User talk:Barryvalder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Kawaii

Nice edits (I'm not being sarcastic). I don't have any high hopes for the AfD, but as long as it's honest...  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  14:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to subtley get the article back on track, but the whole thing needs rewriting from scratch. It's like swimming against the tide (or pissing in the wind, take your pick). Certain users just seem on a crusade to document their hobby and I guess that kind of devotion will usually end up winning out over attempts to create an acurate Encyclopedia article... Barryvalder 14:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little baffled as to why you changed your vote to "rewrite" which essentially undermines all the commendable effort you have expended in demonstrating why kawaii isn't a "concept". Voting "rewrite" tacitly says "OK, it's a concept, it's just that the article doesn't do a good enough job of explaning why". And I think you know as well as I that "rewrite" means either "keep as is" or "add a lot of OR to legitimize the 'concept' assertion." The AfD seems to be largely settled but I just wondered what would make you undermine what you've already put so much effort into. The Crow 16:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My main reason behind going for the rewrite was because I felt that a couple of the points made as to why it shouldn't be merged were grounds. For example the length of the Culture of Japan artcile. I can see your points about undermining my own argument and I think I've been a little naive in truth. I'm very new to Wikipedia and I have lost a percentage of my sanity in trying to have a discussion with one particluar user (who has now asked me to "go away"). Barryvalder 22:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, guys like that are pretty rare, and I've met a lot of logical people hanging around the AfD desk for a while. Basically I find wiki as a great place to strengthen my arguing skills, because of the general air for verifiability and the like.

By the way, ごくろうさん is a little bit insulting when said to an equal or someone who is working for little benifit; it was originally intended as praise for one of lower status (e.g. a student or a servant), though it's not always used like that anymore. You might equate it with the phrase, "Good work chump!"  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, it was a deliberate word choice! The spelling mistake wasn't, however. Finding it hard to keep patience with one or two of the kawaii-as-definable-style brigade. The same arguments are getting hashed over again and again... Barryvalder 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the way arguments usually go. The challenge is to figure out ways to present your opinions so strongly that they can't possibly be contested. Those who listen to logic will then back down, and those who don't will panic and start saying things like "please go away".  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please consider adding an "affirm" vote to the Talk:Kawaii#Informal_consensus_resolution and the Talk:Kawaii#Referendum on "loanword" statement as original research/novel interpretation. Accepting as I do the unfortunate consensus of the AfD, I feel the second best thing is to set a clear standard of quality for the resulting article, and in doing so make a strong statement that it is not to be used as a free-for-all hobbyist trivia dump. I hope you feel the same and will record your affirmation on the talk page. The Crow 23:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I responded "not clear" to your poll since I agree with your perspective and since you also supported my poll as well. However, since we have only just yesterday restored a fair measure of consensus and civility, and this particular issue seems not to be actively contended in the article space, maybe it's best to let this sleeping dog alone until it begins to bark. The Crow 15:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you wrote something like "It needs to be added seeing as the discussion is still ongoing (although a number of our feline friend's hotly disputed points have since been thrown out of the reckoning).". While this is true, I'd ask you to consider not inciting him or responding to his over-the-top remarks, or referencing his discredited arguments. He's come back in with guns blazing. I'm trying to talk informally to an administrator he trusts to cool him down, and it may be necessary to make other steps, but this won't work if there is any appearance of someone re-opening the wound. I agree (and so do many others, it would appear from the document trail) that this user presents a unique challenge to one's sense of restraint, but please join me in doing the best you can. The Crow 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What I wrote was needlessly incendiary and I shouldn't have written it given the volatile nature of that user. I'm still very new to this whole Wikipedia game and am still just learning the ropes. However, for the first discussion I choose to get involved in I've been unfortunate to encounter such a unique user...Barryvalder 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

When I run into a confrontational editor, I always poke around their history, and I usually find it contains a probation of some kind, and it often happens that they're violating it. People just generally don't reform themselves. Individual in this case has been quietly reminded through administrative channels, so we should be able to have conversations without worry of disruption or misrepresentation. Note however in his history, some people got so irritated with him that they started following around waiting for him to slip up. However tempting, it isn't in good faith to do so, and they were censured for that. So, universe: in harmony. The Crow 13:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, every once in a while I do a wide google search for my login to make sure that I'm not being quietly reported for being a deletionist bastard by someone that I ticked off with some blunt crufty comments. So far so good.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  14:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I spoke too soon. Looks like someone suspects that I'm a sockpuppet of User:Fg2. Haha, oh well... though I must say, I'd be a pretty interesting sockpuppet to talk to myself so much in my talk page!  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  14:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Look it up

Why did you change it from Bicycle to Chicken? Black Carrot 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, see Wikipedia_talk:Look_it_up#Chicken_Edit for my views on it. Black Carrot 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)