User talk:Pixelface: Difference between revisions

Archives

August 2006 to December 31, 2007 January to March 2008 April 2008 —

I am attempting to build consensus about the "Pre-launch violence" section in the Grand Theft Auto IV article. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would actively welcome your participation in this page so that we can attempt to establish an inclusive consensus. I would also welcome the views of anyone else you know of who do not believe their views are adequately represented. Thanks, Hiding T 12:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your comment on the talk page, but I'd like to ask here as well if you'd be interested in writing up a section at Wikipedia:Plot summaries on what we should do with articles that consist solely of plot summary. Hiding T 10:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've changed three redirects to point towards Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I do not like it instead of their correct targets.[1] [2] [3] Please do not do this. Firstly, it makes the shortcut inconsistent with the documentation at the (correct) target page, and secondly, people often memorise the shortcut, and rightly expect it to point towards the appropriate page. If you disagree with people who use these shortcuts, then state your concerns; don't disrupt the discussion by trying to undermine their arguments. I've reverted your edits. Jakew (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at where WP:ITSCRUFT redirects to. It follows that any variation of ITSCRUFT should redirect to the same location. --Pixelface (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface, there are many WP shortcuts, and there is no particular reason why vaguely similar shortcuts need to point towards the same location. They each have their own purpose. You need to consider why people use these shortcuts. When people type WP:ITSCRUFT it's a shorthand way of saying "I think 'it's cruft' is not a valid argument for these reasons". But when people type WP:GAMECRUFT (for example) it's a shorthand way of saying something "I think this material goes beyond the scope of WP's coverage, as explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information". And it's very unlikely that one would ever type one while meaning the other.

The problem is that, by changing the shortcuts, you're changing the apparent meaning of people's arguments. It's like going through an AfD and actually editing other people's rationales. Jakew (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If saying something is "cruft" is not a valid reason for deletion, neither is any variation of "this is cruft" — be it "gamecruft", "listcruft", etc. If someone wants to say "I think this material goes beyond the scope of WP's coverage, as explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information." then they should say that. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information doesn't even contain the word "cruft". I'm not changing the meaning of people's arguments. If someone says "this is gamecruft", they are saying "this is cruft" — which is just another way of saying "I don't like it." --Pixelface (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface, when you type WP:ITSCRUFT, are you actually saying that you think that something is cruft? I very much doubt it. What you're actually saying is something along the lines of "here is a link to an essay that explains a viewpoint that I wish to express." There's a lot more information in the link than the name of the shortcut itself.

Similarly, if someone types WP:GAMECRUFT, they aren't simply saying "this is cruft about a game". Just like the person citing WP:ITSCRUFT, they're providing a concise link to an in-depth explanation of their argument.

Now, if you read the last paragraph of WP:ITSCRUFT, you'll see that it reads as follows:

Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Wikipedia. "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it is cruft.

So, in linking to WP:GAMECRUFT or whatever, editors are actually giving more information than simply saying "cruft": they're explaining (in shorthand) their rationale. Jakew (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

From your note on WT:VG/GL regarding some edits of mine in 2007, I gather you may have some questions to ask me. Feel free to post some questions on my talk page, and I'll answer them as soon as possible. User:Krator (t c) 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. Regarding your comment, on the issue of consensus judging, I actually thought we had achieved consensus at Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV on the issue of leaving it with "Eastern European", which is why I stated at "List of..." that consensus was reached. Perhaps I should've pointed them to the consensus, as not everyone is up-to-speed on all talk pages at all times. Anyhow, I've considered your statement and I will ensure that I look at all sides of a debate before making a determination with regards to consensus. Your suggestions about including all sources (both "Eastern European gray-area" and "Serbian" and contrasting them) also made a lot of sense. There were some other issues at my RFA, which I've examined here. Your comments are welcome. There's also some templated rfa thank-spam below. happy editing, xenocidic (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

templated rfa thank-spam

Thank you for your support

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)

I have opened a Wikiquette alert for your behavior in the WP:FICT discussion. Please understand that I respect your opinion of how fiction should be handled and am trying to work with everyone involved to resolve this; that is not the point of this WQA. Instead, I believe your commenting approach is souring the discussion as it is very defensive and aggressive and falls into uncivil behavior, as I commented on previously. However, if the community doesn't believe that is the case, then I preemptively apologize for bringing this up to that board. I'm trying to find a solution here that works for Wikipedia and everyone involved, and that means calm and rationale discussion instead of what I feel you are providing. --MASEM 03:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal basically seeks to wipe out millions of hours of volunteer work via a remote corner of Wikipedia, so if my responses seem defensive, I hope you can understand. And considering the sheer size of the Oppose section and all of the comments from aggresive supporters that people have to deal with in the Oppose section in comparison to the Support section, I hope you can understand. You may want to consider whether all of your replies to people in the Oppose section and your repeated mention of "derivative works" is souring the discussion. Thank you for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Pixelface. I have taken a look at the Wikiquette alert referenced above. Now, I for one have stopped participating in policy discussions altogether because I find them impossible to abide. So, I can't really comment on whether Masem's concerns are valid or not.

However, what I can say with certainty is that I think you would communicate your message better if you used shorter posts, ideally with more paragraph breaks. You may be interested in WP:TLDR. You may find that your message is more effective and received much more readily if you try to abide by these points. I know it's difficult; I tend to be very verbose myself :)

