Talk:Ambition (card game)/Archive 5

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.

Contents

1

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in May, 2004 by its creator. The result of that discussion was to keep the article. For an archive of the discussion, see Talk:Ambition (card game)/Delete.

For a December 2004 deletion debate over this talk page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Talk:Ambition (card game)

It was listed again for deletion in August and was deleted, after a protracted controversy. It's unlikely that an Ambition article will resurface: no party involved with the controversy wants to see a re-emergence of the article.

Is this the same "Ambition" I used to play when I lived in Chicago? Or a totally different game? Why is there a discussion page if the article is gone? User:Eternal March

(It's known that User:Mirv, aka Mr. No One Jones, did not involve himself with this article until a User:Eternal March posted on the matter. It's doubtful that Mr. Eternal was discussing the same game; at any rate that user seems to have vanished in the wake of this controversy. Therefore, this has been judged a personal attack on extinct user Mike Church by Mirv.) Effortless [sig added]

I wouldn't know what Ambition you played in Chicago. This one's a trick game of some sort; a guy out at Carleton (I even know him) wrote it last year. The discussion page is vestigial; as you can see I cleared it just hours ago.

It would be judicious, even if you're familiar with the game, for you not to write an article about it at this time. I hope you don't mind, but I ask you not to do it just yet. The controversy ended in September, wait until at least January (and probably much later) or so before you move on that. There's a stupid little controversy you don't know about, and it has to be let to die before anyone can edit on this topic without risk of severe harrassment and possible discredition by some influentials in the Wikipedia community. 259 05:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Libelous material has been removed from this page. I recognize this will not make all users happy, but it is best for Wikipedia at present that the flames of this ugly and ultimately useless controversy be snuffed out. 259 18:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Material that 259 calls "libelous"

deleted by 259, who is believed by Mirv and a few other users to be Mike Church.

You know, Mike, you're not fooling anyone. If you think you can just delete everything from this talk page, create some new sockpuppets, and recreate the article in January, you are sadly mistaken. —No-One Jones (m) 06:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mike is gone. You'll have to address him elsewhere; I don't even think he reads WP anymore. So tell me, what are you? 259 06:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nobody's fool. —No-One Jones (m) 06:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is anyone else tempted to remove this No-one Jones's vandalism?

You've been fine everywhere else, just cut the crap.

No, Mike, you're the only one trying to bury anything that reflects poorly on you. —No-One Jones (m) 04:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

p.s. These attempts at doctoring the record are only fanning the flames. Nobody was especially concerned with you or your card game until you started this new (but still laughably incompetent) puppet show. —No-One Jones (m) 19:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look, this is just god-awful stupid. Mirv claims that two other users believe me to be Mike Church. Fine. Most of Wikipedia does not; three or more users do.

Mirv probably doesn't even know the original genesis of the controversy at hand, so I'll educate him. It has nothing to do with Ambition, a thoroughly innocuous card game. In reading over the controversy that occurred here and in other forums, it is obvious what motivated the controversy: Mike Church is a young man with controversial, left-of-center political views. He comes across as elitist and aristocratic (which is ironic, because he's not) --a snotty blue-state (gasp!) liberal. A bunch of right-wing loonies saw Wikipedia as an open ground to launch anonymous attacks via page vandalism. So they did, and this massive controversy erupted (as said controversy has since drifted from its originally political roots, I do not mean to claim everyone involved is right-wing.) To Wikipedia, the whole thing is like fingernails scratching across a chalkboard. Almost no one on Wikipedia likes it-- it's unproductive and reflects poorly upon the community-- but people are afraid to stop it because anyone who protests, who stands up and calls to end the controversy, will be accused of sock-puppetry by the book-burners.

So, tell me, Mr. Mirv: why can't it end? Is Mike Church's naive socialism really a threat to your ideological goals? Or maybe you care nothing for politics: are you just a silly, dumb bully picking on a kid in a forum he left months ago? Furthermore, have you ever considered that you only bolster Mike's large ego by attacking him? It's possible that the guy secretly relishes being at the center of a bitter (if irrelevant and puerile) controversy. It makes him seem more important than he really is. 259 02:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Most of Wikipedia does not.

How do you know this? I doubt most of Wikipedia knows or cares about User:259.

