card game).)
  • Related Votes-for-deletion debates (periods of discussion, and outcomes as indicated):
  • Posts moved to /archive1 Talk:Ambition (card game)/archive1 (Other debate, soon after the first VfD, on the legitimacy of this page.) [Link broken by copy into subpage replaced by portable one by Jerzy(t) 08:20, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)]
    • [Posts before the first section heading]
    • [First section]
    • [Second section]
  • Sections moved to Talk:Ambition (card game)/Archive 2
    • Posts since March 31, 2004 (early group)
    • Summary of prior controversy
    • Posts since March 31, 2004 (later group)
    • An Alternate Summary of Continuing Controversy, & Critique of it
    • re: theories
    • edits
  • Sections moved to Talk:Ambition (card game)/Archive 3
    • Mediation attempt by AFK
      • To Mr. Church
      • To others
      • Final thoughts
    • Comment by Isomorphic
      • Reply
  • Sections perhaps eventually to be moved to Talk:Ambition (card game)/Archive 4
    • Before I Go
    • Related games
    • The story continues
    • 2004 December

Contents

Before I Go

I am listing this page on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

Originally, I intended to exit Wikipedia with this page intact: Even though I would no longer be a contributor, the information would be there for those who wished to access it.

A use of the "What Links Here" feature convinced me other wise. Six main namespace articles remain that link to this site. Six, when there should be many more, as there are many places where a very appropriate link was removed.

I have agreed to leave Wikipedia and therefore will be unable to defend this page, and people here will continue to rape it, hoping to bait me back onto the system so we can have more ego-clashes. I don't want that to happen. I'd rather let this page die and settle everything. I don't want to have to do this, but I have to.

I must put this article out of its misery, though I would rather not have to. This page has been delinked and attacked with the viciousness of a hyena nourishing itself on a cadaver. Only 6 main namespace articles link to it, out of 20 or 30 that should. Its page rank is decreasing-- down to 4/10 already-- and is rapidly heading into the toilet. In that sense, it has become an embarrassment, and I won't let it live on.

Let this cruelly maimed, suffering animal die. Ambition, the game, shall live on, shall become established, and quite probably famous. Yet I am eternally discouraged as an ex-editor of Wikipedia. There are just too many petty, yet inflated, egos for the project to work.

I'm sick of the link attack, the ignorance, and the people who have no better way to inflate their egos than insult something I created. Fuck this article, and fuck all of you who've made me have to do this. Mike Church 08:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the pleasant language at the end. Some of us could have done without that. Dysprosia 08:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I thought the point of wiki was that it isn't your page to defend. 6 links seems more then enough for a card game. --Starx 05:16, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Mike, you have missed the point of Wikipedia. I realize that you have a vested interest in Ambition (card game), but once you write something in Wikipedia, you are giving it up to anyone who wants to edit it. You are but one of 1000s of editors here. Content you write elsewhere may be yours; content you write here is not yours. Review Ownership of articles. Kingturtle 05:31, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Nikoli has indeed reprinted the rules for Ambition. Learn about HTML or use Geeklog or PHP Nuke or any other proper way to put up a website devoted to yourself and your creations. One last bit of advice, when you get a bit older and you reflect back on your current behavior, go easy on yourself. PilotPrecise 08:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Related games

Carleton once had a tradition of a card game called "FYB"; i think the object was to take the second most tricks, and i think the polite name was "Down River" or "Downriver". This may or may not be relevant to the controversy, but would be intereresting in any case. A first crack on Google was merely frustrating. Any info? --Jerzy(t) 02:03, 2004 May 27 (UTC)

FYB, or "Fuck Your Buddy"/"Screw Your Neighbor"/"Pass the Trash"/"Downriver" is one of those names given to a number of card games. Most of them aren't trick-taking games, and a couple are drinking games.
So FYB is actually a large class of games. There may be an Ambition-like card game by that name in Carleton tradition, I couldn't find anything via Google. Mu Gamma 12:43, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. "Pass the Trash" in your response stimulated my memory, not bcz i ever heard it before, but bcz doing so was an element of this FYB: a 3-hand cycle of "Pass 3 cards left, pass 3 cards right, keep everything", IIRC. (But no drinking.) --Jerzy(t) 14:17, 2004 May 27 (UTC)

Oh, Hell [wink], am i, in the preceding, just confusing the passing in Hearts with FYB??? [blush] --Jerzy(t) 19:54, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

The story continues

Far from having bowed out and left this page alone, Mike continues to edit it with a variety of sock-puppets. I'm getting very tired of this game. Mike, if you have any verifiable information to add, then cite your source. I will not allow you to use Wikipedia to inflate the image of your game. Isomorphic 20:50, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I refuse to edit war with a sock-puppet. I also refuse to let Mike set the tone of this article. This article was spared deletion largely because we thought he'd left, and the article could sit in peace. Since it continues to cause problems, I am nominating it for deletion once again. Isomorphic 03:31, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The offending IP's can't be banned? Or the article protected? --Starx 15:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If he's determined enough, we'd probably end up banning all the public terminals in the Carleton library, and any sucker who let him borrow their dorm-room LAN outlet. And i think the normally approved use of protection is only temporary, to chill out an edit war where there is hope for pacific resolution. --Jerzy(t) 20:03, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

