User talk:Pixelface/Archive 3

Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:The Trivia Game

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Wikipedia:The Trivia Game, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Wikipedia:The Trivia Game|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. GameKeeper (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC) .

I quite enjoyed it but its soon time for it to go. Uncyclopedia needs you! GameKeeper (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you've got a copy of this somewhere and can put it somewhere more appropriate for posterity. Inspired, and potentially not such a bad idea for a real product either. --BrucePodger (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your kind words, but I've been here long enough to know I shouldn't do that sort of thing. I'm glad someone saw the article yesterday, rather than having to g7 it later myself. I'm sorry Orangemike had to waste time dealing with it. I will put any future April Foolery on Uncyclopedia. --Pixelface (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No big. I'm just a grump about April Foolery on Wikipedia, since we spend so much time fighting hoaxes and disinformation every other day of the year. It's like "secret pages" and other Facebook-esque content of non-encyclopedic tone. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

List_of_top_100_web_sites_in_the_United_Kingdom

Permission from Alexa. Because Alexa Internet understands that we are an information resource, we are happy to have people refer to our data in their own work. As long as you credit us appropriately as the source, do not mis-represent the data or attribute Alexa Internet with your subsequent analysis thereof, please feel free to cite Alexa's information, including our charts and graphs, in your publications. There is no copyvio here. Can you please reconsider your vote?Anwar (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I initially only made a comment because I hadn't come to a decision, but after reading that FAQ, I've decided to say keep. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Pixelface (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about Compete. It's an awesome site. Also, the list is now sortable with additional data from Compete.com. So, it is no longer a wholesale reproduction of Alexa ranks only.Anwar (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I do like a good Simpsons quote

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		"Keep, it's a perfectly cromulent encyclopedia entry." Heh.--Father Goose (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am embiggened by your generosity :). --Pixelface (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, you will be blocked from editing. You've been warned many times not to remove it. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize anything. Please read WT:NOT#Plot. A discussion has been going on for over a month and there is no consensus for the Plot summaries section to be under WP:IINFO. And don't template the regulars, Will. --Pixelface (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You need a consensus to remove it, not a no-consensus to keep it. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it needs to have consensus to stay in the policy, which it doesn't have. --Pixelface (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you need a consensus to remove. No consensus results, and always has done, in keeping the status quo. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If an item of policy has no consensus, it needs to be removed. You're thinking of AFD debates Will. --Pixelface (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's always meant "keep the status quo" throughout Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You seriously need to stop the pointy edits, using a thread that was started by your actions as evidence shows how strongly you feel about this, however the discussion on the talk page still hasn't reached a consensus to remove the entry, the closest thing is a proposal to change but not remove, you are edit warring and you should realize that you can be blocked for breaking the 3RR in this case. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureacracy. I don't have to show consensus to remove an item from policy that has no consensus. Show me where there's consensus that plot-only stubs make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information or go away. --Pixelface (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you even read the thread? most of the discussion going in there is dealing with the definition that will be used, there is no consensus to remove. Its obvious that you are pushing a issue that was started by your actions too far, and that my friend is the very definition of "disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point". - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read the whole thing. Have you? Do you notice all the people that said it belongs in WP:WAF and not a list of things Wikipedia is not? Plot-only stubs don't make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information and I challenge you to show me consensus otherwise. --Pixelface (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"All the people"? only Taxman has gone as far explicitly saying that it should go in WAF, the others are still discussing what to do with it. You already know that PLOT was kept in NOT by previous consensus and you responded that it was a "consensus of a few" or something along those lines, there is no way I'm going to get involved in a circular argument. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay my bad there was also SmokeyJoe, that makes three with you. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Please read the thread again. I may have mispoke when I said "Do you notice all the people that said it belongs in WP:WAF and not a list of things Wikipedia is not?" And Taxman is against removing the Plot summaries section. However, Father Goose said "This is more a style issue than a content issue, so the appropriate place for it is arguably in a guideline, not in a content-exclusion policy."[1] , DGG said "More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there."[2] 23skidoo said "I agree with those who feel this is better suited for MoS rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a policy that, technically, is intended to supress content."[3] , Eubulide said "I object to treating plot details in a different way than other types of sourced information in WP." and "This is done only for plot summaries and nobody gave an explanation for this exception. If an article is missing real-world context, the reasonable approach is to add such context, not delete the rest."[4] , SmokeyJoe said "I think WP:NOT#PLOT, as written, belongs in WP:WAF."[5] , Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles said "We should remove the plot section of what Wikipedia is not."[6] , and Hobit said "I'll chime in by saying I don't think issues of plot summary should be here."[7]. Now you show me where there's consensus that plot-only stubs make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pixelface (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing

Your consistent removal and blanking of sections of the Wikipedia policy page, what wikipedia is not, is disruptive and unconstructive. Collected and civil discussion with the wider editorial community (that means talk page discussion, for the record) is the way to address qualms with the content of policy, not blanking and forcing through your opinion with reverting. I have blocked you for 12 hours; please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Anthøny 19:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pixelface (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have removed a section of WP:IINFO that does not have consensus on the talk page. I have discussed the removal of that section extensively on the talk page. And I have not violated the three revert rule.

Decline reason:

No consensus means no change - this is standard procedure across the project, and applies to everything from deletion debates to policy discussions. Unless there is a clear consensus to make your changes, they should not be made. The manner in which you made the changes is also disruptive. You are encouraged to read WP:CON while you wait for your block to expire. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've read Wikipedia:Consensus. It says[8] "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." and "In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected." and "Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. Past decisions are open to challenge and should not be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back." and "if one person or a limited group of people can reasonably demonstrate a change in consensus, then it is reasonable to effect the change at a process page. " and "Remember that we try to document actual practice, not prescribe rule-sets." and "If you notice that a particular policy or guideline page is not in line with current consensus, feel free to update it."

If the Plot summaries section of WP:IINFO had consensus to be in WP:NOT on WT:NOT, I would not have removed it. But several people stated it belongs in a guideline, not WP:NOT. And I have shown on WT:NOT that the Plot summaries section did not have consensus even when it was first proposed in June 2006. I made one removal and one revert on April 16, 2008 and I have been blocked. Sceptre should be able to demonstrate a higher standard of consensus that plot-only stubs make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. He has failed to do that. If the Plot summaries section actually had consensus, there would not be people saying it belongs in a guideline.