Anyway, just a suggestion. As I've said, I have no comment on the Wikiquette alert either way. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Another editor has previously told me similar points about my long comments and lack of paragraph breaks so I will take your note into consideration. --Pixelface (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface -- please take a look at WP:WQA#WT:FICT compromise proposal, which I believe would address Masem's concern and allow us to put this issue behind us. (I also incidentally think it could make your arguments more effective) Let me know what you think. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! A couple of quick things: 1) we actually have 7 million editors? Wow! 2) I think it should be standard to notify all article creators and contributors of AfDs and DRVs, not simply a courtesy. 3) As you can see at this somewhat mind boggling ongoing discussion, some do indeed aggresively challenge you, I, and others about whether the plot section is disputed. I wonder if there would be a non-canvassing way to request that those who edit plot sections voice their opinions in the policy discussions in order to gain a more decisive consensus one war or the other? When I see comments like this posted in AfDs, I am not convinced that it's really just a couple of editors in any given discussion who dispute the sections under question, but a larger disagreement (lack of consensus) among the community? And as a general aside, I just don't see why so much focus on what Wikipedia is not rather than on building what Wikipedia is. And the way in which some assert that some articles are hopeless and cannot be improved is somewhat disquieting. Take this fictional character's article. Notice the lack of sources and context, i.e. in a state that surely some would use as cause for deletion if given the opportunity. Now look at the article after I did a search on a log on university search engine, i.e. something other than Google. No way would it possibly fail an AfD now. And it hardly took that much of my time to do, albeit it did require searching beyond Google. And there were even more sources (see Talk:Jim (Huckleberry Finn)) available than I used at the time. I just wish we could somehow encourage greater help in these efforts. I don't wish to "make enemies" or "get people banned" with whom I disagree. I really hope that all of us on the various sides of these discussions can coexist if not cooperate better and I really believe that what could help would be if more of the larger community were to chime in on these discussions as I at times feel like I don't know how many more times I can say certain things and I'm sure those with whom you and I usually disagree may even feel the same. Anyway, have a nice night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the sentence shows up as "Áö³­ 1¿ù Áß±¹¿¡ ¼öÃâµÈ '¿¡À̽º ¿Â¶óÀÎ'Àº Áö³­ 9¿ùºÎÅÍ °ø°³¼­ºñ½º ¸¦ ÁøÇàÇÏ¸ç µ¿½ÃÁ¢¼ÓÀÚ 2¸¸¸íÀ» ±â·ÏÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù". But if you haven't got it all ready translated, you may want to send an email to jimmy0704@naver.com.(no spams, please)Jimmy0704 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to mean this; Ace Online, which was exported to China on last January, provided open service since last September, and has had 20000 simultaneous players playing the game at a single moment. If you are not sure about a part of my translation, just tell me.Jimmy0704 (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an active discussion in WT:NOTE here regarding if there was a proposed rewrite of NOTE, what would people want to see. Knowing your stance on fiction topics, you may want to add your two cents here (I'm trying to make sure to note that there people that want inclusion of fiction in WP but right now that side is not well represented). --MASEM 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. --Pixelface (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above has been started by a user with whom you were apparently in dispute and so you may wish to comment there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be documenting the history of notability, which means documenting some of the things I did. Let me try and explain some things if I can. this edit was made because I'd seen, um, WP:CORP, which by the way, heavily influenced my rewrite of WP:WEB, in January of 2006. That's when WP:WEB came to cover all web content. So then the phrase became inserted into most of the notability guidance. Back then I never really imagined it would become what it did become. Wikipedia was smaller, a lot smaller, and it didn't seem that important, after all, if I could just make this stuff up, anyone could just change it at a later date if they liked. That was the way we worked. Mea culpa. The staggering thing to me, is that words I wrote have become, I really don't know how to put this, but they appear to have become almost religiously followed, raised to some sort of biblical meaning that I just never intended. If I had my time again, I would never have done any of it, but it is too late now. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Also, you mention wanting to see the history of UGOPlayer. I've transwiki'd the page to [[4]] so you can have a look. It was never my idea to equate notability with reliable sources, that's an old idea, that's an academic standard. Uncle G is, to my mind, the biggest proponent on Wikipedia. I tended to follow the thinking to a certain degree, but I've always had doubts as to how far it has extended. I was looking to guard against creating articles on everything. On you, on me, on the pencil on my table. I should not have worried, and should have trusted common sense. I apologise. I certainly agree with what I have written in my essay. Notability is subjective. Hiding T 12:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You might also want to look at WP:AADD, that has impacted on notability too. Luckily it still remains an essay, despite attempts to promote it otherwise. Hiding T 12:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen you previously performed a merge involving The Addams Family (video game). I have proposed an additional merge of The Addams Family (arcade game) into The Addams Family (video game), as all these versions are basically identical. The arcade version would get preference in materal, however, as the other versions would also be mentioned but as ports of the arcade. If you want to provide input about the merger proposal place your thoughts here. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears obvious now that the page List of people who died before the age of 30 is headed to deletion. I support its deletion myself. But this has given me an idea. Do you think it would make sense to have a set of categories called "Age x deaths," all in a parent category called "Deaths by age?" That seems like a better idea. This way, there would be no worry where to draw the line as to what age is "significant" as an age of death, and all ages people live to can possibly be included. There would be no need for one person to create all these categories in one day - they could be built gradually over time. We already have categories like 1949 deaths. Why can't we do the same with age? I would like some input. Sebwite (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the page was still named List of famous people who died young, it may have had a better chance of being kept. Personally I support the idea of "Death at age X" categories. I've read Wikipedia:Categorization of people and I think the "Death at age X" categories would be appropriate additions to categories such as Category:1949 deaths. But I think you'll have a hard time selling it to other people. If someone created such cattegories, I would expect them to be nominated for deletion almost immediately because Wikipedia:Overcategorization says "the age at which they died" is "trivial" and may be interesting but is not "particularly encyclopedic." I strongly disagree. But since Wikipedia:Overcategorization contains that language, I know there will be people who say such categories should be deleted immediately. How is the fact that James Dean died in a car accident encyclopedic, but the fact that he died at the age of 24 not encyclopedic? Jeanne Calment is notable for dying at the age of 122, not for the fact that she died of natural causes. The 27 Club are all notable for dying at the age of 27. We already have Category:Deaths by cause, so I see no problem with making Category:Deaths by age under Category:Dead people and filling it with 122 categories or so (e.g. Category:Death at age 24, etc). These categories have the potential to be huge though (although maybe not as big as Category:Living people). It would basically put every dead person into one of 123 different categories (if their age at the time of death is known). I would suggest avoiding categories like Category:Age 969 death for persons mentioned in The Bible (such as Methuselah) due to the controversial nature of the information (and also since it would be a small category with no potential for growth).

The problem is when guidelines contain text that is really only the opinion of one or a few people — which I think is the case with WP:OCAT — instead of describing actual, widespread current practice. I've looked on the talk page and talk page archives for WP:OCAT and have seen few mentions of "age" or "death." Using WikiBlame, I found that "Note that this also includes categories grouping people by trivial circumstances of their deaths, such as categorizing people by the age at which they died..." was added to Wikipedia:Overcategorization by Bearcat on January 30, 2008. Looking at Bearcat's contributions around that time[5], I see no CFD precedent for "Death at age X" categories. You asked "Why can't we do the same with age?" Basically, I think because a single person in Toronto edited a guideline in January and many editors nowadays look at guidelines as gospel, so the dice will be loaded against such categories in a CFD debate. Perhaps you could ask Bearcat why they added that to WP:OCAT. Note that if the page is deleted, there is a similar page in userspace from January, User:Sjorford/List_of_people_who_died_before_the_age_of_30, if you're interested. I just noticed User:Sebwite/30 so it looks like you have that covered. --Pixelface (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question did not represent my personal opinion; it represented a very clear and unambiguous CFD consensus that was established a long time ago in the face of several prior attempts to categorize people by the age at which they died. Go back through past CFDs if you have to. Bearcat (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who changed WP:OCAT, you should be able to provide links to the CFDs in question. The burden of proof is on you. --Pixelface (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Pandora tomorrow xbx.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pixelface, Rather than the reversion of WP:NOT on Plot (which I agree with btw) I'd suggest an RfC. Right now you are tilting at windmills. A well-written RfC might be the way to actually keep change. Hobit (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose an RFC on whether WP:PLOT poses a conflict of interest for the Wikimedia Foundation may be in order. --Pixelface (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My thought is that the injunction should be transformed into a form which represents our actual practice, per WP:NOTLAW. The de facto position is:

1. Articles may not violate copyright
2. The amount of plot in articles is therefore limited in accordance with the concept of fair use
3. Subject to fair use and notability, we can and do have large amounts of plot in total, so as to provide a good encyclopedic coverage of notable fiction.