So protect it. Let it sit protected for a couple of months, everyone will forget all about it. --Starx 02:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

2004 December

Recent Speedies

  • I just speedy-del'ed Ambition (card game) after 3 edits. It was deleted per Vfd, & any reasons for creating a new one should be discussed here before doing so. --Jerzy(t) 03:11, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)


  • I shant vote on this because I wasn't around to see the original Ambition article, but after seeing this page I created it. OvenFresh☺ 02:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) [This misplaced contribs moved here by Jerzy(t) 07:23, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC) from User:Mike Church/december18#Comments. The word "this" deprecated in view of lost context by Jerzy(t) 20:27, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC). (This note refactored to allieviate confusion by Jerzy(t) 20:27, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC))]
    • I speedy-deleted it; see its talk page.
    --Jerzy(t) 03:17, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
    • It's pretty safe to assume w/o checking that OF can't undelete, but only can recreate, which is what was done and has again been deleted. --Jerzy(t) 07:23, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
      • That is what I meant. Its quite annoying how you make it appear as if I'm vandalizing your talk page, Jerzy, I don't even see why your removing my comments without responding. As for the article... Why exactly shouldn't it be created? I'm unsure as to what happened previously with this article, but just let it go already. An article about Ambition is quite fitting; there is plenty of other articles about card games. So... why exactly should it NOT be created? OvenFresh☺ 15:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, let's see: in light of your recent history, i don't mind your being annoyed, altho reverting your msgs on my talk page
      • previously reflected the fact that i had no interest in talking to someone who was busy deleting valid records, recreating a VfDed article in combative fashion, and refusing to join a discussion of the article here where it belongs.
      • presently reflects the fact that i've no interest in discussing "you and me", altho i'm willing to make a few comments, here, about the deleted article,
      • has the effects of
        • exiling it to my talk's history and
        • clearing my "new messages" flag without the trouble of displaying my whole talk page (or fooling the server into thinking i've done so),
      • does not necessarily reflect a judgement that it was vandalism, but
      • does reflect that
        • at the time of reversion i preferred not getting communication from you by that channel, and
        • with respect to each of the reverted messages, i refuse to take any responsibility either for having read it, or for not. (Whether i did read any particular reverted msg is my own business, just as whether anyone else chooses to read it via the page history of my talk page is their own business.)
    As to the article, it was deleted in a 5-day (or maybe then 7-day) process, by a supermajority of interested editors, such as we generously and a cautiously apply, at significant cost, to most deletions. That process, quite reasonably, creates a (rebuttable) presumption that the article should not be recreated, which is why it is subject to speedy deletion at this time. IMO one of the reasons why Talk:Ambition (card game) should not be deleted (and one for its present protected state) is that, like Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ambition (card game), it provides background for anyone like yourself who may think the situation has changed. I am not at this time interested in defending the decision; i don't even recall voting in any of the two or three VfDs on the article, although i recall referring to what i think was the first vote, probably on Talk:Carleton College in a msg that may now appear only on Talk:Carleton College/Re M..e C..h. But i don't mind pointing out those resources and advising you to consult them. Since you purport to be new here, it may also be worth mentioning Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. [Ill-chosen example Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ambition (card game) (i should have remembered that!) struck thru by Jerzy(t) 01:43, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)]
    --Jerzy(t) 17:08, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
      • I didn't realize how scattered the info on the various delete discussions was; i have collected links to it & am adding this to the top of this page. It may offer answers pertinent to OF's questions. --Jerzy(t) 01:35, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
      • " in talking to someone who was busy deleting valid records" What "valid records" did I delete? I've made a lot of useful contributions to Wikipedia. OvenFresh☺ 21:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • For the record, you scrubbed 259's talk leaving only the archive link, with the effect of hiding that content from anyone who relied on the archive to be up to date, since you added nothing to the archive. You followed that immediately by presuming not only to hide (the same) MC-related ugliness of 259, but to do so on another user's user page. (In fact, in doing so you were scrubbing the user page of a user who had confessed they should not have scrubbed MC's user page.)
        By the way, i don't think your "useful edits" claim matters in this context, so i won't now bother questioning in detail your building up your edit count by speed-editing stretches of some alphabetical list of articles.
        But i grow weary of this, and you should not count on further replies.
        --Jerzy(t) 01:12, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
        • Whatever. I'll be leaving this "debate" (more like "I'm an admin and your not, haha, I win", actually). I didn't come here to be insulted by some jerk who doesn't even know that most maintenance pages are listed in alphabetical order. I'm out. —OvenFresh☺ 02:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)