User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page! Please be sure to make all posts civil and constructive, as I'll revert anything I deem to be vandalism. Also, let us try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho!

My Talk Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

[edit] References

[edit] VG Newsletter

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games Newsletter

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter Volume I, No. 1 - April 9, 2008 Archive before Archive After To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list. Project at a Glance As of 2008-04-07, the project has: 82 Featured articles 10 Featured Lists 7 Featured Topics 1 article in Featured Article Review 184 Good Articles 15 articles for Peer review 3 articles for Assessment Featured Articles, Lists, and Topics Candidates and Reviews Featured Article Candidates Guitar Hero Featured List Candidates List of songs in Guitar Hero II Featured Topic Candidates None Featured Review Final Fantasy VII (FA) Changes to Featured and Good articles, lists, and topics in March Promoted FA: Final Fantasy XI, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Defense of the Ancients, List of Halo media, Giants: Citizen Kabuto, Grim Fandango, Spyro: Year of the Dragon, List of songs in Guitar Hero Demoted FA: Metal Gear Solid Topic: Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow Promoted GA: Grim Fandango, Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Metroid series, SimCity series, Characters of Halo Demoted GA: Final Fantasy III, Star Fox 64, Star Fox Adventures News Current proposals and discussions Well, gee, thanks 1up! 1UP.com has recently changed their rating scale. A list of affected articles can be found here. See discussion for details. Inactive project cleanup Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here. Feature The Importance of the Lead The lead is one of the most important parts of any Wikipedia article; its job to summarize the article in 2 to 3 paragraphs in order to familiarize the reader with the structure of the content that you will providing them as well as to give a quick one-minute overview of the topic. Many articles that are processed through Good Article or Featured Article assessments will be heavily scrutinized for a poor lead section. For articles dealing with video games, a common practice has developed for leads, being a 3-paragraph discussion. First paragraph The first paragraph should state the name of the game (using both bold (to identify the article's name) and italics as per the manual of style), along with any other alternate names the game may go by. The genre of the game should be clearly identified as well as the developer and the publisher. If a notable person has been cited by the game as having worked on the game's development (such as Tim Schafer or David Jaffe), this should also be noted. Release dates should be given, along with the release of any ports, remakes, or sequels. Second paragraph The second paragraph should summarize the plot briefly in one or two sentences; a high level overview is only needed to set the stage for further discussion. One or two sentences should be included to discuss the gameplay, including any notable features of the game. Third paragraph The third paragraph should cover the reception of the game, citing its general critical reaction and any significantly notable successful or failing elements in the game. If the game has won awards, this aspect can be noted, but specific mention of any award is discouraged. This approach should help you to write a good lead for nearly any game, though this may need to be altered for other games. If there's not a lot of reception information for a game, it may be worthwhile to combine the listed first and third paragraphs into one paragraph. There may be need to talk more about an aspect not normally covered in video game articles (such as with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)) which should be noted in the lead. Things you can help with: Peer review: Video game, Crash of the Titans, Xbox Live Arcade, List of Final Fantasy compilation albums, Metal Gear Solid, Shigeru Miyamoto, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess‎, Myst III: Exile, Blade Runner, Zanac, Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) Cleanup: List of characters from The King of Fighters, Hellgate: London, LeChuck, Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon, Lost Odyssey (plot), Destroy All Humans! Big Willy Unleashed Featured article candidates: List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s (FLC), Halo (series), List of Sega 32X games (FLC), Alleyway, List of WWE SmackDown video game titles (FLC) Good article nominations: Ayu Tsukimiya, Music of the Final Fantasy Tactics series, Super Smash Bros., Music of Final Fantasy XI, Day of Defeat: Source, WWE SmackDown (video game series) Article status review: GA Review – None; FA Review – The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, 3D Monster Maze; FT Review – Final Fantasy titles Articles for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Monitor the following related changes pages: changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Announce your new articles Sign up for the new VG Newsletter. Project Navigation VG Project Main pages Main project – talk Project category – talk Portal – talk VG Project Departments Assessment – talk Cleanup – talk Peer review – talk   Magazines – talk Newsletter – talk Video Game Images – talk

[edit] The WPVG Newsletter (May 2008)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games Newsletter