I therefore propose that we work towards changing WP:NOT#PLOT into WP:NOT#COPY, which will emphasise the copyright aspect. This may command better support as being grounded in an objective respect for copyright law rather than a subjective dislike for extensive coverage of fictional topics.

What do you think? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In February 2008, Father Goose contacted Mike Godwin and Godwin said "You're missing the fact that we are not receiving DMCA takedown letters regarding plot summaries, and that plot summaries, in general, are not taken to be copyright infringement so long as they do not include any great degree of the original creative expression." And Wikipedia already has a Wikipedia:Copyright violations policy. --Pixelface (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good - that is an excellent point. It indicates that redirecting the issue to focus upon copyright will result in a satisfactory outcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a WP:AN/I on your repeated removal (over time) of PLOT. See here. --MASEM 17:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to insist on making childish remarks about my reasons for wanting to clean up fiction, please try to actually make some sense. I'm the one that actually got the merging for the Pokemon articles rolling. The plan was already there, but it was fairly stagnant until I bothered with it. The only reason I created any articles like that is because, like most people who start by editing fiction on this site, I was just following common practice rather than policies or guidelines (i.e. as long as it was major in the piece of fiction and it had content, it was deserving of an article). I eventually figured that most of the stuff was crap, and it went from there. TTN (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTN's approach is putting the cart before the horse, as per WP:NOTLAW, our policies and guidelines should follow practise rather than the other way round. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the plan was "fairly stagnant", that indicates there was no consensus to go through with it.

It looks to me like it was Teggles that got the merge rolling. On June 28, 2007, Teggles said "Yes, 20-Pokemon per list is fine for merging, no need for elements. Evolutionary lines are a very bad idea, two non-notable articles do not make a notable article. I've actually started the 20-Pokemon type of merging: check out List of Pokémon (421-440), I've merged 5 articles without removing any info (except for game guide and OR). This is actually very easy for many Pokemon, because most have very little information." Teggles later said "Ugh, I'm already getting some flack", "I feel I'm wasting my time, they're eventually going to be changed back", and "Does anyone here actually agree with what I'm doing?" That was June 30, 2007.

On July 5, 2007, Teggles said "Simply put, I want minor creature articles merged into 25 different lists, ordered by Pokédex No". On July 6, 2007, Teggles said "If there is no real-world info, there is no way there should be an article. Otherwise the article is a plot summary and violates WP:NOT." The stuff about "real-world info" in NOT was added by Kyorosuke without any discussion on the policy talk page. You said "I was just following common practice rather than policies or guidelines" when you created the Darkrai article. Well good. That means you were following more editors than just Kyorosuke. That means you were following more editors than the extreme few who have edited Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. On Wikipedia, anyone can edit articles. Anyone can also edit policies and guidelines.

After the signs that the "plan" was being met with resistance, you started redirecting [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] When editors reverted the redirects you made, you shouldn't have edit-warred with those editors. When people objected to the merges you did, which Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 18 is full of, you should have realized there was no consensus to do what you did.

The comment I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitri the Echidna was out of line and I apologize. I made some misinformed statements/conclusions. But really, you're doing more for Gil Penchina and Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley than the readers of Wikipedia, and the sad thing is you don't realize that. Are you on the Wikia staff? You might as well be. If you want to call other people's articles "crap", I certainly hope you would have better article work to your name than this. Why do you want to "clean up fiction"? I suggest you start at the Fiction article, which has no references. You appear to have overlooked that one. The page Wikipedia:Citing sources has some information you may find useful. And if you don't mind my asking, how old are you? Is English your first language? --Pixelface (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd do well to rephrase the first sentence of this edit. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "You're a liar", would you prefer "You're wrong" or "You don't know what you're talking about" or "You appear to be severely misinformed"? Black Kite is an admin, so he obviously knows what a block log is, and how to check one. And he made an obviously false claim. I suppose it's possible that Black Kite was not intentionally lying, but he's made false claims about me in the past at ANI, and editors (and especially administrators) should not be able to get away with that sort of thing. --Pixelface (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You're wrong" would be fine. Short and to the point but still more or less civil. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to that. Thank you for your comment. --Pixelface (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't changed all of them. "Lying" and "false" imply malice. I recommend changing them all to "wrong" and "incorrect". DS (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Black Kite wants to admit he was wrong or incorrect, I'll gladly change "you're really lying" and "liar" to something else. I changed "You're a liar" to "You're wrong" to give him the benefit of the doubt, and he still repeated his false claim. WP:NPA says "Serious accusations require serious evidence" and "Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor." Accusations of "stalking" are not to be taken lightly. I assume those comments were made to intentionally deceive. If Black Kite made them mistakenly, he can say so himself. --Pixelface (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please email me,even if you usually do not want to use email. DGG (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for your oppose in my rfa. I do not see how me supporting other users in RFA is a reason to oppose me but the other users that you referred to as reasons made good points. I look forward to trying to act on these points. • If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy • ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 23:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have set up a poll to vote on the new name of the article. Please go to the talk page. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever need me to chip in on a discussion re PLOT leave me a note on my talk page or email me. I'm not about much, but I'll be happy to offer my two cents, seeing as it was me what got us all into this mess in the first place, sort of. Apologies. Good luck with it. Hiding T 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more equally well-thought-out suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. I'd especially like to hear your thoughts on how the speedy deletion criteria A7 and A9 are not related to notability. The criteria state an article would meet the criteria if it "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." I've always thought of these as the "assertion of notability" criteria. So when I think that an article fails A7 or A9, it's not that I merely think it isn't notable, it's that even the assertion of notability isn't present in the article. If the article asserts the notability, but can't back it up with sources, then that's something to PROD or take to Afd. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aervanath, you said "For criteria A7 and A9, which have to do with notability, I will do a quick Google search for the topic to ensure my suspicions." I opposed you becoming an admin in your RFA in part because of "your claim that A7 and A9 have to do with notability" (although I admire you for saying you will do quick research when you see articles tagged with {{db-a7}} and {{db-a9}}).

A7 and A9 both mention importance and significance. If you'll look at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria, you'll see that notability is not a sufficient criteria for speedy deletion.

A9 says "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is important/significant, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be important/significant." Although I notice now that A7 says "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." A7 has changed since I last looked at it and your claim that A7 has to do with notability is now correct. I apologize.

It appears that the change to A7 was made in April, by Taemyr, in relation to this thread on WT:CSD about Ingo Dammer-Smith.