Mirv probably doesn't even know the original genesis of the controversy at hand, so I'll educate him. It has nothing to do with Ambition, a thoroughly innocuous card game. In reading over the controversy that occurred here and in other forums, it is obvious what motivated the controversy: Mike Church is a young man with controversial, left-of-center political views.

Funny. I was here during the whole set-to, and that's not how I remember it. If you can point out a page where your left-wing views (which are far from unusual among Wikipedians, by the way) caused controversy, I can point out a dozen where your promotion of this game did likewise.

He comes across as elitist and aristocratic (which is ironic, because he's not) --a snotty blue-state (gasp!) liberal.

Mike was quite full of himself, I agree.

A bunch of right-wing loonies saw Wikipedia as an open ground to launch anonymous attacks via page vandalism.

Really? Who are these "right-wing loonies" and what pages did they vandalize?

anyone who protests, who stands up and calls to end the controversy, will be accused of sock-puppetry by the book-burners.

Yes, I would like to buy your bridge. How much did you say it was? *ahem* Of course, the accusations of sockpuppetry had nothing to do with these random users' joining Mike in the promotion of his card game, or their attempts to cover up the records of Mike's misbehavior, or anything like that. No, of course not.

Is Mike Church's naive socialism really a threat to your ideological goals?

So how do you know anything about my ideological goals again?

Or maybe you care nothing for politics: are you just a silly, dumb bully picking on a kid in a forum he left months ago?

Or maybe I don't like a self-promoting egotist trying (and failing) to fool me and abuse Wikipedia to promote his card game, with less success every time he tries.

Furthermore, have you ever considered that you only bolster Mike's large ego by attacking him? It's possible that the guy secretly relishes being at the center of a bitter (if irrelevant and puerile) controversy. It makes him seem more important than he really is.

Well now, I thought he was gone? How can I be bolstering his ego if, as you say, he doesn't even read Wikipedia anymore? Unless. . .
Now, until I saw your latest sockpuppet's post at the top of this talk page, I hadn't spared a moment's thought for you in some time. I doubt anyone else had either. If you want things to stay that way, you should a: Stop trying to abuse Wikipedia to promote your card game; B: Stop trying to hide the records of your misdeeds; C: Stop trying to abuse Wikipedia to promote your card game. I guarantee that this will make everyone forget about the unfortunate affair of Mike Church—if that's really what you want. —No-One Jones (m) 02:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2

This mis-named December 19th creation has been blanked, to avoid confusion.

It was described in the summary for its creation edit as containing moved text which was in fact copied text. Its duplication of a msg on both pages, and its making no note, in the original location, of the intended change in the locus of discussion, have already caused me to reply to that msg where the msg was actually created. If not caught, this would have caused it to appear, falsely, to those who might follow a discussion on this page, that i had not replied to that msg.

Further, it treated pending Ambition (card game) talk as concerning the separate topic of User:Mike Church/december18, and/or as if its history began in December even though it needs clear links to what preceded that date.

Finally, the creator of this page made no legitimate link to it: the only link was created by forgery, changing the text of another user's signed edit (mine, as it happens) on a talk page. (Due to routine reversion of the forgery-creating edit, that link existed for less than 9 hours, on a Sunday, and may well have done no harm.) Completely excluding this page from the long-term record is a desirable side-effect of my planned remediation, in avoiding occasion for confusion about which revisions of it should be ignored:

Simply make no use of any revision of this page except as evidence of wrong-doing.

The suggestion that a discussion page should not be named using "archive" is uncompelling, but not completely without merit. But even if made in good faith, the remedy i am dismantling would be completely unsuitable. A temporary expedient that is far less disruptive is

I am taking on that project.

As to the longer term, i will seek the agreement of the admin who protected Talk:Ambition (card game) to my altering that page,

  • to describe the general scheme of the archiving, and
  • to use a direct link to the new title rather than relying on the Move-tool-created redirect.

--Jerzy(t) 04:13, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

3

Links to this page should be regarded as attempts to direct those interested away from the substance of what has been said about the deleted article Ambition (card game). --Jerzy(t) 06:59, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

The material between the heading "Edit That Hid the True History of This Discussion" and the horizontal rule is an edit forged as being by the non-editor User:Pw3x. --Jerzy(t) 07:05, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Edit That Hid the True History of This Discussion

The material formerly at this page can now be found at Talk:Ambition (card game)/Recent talk.
Ambition is a card game, the article for which was deleted at the request of several users including Ambition's creator. On these grounds, please do not create an article on the game at this time.