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter Volume I, No. 2 - May 7, 2008 Archive before | Archive After To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list. Project at a Glance As of 2008-05-06, the project has: 84 Featured articles 11 Featured Lists 8 Featured Topics 0 article in Featured Article Review 206 Good Articles 1 article in Good Article Review 13 articles for Peer review 1 article for Assessment Changes to Featured and Good articles, lists, and topics in April Promoted FA/FL: Guitar Hero, List of songs in Guitar Hero, List of songs in Guitar Hero II, Halo: Contact Harvest, Age of Empires Topic: None Demoted FA/FL: None Demoted GA: Air (visual novel), SimCity (series) Promoted GA: 24: The Game, Chocobo Racing, Crackdown, Crush 40, Dynasty Warriors 4, Geneforge, Gravemind, Guitar Hero (series), Half-Life (video game), Martin O'Donnell, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Music of Final Fantasy III, Music of Final Fantasy VI, Music of Final Fantasy X-2, Music of Final Fantasy XII, Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Resident Evil: Extinction, Sega Mega Drive, Super Smash Bros. (series), StarCraft: Ghost, System Shock 2, The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures, The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game), Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, CD-i games from the Legend of Zelda series, Xbox 360, Voices of the Lifestream News There were 256 new articles in April 2008 Current proposals and discussions Well, gee, thanks 1up! 1UP.com has recently changed their rating scale. A list of affected articles can be found here. See discussion for details. About 14% of the articles on the list have been checked and updated. Inactive project cleanup Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here. WikiProject Warcraft and WikiProject StarCraft have been switched into Warcraft task force and StarCraft task force under the VG Project. WikiProject TimeSplitters has been deleted. Feature Writing about Gameplay The Gameplay section is a crucial component of a good video game article. Although it may be relatively easy for an experienced gamer to write such a section, care must be taken to maintain an appropriate focus and balance. The section should be written for readers with little or no knowledge of video gaming and should not be filled with detailed information about weapons, levels, or other such topics that are only of interest to the video gamer or that might be found in a game guide. Your goal for crafting a good section is to have people who have never picked up the game understand the basic mechanics. Do note, however, that it's safe to assume the reader has at least a minor knowledge of what a video game is. This section often begins the body text after the lead, but is sometimes placed after the Plot section. Games with little or no story can cover the plot in the Gameplay section. When writing about a game, use your head and common sense about the ordering. Generally, start off with a broad stroke—is the game a RTS or an FPS, etc. Don't talk about why the gameplay is like it is; generally, that is better placed in the 'Development' section later on in the article. Images can be added to better illustrate some aspects of gameplay. Generally, a single screenshot will suffice. Because of screenshots are non-free content, usage should be minimalised. Multiple images can be used, but all images should add something to the article beyond what the prose states. All non-free images require a fair use rationale to be used on Wikipedia. Things to remember Don't add in cruft about weapons, levels, and minute details of trivia; gameplay sections should serve as a primer to the game, not an exhaustive list of every facet of the game. Don't use gaming jargon which can be confusing to readers, such as "NPC" or "MMORPG". If you use these terms, state the full name and the abbreviation the first time it appears. For example, "Halo is a first-person shooter, or FPS." Wikilink! So you don't have to describe what a god game is, link it. Talk about what makes the game different from others; if you only talk about why StarCraft is a real-time strategy game, then readers could just visit the article about the game genre and be better served. Things you can help with: Peer review: Video game, Crash of the Titans, Xbox Live Arcade, List of Final Fantasy compilation albums, Metal Gear Solid, Shigeru Miyamoto, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess‎, Myst III: Exile, Blade Runner, Zanac, Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) Cleanup: List of characters from The King of Fighters, Hellgate: London, LeChuck, Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon, Lost Odyssey (plot), Destroy All Humans! Big Willy Unleashed Featured article candidates: List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s (FLC), Halo (series), List of Sega 32X games (FLC), Alleyway, List of WWE SmackDown video game titles (FLC) Good article nominations: Ayu Tsukimiya, Music of the Final Fantasy Tactics series, Super Smash Bros., Music of Final Fantasy XI, Day of Defeat: Source, WWE SmackDown (video game series) Article status review: GA Review – None; FA Review – The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, 3D Monster Maze; FT Review – Final Fantasy titles Articles for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Monitor the following related changes pages: changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Announce your new articles Sign up for the new VG Newsletter. Project Navigation VG Project Main pages Main project – talk Project category – talk Portal – talk VG Project Departments Assessment – talk Cleanup – talk Peer review – talk   Magazines – talk Newsletter – talk Video Game Images – talk

[edit] References

[edit] Pie chart

Sorry I haven't got around to making a pie chart for you yet. I've been in and out of town, and overall pretty busy. Could you make a CSV sheet out of the data you wanted put into a chart? I took a quick look and I wasn't 100% sure how you wanted to extract the data.   — C M B J   23:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I'm not sure what would be the best approach either. I am open to suggestions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hm

Do you want to get serious with the mudslinging? Or would your rather just this one time in our exchange history re-evaluate your own position, the possibly suboptimal wording of my comments notwithstanding? dorftrottel (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All I want is for you to be civil and respectful to your fellow editors. Attacking editors is not how you will convince them to change their stances. Notice what works in RfAs when I and others do in fact change our minds. Insulting them is not what does it. Something like this is what does make editors want to give the candidate a chance. Calling editors "ridiculous" or making assumptions about their standards for adminship does not persuade editors to do anything, except maybe dig in, as others agree per [1] and [2]. In any event, it is unfair to the candidates to take whatever dislike you have for me and some others over to their RfAs, especially when many candidates are fully capable of responding to my opposition in such a polite and constructive manner that I do in fact change my stance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All I want is for you to be respectful to your fellow editors. Equals the opposite of what you are doing in those RfAs, to the candidates who have enough stress as it is, without someone posting outrageous opposes like you imho do. Ok look, I'm this close to telling my true opinion, which is not a very good idea. Please ask Durova what she thinks about your RfA opposes (my comments are secondary to that). I think we both trust her judgement. dorftrottel (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Which a good deal of other editors agree with: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], etc. and which in many instances the candidate is able to respond to in a civil and constructive manner, which when reasonable causes me to change my mind. We are first and foremost here to build a comprehensive reference guide and as one of the main functions of an admin deals with deletion, how they will close AfDs matters. Swearing and using overly dramatic language just does not accomplish whatever it is you want to accomplish. I give candidates a bit more credit than to think they can't handle reading a few random opposes from editors. We all receive criticism from bosses, teachers, parents, etc. Anyone wanting to take on a position in which editors will occasionally challenge blocks or challenge AfD closures and maybe even have to defend themselves on admin boards should at least be able to handle good faith criticism of AfD participation. If my opposes are off, then at least give the candidate a chance to respond and peacefully convince me otherwise rather than causing the RfA to turn into something personal and which diminishes the likelihood of editors changing their stances. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please ask Durova. dorftrottel (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just leave it. This is getting really boring. You need to learn the difference I think between 'truth' and your opinion. The consensus on notability can change. I vote at AfD when I weigh up a person - if someone tends to delete alot, then there has to be some more evidence of article buidling or civility to make up for potential pedia shrinkage etc. I suspect le Roi thinks the same way. Given your views on notability...have you ever been to a decent-sized tertiary institution or seen one of their libraries with the depth of coverage they have? Seriously. I am really curious. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not the current issue. The issue is opposing RfAs over both programmatic (inclusionism vs exclusionism) and utterly invalid reasons. However, to be honest, you are not the person whose judgement both LGRdC and me trust. Durova is that person, and she has indeed offered to mediate between us in the past. It would be great if she could just weigh in with a few words. I know she wouldn't condone the way I commented in that RfA, but I don't know what she has to say about the way LGRdC is frequently opposing in RfAs. dorftrottel (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very much a part of the issue. There is nothing wrong with having limited (or no) access or experience with the breadth and wealth of published material or certain subjects, especially popular culture. The university which I am associated with has a whole library annexe solely dedicated to pop culture (but is damn hard to park near and out of my way..). What is wrong is either deliberately or accidentally ignoring the possibility of sources, and going forth and wiping large sections of material via AfD. Thus, if you haven't had any exposure, how on earth can you form an opinion on the extent of material and participate or, for that matter, pass judgement on either my or Le Roi's ideas o notability?? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually don't speculate on the existence of sources. dorftrottel (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gimme a break, so notability=google, eh? if you had some experience looking in greater depth at material not online then you would (probably) share my frustration. The internet is very bland and minimalistic on a whole host of areas, and WP is a golden opportunity to rise above the lowest common denominator and really educate. All featured articles I have worked on have required getting books etc. which just goes to show how much the internet is actually lacking. Therefore some degree of speculation is necessary. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to say I'm stupid or too lazy to look for sources? dorftrottel (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