The editor who reverted me[9] [10], Sceptre, mistakenly thinks[11] that that part of policy is in there because it has to do with "derivative works" and fair use restrictions, and it does not. I believe this is simply harassment by Sceptre, who was also an involved party in the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case. --Pixelface (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not the same as unanimity. You still disagree with consensus; that doesn't give you authority to rewrite things to fit your (distinctly minority) view. Sceptre and Hersfold are speaking for the consensus here in their actions. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus for that section to be a part of policy. --Pixelface (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pixel the reason behind you actions seems apparent, its common knowledge by your participation on AFDs that you have a tendency to protect some fictional articles, thus you seem to be trying to get PLOT degraded from a policy such as NOT to a guideline in WAF, in the process opening the door to future debates about the validity of the guideline in AFD just like FICT. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can show consensus that plot-only stubs make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information, please do so. I'm all ears right now. --Pixelface (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also no consensus for it to be removed. Since it being there is the status quo, there it must remain until consensus is created to change it. If you really believe there is a consensus for its removal, a better way of doing this is to create a centralised discussion, similar to the one currently happening concerning non-free image policy. Black Kite 19:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If a section has no consensus to be a part of a policy, it doesn't belong in that policy. Period. Wikipedia:Consensus says[12] "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." and "In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected." and "if one person or a limited group of people can reasonably demonstrate a change in consensus, then it is reasonable to effect the change at a process page." and "If you notice that a particular policy or guideline page is not in line with current consensus, feel free to update it." So policy pages have a higher standard for removing a section rather than leaving a section in there? And I won't be starting a centralized discussion, because I'm still blocked. --Pixelface (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The plot injunction at WP:NOT has been there a long time and you simply have no basis for asserting that it does not reflect consensus beyond the extension of your own views. That is tendentious and to remove it as you have done IS pointy and disruptive and vandalism. Eusebeus (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read my reply to Caribbean H.Q. in the section above (that begins with (outdent)). WP:VANDAL says "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." And WP:AIV says "This page is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only". WP:AIV also says "The vandal must be active now, and have vandalised after sufficient recent warnings to stop." I received one warning from Sceptre, a level 3 warning — and the only warning for "vandalism" I have ever received in my 22 months on Wikipedia — incidentally by someone who was an involved party of the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case. I've never vandalized Wikipedia in my life (although I did create a page on April Fool's Day that was deleted per WP:CSD#G3, but it was really more unsourced speculation than a hoax.) Was it "vandalism" when Hobit removed that section from policy? While it pleases me to see you and Black Kite take an interest in this matter, your claim of "vandalism" Eusebeus, is false. --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock |1= [[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=prev&oldid=206074309 reverted] my removal of a portion of policy that does not have consensus on [[WT:NOT#Plot|the talk page]]. [[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]] then gave me a {{tl|uw-vandalism3}} warning on my talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pixelface&diff=prev&oldid=206075512]. Sceptre then again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=prev&oldid=206076676 reverted] my removal of a portion of policy that does not have consensus on [[WT:NOT#Plot|the talk page]]. Sceptre then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=206076760 reported] me as a vandal to [[WP:AIV]]. I was blocked by AGK for "Vandalism: at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; per WP:AIV thread." I was not vandalizing [[WP:NOT]] and this block is completely unwarranted. If I am not unblocked, I will be leaving Wikipedia. I don't have to put up with this kind of harassment.}}

I'll leave my second unblock request that went unanswered for three hours here in case anyone wants to read it. --Pixelface (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaving

This "vandal" has left Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't! You're an asset to our project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi pixelface, as a fellow burnout in FICT, I'm hoping you will reconsider leaving Wikipedia. Do like I did: empty your watchlist, focus on something less controversial. Abandon the sinking ship that is "fiction within wikipedia". There is no reason to keep it afloat if soo many crew-mates are shooting holes in the bulkheads. It might sound cynical, but I can tell you that my joy in editing returned instantly. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

? I'm a little confused. I don't recall Pixelface doing any work on fiction. Film, games, perhaps television, some non-fiction items; but not fiction. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

or even do as I do--keep working on it, but limit myself to one comment there every day or two or three, and not check back in the interim. We will get there yet, but The DJ is right that over-concentration destroys the fun of working here. DGG (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We've disagreed on a lot of stuff, but I would say that you're a good guy who has a lot of good points. If you're feeling burnt out then take your time, but I do hope you return in some form. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you read this, I'd like to add my own voice - I've seen you around while editing and at AFDs, and always thought that you had some pretty decent things to say. I too would be sorry if you were gone for good - especially over what looks like a poor block decision. - Bilby (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Virtual unblock

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review_and_contributor_discussion:_Pixelface

It took longer than the 12-hour span of the block, so an unblock is moot at this point, but cooler minds are prevailing now, and asserting that the block was inappropriate. (Ignore the partisan comments, of which there are many: ANI is ANI.)--Father Goose (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do you ever stop being facetious? Sceptre ^(talk) 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. I asked you three honest questions [13] [14] [15] and you have refused[16] [17] [18] to answer them. I've tried to discuss with you and you have refused. It doesn't appear to me that you want to resolve this matter. Shall I notify the arbitration committee? --Pixelface (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think will happen? I think you're inflaming the dispute way more than I am. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it you're not going to apologize for filing a false vandalism report on me which got me blocked? --Pixelface (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, AGK saw it enough to be blockable, and we're both experienced enough (35 months on Wikipedia for me, and AGK is an arbcom clerk)... and besides, saying you have consensus does not mean you have it; that's lawyering around the blanking clause of vandalism. That, and you were warned multiple times to stop removing the section. Good faith only stretches so far. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AGK doesn't appear to have read the vandalism policy either, which I find extremely disturbing since he's an administrator — and especially since MedCom members are supposed to know the difference between content disputes and vandalism. Was this edit of yours vandalism because Bardin reverted it?

You've been here 35 months, do you think you have a good idea of what vandalism is and is not?

Please read the vandalism policy if you haven't already. It says[19] "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." It also says "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, the word should not be used in reference to any contributor in good standing or to any edits that can arguably be construed as good-faithed. If the edits in question are made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling a person making such edits a "vandal", discuss his or her specific edits with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of his or her edits or arguments, not his or her person."

WP:VAND#NOT list the following as "What vandalism is not":

• Making bold edits
• Stubbornness
• Policy/guideline/essay/other project namespace page alteration

It also says "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors."

WP:AIV says "This page is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only". WP:AIV also says "The vandal must be active now, and have vandalised after sufficient recent warnings to stop."

Did I vandalize after a level 4 warning Will? Did I even receive a level 1 or level 2 warning? Why did you give me a level 3 vandalism warning for an edit to a policy page? I would have been treated with more dignity if I had added "is an idiot" to the George W. Bush article.

And please read my recent summary of the thread at WT:NOT which is my interpretation of the discussion and why I removed the section. Could you please provide diffs to show that I was "warned multiple times to stop removing the section"?

