User talk:Bakerq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk about *ME*! Or issue complaints and comments. Stuff.

Contents

[edit] First Post!

Uhm, I first-posted myself... should I ban me? --BakerQ 17:12, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mario series characters and User:A Link to the Past

The story: An often-times heated debate had gone on surrounding the content of the page List of Mario series characters which I had been drawn into after reading its request for peer review. The user A Link to the Past wanted to remove a large number of entries from the page. After a week of debate with no one supporting his position, he began to move the entries to another page. I reverted the edits, which he would then revert. After a couple rounds of this, I posted a "please do no remove content" note on his Talk page. His response was to immediately delete that note and then accuse me of personal attacks, as shown below. The following is the resultant dialogue, complete with all warnings and unedited, beginning with his unsigned notice of person attacks, dated 12:06, 18 August 2006:

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

I have vandalised no pages. You have removed entries from a page multiple times, despite a vote against removing the entries. I noted on your talk (which you've removed against policy) that what you had done was considered vandalism, and now you reply in kind. You are being shockingly petty. --BakerQ 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that when I reduce the content of an article by moving content to a separate article that can be accessed with one click (which *gasp* is a suggestion made by Wikipedia), that I am removing content. Fun fact: Did you know that removing content is NOT ALWAYS VANDALISM? Yeah, you can sit down, I guess it's a shock that pressing backspace is vandalism. Sorry pal, but deletion of content is not vandalism. Deletion of content with the intention of making an article bad is vandalism. If the article had remained as large as it did, I guarantee you that it would never become a featured list. So in splitting the content of the two article, I managed to bring it closer to featured list status. And, excuse me, what you're doing is calling edits that were made in good faith vandalism. Edits that had the intention of improving the article (and edits that DID improve the article until you got huffy and reverted to an inferior version). And guess what? Against policy to call good faith edits vandalism. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Please, let's try to discuss this without resorting to sarcasm and snide remarks. The reason your removals were considered vandalism is because they were voted down every single time you tried before.
You removed the vandalism mark on your own talk page (which is, as near as I can tell, frowned upon but not against policy). I'm not so afraid of criticism so I'll ask your permission to remove the "personal attack" note and vandalism warning. I plan to leave this discussion, of course. Just so you understand, I've got nothing against you, Link, and I appreciate the content you've provided so in no way did I personally attack you. On the subject of he Mario Series Characters page, however, you have been alone in the crusade to move entries to another page and have no conceded one inch no matter how many people have voted against. --BakerQ 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Every? You mean all of once? In a vote of three people, on a vote of whether or not the content should be deleted? One of the three voters said he could go with a split or stay with one list. That means that it's one to one on this, apparently, and I have the style guidelines on my side.
I removed an inapplicable vandalism tag put up there by a user assuming bad faith, no one frowns on that. You can remove the vandalism tag, but you cannot remove the personal attack tag, because you DID make a personal attack.
There was never a vote on the move. It was a vote made because I was flat out deleting the content. And will you stop calling improving articles crusade, as if I am doing something wrong? Is it so hard to actually answer my damned request? Will there ever be a day where you actually respond to this article with an argument why they should remain, and no, the fact that two people want it is not an argument. Give me a reason why this is better than what I am doing. Why is one list better than two? Think of something good, because I have guidelines on my side. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I meant nothing by 'crusade' other than another term for 'mission' or 'purpose', although with a bit more of a combatative hint. I'll continue this debate on the talk page of the article. Thank you for removing the warnings. --BakerQ 16:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox Thanks!

Thanks for using my new Userbox! It's my first one. I'm glad you liked it. Little odd that you hate MySpace and have a MySpace, though... *hmm*--Viridis 06:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Free Software

Hi Bakerq, I notice that you're interested in open-source/free software. Please consider joining WikiProject Free Software. We're just starting out, and we could really use some members. Thanks! Geekman314(contact me) 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)