One of my pet peeves is how people are treated as stupid and unable to learn - people are capable of remembering vast amounts of information. Think of a main street in the suburb where you live. Now try and list all the attributes you can think of about that street; shops, funny houses, broken streetlights, working streetlights, cracks in the footpath, no parking zones, residences, opening hours of shops, cross-streets, schools etc. You should be up to a few hundred items of information. Now think of other streets in your suburb, then other suburb. See how much you remember (alot, isn't it?) My take on this is you don't have to be some child prodigy to remember prodigious amounts of information and we can all be alot more knowledgeable than what we are. Unfortunately alot of what is written or produced for television or other media is really dumbed down to some imaginary lowest common denominator. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, one of my pet peeves are people who are stupid and unable to learn. dorftrottel (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ah yes, one more thing. Stalking my edits to dig up dirt is a bad substitute for rational arguments. As I asked you above: Do you want to get serious with the mudslinging? Either way, in my humble opinion, you just continue to be calculable as a falling stone. dorftrottel (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh right, you may have noticed that I too have been in communication with LaraLove at one time or another, so I didn't need to 'stalk your edits' to see that exchange nor that at Alex's RfA which I was second person to support on. I think you better take your own advice here as per your last reference on my talk page, though I think Le Roi can speak for himself. I somehow suspect you will not sway Le Roi with your witty repartee. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you, otherwise I would have posted this at your talk page. dorftrottel (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion needed for User:AnnaFrance

My adoptee had a question about a poorly written elementary school article which I answered as I see appropriate. However, I did point out that I tend to be an exclusionist and therefore I would ask someone who is more inclusionist to also give an opposing argument to my rationale for deleting the article. When you get a few minutes, could you pop over to her talk page and give your viewpoint on this? Thank you. Trusilver 16:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll check it out. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. And I'm throwing this out here again: I'm up for a messy fight and I'm completely willing to nominate you for adminship whenever you decided you are up for it. Trusilver 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help!  :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The WPVG Newsletter (June 2008)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games Newsletter