Either you don't understand the vandalism policy or you've been abusing AIV. So which is it? I see you've made 636 edits to WP:AIV. How many of those have been bad reports? I don't know what's worse. That you've been here 35 months and have made 636 edits to AIV and don't know what vandalism is, or that an admin MedCom member doesn't know the difference between a content dispute and vandalism. --Pixelface (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)\

Tu quoque. You can read the history of the page, yes? Besides, the line "Policy/guideline/essay/other project namespace page alteration" applies to bold edits (such as typo fixing, example adding), not repeated removals. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's still not "vandalism" Will, as has been explained by multiple people in the AN thread that you filled with misinformation. And the "blanking" portion of WP:VANDAL says "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Now, did you mean to call my second removal vandalism or did Twinkle do it for you? --Pixelface (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again with the lawyering. And an explanation wasn't really given on the talk page. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave an explanation in my edit summary. The discussion had been going at WT:NOT for over a month and there was no consensus for that section to remain in policy. You can read the thread again if you'd like. Hobit removed that same section from policy. Why didn't you put a vandalism template on his talk page? --Pixelface (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And Will, regarding a comment you made at AN, it contained three false claims. You said "His actions caused the Episodes and characters 2 case." and that is totally false. My actions caused Corvus cornix to start an ANI thread where he falsely claimed I was reverting all of TTN's edits. That's easily disproved by looking at my first 15 reverts. It was Eusebeus and TTN who turned them into redirects (and Eusebeus, by the way, was blocked for editwarring over them, and continues to editwar over them, as can be seen at WP:AE). I was turning the Scrubs episode articles back into articles because I saw no consensus for them to be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. And if it was *my* actions that "caused" the Episodes and characters 2 case, why did the arbitration committee restrict TTN? You're second false claim was "Specifically, edit warring on Scrubs episode articles." The arbitration committee and other editors found no evidence I was edit warring over Scrubs articles, look at the Workshop. Look at the history of articles like My Mentor and tell me who's been editwarring. Finally, you said "Him saying there's no consensus for PLOT is just wrong - only he agrees that it should be removed." and that's easily disproved because Hobit also removed that section from policy. And I can certainly provide more diffs if you'd like.

• Father Goose said "This is more a style issue than a content issue, so the appropriate place for it is arguably in a guideline, not in a content-exclusion policy."[20]
• DGG said "More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there."[21]
• 23skidoo said "I agree with those who feel this is better suited for MoS rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a policy that, technically, is intended to supress content."[22]
• Eubulide said "I object to treating plot details in a different way than other types of sourced information in WP." and "This is done only for plot summaries and nobody gave an explanation for this exception. If an article is missing real-world context, the reasonable approach is to add such context, not delete the rest."[23]
• SmokeyJoe said "I think WP:NOT#PLOT, as written, belongs in WP:WAF."[24]
• Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles said "We should remove the plot section of what Wikipedia is not."[25]
• Hobit said "I'll chime in by saying I don't think issues of plot summary should be here."[26] and Hobit later said "I think at the least WP:PLOT lacks consensus and shouldn't be here" [27]

And there's tons of opposition easily found in the WT:NOT archives. You appear to be embarassed by my message, so I've left this on my talk page if you'd like to respond. --Pixelface (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Return

Welcome back! - Bilby (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bilby. --Pixelface (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah welcome.... but please stop deleting Scrubs episodes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makecba (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't even begin to say what's wrong with that statement. --Pixelface (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do would you enable email? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I do have an email address I could specify in my profile, in general I am against all off-wiki communication — including IRC, mailing lists, and email. I think private communication is antithetical to the open and transparent wiki process. I hope you understand. --Pixelface (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

An admirable policy. Welcome back, glad you've returned--Jac16888 (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad to be back. When I said I was leaving, not only was I frustrated for being blocked for supposed vandalism, but that was also one of the worst days of the worst flu I can ever remember having. I'm doing much better now, although I am still sick. --Pixelface (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree if private conversation were used for any nefarious means, but my intentions were friendly in nature, as you made my list of nice Wikipedians and my list of wise Wikipedians. Regards and feel better soon! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt your intentions one bit Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. I think you're a great editor and one of the genuinely nicest editors I've met. I'm glad there are editors like you on this site and it's a pleasure to work with you. But my main interest here is to write and improve articles (and I have to admit I don't check my email much anyways). If you would like to tell me something, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your message by the way, after I said I was leaving. I was very upset, and it feels good to know someone thinks I'm an asset to the project. I truly appreciate it. And thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, basically when you left I had hoped to be able to send you an email repeating what I said on your talk page just in case if you had stopped looking at your talk page. Anyway, thank you for the kind words. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a technical note, you can add an e-mail address in your prefs, but disable the "e-mail this user" feature, which would be very useful incase you had to reset a password, etc. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. --Pixelface (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just stumble upon your talk, not sure why you wanted to go previously, but I am very glad you've decided to come back. You are a valuable contributor and your work has been admired by many (even if they don't necessarily tell you that everyday ;)) I hope you're feeling well. Have a beautiful weekend, --PeaceNT (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And I am feeling better than I was, thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll add my unoriginal welcome. You may find it empowering (whatever that means) to know that I have been blocked on what was later considered an unconvincing basis. While the event was inconceivable beforehand, I've taken it as a sort of Purple Heart for sticking to my convictions. My RfA passed half a year later.
I am, of course, very much not saying "Go get more", but wave your flag and hold your head up high. Heh. --Kizor 13:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kizor. --Pixelface (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Disengage

