From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for Nmaster64.
If you leave a message, I generally respond here. In some cases, I may respond on your talk page. Please sign/date all your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom; To start a new topic, click here. If the topic's discussion is already taking place, respond if appropriate or make a new subheading.

Contents 1 AfD Nomination: F@NB0Y$ 1.1 No personal attacks 1.2 re: AfD 1.3 Thanks 1.4 Voracity 1.5 Blocked

[edit] AfD Nomination: F@NB0Y$

An editor has nominated the article F@NB0Y$ for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F@NB0Y$. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article F@NB0Y$ during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 16:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Coming from Selmo, I wear this as a badge of honor. --Nmaster64 03:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

/* cough */ I'm going to be your personal Jimminy Cricket for a little while, ok? Had I been Selmo, I would have taken a slightly different approach to this, but...

He's given you a big stoppy hand without providing you much context, so perhaps your response could have been avoided... but it's still outside the bounds of the behavior that's desired. There's an odd and inconsistant standard with regards to warning like this one: It's sometimes ok to just remove it, always ok to just ignore it, plusgood to respond sticky-sweetly.

Also while this talk page looks like it's yours, its still project space: Communally owned and 100% public, so what might seem like a private grumble to yourself is not-that-far-off from a posting to, well, anywhere else. It's also good to remember that Selmo almost certainly wants exactly what you want: The best encyclopedia possible.

I'm going to make a post to the top of this page with a heap of useful links...have a read of them.

brenneman 05:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but again you'll find I have a low tolerance for those I consider of a close mind. It's a pet peeve of mine I can't quite help. In Selmo's case I feel my anti-elitism kicking in too. I'll refrain from questioning his intent, as tempting as it is... --Nmaster64 05:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nethertheless, you have no right to say that I or anyone else is "below mentally retarded" - even outside Wikipedia. You cannot hold grudges or nurture hatred in Wikipedia - no matter what your reason is. No one is an elitist, a tyrant, a fascist or anything of the like here. Thus, it is unacceptable to declare a "war" on elethism that dosen't exist. Like you, I'm a human being; I have feelings. Your hostility towards me was very unpleasant. Perhaps I was a bit harsh a couple days ago, but that does not give you the right to make personal attacks. Therefor, I suggest you should stop your was against eletism. -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your right to call somebody "below mentally retarded" varies by jurisdiction. Depending on circumstance, it might even get you an award. I would not seek a career in giving legal advice. Saying such a thing is an assault on good taste. Good taste may or may not have legal protection and I'm not quite sure if it's a good idea if it does. TMLutas 15:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I won't say I didn't go too far in some cases here, and I'll admit to placing labels a bit to quick in some cases, but if you have a problem with something I've said outside the Wikipedia, you can rant about it outside the Wikipedia. You can't ban me from the internet because you disagree with my opinions or what I have to say, and in all reality I do indeed have the right to launch personal attack against whoever or whatever I want in my own webspace, just for your information. Not that I'll back myself up and say it's right or even very big of me to do so, but I will claim it as my right to rant on my blog. Feel free to do the same to me, although you may find my feelings a bit more rigid against little comments on the internet. You can only blame your own community for being so hostile against foreign ideas and varied opinions, and refusing to provide any reasoning behind things other than "that's what the rules say". I call that elitism. These people portray to me that anyone who isn't a religious member of the Wiki community is of greater standing and their opinions invalidate all outside reasoning. I think some people need to take a read over the fifth pillar of the Wiki again.

All I'm looking for at this point is some open-minded discussion on possible resolutions to an obvious problem. What I'm getting is an endless amount of links to the same 3 or 4 wiki guidelines and endless accusations. No, "here's an idea", "here's a compromise", "what about this?". Maybe I'm wrong in screaming elitist, it may very well just be a case of extreme close-mindedness plaguing so many of these Wiki editors.

I'll do my best to keep my personal thoughts a bit more to myself around here, though I note no obligation to reserve myself elsewhere on the internet. Note though this all started with your accusing me of sockpuppetry, something I have NEVER, EVER done. That offended me far worse than any personal attack you could make, and my comments towards you all stemmed from thus... --Nmaster64 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. It's nice to see that you don't always mean personal stuff. I'll apologize for the sockpuppetry accusation, though a bunch of single-purpose accounts did appear on the discussion. Many fans of blogger such as Maddox write hate mail to the subjects because it's cool. That's my only problem with making personal attacks against off Wikipedia. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: AfD

Discussion growing too long and hard to follow at this point. Can we do something about that? -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you'd like me to do...I made two compromising propositions I thought might help reach some middle-ground between the two groups, but have not received a response yet regarding those...--Nmaster64 14:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For seeing that you were moving in the wrong direction, making real attempts to work towards positive outcomes, and (most of all) for acknowledging the problem.