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter Volume I, No. 3 - June 4, 2008 Archive before Archive After To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list. Project at a Glance As of 2008-06-04, the project has: 89 Featured articles 13 Featured Lists 9 Featured Topics 2 articles in Featured Article Review 208 Good Articles 0 articles in Good Article Review 10 articles for Peer review Changes to Featured and Good articles, lists, and topics Promoted FA/FL: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, List of acquisitions by Electronic Arts, List of Harvest Moon titles, Riven, Myst, Topic: Characters of Halo, The Orange Box Demoted FA/FL: Devil May Cry series (FT) Promoted GA: Air (visual novel), Crash Boom Bang!, Driving Emotion Type-S, Einhänder, Half-Life 2: Episode Two, Metal Gear Solid, Off-Road Velociraptor Safari, Team Fortress 2, Grand Theft Auto (series), Kratos (God of War), History of video game consoles (seventh generation) Demoted GA: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Cloud Strife, Super Smash Bros. News There were 203 new articles in May 2008 Current proposals and discussions Well, gee, thanks 1up! 1UP.com has recently changed their rating scale. A list of affected articles can be found here. See discussion for details. About 28% of the articles on the list have been checked and updated. Inactive project cleanup Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here. WikiProject Dragon Quest has been redirected to WP:VG. WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games Guild Wars task force has been deleted. Interested in a specific video game series or company? Check out some of our task forces to help improve the related articles. Atari Command & Conquer Devil May Cry New! Gears of War Grand Theft Auto Silent Hill Suikoden New! StarCraft New! Valve Visual novels New! Warcraft Feature Writing about Development Development content is very important to include in an encyclopedic video game article. It provides a history of how the game came to be and provides real world information needed for an article to claim comprehensiveness. However, writing this section can be difficult because the amount and type of information available will vary for each game. One of the best sources for such information is a developer interview. These can provide insight into the thought process of the designers and give examples of influences and obstacles encountered. Previews can also be helpful by giving a snap shot of the game before it was released and may mention development issues that were still being addressed. When writing about development, common sense should be used to organize content to maintain a sense of flow for the reader. Most times, it is best to give the information in a somewhat chronological order—though information can also be grouped by topics like audio, promotion, graphics, etc. If one such topic gets large enough, it can be split off into its own subsection or regular section. For example, Kingdom Hearts#Audio is a separate section from the rest of the development information because it focuses on the game's musical score and voice acting. Portal (video game)#Soundtrack, however, does not have as much content and is a subsection of the main development section. What to include about development Who are the developers? Which company or studio developed the game, and are there any prominent designers involved? When did development begin? When and where was the game first announced? (e.g. Tokyo Game Show, E3 Media and Business Summit, etc.) What influenced the game's story, characters, music, and/or gameplay ? (e.g. past games, movies, books, etc.) Were there any delays? Was anything excluded because of time or technological constraints? (e.g. extra levels, game modes, characters, story arcs, etc.) Things to remember Avoid proseline. Though maintaining a sense to chronology is important, this section should not read like an ordered list of events. Images in this section should be relevant to the information given and should add on to it. Source everything to avoid information being tagged as original research. Things you can help with: Peer review: Video game, Crash of the Titans, Xbox Live Arcade, List of Final Fantasy compilation albums, Metal Gear Solid, Shigeru Miyamoto, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess‎, Myst III: Exile, Blade Runner, Zanac, Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) Cleanup: List of characters from The King of Fighters, Hellgate: London, LeChuck, Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon, Lost Odyssey (plot), Destroy All Humans! Big Willy Unleashed Featured article candidates: List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s (FLC), Halo (series), List of Sega 32X games (FLC), Alleyway, List of WWE SmackDown video game titles (FLC) Good article nominations: Ayu Tsukimiya, Music of the Final Fantasy Tactics series, Super Smash Bros., Music of Final Fantasy XI, Day of Defeat: Source, WWE SmackDown (video game series) Article status review: GA Review – None; FA Review – The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, 3D Monster Maze; FT Review – Final Fantasy titles Articles for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Monitor the following related changes pages: changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Announce your new articles Sign up for the new VG Newsletter. Project Navigation VG Project Main pages Main project – talk Project category – talk Portal – talk VG Project Departments Assessment – talk Cleanup – talk Peer review – talk   Magazines – talk Newsletter – talk Video Game Images – talk

[edit] Merci beaucoup!

Hello! I just wanted to offer a quick bit of thanks for your kind words regarding the spirited AfD debate regarding the 1937 film of "I, Claudius." I appreciated your comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; I love to see it when editors work together to improve things, so bravo!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just had to prove me wrong, didn't you?

here :) Just after I said I didn't think we'd ever been on the same side of an AfD. Actually, we probably have since you only found a handful to point out at my RfA but this one caught my attention. Oh and mega ditto what someone said above about the Pumpkin drink at Starbucks, although I personally prefer the pumpkin smoothie from the deli near my office. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am happy to see that we agreed sooner or later!  :) Pumpkin smoothies... mmmmm.... :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

tell you what, come to New York and I'll buy you one. I had to be sold on them but they're pleasantly good. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I'm ever in New York, I may take you up on it, or return the favor should you be in my neck of the woods. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Little polar bears just stopped by your talk page to wish you a good day. They'd like to thank you for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia and hope their visit will brighten your (busy) Wiki-workday! ^_^ 09:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rfa thanks

great pumpkin, i just wanted to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. i've left some templated thank spam for you below. also, feel free to comment on my in-depth RFA analysis. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam

[edit] Thank you for your support

So...how do I use these things? ;>

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Potential not current state and your more experienced eye

With the above in mind would you mind having a look at Joe Sernio. I'm attempting to get it fixed just in case the subject is notable enough for inclusion. I'm afraid that a possibly new contributor may be digging a whole they can't get out of with the article and would appreciate any help you can provide as a more experienced editor in getting it into some form of shape. I've addressed some of the issues on the talkpage if that helps. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see if I can make some improvements now. Any chance you can help me with Elizabeth Wiatt? If you notice the history of the page, I did a good deal already, but any help would be appreciated. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: IAR

(copied from User talk:Randomran#Re: IAR):

I'm a "he" incidentally. One could say the same about cherry picking and repetition on those against the inclusion of the articles in question. And again, I don't think calling editors' good faith contributions "crap" helps. If anything why not somehow notify the various article creators and editors of these discussions to get a better sense of what they really think? Why not get some new blood into these discussions? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Because that's not our job. If you feel so strongly about getting those people into the discussion, it's up to YOU to get them into it. (And before you point out that you can't see deleted contributions because you're not an admin: Neither can most of the people involved in the VGProj discussion. Only a handful of us are admins, and I'd wager that none of us have the time or resources to devote to such an undertaking.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Were I to try to get others involved in these discussions, is there a way to do so that would not lead some to think it's canvassing? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. Check out this discussion on Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#Canvassing and Consensus Building Disconnects - there is some dispute about that behavioral guideline (note that it is not a policy) as to what extent we should limit canvassing, because there are some legitimate cases where notifying multiple users of a discussion is necessary and/or helpful. That said, the main concern about canvassing is when it's used to unduly influence a discussion - as you've seen, a common dispute here on WP is between "deletionists" and "inclusionists", and you clearly fall on the "inclusionist" side of the debate in this case. So you want to be careful to make sure people understand that you want them to express their opinions, but not necessarily to influence them unduly. It's a tough one to go on.