Can you honestly not see that it is time to disengage from this issue? Why are you bringing this issue up again, two days later after it has already been removed without being answered? At this point, it appears like you are trying to provoke a reaction, rather than a genuine attempt to resolve a dispute. Hopefully you can see that this should not be pursued further. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 14:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If Sceptre is going to remove messages I leave on his talk page and personally attack me, I feel I should perhaps reply on my talk page instead. I welcome you to try to resolve this with Sceptre. All I have asked for is an apology. I do not wish to notify the arbitration committee of his abuse of the AIV page, although that may be necessary. --Pixelface (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been trying to provoke him. These are examples of poking a, bear, with a stick. There's no need for the hyperbole, ("I do not wish to notify the arbitration committee of his abuse of the AIV page, although that may be necessary") as again, it seems as if you are just trying to escalate the situation. What happened, happened; it's time to move on now. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to provoke anyone. Those are examples of asking honest questions and being denied any kind of rational response. I have been trying to find out why Sceptre reported me as a "vandal" when I committed no vandalism, why Sceptre thought it was "good news" when I left, why Sceptre was spreading false claims about me at the Administrator's noticeboard, and why Sceptre labeled me a "troll." Saying that Sceptre has abused AIV is not hyperbole. I don't know why you're here, but it doesn't look like an attempt to resolve any dispute. Thanks for your message. Now perhaps it's time for you to move on as well. --Pixelface (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying that you're going to take it to ARBCOM is clear use of hyperbole. As for your explanation that those are honest questions, I'm very doubtful, given your history of POINTYness (i.e. Being absolutely vehement in your opposition to merging or to deletion of fiction related content, but then proposing to merge content in another area, that a member of the "opposition" is interested in). It should be clear to you by now that the two of you don't get along. I stepped in, basically, to tell you to leave it alone; it risks looking like the onset of harassment. Now that you are aware of that, no further conversation is needed. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, Sceptre and I have both already been to ArbCom and the parties were "warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." I believe filing false vandalism reports on fellow involved parties and telling other involved parties it's "good news" when they leave just perhaps might qualify as further inflaming the dispute, but maybe that's just me. You've stepped in and resolved nothing. I already "disengaged" for 12 hours, and another week on top of that. I really don't know what else you want me to do. I'll be leaving my reply to Sceptre on this page, but you're free to complain about it if you'd like. --Pixelface (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop it with the messages - I'll instantly revert you on sight on my talk page, and I won't reply to you on yours. Trying to get me to do so will be construed as harassment. Just disengage completely. Otherwise, you're just proving you're disruptive. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You didn't disengage, you reposted content from two days ago, today at 14:57, about 2 hours ago, not 12! That's not disengaging! But obviously I'm just complaining. I have nothing more to say, so let's leave it there. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 15:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

When I said I disengaged for 12 hours, I was referring to the block that Sceptre initiated by reporting me as a "vandal" to AIV. But please do go on. I'm quite interested in your attempts to de-escalate situations. --Pixelface (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This was not about me resolving this dispute; as I've said several times above, "this should not be pursued further", "What happened, happened; it's time to move on now" and most specifically, "I stepped in, basically, to tell you to leave it alone". Also, as I said above, my warning telling you to disengage was clearly referring to your 14:57 provocation. However it's seems I'm just repeating myself now without any purpose. It's unfortunate but I truly can't clarify what I've been trying to say any further. I'm sorry to have been of no assistance. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you here exactly? Just happened to have my talk page on your watchlist? You seem to be quite an expert on who should disengage but seem unable to do it yourself. --Pixelface (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See above. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You know I think it's great that I can get advice from uninvolved administrators such as yourself. So how exactly did this edit come to your attention? Is it your personal opinion that editors should be allowed to freely make false vandalism reports at AIV? That editors should be allowed to freely spread false accusations at the Administrator's noticeboard? Do you consider statements like "Some good news. Pixelface left" to be civil? Do you think it's strange for me to want to defend myself against false allegations? Do you think it's odd that I would feel upset for being blocked based on a false accusation of vandalism or want an apology? You said "it's time to move on" but you have no right to say that to me. That block remains in my logs, despite multiple people saying it never should have happened. It's just more false crap I have to explain whenever someone brings it up in the future. --Pixelface (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have Sceptre's talk page on my watchlist. If you get blocked or someone says things about you that you don't agree with, it's better just be graceful and forget about it. What is there to gained by badgering Sceptre? If multiple people disagreed with the block, then why does one editor's opinion matter so much to you? You seem to have forgotten what the spirit of the block was for; don't edit war. As seen by some of the comments by editors above, people are glad to see you back, so don't disappoint them or yourself, by not learning that lesson. Lastly, one of the things I do, is continually put things in perspective; this is just a website and there are worst things happening all the time. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 19:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone was saying false things about you, would you just be "graceful" and forget about it? Would you appreciate it if you were upset and people were telling you it was time to move on? The "spirit of the block"? The block was for vandalism. I've never vandalized Wikipedia in my life, unlike some people[28]. AIV isn't for reporting edit wars. It's for reporting vandals who have vandalized after their final warning. Go explain that your friend. And yes, this is just a website. It's a volunteer website. When volunteers are blocked from editing they can't really volunteer now can they? Why should I keep on volunteering when there are teenagers running around blocking people for vandalism who have never vandalized Wikipedia? If you want to put things in perspective, this talk page was much shorter before you showed up to offer your "assistance." Has it crossed your mind to tell Will that perhaps an apology is in order? --Pixelface (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, I'm bored of discussing this. I've said as much as I can. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for dropping by! --Pixelface (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with Seraphim on this. While what Sceptre did was wrong, and AGK erred in issuing the block, what you're doing now is not defensible. You're making it personal. That's a recipe for wiki self-destruction. Sceptre's poor behavior can speak for itself, and a long enough history of it will end up at ArbCom. Let him be his own undoing, not yours.--Father Goose (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Seraphim Whipp apparently doesn't acknowledge that Sceptre or AGK made any kind of mistake whatsoever. If wanting an apology from either of them is indefensible, so be it. --Pixelface (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanting an apology is defensible, hounding Sceptre for an apology isn't. He isn't going to offer one, so again, let that sully his record, not yours. All you have to do to explain away the block record is point to the ANB discussion where it was determined to be inappropriate. Don't cede the high ground here by "demanding satisfaction".--Father Goose (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No Father Goose, I can't just point to the ANB discussion, because Sceptre was making false claims about me there and they're now archived. I posted a rebuttal on Sceptre's talk page and he removed it, calling me a "troll." So I put it on my talk page and his apparent BFF and fellow Death Cab for Cutie fan Seraphim Whipp offered her completely neutral third opinion on the matter. Now whenever someone looks in my block log, they'll see I was blocked 12 hours for "vandalism", and there's no asterisk to say, no I actually didn't commit any vandalism. Apparently Sceptre has "several contacts who can do some blocking" if he wants, and that just warms my heart. --Pixelface (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In the archived thread, those false claims are rejected by truly non-involved admins. (They're also parroted by involved partisans, which just helps to further show how one-sided they were.) Most Wikipedians have no trouble identifying bullshit; the "wrongful block" in your record is meaningless as a result. And if Sceptre thinks his admin buddies will abuse their powers in service of his views, they'll either have the good sense to tell him no, or they'll be going down the same path that led to his loss of admin powers.--Father Goose (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I replied on my talk page to a post you made there a few days ago, and I'm curious to hear what if any reply you would have to it.--Father Goose (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I welcome anyone to review my neutrality in this discussion. I'd say it's pretty clear that throughout, you were trying to provoke me. Now you are still continuing to do that with your sarcasm, carrying on about me after I've left the conversation.