I guess I have not checked WP:CSD in a while. I also missed when A9 was added last month. For a very long time, A7 has said "This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources." It looks like on April 9, 2008, Taemyr was fiddling with A7. Iain99 commented on WT:CSD saying he didn't think those changes were an improvement, and suggested a new wording. Then Taemyr said he liked "Ians wording" and then Taemyr changed A7.

I disagree with Taemyr's alteration of A7. The problem with that sort of thing (changing a policy because of one article) is that the "rules" have then changed for every article. I don't think policy should be changed based on one person proposing something and one other person agreeing.

I'm going to start a new thread at WT:CSD about it. Congratulations on becoming an admin by the way :) --Pixelface (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, a proposal I informally made a while ago has now been formally offered at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The aim is to identify a pragmatic approach that reflects what is actually done on AfD, as opposed to an ideological approach. So while it's unlikely to appeal to partisans on either side, I think it represents a good and workable compromise. Any comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) will be greatly appreciated. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. --Pixelface (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring you; I'm just working through the questions in order. I hope to reply today but I have a stinking cold, which has been getting steadily worse over the weekend, and it's cramping my style somewhat. Apologies, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no problem at all. I understand. Take your time. I'm actually delighted by your message. Thank you very much for answering my first questions. I was a bit worried I hadn't asked my additional questions in time. I hope you get well soon. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pixelface, I wanted you to know that I have read your questions and have every intention of answering them; however, I probably won't get through them all tonight and will continue with them tomorrow. I figure you're not too late at all as long as the candidacy is live. :-) Risker (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate you taking the time to read my questions. Feel free to answer as many of the questions whenever you'd like ( as long as voting is still open :) ). Thank you for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must've missed your questions the first time around, because I just now answered them here. I apologize for the delay! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. --Pixelface (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there.

Just a quick note to tell you that I have answered your followup questions on my candidacy Q&A page. — Coren ^(talk) 03:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. --Pixelface (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we feel similarly about fiction and wikia. Maybe we can get a fiction sister project rolling somehow? I've made comments at Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects a couple of times, which has led to nothing. Any ideas? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I apologize if I my reply is too long. I'm not totally against the idea of a fiction sister project, but I think that right now, it would only encourage the removal of more fiction content from Wikipedia. Fiction has a rightful place in an encyclopedia. If people keep deleting fiction content from Wikipedia, or if a fiction sister project is started, the result is the same — Wikia's revenue goes up.

I really have mixed feelings about Wikia. On the one hand, I think there's a lot of great stuff there. I like reading the site. I don't really mind seeing banner ads, most websites have them. If something is deleted from Wikipedia, you can usually find it on Wikia. On the other hand, if something is deleted from Wikipedia, you can usually find it on Wikia. If an article appears on Wikipedia and Wikia, deleting the article from Wikipedia has the direct result of increasing the Wikia article's PageRank on Google, increasing pageviews at Wikia, and increasing Wikia's revenue. Actively removing fiction content from Wikipedia is good for Wikia's bottom line. It benefits the people who profit off those banner ads, and does nothing to benefit the readers of Wikipedia.

For example, Yahoo! recently said in a year-end review that Naruto Uzumaki (a character TTN is interested in) is the most popular fictional character on the web based on searches performed using their search engine. And they linked to Wikia. Shouldn't it be a link to Wikipedia? A Google search for Naruto Uzumaki shows: #1 the WP article for Naruto Uzumaki, #2 the WP article for Naruto, #3 the Wikia article for Naruto Uzumaki. If Wikipedia had no article on Naruto Uzumaki, websurfers would be more likely to end up at the Wikia article for Naruto Uzumaki. If Naruto Uzumaki *and* Naruto were deleted from Wikipedia (or moved to a free, fiction sister project), Wikia would be the #1 Google hit. Wikia underwent a change in June to have more ads, more prominent ads, and ads based on viewcount. If Naruto Uzumaki was moved to a sister project, it would still be much, much lower in search engine results.

In June 2008, Gil Penchina, the CEO of Wikia, posted an email on the wikia-l mailing list[11] explaining some changes to Wikia. In July 2008, Seth Finkelstein wrote an article that appeared in The Guardian[12] and referred to the email, saying the changes would include "more advertising and for the ads to be more prominent." Finkelstein linked to an email on the wikia-l mailing list by Wikia's Community Development Manager Danny Horn, who wrote[13] "We have to change things in order to make Wikia financially stable." Finkelstein wrote "He went on to explain that ads paying based on view count were needed. And that type of advertiser wants their ad to be displayed where viewers are sure to see it, such as within an article, near the top." In October 2008, Wikia released a statement (according to Alana Semuels, a blogger for the LA Times[14]) saying "as part of a reorganization, Wikia recently let go less than 10% of its salaried employees and is actively hiring in sales and marketing." Semuels also said Wikia "hasn't received funding since December of 2006." In October 2008, Kirkburn, a Staff member at Wikia who said he has worked at Wikia for about a year, announced[15] that Wikia was planning to move WowWiki to a subdomain of wikia.com in order to improve Wikia's US comScore unique visitors statistic which would give Wikia "more pulling power in terms of ads", meaning, "better paying" ads. These actions appear to have been made to increase Wikia's revenue. It's feasible that Wikia employees/shareholders/editors could use Wikipedia for stealth marketing by plugging Wikia on Wikipedia talk pages. It's also feasible that Wikia employees/shareholders/editors could increase page views at Wikia, increase Wikia's revenue, and increase Wikia's PageRank on Google by arguing to delete articles from Wikipedia that appear on Wikia (or could appear on Wikia).

I've suggested Wikia myself as an alternative place for stuff in past AFDs. I argued to keep Template:Wikia in April [16]. But Wikia is quickly turning from an alternative source of information, to a blatant substitute. It shouldn't be a substitute. The situation has transformed from "you can learn more about so-and-so fictional character at Wikia after you've read the article on Wikipedia" to "if you want to learn anything about so-and-so fictional character go to Wikia." It's wrong. A Wikia employee could spend all their time deleting fiction content off Wikipedia, and they'd be doing search engine optimization for Wikia. A useful idiot could spend all their time deleting fiction content off Wikipedia, and they'd be doing search engine optimization...for Wikia.

WP:NOT has mentioned Wikia for over 18 months. WP:FICT mentioned Wikia from August 2007 to March 2008. WP:WAF has always plugged Wookieepedia since it was created in March 2006. The E&C2 /Workshop had tons of Wikia mentions. Talk:List of Scrubs episodes had tons of Wikia mentions. AFDs for fiction content have tons of Wikia mentions. The endorsements need to stop. Right now I would just really like to remove any mention of Wikia from any Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Even talking about the site creates buzz for it. You could say that Wikipedia already has a fiction sister project — the bad news is that it's a for-profit website founded by Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley.