I agree that in an ideal world, you could get any uninvolved, neutral third party to go contact those people for you in the interest of keeping things balanced. If I had the time and inclination, I'd be happy to help you with that, since I've been on both sides of the fence. But I don't, unfortunately, and I don't think other admins in the project do either. And the commonly accepted practice is that the person who wants to make the change to current consensus must do the "leg work". It's up to "you" to convince "us".

That said, if we're still discussing the game weapons issue, I believe I already made my point on that one: There are good policy-based reasons for maintaining the status quo on which weapons get mentions and which ones don't. The policies many times transcend consensus, and WikiProject guidelines are based on those policies (in VGProj's case, WP:N, WP:TRIVIA, and what Wikipedia is not figure heavily into the guideline structure).

My personal opinion on this specific issue is that you'll need to concede at some point that the majority of active participants in the project disagree with you on the general notability of weapons, and that continuing to argue about it with us/them is fruitless and will only serve to annoy people. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am definitely an inclusionist, but not such an inclusionist as to think "everything" should be covered or that deletionists are my enemies. I have argued against the inclusion of hoaxes, how tos, original research, and other unconstructive stuff and some deletionists even appear on my list of nice Wikipedians. I do not want to get a larger opinion in these discussions merely in the hopes that I will somehow "win" the argument, but in the hopes that the larger community can reach a greater understanding. It's not just about game weapons, but also fictional characters as well and while I would of course acknowledge that a number of those who actively participate in some of the project discussions disagree with me it still is disconnected from a larger number of those who create and edit articles and so what I think we need is to get those editors in on the discussions somehow to see why so many do in fact believe that this type of coverage is relevant. If can get discussions in which more than only a dozen or so editors participate, I am far more likely to be persuaded one way or the other, as it does seem to greatly annoy the article creators and contributors when their articles are deleted if they happened to miss the five day AfD and when in some instances they are really belittled by those wanting the deletions. Anyway, thanks for the reply. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said before, every game article that's under the scope of VGProj has a template in its talk page that links it to the project. Editors who are interested in discussing these issues will eventually find their way to the right place to talk about it, so to some extent you can rely on that for "gaining interest". The fact is that a lot of editors just want to edit articles and don't really care that much about the overarching project discussions, and there's no realistic way to get those people involved in the project as a whole unless those people express some sort of interest in it themselves. And, also as I said, articles that get deleted are always tagged for deletion, and the process is such that the person who created the article is notified of the pending deletion/discussion. The notification messages themselves contain references to the relevant WP policies (which means they're outside VGProj scope anyway), and where deletion discussions take place, there are almost always links to the more specific project guidelines page(s). Any editor who knows how to use Wikipedia should be able to easily find their way from there to the Guidelines Talk (or at least the main VGProj Talk) and start discussing their concerns, if they feel so inclined. The deletion discussions themselves are also good places for people to voice their opinions and concerns.

So it's not like we aren't giving those people plenty of opportunities to talk to us. The fact remains that the people who actually participate in the project are the ones who form consensus on its guidelines. Same is true of WP policies - people have to actively participate in discussions on those if they want to get them changed. It doesn't matter how many people believe that we should have an article for every fictional character and every weapon in a game - if we never hear from them, consensus isn't going to change. That's all there is to it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, an idea would be to expand the welcome templates to say something like we encourage new users to participate in consensus building discussions (i.e. not simply read the policies, but discuss them and notice that they to can and are canged and edited as regularly as most articles) as well as article creation and revisions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My user page

No, no specific literary reference (other than a general allusion to the eponymous speaker in the Old English poem) was intended. The first sentence on my user page is just an adaptation of the second sentence in the last paragraph of the WP article Deor. Deor (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Incidentally, my username is a spin on the French combination of The Great Pumpkin and The Pumpkin King. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for the trouble

You've apparently been the target of vandalism. Consider it a high honor! It means you're "doing it right!". We (admins) have reverted the changes, blocked the user, and deleted the redirects. Let me (or any admin) know if you see anything else or have troubles again. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Anyway, I'm guessing relatiation for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Strange page moves. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You're guess is correct. Hopefully, we've found all the sleeper accounts and socks, but if not, we'll catch them eventually (we always do!). Have a good weekend, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a thread at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Avril Lavigne pagemove vandals that will hopefully solve the problem. The funny thing is, I actually happen to like some of her music... Anyway, have a nice weeend as well! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to play Solomon

Would you and Dorftrottel be willing to do a gentleman's agreement not to comment on each other's posts? Polite distance is often a good solution when two reasonable people mix like oil and water. Durova^Charge! 05:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you think that is a good idea. Sure thing. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Irony

Well, that is somewhat amusing... I am sorry that I got somewhat heated however, I disagree with you on several points firmly but I should still remain cool. G'day, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. While I may disagree with many editors here, even strongly, at the end of the day, I still know that most of us mean well and that there's always areas where we can agree or get along somewhere. Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gears of Weapons List

• The copy is now available at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Gears of War Weapons List minus the tags and cats --JForget 01:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks!  :) Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your guidance on my Talk Page - I do hope that I have not done anything 'bad' to warrant them but even if I have, thank you as I do not want to cause problems on here - Thank you and regards, 86.2.32.31 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and no, that's just our standard welcome message; it does not mean you did anything wrong. Happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

Thanks, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. I would also like to thank Acalamari, Rlevse and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements. Thank you again. AngelOfSadness talk 23:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and best wishes! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please close the most recent RfA thanks template on my user and talk page so that everything below it is not included in the templated background, i.e. so that the reference section on my userpage does not for example appear as part of the RfA thank you? Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. Sorry bout that :) AngelOfSadness talk

Outstanding! Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your offer

In terms of "been in lots of notable works, fails all aspects of WP:FICT and WP:GNG right now" articles I know of and will get around to *at one point*, the best I can think of is Stranger (Myst). I've been working on a entire topic cleanup, but I haven't really dealt with the fictional aspects much besides corralling them all into more unified articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a search either later tonight or tomorrow if I hopefully get a chance. I do have a lot of back issues of game magazines lying about as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I got a ProQuest account from another user, and I've been looking for items, but unfortunately many newspapers erroneously thought the protagonist was Atrus, and so they aren't any help :P If you find anything on characters of Myst in general, too, it can be thrown in here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have PC Gamer magazines. Do you think those would be worth checking through? Also, not sure if it's on Goodle books yet, but another publication is this as a possible source, others include these publications. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm...