I saw someone getting badgered by you, and if I had seen you doing this to anyone else, I would have stepped in and done exactly as I have done. Because it looks like the onset of harassment. You got blocked, and now all you're doing is saying, "It's unfair, I shouldn't have been blocked for vandalism". And you're right there, the block reason should have read "edit warring". So just treat that as a lesson learned. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 09:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be the one doing the badgering. And no, I shouldn't have been blocked for edit warring either. Sceptre seems to acknowledge that your comment on my page was a conflict of interest. Now maybe you should too. --Pixelface (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT talk issues

One question first, when Spectre posted to AIV it included the comment that you had specifically asked him to not post warnings to your talk page. Is that correct?

Beyond that, I did look at what he was complaining about, and to be honest there is a problem with your conduct up to that point. You had been engaging in what amounts to disruptive editing. You boldly removed a section of WP:NOT, and instead of proceeding to a discussion when editors restored it and pointed out what you were doing was contentious or waiting for that discussion to generate a consensus, you continued to blank the section. That is by definition disruptive, and, if continued long enough, acting in bad faith and vandalism.

Had it gotten to that point? Possibly. Should your talk page have been peppered with warning about disruptive editing? Definitely. That last bit is why I raised the question above.

As for Spectre's comment in the new RFC location, half of it is a valid point: relocating the RFC header does come off as trying to disassociate it from the discussions it generated. And that aside, he's providing a recent example. Is it unsettling? Yes. Does it rise to a personal attack? No. And your removing it is a problem. You and he have a history of bad blood over the entire issue of WP:PLOT, you trimming out his comment, short of them being flagrant personal attacks, comes off as you either goading him or trying to shut him up. The entire "Disengage" section has others explicitly pointing out the damage you're doing to your good will as an editor by pressing him, this doesn't help that.

- J Greb (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not editing disruptively. I boldly removed a section from WP:NOT on March 10, 2008, which started a thread at WT:NOT here. My removal was reverted by Moreschi. After several people said that the Plot summaries section did not belong in policy, I removed it again on March 28, 2008 and Sgeureka, who was also an involved party in the Episodes and characters 2 ArbCom case, reverted me, saying "it seems you're reading consensus wrong. Please don't remove this section without discussing the removal first and gaining consensus." I believe there was a rough consensus to remove that section, and that the section certainly didn't have the consensus required to be on a policy page.

I then reverted Sgeureka, saying "rv Sgeureka, there is no consensus for this section being in WP:NOT on the talk page." This was reverted by Masem. As far as I know, neither of those had expressed opposition to removing the Plot summaries section from WP:IINFO on the talk page. Hobit then removed the Plot summaries section from policy, saying "Reverting the revert as I think it is correct. I think this is the right thing to do here...." This was reverted by Masem, saying "removing this has opposition, need to show this should not be here by consensus." I do not believe that one must obtain consensus to remove a section from policy that does not have consensus. And this section in question doesn't appear to have had consensus to begin with. Hiding added it to policy after this thread, and I do not see consensus in that thread.

On April 7, 2008, I removed the Plot summaries section again, saying "removed Plot summaries, it came from WP:WAF and that's where it will remain" After reading through the archives, I learned that the idea for WP:NOT#PLOT came from WP:WAF and I feel that sort of guidance should stay in WP:WAF and not a content exclusion policy. Masem reverted me again, but I saw no consensus for that section to be policy on the talk page.

On April 16, 2008, I removed the Plot summaries section again, saying "removed Plot summaries again, no consensus for this on the talk page." This was reverted by Sceptre, who said "you've been told not to." I really don't know what Sceptre was referring to. It's my understanding that text has to have consensus to be in policy, and I saw no consensus for it on the talk page. Sceptre then gave me a {{uw-vandalism3}} template on my talk page. You can read that further up this page at 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC). That's the first vandalism warning I've ever received in my life. Seeing such a ridiculous template, I said "And don't template the regulars, Will.", which you can read further up this page at 18:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC). I suppose Sceptre took that to mean he didn't have to give me four warnings or that he didn't have to wait until I vandalized after a final warning to report me to AIV, nevermind that my edits were not vandalism. I removed the section again. That is when Sceptre reverted me with Twinkle, labeling my edit as vandalism, which, as many people have said, it was not.

As I have been trying to explain, a discussion had been going on at WT:NOT for quite some time. You can read the thread here and my summary of the thread here.

My edits were not vandalism. And Father Goose[29], Sjakkalle[30], The wub[31], Wizardman[32], and R. Baley[33] say there were not vandalism either.

I relocated the RFC header to the bottom of the page because it looks like nobody had noticed an RFC had been filed. Someone else had moved the Suggested change to PLOT section down "to allow for wider attention."

Sceptre said I have "refused to get the point", but it's Sceptre that has refused to get the point by refusing to accept the views of Father Goose[34], Sjakkalle[35], The wub[36], Wizardman[37], and R. Baley[38] who all said my edit was not vandalism. Sceptre calling me a vandal is a personal attack. Sceptre calling me a troll is a personal attack. Sceptre saying I "caused" the Episodes and Characters 2 arbitration case is a personal attack. Sceptre saying I was "edit warring on Scrubs episode articles" is flat out wrong, as you can see here. Sceptre saying "Him saying there's no consensus for PLOT is just wrong - only he agrees that it should be removed." is also false. Sceptre telling a user (who's currently blocked for violating an arbitration remedy) that it's "good news" that I left is a personal attack. I'm not trying to goad him. All I wanted from Sceptre was an apology. I don't want an apology from him anymore. I want him to leave me the hell alone, stop spreading false information about me, and stop harassing me. I want something to be done about him harassing involved parties of the Episodes and Characters 2 arbitration case and filing false vandalism reports to AIV. Thank you for your time. --Pixelface (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"I boldly removed a section from WP:NOT" – with all due respect, blanking a section of Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not is not being bold, it's being disruptive. Even if your action was correct, it was completely unwarranted, had no consensus, and went beyond the boundaries of being bold and ignoring all rules. This has been clarified to you countless times since you were blocked for that incident, and it appears you still don't get it; that concerns me. Anthøny 06:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, if you're not going to read the threads on WT:NOT (oldid) (this thread or this thread would be a good start), I don't have anything else to say to you. --Pixelface (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

You have been blocked for a period of 1 day from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. —Travis^talk 02:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You know the no personal attacks policy says "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Is there some diff you're referring to? --Pixelface (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Several diffs here. —Travis^talk 02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I see now this is in response to an ANI thread by Sceptre. Anyone is free to move this comment to the ANI thread if they'd like. I believe that I am the one that has been harassed by Sceptre. He filed a false vandalism report on me to AIV. And yes, he was an involved party with me in the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case. When I said I was leaving, he told TTN, another involved party in the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case, that it was "good news." He also called me a "troll". I did ask Sceptre three questions on his talk page[39][40][41], and he removed each of them without an answer. And yes, I asked him about false claims he made about me at the Administrator's noticeboard and he refused to reply, so I left my rebuttal on my talk page.