I don't think all fiction content belongs at Wikipedia. I can understand not allowing articles on Wikipedia for every fictional car/enemy/character/location/item/etc...in every videogame/book/film/TV show etc. That's one reason why I wrote this survey. But when I added a note about the survey to {{fiction notice}} so people could edit it before presenting it to the community, Collectonian removed it[17]. I added a note again the next week[18], and Collectonian removed it[19]. I added a note again[20], and Collectonian removed it[21]. When Phil Sandifer unprotected[22] [23] WP:FICT and moved his userspace proposal over to WP:FICT[24] and added a note about it to {{fiction notice}}, no reverts. To say it's a little bit frustrating is an understatement.

One idea is creating Wikipedia:Wikia and trying to write some policy on how to deal with the site. Although I see that page already exists as a disambiguation page.

We shouldn't have to have a sister project for fiction. Over 28% of the articles on Wikipedia fall under Category:Fiction. Fiction has a rightful place in an encyclopedia and therefore a rightful place on Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply. I will read it tomorrow morning and respond. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean an ad free wikimedia sister project like wiktionary or commons, not a fiction section at wikia. It might put wikia out of business, so Jimbo might veto it if enough people agreed we should create one. It would allow us to link within articles instead of at external links. It may depend on the freeness of plot summaries. I think they're free, but Masem sometimes says they aren't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I thought you were talking about, a sister project like wiktionary or commons. I suppose something like that could put Wikia out of business, I hadn't thought of that. But that's not something I'm hoping for. And I kind of like Wikipedia being one big tent. I'm a little against creating splinter projects for different subject areas. But maybe a sister project should be seriously considered. Oh, and Masem doesn't know what he's talking about. I know, because last year I was arguing the same thing, about plot summaries being derivative works, etc — and I turned out to be wrong. People can summarize copyrighted works in their own words. --Pixelface (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and it says exactly what I expected it to say. My recent edits have been removing overly detailed plot and original research. You may also be interested to know that I supported the transwiki and deletion of several Xiaolin Showdown articles. I am a bureaucrat at the Xiaolin Showdown Wiki at Wikia. Wikipedia was not the place for most of those articles, and possibly the remainder. Jay32183 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that concerns me, that you're a bureacrat at the Xiaolin Showdown Wiki at Wikia and you supported the transwiki and deletion of several Xiaolin Showdown articles from Wikipedia. I suppose you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journey of a Thousand Miles? Which came first? Were you a bureacrat at the Xiaolin Showdown Wiki before or after that AFD? --Pixelface (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After, that's why I called for deletion not transwiki. I became a bureaucrat before the character deletions, but that AFD was started by another user, I just added "transwiki" to the list of options there, although I wasn't actually able to get those articles. There is absolutely no issue with sending content to Wikia if the histories are properly imported, or proper attribution is given in some other method. Jay32183 (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pixelface. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --MASEM 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the account on the xiaolinshowdown.wikia.com seems to be based on edits from transwikied articles that I redirected over here and the other one was just created to follow an AfD result of moving the article over there. I don't really care about the entire thing you have against the site, but you don't need to keep citing me as an example of some conspiracy. TTN (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't cited you as an example of some conspiracy, Nemu. --Pixelface (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've noted twice (possibly more) that I have edits on Wikia. The only possible reason for that is to connect my editing practices to your whole rants about Wikia profiting off of the material. TTN (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted twice that you appear to have accounts on Wikia. And Wikia does profit off the material that ends up there. But I've never claimed a conspiracy, like Ned Scott asked about. --Pixelface (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, you need email. I will make this more obvious-can you please email me?..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general I'm opposed to off-wiki communication because I value transparency. I thought I had enabled email a while ago, but I guess I didn't check a box. I also didn't want to enable my email while the ArbCom elections were still ongoing. Now that they are over, I will consider it. --Pixelface (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered the outstanding questions. Sorry that I did it at the eleventh hour but I've had real life problems (illness) and not been able to tackle things as quickly as I would have liked. My apologies, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies necessary. I really appreciate it. It looks like you're going to be selected, so you have my early congratulations :) --Pixelface (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've gotten off on the wrong foot, because we're used to discussing with arch-extreme inclusionsists or deletionists. I don't think anybody wants to keep wasting their time with polemics that just lead us down the same old debates. I wanted to show you that my efforts to find a middle ground are sincere, and that I don't expect you to just cave into my position. I see common goals, and I also see different goals that don't necessarily have to conflict. I'm not sure what else to say to convince you. Just that collaboration can lead to better results than pushing one side or another. It can even be satisfying. Randomran (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I also think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot. I can kind of see where you're coming from. I appreciate your efforts to find some common ground. I'll reply some more at WT:N. --Pixelface (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're losing the thread again. We're back to "my position is closer to consensus" / "no mine". We should try to do better than pushing one extreme over another. I want to apologize for not focusing more on our common ground, because it's just meant that I've wasted your time and energy. So let me say that I appreciate your effort to reach out. I'd like to highlight one of your "earlier statements", because I think you were trying to get us to a workable compromise and I missed it:

• "I suppose most people would agree that articles should stay on topic. There is such a thing as too much detail, but that's really a matter for editors to discuss on article talk pages."

So that I'm not taking your comment out of context, let me temper your effort to reach out with a concern you have:

• "... do you want editors removing sentences from that article because of a personal opinion that the information is not notable, and then citing NNC to back them up?"

I respect your concerns. We definitely don't want people removing information just because of a personal opinion. But I'm also asking you to respect my concerns, and work with me. Would you be willing to come up with a short statement about "too much detail" and staying "on topic"? In order to address your concerns about abuse, we would add a statement that would prevent it from being a weapon for people with an "WP:IHATEIT" bias. I'm willing to make concessions in order to find something you can agree to. But are you willing to propose some kind of statement, to be put in some kind of guideline? Randomran (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't wasted my time, and I hope I haven't wasted yours. I can see where you are coming from. And I really appreciate your efforts as well. But I don't think it's a good idea to put "Articles should stay on topic and not contain too much detail" into any guideline. It's good advice, but it can be interpreted in so many different ways on so many different articles, that I think the article talk page is the best place for people to discuss those issues. If that's put in a guideline, people will be arguing on article talk pages, saying such-and-such needs to be removed because XYZ guideline says articles should not contain too much detail. Then other people will say they don't think it's too much detail, and someone will say "Well XYZ guideline has consensus and it's a generally accepted standard. I'm following guidelines and you're not."