What other interests do you have? Want to work on one like Clover (creature) from the movie Cloverfield? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure! I enjoyed that movie, and I have made some edits to it here and there (see [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], and [41]), as well as having participated in talk page discussions (see [42]) and the AfD (see [43] and [44]). As concerns sources, I wonder if something like Fangoria (magazine) or Starlog has online archives or not as these seem the most likely places where we would find published secondary sources that profile the creature? I would think toy magazines might have stuff on that toy they made of it as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic Gaming Monthly weapons reference

While the reference may be useful, the way you're wording it into articles could use a little more attention. Some observations:

• Don't tell us where the information comes from in the prose. That's the role of the reference footnote. Use {{cite journal}} to get the right formatting for the footnote.
• Who is Keirsey? You've dropped a name in without explaining who or what this person is. As with writing about fictional things, always make sure that someone who has not and may never look at what you are talking about knows what you are talking about.
• You keep mispelling the first time you use the word "Electronic", suggesting that you've made a mistake when copying text into a file on the computer and are pasting it onto Wikipedia. Please fix that in the file you're pasting from.
• If you have to make the whole point entirely in the reference as it cannot be properly integrated into the obvious section—as is the case on Team Fortress 2—try moving the information somewhere where it can be integrated smoothly into the prose: TF2's development or reception sections are more appropriate than the classes section in this example.

Compare these two ways of dealing with the Halo Needler:

Original text

Main prose:

The Needler weapon was recently featured in an Electonirc Gaming Monthly article that discusses its practicality and historical precedents. Keirsey praised the weapon's practicality and mentioned ancient Amazons painting "their daggers pink to aachieve the same psychological unhinging of an opponent" as a historical precedent for the fictional weapon.

Reference footnote:
Evan Samoon, "Gun Show: A real military expert takes aim at videogame weaponry to reveal the good, the bad, and the just plain silly," Electronic Gaming Monthly 230 (July 2008): 49.

My take on the text

Main prose:

In an article discussing the practicality and historical precedents of fictional video game weapons, military expert [first name of expert goes here] Keirsey praised the Covenant needler weapon for its practicality, noting that it was similar in style to daggers painted pink by ancient Amazonian warriors to achieve "the psychological unhinging of an opponent".

Reference footnote:
Samoon, Evan (July 2008). "Gun Show: A real military expert takes aim at video game weaponry to reveal the good, the bad and the just plain silly". Electronic Gaming Monthly (230): page 49. 

Straight wikicode for the footnote:
{{cite journal | last = Samoon | first = Evan | year = [[2008]] | month = [[July]]| title = Gun Show: A real military expert takes aim at video game weaponry to reveal the good, the bad and the just plain silly | journal = [[Electronic Gaming Monthly]] | issue = 230| pages = page 49}}

Make it flow naturally, without sounding like you're trying to promote the magazine (I know you're not, but the original wording can potentially be taken that way). Ideally, add some variation in how you introduce the point on different articles, especially on articles that are linked together in some way (HL2 and TF2, for instance). The information you've got is good, good show for finding it (now you're saying what the information is rather than simply saying its been in this magazine), its just a matter of getting it integrated. -- Sabre (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For some odd reason, I did not see the military weapons expert's first name in the article. I don't know if I'm just glancing over it or what, but I only see the Keirsey part of his name (they also have a picture of him). Regarding misspelling "electronic", I must have typed too fast (I can type over 100 words and minute and I suppose sometimes when I type faster I get carried away and make the occasional typo). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thank you for signing my signbook. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 03:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I know

And I appreciate you toning down your rhetoric from Nazi secret police to mere fundamentalism. Any progress is commendable. Randomran (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The main concern I have is that in the effort to remove stuff, we are not doing enough to expand and reference other stuff. We are not putting an equally sufficient time into bringing articles to good or featured status. I don't really care what we all cover, so long as it isn't nonsense or totally useless and for that stuff I have and will continue to nominate and argue to delete as I have done dozens of times now, but what frustrates me is that many of those accounts who are overly critical of myself and certain others actually argue to keep far less articles than I argue to delete. I suppose for some it is much easier to just go through AfDs with "per nom" and "non-notable" votes as many do in fact do, than to say as I do simultaneously attempt to improve the article under discussion and argue in the discussion as well, which I have to do, because I have found from past experience that I or others can do a dramatic rewrite of the article during the AfD only to have neither the nominator or the "per noms" and "non-notables" return to the AfD or look at the article in question, which means that I wind up having to also go back and forth with editors in the AfDs who many times really do not make any effort to improve the article in question or look for sources. Not too long ago, I saw one editor who outright said he would "never argue to keep" and another who said he does not care about the article under discussion and so would not even bother looking for sources or even consider attempting to improve it. If that's what we have in AfDs, then AfD is seriously flawed. The other problem is that I and others who do argue to keep certain articles that some are bent on deleting wind up getting targetted by malicious editors. I have had my userspace pages moved by vandals and have dealt with both on wiki and in emails sent to me challenges from what turned out to be sock accounts (in one strange instance a sock farm started out as aggressively inclusionist and harassed and insulted deletionists, but then became aggresively deletionist and [then went after the inclusionists, as I indicated here!). Plus, with AfDs being a discussion, it seems that many really want it to be a vote in which they can just leave a "per nom" or "non-notable" and go down the list of AfDs doing so and are outraged if someone actually tries to challenge their "vote." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Here's one for you. :) BOZ (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] are you watching me?