Seraphim Whipp apparently took issue with a talkback template I left on Sceptre's talk page. That was my fifth message to Sceptre. (Although I did leave a message on Sceptre's talk page in January, asking him to please stop archiving an ANI thread against me where several people made false claims about me. Sceptre then removed my message asking him to please stop without an answer. I don't believe Sceptre has ever replied to me on his talk page and I don't know why that is exactly.) I was "asked to disengage" by his apparent friend Seraphim Whipp. Calling Seraphim Whipp Sceptre's "BFF" was uncivil of me. But from looking at Seraphim Whipp's talk page it appears to me they're both here for social networking, and Wikipedia is not MySpace. Sceptre appears to acknowledge that some people would see Seraphim Whipp contacting me as a conflict of interest. I haven't contacted Sceptre since Seraphim Whipp asked me to disengage. However, Seraphim Whipp has continued to post again and again and again on my talk page, and didn't seem to appear to want to disengage herself. I have disengaged from Sceptre. He posted a message on my talk page saying if I mentioned his false vandalism report to WP:AE that I would be "laughed at." I did not reply. And yes, I did remove a comment by Sceptre at WT:NOT, where he said "Yeah, this is really getting to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT now... but Pixel has a history for this... recent too." which I felt had nothing whatsoever to do with the WP:NOT policy. J Greb restored the comment saying I should ask an admin to look into it, so I asked J Greb for his opinion on his talk page. J Greb replied on my talk page, and I replied to J Greb, saying I feel I have been harassed by Sceptre. If Sceptre thinks posting 4 messages and 1 talkback on his talk page is "harassment" I apologize. I don't want to harass him and I'd appreciate it if he didn't harass me. TTN is currently blocked for a week and to me it looks like Sceptre wants to do anything to get me blocked as well. On April 9, 2008, Sceptre reported a user to AIV after they made one edit to User talk:TTN and without giving that user a warning first. I feel Sceptre has been abusing AIV. Sceptre has said he has "several contacts who can do some blocking" if he wants, and I find such a statement by a former admin alarming. I don't know if AGK and Sceptre are good friends. But I don't believe either of them understand the vandalism policy. --Pixelface (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As suggested, copied to the relevant AN/I thread and requested a block review. —Travis^talk 03:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems major overkill to block Pixel for just removing that one comment. The other interactions are days old. Pixel was highly offended by the vandalism accusation, so we should be a little bit understanding about this. Certainly the issue should just be dropped, but what Pixelface is doing is a far cry from harassment. Possibly a bad judgment call on what to do, maybe, but certainly not intentional harassment. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Pixel was highly offended by the vandalism accusation" – to be frank, Pixel was blanking sections of Wikipedia policy. I'd call that both vandalism and block-worthy. Otherwise, with regards to this newest block, I will say it doesn't surprise me, that he's gotten himself into bother yet again, but I will make no comment as to the block's merits. Anthøny 06:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, I don't think you've read the vandalism policy — specifically the section on what vandalism is not. I would expect a MedCom member like you to know the difference between a content dispute and vandalism. And you may want to read these comments by users saying my edit was not vandalism and your block for vandalism was inappropriate.[42][43][44][45][46] Feel free to read the numerous threads[47][48][49][50] on WT:NOT which were the reason behind my changes to policy. And do please read my multiple explanations on this talk page. Why didn't you block Hobit for removing that same section? You may want to discuss on the next episode of Not the Wikipedia Weekly what vandalism is and is not. Even if I had written IDIOT on WP:NOT, AIV is for reporting serious vandals who have vandalized after sufficient warnings and also after a final warning, which doesn't apply to my situation at all. Thank you for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, just drop it. Stop bringing up the Bush edit, stop bringing up the block, just shut up and do something productive. Otherwise, you'll be stuck in this ANI->Block->ANI cycle for weeks to come. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you said you weren't going to reply on my talk page anymore, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't. Please stop harassing me. --Pixelface (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface, per the ANI thread, I am asking you, are you willing to try and completely disengage? This would mean no more accusations, and that you would be willing to wipe the slate clean in terms of previous issues. Further, if/when you and Sceptre find yourself discussing things at talkpages, you stick strictly to discussing "content and not the contributor". Do you think that you would be able to do this, especially the part about letting go of past transgressions? If Sceptre doesn't live up to his side and does something new, we can deal with that, but it would be important that your own behavior be strictly in accordance with WP:CIVIL from now on. If this is acceptable to you, please put your understanding of this agreement in your own words, thanks. --Elonka 10:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Elonka, I am willing to disengage completely and just drop it as Sceptre said. And I will focus on content, not the contributor like the no personal attacks policy says. I want to move on. --Pixelface (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I shall trust you at your word. The block is lifted. Go forth and wiki in good health.  :) --Elonka 11:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Elonka. I really do appreciate it. --Pixelface (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface, if I’ve offended you, I apologize wholeheartedly. I’m pleased to see that the situation has been resolved peacefully and I completely support Elonka’s comments and unblocking. No hard feelings, I hope... —Travis^talk 12:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't offended me so no need to apologize. You were doing what you felt was the right thing to do. I respect you leaving a message on my page. Thank you for your kindness. And thank you for copying my comment to the ANI thread and asking others to review the matter. My IP is still autoblocked but I don't want to jump through the hoops to get it unblocked so I'll just wait for the block to expire. No hard feelings and happy editing Travis. --Pixelface (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I dug up and removed the autoblock of your IP. Cheers! —Travis^talk 13:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thank you Travis. Cheers, --Pixelface (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV violence

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)

Wikipedia:Plot summaries

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)

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

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)

Redirects

You've changed three redirects to point towards Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I do not like it instead of their correct targets.[51] [52] [53] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your note on the article guidelines page

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)

Thank you

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)

templated rfa thank-spam

Thank you for your support

So...how do I use these things? ;>

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Wikiquette alert

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)

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)

Brevity

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)

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)

Compromise proposal on Wikiquette alert

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)

This question

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)

Sorry

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)

Translation

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)

You may want to be aware of this discussion in NOTE

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)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dorftrottel

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)

Happy Independence Day!

