User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Thanks 2 My RfA 3 Merci... 4 AFDs 5 I award you... 6 Request 7 Encouragement 8 My RfA

Thanks

I stole your idea. Thanks. MrPrada (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. I appreciate your trust. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Merci...

beaucoup, O Grand roi, pour votre appuie dans mon RFA. I will do my best to ensure that it isn't misplaced! --Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

De rien et bonne chance! Sincerement, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

AFDs

Read this version of the article guidelines from 2007 and understand that you've crossed a line. You're always entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts. I'm assuming good faith and chalking your recent comments on the AFDs to a misunderstanding. Try your best not to let this mistake happen again, as it is incredibly misleading to other editors. Randomran (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did add that bit about the weapons right before nominating weapons related articles that was not in the same version. If anything, a disputed tag needs to be added to the guideline as it clearly lacks consensus. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Click on the link. Do you see the part about "The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game." That's been the policy since 2007. I didn't add anything but a summary. Do you understand? Randomran (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Which does not say "All weapons in every game are never relevant." The problem is that the GUIDELINE, not policy, that states on its top: "it is not set in stone" lacks actual consensus. The real consensus that matters is that of the hundreds if not thousands of editors who in good faith made video game weapons articles and continue to work on them. A minority of our community not liking those articles does not reflect actual consensus and as even the guideline itself says is "not set in stone" and even includes the key word of "exception" at top as well. Military themed games or games that have weapons in their actual titles are indeed such exceptions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, and I never said "all weapons in every game are never relevant." Of course there are exceptions. That's not my issue. My issue is that you're saying this guideline is something I personally invented yesterday. Was that a mistake, or a lie? I'm asking you directly. Randomran (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that you personally inserted "weapons" into that one particular line, which you did in fact do. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you said I added the "section". Three separate times. The section has been there since 2007. Are you going to keep saying that I added this section, or are you going to admit that this guideline has been there since 2007? Randomran (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I meant "word" (I am getting over a pretty intense head cold this weekend, so I may have had the occasional typo); the larger problem is that you nominated some weapons articles for deletion based on reasoning that does not uniformly apply, especially the Soul Calibur ones that exist beyond appearances in the video games. Plus, the guideline itself has been edited constantly since 2007 in such a manner (including accusations of revert warring and other disputed edits) that suggests it really does not have definitive consensus. Something that "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" should not be used as a rationale for something as decisive as deletion of non-copy vio and non-hoax articles that in even an extreme worst case scenario could be merged and/or redirected. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you're always entitled to your opinion and AFD discussions are where these opinions collide. Go ahead and say you don't like the guideline, that you don't like deleting articles created in good faith, that an article constitutes an exception to a policy or guideline. But don't misrepresent the facts. The guideline about (generally) excluding lists of weapons and items has been there much longer than I've been around to see it. If you want to say that this guideline doesn't have actual consensus, that's another good discussion to have. But please don't act like a single editor just created it last week. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of simply not liking the guideline, it is that it does not reflect consensus as practised. The facts are that the guideline has been edited constantly since its creation and I only pointed out that you recently expanded that section to more explicitly include the word "weapons" last week and before nominating a number of articles for deletion that should not be deleted. Maybe merged, maybe redirect, but certainly not deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, the word "weapons" was already included before I got there. My edits have strictly been for clarity. Otherwise, nothing else you said is actually false. But I can disagree with you. And so let's keep our discussion to honest disagreement from now on, rather than falsehoods. Randomran (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do not disagree with me based on falsehoods as I prefer honest discussions. By the way, Happy Memorail Day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about me. I may be opinionated, but I'm not a liar. Looking forward to further honest disagreement. Randomran (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder though if all this time spent disagreeing is wasted, i.e. would be better spent working together to improve and reference articles? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I do spend time improving and referencing articles. I also tag untagged articles to suggest that they need improvement. And of course, I participate in AFDs to save good or potentially good articles, and delete the rest. I think disagreement can be productive as well, even with a minority or single opinion, as it can be used to reinforce established consensus. Randomran (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are indeed after trying to reach consensus, then please be sure to follow this aspect of the AfD instructions regarding the nominating process: "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Also consider notifying WikiProjects listed on the discussion page. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} ~~~~ (for contributors or established users). You can determine the main contributors of the articles by entering the page name at Wikipedia Page History Statistics." I do not believe you did so for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superweapons of Ace Combat. In the first case, you should notify any user of IP with more than one edit and the same for here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but contacting the article's creator can be nearly worthless if the article was created a long time ago and the creator appears to have left. If I'm less than courteous, it's because I'm trying to be efficient with my time. I've found that it's usually much more productive and efficient to tag an article and leave it there for a few months. That way the numerous editors who see the article can see how to improve the article. I wouldn't nominate an AFD without any kind of warning. It's unfortunate if some people are even less courteous, but that's beyond my control. Randomran (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I make sure that for every article I nominate for deletion (yes, I actually have nominated a few), I notify the creator regardless of how long the article has been around as well. Courtesy is more important than efficiency in that if we are indeed trying to get AfDs that actually reflect consensus, then we need to hear from the article creators and contributors as well rather than just the AfD regulors. Sometimes even a creator will read the AfD and actually acknowledge that he or she too agrees with deletion, which again is why it is important to notify them, but anyway, it's the fair and right thing to do as it is more important that as many voices are heard in AfD as possible in order for the discussions to actually reflect consensus. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only say that I'll try when I have more time. I have a lot on my plate. If there's any consolation, it's that articles are usually tagged for many months before they are nominated for deletion, and that there's always Wikipedia:Deletion review. Randomran (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I do strongly encourage you to do so as soon as possible, because it's best to avoid deletion reviews if necessary and it would a nice thing to do in any events. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My page is always open for discussion. Otherwise, I prefer to stay as anonymous as possible on wikipedia. Nobody here knows my email and I like that. Randomran (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Understandable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I really do suggest that you find other people frustrated with the general notability guideline and visit WT:N. Looking just at the recent discussions, it's almost comedic how relevant they are to your cause. (See "Improvements Needed".) That's exactly where you ought to be taking your argument against the WP:N requirement. If you succeed in overturning it, let me know so that I may add the band of every musician I'm friends with. Until then, you should be able to figure out which articles I'll keep/delete with alarming predictability. Randomran (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say everyone who creates these articles and finds them deleted is frustrated with the general notability guidelines, just as is evidenced from such comments as [1], [2], and [3]. Again, though, I do not think everything is notable enough for us, including bands as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostytutka. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Either way, your quarrel is with the people who created WP:N and not anyone within the video games wikiproject. No matter how persuasive your arguments, the wikiproject cannot ignore WP:N. But if you change WP:N, the wikiproject would have to follow. Randomran (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "quarrel" rather than a lack of consensus about something that the project can ignore per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Anyway, we'll see where it goes. My primary concern is that we are as useful and comprehensive of a general/specialized encyclopedia and almanac hybrid as possible and that we show appreciation for our contirbutors and donors and provide as best of a service as we can for our readers. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone agrees we should improve the service, but nobody agrees the best way get there. Some people see policies as preventing productive edits, while others see policies as quality control and standards. It's possible that you might be right: the best policy is pure democracy. But that's not wikipedia is at the moment. That's something that will have to change at the top level before individual wikiprojects can get away with ignoring key rules. Randomran (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder at times, how well this project can actually work with such fundamental disagreements and confusion. The overwhelming majority of our editors have no familiarity with or interest in the policies and guidelines written by a minority of editors. We have so many policies and guidelines now and they are themselves edited weekly if not daily in some cases that how can anyone make heads or tails out of anything? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I award you...