This particular deletion discussion is probably too far gone to salvage much out of. Whatever the outcome, I'll be happy to restore a version of the article into a subpage in your user space. That's a common thing, it means that there's a version to work on while attempting to improve the article, work out guidelines, whatever. It can be there all safe and warm for quite some time before there is any issue, since it's not "in" the encyclopedia.

Before you go thanking me too much, I'd probably admit that in some circles I'm seen as the Lord High Executioner of webcomics... I worked long and hard on the very guideline that is often refered to shortly before they get deleted, and have had frequently done the deletion myself. There has even been an arbitration about it where I came off less-than-unscathed.

But you're dead right about a couple of things: We need to stay open, to encourage new blood, and to listen to new ideas. This isn't just "important," it's vital to the survival of the project. There's a give-and-take, though, in that new contributors have to also learn, to some degree, to work within the system. Often the hardest part on enculturation (is that a word?) is getting people to let go of a single article at a particular point in time.

What I mean by that is that things get deleted, restored, merged into bigger articles, seperated out again... That's not the important thing. It's the information that's important, and making sure we're as consistant as possible. So if this gets deleted (98% chance) don't think of it as anything more than what happens "now." Later is another story.

I'd be very pleased to chat further with you about how to improve Wikipedia's coverage of webcomics while still maintaining our encyclopedic integrity. There's also User:Snowspinner who spends a large part of his time here knocking heads with me over this issue but whom you wouldn't go wrong to talk to.

brenneman 00:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Responded on your talk page. --Nmaster64 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voracity

Hi Namster,

I am glad you have strong feelings about issues that are important to you. The voracity with which you have applied yourself at the AfD about Fanboys is impressive. However, I would like to ask you to take the time to actually learn some of the rules and policies we follow here at Wikipedia. Although your account has been around for a while, you haven't contributed much beyond this article that is currently up for AfD. You have made a great number of policy violations (imagespace, GFDL, NPA, POINT, etc.) that suggest you haven't taken the time to actually learn how Wikipedia operates, what Wikipedia is and is not, what is appropriate, and why certain policies exist.

Now, I certainly encourage new ideas, and I welcome discussion. I think it is fairly arrogant and presumptious to start ignoring rules and insisting that we change the rules because your favorite webcomic article is not compliant with Wikipedia policies. If you are truely interested in improving Wikipedia (instead of trying to keep your favorite article) then I think you'd be met with a lot less opposition if you'd learn what we do and how we do it, instead of insisting that we're all wrong or that the rules must change.

/Blaxthos 04:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And your fairly arrogant and presumptuous to start accusing me of such BS. Yes, I note I went a bit overboard and might have hit on a couple things like NPA, but your POINT and other crap is just that, crap. It's not a matter of demanding an immediate complete policy overhaul, . It's about putting some new ideas into peoples heads about how not everything has to be one way or another, not everything needs to be done by the book. So you can stop talking down to me, I'm not below you. I'm aware of the majority of Wiki policies, I don't need the same links every 5 seconds. Just because I show difference of opinion does not mean I don't understand things, it simply means I feel there is a better way to handle them. --Nmaster64 06:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of demanding an immediate complete policy overhaul, . It's about putting some new ideas into peoples heads about how not everything has to be one way or another

Perhaps you should re-read WP:POINT. Violating policy (eg: rabid defense of otherwise obviously noncompliant articles' AfD) to make a point. Again, if you want change, then go discuss it on policy talk pages -- that is the way to get things done. Also, please note I am only pointing out the POINT violation -- others (above) have both pointed out your other missteps, as well as offered some of the same advice I'm offering. Maybe it's worth heeding... /Blaxthos 13:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even gonna try to explain it to you, I refuse to deal with *endless tirade of curse words* like you anymore. I didn't violate point, I'm well aware of what it says (obviously non-compliant my ass). I didn't violate that other bull either, maybe a NPA rule or solicitation rule at worst. Honestly, at this point, I just don't give a crap anymore. Accuse me of what you will, I'll just go have another laugh at you WikiTrolls. --Nmaster64 14:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for a week personal attacks and gross incivility both on and off Wikipedia. This is to prevent further abuse from you while the deletion debate is closed and considered. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. *does a little dance* --Nmaster64 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, any time. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)