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)

Some thoughts

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 [[54]] 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)

• 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)

The Addams Family (video game) Merger proposal

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)

List of people who died before the age of 30

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)

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[55], 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)

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)

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)

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

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

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)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pandora tomorrow xbx.jpg

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)

RfC on plot

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

WP:AN/I

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

My editing

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)

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)

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 [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] 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)

Choose your words more carefully.

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

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)

"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)

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

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

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)

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)

ping

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

RfA thanks

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)

New title for 2008 attack at Beijing Drum Tower during Olympics

• 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)

Leave me a message

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)

Thanks for the feedback

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)

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)

New Fiction proposal

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)

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

Your question

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)

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)

Good questions

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)

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)

Questions

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)

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

Arbcom questions

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)

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

Fiction sister project

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)

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[61] explaining some changes to Wikia. In July 2008, Seth Finkelstein wrote an article that appeared in The Guardian[62] 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[63] "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[64]) 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[65] 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 [66]. 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[67]. I added a note again the next week[68], and Collectonian removed it[69]. I added a note again[70], and Collectonian removed it[71]. When Phil Sandifer unprotected[72] [73] WP:FICT and moved his userspace proposal over to WP:FICT[74] 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)

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

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)

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)

WP:PLOT

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)

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)

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)

ANI over your WP:WAF/WP:NOT edits

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)

Wikia

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your ArbCom questions

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)

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)

Reaching Out

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

RFC Update

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)

General note

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)

Your war on WP:NOT#PLOT

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)

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)

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

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

RFC/U

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Flagged Revs

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)

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

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

Kiellor and Prufrock

Your wiki-parody using "Prufrock" at [[75]] 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

For what it is worth

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

A RfC you participated in is being discussed

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

TTN

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

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

Survey

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

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)

Fiction Survey 2009

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)

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)

User:Pixelface/Fiction Survey 2009

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

• 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)
  • 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)

AKA's tool

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)

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)

Barnstar

		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)

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

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)

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

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)

Straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)

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)

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

Talkback

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)

Bignole

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You weren't at the RFC on FICT in June, so you didn't see the scores of threads under every opposer. That didn't touch off any "useful discussion." That didn't change anyone's mind. I know the RFC isn't about Bignole's conduct. But the long threads under opposers have already begun again.

I just don't want the RFC to turn into another discussion where every opposer is piled on — again. People can oppose if they want to. People labeling each other "inclusionist" and "deletionist" is part of the problem. If someone want to identify themselves with one of those vague labels, fine by me. I re-added my comments, but if you want to remove them again, fine. If Bignole wants to say one thing and do another, fine. I brought up Traitor (comics) because I'm trying to understand where Bignole is coming from. I don't understand and I won't even try to understand. I don't care anymore. I won't be replying to anyone at that RFC. --Pixelface (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to chase you away from that RFC. I'm just saying that if your goal is to find out where Bignole is coming from, you're going about it the wrong way. You come off as accusing him of being a hypocrite, which is a big distraction from the issue at hand even if he doesn't get offended. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As for responding to the opposers, I dunno, this just seems like a difference of opinion. I do know that hounding Bignole for hounding opposers is probably going to accomplish the opposite of your stated desire. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to interfere, but what you say, Black, is not always possible. There are some users on this site who edit articles solely for fights. I mentioned this on the video game project talk page. There are two editors who have staked out certain articles and will randomly revert edits to start fights, even for games they have admittedly never played. Using the fine print and loopholes in Wikipedia's rules, they manage to get good info delete, wrong info kept, and then use their admin connections or instigation to get the user banned. With them, pointing out errors in their edits will do no good, since it is the users themselves who are the problems. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

...what does this have to do with the price of tea in China, and why are you calling this out on someone else's talk page? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's called an example of the point I was trying to make. You say focus only on the opinions and not the user who makes them, but I'm saying that's not always possible. As in my example, there are some users who edit for less-than-honorable reasons. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, I don't know where to start, and this isn't the place. If you and Pixelface have no objections, we can transplant this over to User talk:Akari Kanzaki. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have an objection to that. Why would we move this discussion onto MY talk page? My statement was in defense of what you said to Pixel, as part of THIS discussion. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't have anything to do with what's going on at WT:FICT or Pixelface. Plus, we need to chat about what are either serious accusations or basic misunderstandings, and it's kind of rude to do that on a third party's talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, since I'm not accusing anyone, nor does this have anything to do with misunderstandings. You are scolding Pixel for saying something against a user, advising them to instead speak about what the user is saying. I am commenting in relation to that that it's not always possible. If I just said it was impossible, it wouldn't be much of a point, so I offered an example. That's it. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"There are two editors who have staked out certain articles and will randomly revert edits to start fights, even for games they have admittedly never played" is a pretty serious accusation, not one to be made off the cuff.

As for what I was asking Pixelface to stop doing, it's apples and oranges. When the issue is someone's conduct, yes, you should discuss someone's conduct. In this case, WP:FICT is either a good or bad idea regardless of if any of the supporters or opposers are hypocrites, bad people, Moldovian separatists, or whatever. It's just not relevant, unless you're prepared to argue that their arguments are themselves problematic conduct. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was using it as an example. Nothing can be done about those two users. I'm not getting banned. I'm doing what I can to get the articles fixed, but if they get wind of that, I'm going to get banned. It can still come down to conduct, though, even if it doesn't seem like it. Even though they can make it seem like they are following all the rules, because Wiki has so many of them, it is easy to find loopholes that allow users who only want to cause harm to do so. When it comes down to that, arguing their point becomes moot, since they'll just keep whipping out another policy or making accusations of their own. Just a point I was trying to make in general. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're awfully new here to have such a defeatist attitude. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

New to editing, maybe. I've still been here before and seen what goes on. Besides, it became quite a talked-about topic among fans. And I'm a fan. I've followed the argument, hoping right would win out, but I never joined in. That whole thing was actually why I avoided creating an account up until now. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, SyberiaWinx. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/67.163.193.239 Erigu (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's true, I'll be very disappointed. For now I'm going to assume good faith and wait for that SPI. I suggest you do too. --Pixelface (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the SPI is mostly meant for other people... Being quite familiar with the case (unfortunately), I'm 100% confident about this one. Erigu (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not true. Not even in the slightest. I'll still probably be banned, though. I mentioned it above-many innocent editors were banned by her, because she's got friends who are admins here. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved party who's trying his best to assume good faith here, "yeah, I'll do time anyway because the pigs are all corrupt" is not really doing much for your case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but Erigu coming here just to sarcastically claim I'm someone else and post a link to something completely unrelated to this discussion is fine? I know the facts. This kid has friends who are admins. Many people of many walks have opposed her-new uers, old users, and so on,-and she has gotten every single one of them banned as an alleged duplicate account. On top of that, she has gone so far as to harass this "SyberiaWinx", though their is no username that matches that on this site. She is just looking for people to target. It's no stretch to assume I'll get banned like all her other targets. I said from the beginning I would get targeted if word ever reached one of those two trolls, and I was right, wasn't I? Funny how no one ever calls them out on going around and flaming/accusing people. But to even target people not on Wikipedia, too... Why doesn't someone say something to her? Akari Kanzaki (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Akari, you may want to comment at that SPI. --Pixelface (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI? Remember, despite her claims, I am new here. I've no idea what that stands for... Akari Kanzaki (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. SPI stands for Sockpuppet investigations. Erigu mentioned you here. --Pixelface (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already posted, but I'm not optomistic. It seems the method of attack this time is, "you must be a sockpuppet, because we can tie your name and some of the other sockpuppets names to Japanese pop-culture". It's going to be a long, stressful day... Akari Kanzaki (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