Although, the style guideline Wikipedia:Writing better articles already has similar information. It has a section, WP:TOPIC, about staying on topic. Although I disagree with "Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain such redundant texts. Please be bold in deleting them." That guideline also has a section about article size and subtopics. That guideline also has a section about summary style. That section says "The idea is to distribute information in such a way that Wikipedia can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. It is up to the reader to choose how much detail to which they are exposed. Using progressively longer and longer summaries avoids overwhelming the reader with too much text at once." and also "There are two main reasons for using Summary style in Wikipedia articles. One is that different readers desire different levels of detail: some readers need just a quick summary and are satisfied by the lead section; more people need a moderate amount of info, and will find the article suitable to their needs; yet others need a lot of detail, and will be interested in reading the sub articles. The other reason is simply that an article that is too long becomes tedious to read, and might repeat itself or represent writing that could be more concise." That guideline also has a section Be concise. I don't know who wrote most of WP:BETTER, but I agree with much of it and disagree with some of it. --Pixelface (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not saying anything I disagree with. In fact, this may come as a surprise, but I share your disagreement with the statement "please be bold in deleting redundant texts". I would only go so far as to say "please be bold in deleting extraneous copies of texts". I also think that WP:BETTER would be a ripe location to say something to the effect of the ArbCom decision, that "an article is a summary of encyclopedic information on a subject, and not a complete exposition of all possible details". But then also adding what you're getting at: "editors should use common sense and consensus-building to find an appropriate level of summary." If you're willing to help me come up with some kind of wording to improve WP:BETTER, I'd be comfortable changing WP:N -- in fact I'd be happy to add your changes to WP:N myself. I hope you'll meet me halfway. Randomran (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I really do think we need to distiguish between those who we can compromise with as I indicated at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sgeureka#Oppose versus what seems like a real problem that really does need arbitration as seen at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_TTN. I really do think Sgeureka can be open-minded and I hope that others can too. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've seen this go by many times and I've not been involved. Others have gotten into this with you many times and yet you persist.

Cut it out. It's disruptive.

Jack Merridew 12:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you would know Jack, since you're an expert on disruption. But changing a bad policy isn't disruptive. --Pixelface (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also; refer to me by my username. Jack Merridew 12:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See; WP:DRAMA#Pixelface and WP:NOT#PLOT. I forgot to mention it. Jack Merridew 12:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have created an WP:RFC/U case on your recent editing behavior in order to try to work out some compromise. The RFC/U can be found Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface. --MASEM 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Masem, I would be very interested to find out which two people have tried to resolve a dispute with me and failed. I checked ANI the other day and the thread you started on me was archived. Care to tell me what happened? What do you want from me? Shall I start an RFC on you? --Pixelface (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface, please seriously consider what parts of what you are doing are helpful and what parts are not helpful. presumably you want to actually accomplish something. DGG (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice DGG. I really do value it, even though I think your approach is too milquetoast for me. It truly is sad to see a Naruto fan armed with Twinkle driving a librarian with doctorate and masters degrees away from the topic of fiction and AFD on Wikipedia. Instead of watching with dismay, I decided to start discussing PLOT at WT:NOT over eleven months ago in January. But I should have heeded your advice about reverting policy pages when I asked you in November about the fiction survey I wrote in mid-October. I suggested a survey to Masem in June, because a survey is something Wikipedia:Dispute resolution recommends. I finally wrote it up after arbitrator Stephen Bain noted in October the community's failure to produce a notabily guideline for TV episodes or fictional characters. I suppose my time this past year could have been better spent buying a subscription to LexisNexis for myself, or gifting one to TTN for Christmas. I do want to accomplish something, and I will seriously consider whether my actions are helping or hurting that goal. Thank you for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Anyway, I have defended you to some extent at the RFC/U's talk page and hope to bring reason and balance to the discussions. I do urge you not to give your critics any ground with which they might critize. Some are willing to compromise, Magiloaditis, DGG, Randomran, and I, for example and who knows maybe if we all start the year off fresh we can get somewhere. To do so, those on both sides need to be open minded and concede where we can. We can still have our principals and all, but if others want to edit war or be incivil, don't react in kind. Neutral observers will be able to see that. A volunteer project as fascinating and worthwhile of an idea as it is not worth getting too worked up over when we have wars, price gouging by oil companies, adulterers, and other more serious and disgusting issues to contend with. Again, Happy New Year! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you too! I've haven't looked at the RFC much yet, but thank you very much for giving your input there. I did look at the desired outcome, and I've thought of some ideas and concessions I'd be willing to make. Thanks again. Have a happy 2009, --Pixelface (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Pixel; like I said in closing my statement on the RFC, "we sure do need more vocal editors to support coverage of fictional topics on Wikipedia," and it would be a shame to lose you in any capacity. :) BOZ (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you too. I haven't looked at what you said, but thank you for your input at my RFC. I don't plan on leaving or anything, although I haven't commented in many AFDs lately since I have snapped at several people there recently. I have promised to not edit WP:NOT during January if that policy is unprotected. I am also considering not editing that policy, and maybe not commenting about PLOT on its talkpage, for a few months or more. I am still typing up and working on my statement for my RFC, although I can recall several people in the past telling me "tl;dr", so I may put a long statement in my userspace and a short statement at the RFC. Thank you for your message :). --Pixelface (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; happy to help! Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. More so than anything else, the best thing we can do is to rescue articles by adding the out of universe information to them. If they still want to delete them even after they have development and reception sections, then that is unacceptable. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been adding out-of-universe information to articles about fictional topics for quite some time, that is what two barnstars I have received are for. But yes, I can and should do more. But there have been times where I've cited development or reception information, like at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NiGHTS (which I saved from deletion with my improvements, but afterwards TTN removed most of what I added) or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazardous Environment Combat Unit (where Masem dismissed it). --Pixelface (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think they would be amenable to compromises, i.e. reaching out to them as Randomran has done to you? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably. Although Masem likely moreso than TTN. Masem did create the WP:POSTPONE proposal in May afterall, after I was saying how PLOT is used as a reason for deletion in deletion debates. But I preferred (and still do prefer) removing PLOT from NOT altogether, rather than POSTPONE. I left a talkback template on TTN's talkpage in early December about his redirects of the Pokemon articles, but TTN just removed it. I had insulted TTN in an AFD and I later apologized, although I should have apologized sooner than a month later, but Masem had started an ANI thread on me the day TTN contacted me. And when I did apologize to TTN for my AFD comment, I said some caustic things as well. I suppose I could "reach out" on Masem's talkpage, but I will probably just keep working on my RFC statement instead. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would hurt trying to reach out to Masem. TTN has not edited since December 26th, so I'm not sure if he's around or what. I think it would be helpful if perhaps everyone involved in the disputes laid out where they would be willing to concede and then go from there. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that about TTN. I've already promised not to edit WP:NOT in January, and I'm thinking about how much longer beyond that. I'm also thinking about not editing other policies and guidelines, or their talkpages, but I'm not ready to say anything at my user RFC yet. --Pixelface (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a reasonable chance that we'll have Episodes and charcters 3. I am not sure if that is a good thing or what. Some of these issues still seem unresolved, but I am confident that enough of us can compromise and be moderate. Maybe the arbitration should therefore focus on the handful who will not concede? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that too. But I'm more worried about the people currently in a rush to tag FICT a guideline. One idea is having everyone write up their own FICT proposal in their userspace and having three totally uninvolved parties compare and contrast them. By the way, I would really appreciate it if you could edit the survey I mentioned earlier in this thread. You can blank the page and start it over if you want, or make one in your own userspace. If you had to write a survey, what questions would it ask? If you don't want to touch it, please tell me what you think about the survey on its talk page. Thanks. And thank you again for all of your input at my user RFC, and taking the time to talk to me personally on my talkpage. --Pixelface (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll check it out momentarily as I am trying to write E-frame#Lawsuit at the moment as I just came across this and trying to see how it can be used. Also, I have been defending you rather throughly at the RfC/U and even on another user's talk page. To be clear, I don't excuse or condone edit warring or incivility by anyone and the crux of what I am getting at is what has been alleged against you is behavior I am seeing from some of those doing the alleging. Nevertheless, as a show of good faith, could you please make a pledge to refrain from any future edit-warring or incivility, even what might be perceived as such and when others are incivil to you, to either ignore them or report them to an admin so as to avoid escalating things and to maintain a moral high ground? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very very much A Nobody. I'm really thankful for all you've done at my user RFC. It's a little overwhelming, and it's nice to know there are kind and helpful editors like you here on Wikipedia. I appreciate your call to close the RFC, but I still want to respond to several things. I'm still working on a statement. There's just so much to respond to on the RFC page and the talk page that I'm not quite sure how to go about it. People have said it's only open for a month, but I'm not familiar with that rule. I have a lot of information to sort through. And I'm still considering several options. --Pixelface (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed that specific trial, so I will have to gracefully decline. Sorry. --Pixelface (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok :-)   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your wiki-parody using "Prufrock" at [[25]] was great, you should frame it. I agree with your interpretation that Kiellor was saying high-brow art is the reason for low-brow public taste, and with your argument that Wikipedia has too many intellectual snobs. Unfortunately the material after "Prufrock" really is WP:TLDR. I suggest you: summarise that to 2 fairly short paras; put the "Prufrock" parody in a right-floated div (with border, & poss bg colour) at the top of the section, so the height of the whole lot is not too daunting. --Philcha (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks. I'm glad someone liked it :). I was going to use {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}} tags, but I decided to just post the whole thing. I went a little overboard. Okay, a lot overboard. I think I'll just remove my entire comment and link to the oldid in case anyone wants to read it all. I bolded the part I felt was most important, and I'll leave that paragraph on the page. --Pixelface (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there and restored the full post in {{Collapse top}}/bot; I hadn't see this when I did it. Feel free to change the wrapper. Oh, you left out 'the beast' ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fyi: User talk:Jimbo Wales#fan wars. I really have read through it three times. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I removed that comment from WT:FICT and you re-added it. You also edit-warred on a policy page and called my edits "vandalism" in December. Are you sure you're following the conditions of your unban where you agreed to avoid all disruptive editing? Thanks for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I've been disruptive. On WP:NOT, you were obviously making a non-consensus change and I simply reverted it. In your RfC I acknowledged that I should not have used rvv in the edit summary. As to your long post at WT:FICT, I really don't see how restoring it could be viewed as disruptive. In spite of not agreeing with much of what you said, I was impressed with with it. It has changed how I see you. Cheers (and goodnight), Jack Merridew 16:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's a matter for your three mentors, Jack. I believe one of them left you a note on your talk page about your edits to NOT.