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Socratic barnstar for your brilliant— almost scary— excellent arguments in both RfA and AFD. Although I may have disagreed with you in the past, I admittedly realise that you have always come out right in the end and intend to help the project. We need more eminent Wikipedians like you. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 09:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Happy Memorial Day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Memorial day! :) Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC).

(Sorry to bother you agian) I just saw the template at the top of the page; I hope you get better! Get well soon! --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks on all accounts; I still feel rather out of it, but not as bad as yesterday, I guess. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request

Please remove the phrase "Deletion gestapo" from your userpage. It is insulting, both to the editors you work with and to people who have suffered under the real Gestapo. Far from being a neutral term, Gestapo is very negative, and is an unnecessarily personal attack against those you would apply it to. I would suggest that you replace the term with "deletionist". Graevemoore (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While I am willing to remove that red link from my list of essays, there is something to be said about history showing us that efforts to limit or stifle knowledge are simply neither good things nor consistent with encyclopedic tradition and as others have identified, "deletionist" is not really a neutral or positive term either. Nevertheless, there are those who identify as deletionists who indeed mean well and are good faith contributors; however, there are others who are in fact single-purpose deletion only accounts that are in effect a form of vandals and who do not really care about their fellow editors (I have successfully identified a number of these such accounts to belong to multiple sockfarms; and I and indeed others have been targetted by some off-wiki, which I'll leave at that). There is a difference between someone identifying as a deletionist, but who is also objective, open-minded, argues to keep articles every so often, and also builds articles and someone who does nothing but deletes or attempts to get deleted articles largely for "I don't like it" non-reasons. As a historian, I believe it is responsible to remember those who did indeed suffer under the persecution of such nefarious groups as the Gestapo by opposing any signs of similar behavior no matter how minor they may seem to some or even if these trends are not exhibited by those who believe what they are doing is wrong. Moreover, Wikipedia and its contributors are unfortunately not limited to the project space; editors have been quite literally harassed outside of Wikipedia, have indeed had violence threatened against them, and in some incidents have even had rival editors show up at places or work, post personal information on attack websites, etc. Some take editing beyond the project and I do not think such behavior is not really different from tactics used by historic fanatics. What else should we call those who wish to stfile knowledge, harass editors in the real world, and post on what can in effect be described as propaganda attack sites? And again, this refers only to those who do all of those things and not to the larger group of editors who refer to themselves as deletionists, but are in fact constructive and nice (yes, I list some deletionists on my list of nice Wikipedians). And for what it is worth, that link was not my term, but linked to an essay someone else wrote and which is now deleted (ironically enough). I would hope at the same time that editors with whom I work will not insult their fellow contributors by attempting to unnecessarily and biasedly squelch their contributions to this compendium of human knowledge. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the userbox as well. Graevemoore (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

See my reply to another user below. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Encouragement

Thank you so much for your words of support! It means a lot. -- Geĸrίtz (talk)

You're welcome! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi there. As you may already know, my RfA closed successfully today. My initial work is actually going to be limited (admin-wise) to a personal project involving Special:UnwatchedPages to try to encourage article development and protection from vandals, and clearing the CSD backlogs. I do eventually want to branch out to closing AfDs, but your comments at my RfA gave me further pause for thought. As a result, I have decided to continue to contribute to AfD only in a normal capacity until I have confidence that I am at least aware of any systematic bias (which was what your oppose seemed to be saying). This will not be very restrictive, given that I didn't plan to start AfD closing until a bit later on anyway, and it will help me to improve my contribution to the encyclopaedia in this area. I hope that, should you find fault with what I am saying (beyond simply a disagreement with my conclusions!), you will drop me a line on my talk page. In the meantime, I shall work in these other areas as planned, and hope to earn your trust as an administrator. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)