Either way... despite how far away I may seem from your vantage point, I'm pretty much in the middle on the deletionist/inclusionist debate. My goal isn't to destroy wikipedia or eliminate every topic that reminds me of my 7th grade teacher. It's to maintain and enforce some kind of standard, whatever that standard might be. Randomran (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have all the AfDs I participate in watchlisted, if that's what you mean, as I fully agree with the idea that they are discussions and not votes. Anyway, I suppose I am a strong inclusionist, although I have argued and nominated to delete everything from hoaxes to original research to unconstructive MfDs and so on (dozens over all and in fact I have actually argued to delete more articles than a sizable number of those on the other side of me in AfDs have argued to keep). I do not approach Wikipedia as though I am trying to accomplish any personal goal. I volunteer my time to help improve it in as many ways as I believe worthwhile from uploading images to welcoming new users to correcting grammar in articles to preventing articles that can and should be improved from being unnecessarily and unjustifiably deleted. Because there is in fact widespread disagreement over what is and is not notable and because so many editors are unaware of AfDs or discover them too late, I tend to give the article creators and editors the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. I believe that articles should be referenced thoroughly, but I am more apt to believe that they can be after my two odd years of editing here based on what I have seen time and time again. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the comments at WQA

I appreciate your comments there, really, and I think they help clarify the message I was trying to get across in a way that would have been impossible for me to get across alone.

If you'll notice, prior to the "Findings" section, my general attitude was "Yeah, Pixelface is kinda being dick, but so is everybody else. What do you want me to do about it?" However, after some thought, I decided that if I did not explicitly condemn Pixelface's style of argumentation, it would be seen by some as if I were condoning the rather sad level of dialog taking place at WT:FICT right now.

In other words, even though it was knowingly unfair, I decided to single out Pixelface in order to make it abundantly clear that this sort of thing is not helpful and not encouraged. Your follow-up comments provide a much needed counterbalance to what I said, and I thank you for it.

Hopefully things can get straightened out at WT:FICT, ha hah... I am staying far, far away from that hot potato. It's especially tough for me because I started out as an inclusionist, and I now consider myself a moderate (and reluctant) deletionist (you can see the rationale at my user page if you are interested). I know from your contribs that you are a staunch inclusionist, and it is a position I actually have quite a bit of respect for. Maybe some day I'll feel that way again, heh, I remain very uncertain about the issue. Anyway, I'm rambling now. Best of luck! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome and as I said there, it really is a two (or even multi-?) sided issue in the various FICT, What Wikipedia is Not, and related AfD discussions, rather than just being one person. I tried to engage with some other editors there as I do in AfDs and discovered that some take extreme offense at being challenged and once editors start throwing out "harassment," "tendentious editing," and other unproductive buzz terms in the discussion it just turns into an insult back and forth rather than a constructive discourse. I have seen so many baffling statements and bogus allegations made that I have largely stepped back from the policy discussions. For whatever reason, it seems the same handful minority of the community participates in the fiction related guideline and AfD discussions that I have no idea what kind of actual consensus we are really getting in either case. As I have proposed elsewhere, we really need to get more of the people who create and work on the articles under discussion involved in these discussions to get a better sense of what our community actually wants. As far as my stance in general, please see User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. I tend to argue to keep more frequently, although I have argued and even nominated to delete and for a variety of reasons. In many of the instances in which I argue to keep I also spend time trying to improve the articles in question, which makes it doubly tedious as while I am simultaneously trying to improve an article and defend it in the AfD, I'm arguing against those who are only trying to get deleted. Well, off to see the new Iron Man movie. Take care! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination)

Have to be WP:DRV then, because I'm weighing up the Keep votes in that AfD and finding them lacking. Let me take you through the Keep votes and my opinions on them

• User:Colonel Warden - "no pressing reason to delete" (personal opinion)
• User:Firefly322 - "It's verifiable" (not from secondary sources it isn't)
• User:Tj999 - "because the timeline helps alien and predator fans understand the chronological sequence of events in the series" (WP:USEFUL)
• User:DGG - "Appropriate alternative way to present the material" (well fine, but I'm still not seeing secondary sources, and it's still duplicating information in other articles)
• User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles - I don't understand your vote. You rail against "cruft" repeatedly throughout your reply, but the nominator didn't mention the word cruft at all. You say it's verifiable, but don't put forward any secondary sources. You say "The real world context is obvious", and then fail to explain what real-world context there actually is. You say "Per our First pillar, Wikipedia is a science fictional encyclopedia.", which is plainly taking 1P to mean what you believe it means. "(Wikipedia) is therefore consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction or Aliens or Predator or all three." - no, it doesn't mean that at all. I'm sorry but you really need to think about these !votes a little more.
• User:Fordmadoxfraud - WP:USEFUL. (A user who I'm sure a lot of AFD closers are starting to ignore now - people don't realise that when they start voting Keep or Delete exclusively, eventually admins closing AfDs tend to discount their contributions).
• User:Myheartinchile - WP:ITSSOURCED. No, it isn't.
• When even User:PeaceNT points out that this isn't salvageable, it's time to listen.