I don't know why you left a note on Jimbo's talk page. Jimbo ignored White Cat's message to do something about your unban, but it will be very interesting if he responds to your message.

My reply may have changed how you see me, but my opinion of you hasn't changed one bit. Cheers, --Pixelface (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User_talk:Randomran#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPixelface.23Outside_view_by_Randomran

I loved your seething expose and found it very useful here. I find even when i am on the losing side, i get comfort from the fact that these exposes will often come back and bite a person later.

I appreciate your work and I would be happy to help in anyway. Ikip (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sgeureka#Detailed oppose by Pixelface really was far too long. Your "Prufrock" parody was not the most concise way of making its points, but it was entertaining, and WP needs that occasionally. However an RfA should be strictly business. If you oppose Sgeureka's RfA (I get the vague impression that you oppose), you should state why you think Sgeureka would misuse the tools and provide evidence for your suspicions. Ideally the explanation should be not more than twice the length of this post, and the rest of the "oppose" should be diffs. --Philcha (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I agree Philcha, it gave me pause, but I had had some excellent interaction with sgeureka after the various debacles at AfD which left me in the 'support' camp. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, your popular Pixelface, with a lot of editors watching your page :)

I would have opposed the nomination. I think he should have kept all of the information, but reorganized, I can refactor it if you wish Pixel. Ikip (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A user RFC can have that effect... I don't wish it to be refactored, but thanks for your offer. You may be interested in looking at this thread I started at the village pump. --Pixelface (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it was way way too long. I should have distilled it down. Contrary to what Masem said at my user RFC, my detailed oppose did have to do with how I thought Sgeureka would operate as an admin — removing episodes articles while he was an involved party of an arbitration case about episodes articles, asserting "consensus" where none exists, a strict deference to what appears on policies and guidelines instead of the views of fellow editors (which is very relevant when closing AFDs), the stuff about "the article creators waste everyone's time", the claim "In the perfect wiki-world, these articles wouldn't have been created in the first place" (a clear sign that the user had never read Wiki is not paper on meta, which is the reason those particular articles were created in the first place), the "high time that these are enforced" stuff, the insisting on merging after no consensus and the subsequent mediation case, the "resistance is futile" stuff, the "there are about a dozen dedicated editors upholding fiction policies and guidelines against a number of hundreds and thousands of editors who have never seen a policy or guideline" stuff, the volunteering to act as a proxy for another editor if they were placed under editing restrictions (and who eventually was for half a year), and when that restricted editor asked the user to do what they were restricted from doing, the user did not refuse; plugging Wikia, the belief that silence equals consensus, the "I have edited according to policies and guidelines...and can thus claim to have consensus" stuff; the "strong local fan consensus, which I see as the real problem here" stuff; the inability to understand Arbcom rulings, the tendency to "only edit abandoned fiction articles where people have lost their fanatic fan attachment", saying his time is limited, the description of his edits by others as "death by a thousand cuts", the "absolute crap" stuff, the "fan" bashing, etc. I guess some editors like that sort of behavior in an admin; I don't. Sorry for the length of this by the way. --Pixelface (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you found my detailed oppose useful; some people thought it was a "ringing endorsement." I don't condone my behavior. In that RFA I posted my initial oppose while drunk, which is the first edit to WP I've ever made while drunk, and I went overboard trying to explain myself on the talk page. I kind of blame myself for that RFA passing, since several people supported "per Pixelface." If I had condensed what I wanted to say and opposed earlier (and sober), the outcome may have been vastly different. See this RFA for example. I often have trouble with brevity.

I think Randomran's analogy is poor, but I haven't posted a response at my user RFC yet because I'm still not sure how to approach everything.

You can help yourself by not doing some of the things I've done, like removing PLOT from NOT 13 times in 9 1/2 months. --Pixelface (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless I have a proxy editor like Sgeureka. :) Ikip (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Laws are like Sausages Ikip (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the message. --Pixelface (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, no edits since late Dec. --MASEM 14:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that. I thought I was just the first to reply :P --Helenalex (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no problem :) Please change the questions if you'd like. How could the survey be better? --Pixelface (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello White Cat. I created a survey about fictional topics three months ago and I rewrote it recently and mentioned it at the village pump — it's at User:Pixelface/Fiction Survey 2009. I noticed this thread you started at the village pump about your questionnaire and I see it asks about fictional topics. Maybe we could combine the questionnaires somehow? If you'd rather not combine them, I'd be happy to edit yours if you want. I would also appreciate any edits to my survey. If you don't want to edit it, could you tell me what you think of the questions on its talk page? Thanks, --Pixelface (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of a general questionnaire which includes questions on fiction among other topics. My intended target is the readers of the site. It's a developing idea. Feel free to jump in. -- Cat ^chi? 14:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please leave me a note when the survey is ready to be answered. [- Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the last question about AFD trends is useful. It's a question that takes a lot of time to answer and doesn't really offer much in return. If anything, you'll find the same trends in the answers to the questions or you can have some bot analyse relevant outcomes. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your input. Personally I think noting AFD trends would be useful. I suppose it would take longer to answer, but people don't have to answer the whole survey; they can answer as many questions as they like. I think it would be interesting to compare the survey answers to trends at AFDs, and see if they match. If the trends are the same, all the better. --Pixelface (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that Aka's tool doesn't go beyond "Conversion script" when it comes to the first edit.

i didn't quite understand that sentence!? 212.200.243.165 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. For example, when you check the editing statistics of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Aka's tool says "first edit 2002-02-19 11:35 (Conversion script)". But when you look at the 10 earliest edits to that page, you see that an editor named TOertel actually made the first edit. I hope my English is understandable.

I just need to manually edit the FIRST EDIT column in your HTML and change "Conversion script" to the actual first edit. You can stop reading now if you want; the rest of this is technical stuff I found out.

User:Conversion script says that script "converted Wikipedia from usemod format to the phase II format" in February 2002. (You can see that here.) That page says Brion VIBBER extracted "most history from usemod" and added it to the database. Those are the edits in the History tab beyond (before, prior to) "Conversion script." You can read more at Wikipedia:Usemod article histories.

This paragraph in the Wikipedia article says "Originally, Wikipedia ran on UseModWiki written in Perl by Clifford Adams (Phase I), which initially required CamelCase for article hyperlinks; the present double bracket style was incorporated later. Starting in January 2002 (Phase II), Wikipedia began running on a PHP wiki engine with a MySQL database; this software was custom-made for Wikipedia by Magnus Manske. The Phase II software was repeatedly modified to accommodate the exponentially increasing demand. In July 2002 (Phase III), Wikipedia shifted to the third-generation software, MediaWiki, originally written by Lee Daniel Crocker."

So Wikipedia ran on UseModWiki, then PhpWiki, and now MediaWiki. --Pixelface (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar may be awarded to especially tireless Wikipedians who contribute an especially large body of work. This barnstar is awarded to Pixelface, for the incredible work he has done on User:Pixelface/Timeline of notability guidelines and other policy and guideline pages. Thank you so much for tireless striving to make wikipedia a welcome place for everyone's views, not just an elite few. Ikip (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, don't let the barnstar's rotating points stick you, they're sharp! Ikip (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thank you very much Ikip! :) I really appreciate it — although I haven't updated that timeline in about 4 months. I need to update it and I also need to include some things from the notability "graveyard" on your userpage. I feel bad because my edits to articles have really dropped off lately. I've been afraid to edit articles much because people are following me, and some are reverting my edits. --Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip, you beat me to it...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no rule in only one barnstar per x amount of days, give him another one! He deserves it. Ikip (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). Since this proposal may influence some of the articles covered by this project, any input there would be helpful to help build a consensus regarding the proposal. Thank you. Gavin Collins (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. --Pixelface (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pixelface. You have new messages at MuZemike's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MuZemike 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop hounding Bignole with non-sequitors on WT:FICT. If you disagree with his comments, fine, reply and disagree. This kind of badgering is flamebait and that talk page has seen plenty enough of that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Bignole hounding people who oppose? Why is Bignole badgering opposers? Those aren't non-sequitors. And it's not "flamebait." That article falls under FICT. It shows that Bignole is full of it. If that's going to turn into another RFC where every opposer gets piled on, you can count me out. --Pixelface (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't tell me your argument is right therefore what you're doing is right. "You're wrong because you're a hypocrite, and I have proof!" is a disruptive ad hominem attack, even if you are absolutely correct that he is a hypocrite.

As for his replies to opposes, he's addressing the reason for the oppose directly. That's good (bearing in mind that some of his arguments are less than super IMO). It's the sort of thing that makes that more a discussion and less a shite poll.

Try to address the issues and not the persons, eh? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bignole created Traitor (comics). That's an article, not a person. But the person who created that article doesn't even believe what they're shoveling, speaking of "shite." Does Bignole think responding to every opposer is going to make them change their mind? Let people oppose, eh? --Pixelface (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion isn't about Bignole's conduct, though. Bignole's a hypocrite. So what? Dude can espouse a standard that doesn't include an article he wrote if he wants; I know I've dreaded going back and disposing of my old work just because it isn't up to snuff. He may have forgotten, he may know of sources he hasn't yet gotten around to adding to the article, he may be lazy. I don't know. Whatever it is, you're certainly better served trying to tear his arguments apart at their seams, rather than attacking his edit history.

As for responding to every opposer, what he's got should touch off some useful discussion if it gets a response, and it's a shame if it doesn't. Changing votes isn't the only thing that counts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hooookay I just filled myself in on some of the context here. I stand by what I said above, but there's no sword of Damocles hanging here. I just don't want to see that turn into a bunch of hairball bullshit about "You're a hypocrite!" "No I'm not!" etc. You're not really interested in getting that article saved or deleted, you just want to make a point about how the inclusion standards for fiction make less sense than an Escher painting and are about as complicated (correct me if I'm wrong).

If that's where you are, I'm with you against them. All of this bullshit has been turned into Inclusionist/Deletionist Bout #227585432: Now It's Personal, and doesn't practically project into a scheme that makes emotional sense. I just don't want to see the outside position get marginalized as the troll/shitdisturber fringe.

(This was written before seeing the 13:35 comment.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]