Yours, Black Kite 23:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Okay, will do I saw no compelling reasions to delete:
    • User:Seraphimblade - "not verifiable" (from secondary sources it is), "personal synthesis" (anyone would come up with the same from the sources)
    • User:IllaZilla - repeast points he made in previous AfD that did NOT close as delete; focus on disputed elements of Plot and Notability as rationale, repeats erroneous lack of verifiability claim
    • User:Quale - repeats nom claims refuted above
    • User:Dlohcierekim - contrary to what he said, the article is significant to the real world as it concerns one of the most notable fictional franchises of modern times and is not even a list, so calling it indiscriminate is not accurate
    • User:Deor - personal opinion: "...I don't think..."
    • User:Sgeureka - Plot is heavily contested, so hard to "violate"; makes a reasonable case for a merge
    • User:Coasttocoast - uses "fancruft" in rationale, so rationale is discounted
    • User:Terraxos - again, repeats inaccurate claim of original research
    • User:Masterpiece2000 - no actual reason
    • User:A_Man_In_Black - again, it is not original research as refuted in the AfD
    • User:Judgesurreal777 - unquestionable notable and verifiable through reliable sources
    • User:Alientraveller - non policy or guideline based reasoning
    • two in a row repetitious non-arguments
    • User:PeaceNT - just because one user cannot find references does not mean others can't
  • Now I know some of the above posted in good faith, but the bottom line is the actual unique arguments challenge each other and most of the deletes just repeat what others said (might as well have been "per nom" as in some cases the wording is practically identical). Sufficient enough disagreement and given the previous AfD that we are left with no consensus one way or the other and so should allow editors further opportunity to improve the article as many have expressed interest in doing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • But there aren't any secondary sources at all, so how can you just discount those !votes that pointed that out? That's really not very good. Black Kite 00:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not so sure; I recall reading a review of the Alien vs Predator films that talked about the continuity among the films and I also have seen published timeslines for the Friday the 13th and Planet of the Apes series in magazines and newspapers that might not be found with ease online. Therefore, I would be somewhat shocked if saw Fangoria or Starlog never had coverage on the timeline of the series or that we couldn't cobble together reviews as secondary sources. Clearly there is a good deal of reader and editor interest here and it isn't an obvious hoax, or libel, or how to, or myspace page, or copy vio, etc., that allowing editors to keep working on it seems a fair and valid way to go. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An interesting tale...

I thought you would like to hear about this. A while back I proposed WayForward Technologies for deletion[45]. I later raised it [46] at AfD here, which closed with No Consensus. Since then, new sources have come to light, allowing me to convert what was a stub to the current article, WayForward Technologies. Just to demonstrate that each cloud can have a silver lining. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 00:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the story. It does show the value in keeping these articles around as many do have potential. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

Look, I don't mind this DRV - but you can't just go through the list saying that "this point has been refuted" without explaining how and where it's been refuted. Please explain these comments, or else they're worthless. Black Kite 00:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it is any different than your list discounting the keeps. Should I deem that list "unhelpful and insulting" to those arguing to keep? Anyway, by refuted I mean looking at the AfD and seeing where the various participants challenged the delete rationales. I think some of those who argued there did in fact make good faith and reasonable claims, which is why I am not saying you should have closed as keep, but rather as "no consensus" or to relist to see if we could get some new ideas presented in the discussion. After all Judgesurreal777, Peace NT, and sgeureka, for example, are editors who appear on my list of nice Wikipedians (as do you) and so are editors whom I respect and esteem, even if we disagree here and there. My main concern is that I do not believe the delete rationales were so overwhelming in the face of the keeps made across two AfDs as well as the unheard voices of those who created and worked on the article as well as the many readers who come to Wikipedia for the article that it was a clear cut deletion. When there are fairly strong calls to keep and for a variety of reasons and from multiple editors, I would have to say, barring a copyright concern, libel, or hoax issues, we really should close as "no consensus." If the main criticism is that it's original research, well, we're talking about a major movie series seen by millions of people world wide in theaters, on DVD, on VHS, on television, etc. These films include dates and mention how many years since any given event has occurred. These films have been covered in published magazines. It's not information being presented that one person found in an archive and is reporting to us and we're taking his word for it. Millions of people can verify the timeline. Yes, I know we have a verifiability page, but there's also just being reasonable and it is unreasonable to use a term like verifiability and say it doesn't apply to something that millions of people can verify with relative ease. It's not original research as well, because it is not an essay, doesn't have a thesis, is not some experiment one person conducted and is reporting his findings on, and nor is it an article that only one person originally worked on. Multiple editors with different motivations are hardly original researchers. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts (yes, I know, this was before I wised up and realized "per nom" is week) is original research and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's New Happening on Disney Channel India is what I would consider an unacceptable future "timeline" of sorts. But take such reviews as this, which says things like "This film takes the two popular xenomorphs and sets them in the present. As a result the film slots into the chronology after the two Predator films but before the Alien series." and "Set on Earth in the year 2004..." (such reviews and such comments mentioning specific dates and sequence of events exist for all of the films and events listed on the now deleted article and I would have been better able to add these to the article if it didn't seem necessary to go back and forth with some in the AfD). The dates and chronology and sequences of events are mentioned specifically and discussed critically in secondary source reviews of the films. So, again, I have nothing personal against you or many of those in the discussion and nor do I doubt that many acted in good faith or that every rationale presented to delete was totally baseless. I do however contend that the concerns were responded to and that if the discussion itself had ended as a no consensus then I and others would be able to use these kinds of reviews like the one I cite above to in fact improve the article in a manner that would effectively address their concerns. It is simply hard to do that and debate editors at the same time. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)