taking off-list to avoid boring others

You know, your last post on the guidelines talk page didn't make sense. You said didn't mean I was the first person to add a Top ten list section to the WALL-E article., but earlier you said WALL-E was the first article about a 2008 film that I added a Top ten list section to. Small contradiction between the two statements. Then when you said That was just the first article for a 2008 film I — personally — added a section too, I was pointing out that you hadn't *added* a section as I had added it weeks previously only to have it rewritten in prose...leading to the conversation being had on the other page. No worries, but you can see where one could get confused. SpikeJones (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to confuse anyone. I meant, when I began adding Top ten list sections to year 2008 film articles about two weeks ago (after waiting for Metacritic to fill in most of the year-end lists), WALL-E was the first 2008 film article I added a section to.[76] At the time, I was unaware you had previously added top ten list information to that article, because I didn't see any. And when I left a note on your talk page, I was still unaware of your edits to WALL-E. Yes, you did it first. No worries, --Pixelface (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any answers for you

I'm sorry to see you so down in the dumps, and in all honesty I don;t really have any answers for you. I understand your frustration. The idea of a poll is perhaps one you may want to look at pushing; but I think if you do feel that is the way forwards, you need to ask yourself which way the community is likely to poll. Do the majority of wikipedians support an encyclopedia with copious amounts of plot summary? To be honest, I think your energy would be better expended in either cleaning up articles so that they are well written, well sourced, concise and comprehensive. It is far harder to delete a page which looks like an encyclopedia article ought to, and which passes the spirit of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Your other option is to look into convincing the community and/or the foundation to seriously consider the setting up of topic centred wiki's, or even one wiki, run on a not for profit basis but funded by advertising. Any surplus cash from the advertising once running costs are covered would be kicked back to either the foundation or perhaps a new charity which promotes values similar to that of the foundation. I'd be more than happy to work with you on that goal. Hiding T 09:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see a non-ad sister project for fiction. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Funding it would be the issue. It might be easier to fly were it ad-funded. What's your proposed model? Hiding T 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

25 percent of articles are fiction

See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Twenty_five_percent_of_wikipedia_is_fiction_articles.3F where your name is mentioned. We would love your input and explanation of where you got this number. Ikip (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Steady on there...

If you don't know what "notable" means, please look it up isn't nice. I know how you feel about this issue, but please just tone it down a little? Even if you're right about advertising [his] afd just say it all sweet and bat your eyes, ok, please? brenneman 12:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. What's a nicer way of saying please consult a dictionary? --Pixelface (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Try not saying it at all. Try "I disagree with creating a specialized meaning of notability that points to reliable third-party sources, and prefer the layman's meaning found in dictionaries." Everyone is familiar with dictionary definition, and sarcastically suggesting that they don't is not helpful. Randomran (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Do I really need to say "I disagree with you making up your own definiton for words"? It's beyond disagreement. I really don't know if that editor is familiar with the dictionary definition of "notable", judging from the definition they gave in their AFD nomination. WP:N itself defines notable as "worthy of notice." Fine. That definition appears in several dictionaries. So I don't understand where people come to think that the definition of "notable" is "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Probably because WP:N is currently a trainwreck. My suggestion to look the word up was not sarcastic. I linked to several dictionaries. Those don't contain "the layman's meaning." Those contain the meaning. Wikipedia guidelines are not legal documents where lawyers can redefine words all they want. --Pixelface (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue with you about your interpretation of notability. But you need to stop attacking peoples' understanding or command of the English language. Engage them on the basis of rational disagreement. Don't insult them. Randomran (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not my interpretation. And I wasn't "attacking" someone's "command" of the English language. My suggestion to look the word up was not intended as an insult. If Someguy1221 took it as an insult, I've seen no indication of that from that editor. --Pixelface (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually did believe it was meant as an insult, but not one worth anyone's getting worked up over. The distinction between how I defined notability in the AFD and how the dictionaries do is the distinction between "notability is presumed if:" and "notability is:" which as far as Wikipedia is concerned (in my opinion) is merely a philosophical distinction (so I have ignored it for years) until it is embodied in guideline (which, of course, you disagree with). (And the link to the AFD was provided because I can't stand when people ask vague questions and provide zero context.) Someguy1221 (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't mean it as an insult. There's a difference between "notable means worthy of notice" and "if significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject exist, then X is probably notable." That is the distinction. Pointing to sources and calling them "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is one way of showing that something is probably notable. That is one way, not the only way. --Pixelface (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And I've concluded that this is the actual problem that pervades both deletion and policy discussions, which I believe is exemplified by the massive RFC on notability - the "deletionist camp" (myself included) manifests itself through a desire for maximally objective (and unobtainable) criteria, while another part of the 'pedia believes that subjectively based opinions should have as much weight in building consensus (and/or that there is no such thing as objectivity). These forms of thought can't be reconciled because they reject eachother, although certainly, everything inbetween and outside of these regimes also exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to create an inclusion/exclusion guideline that contains objective criteria. But WP:N is not it, despite what WP:N#OBJ says. The phrase "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is full of subjective phrases. --Pixelface (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking them, if you're unclear, or addressing both. ("If by notable you mean important, then your opinion is noted but isn't really a reason to delete. If by notable you mean meets WP:GNG, then [this source] and [that source] seem to cover this subject.") - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies

You may be interested in this essay. Ikip (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks very interesting. Although I would say that silence never implies consent. You may be interested in the essay Wikipedia:Silence means nothing. --Pixelface (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks!!! I will add it to the see also section. Ikip (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Time to move on

I'm going to adopt the mantra of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to avoid engaging with you. It's no longer productive either for me or for you, it seems to cause stress in both of us, which is quite an unhealthy state and which should be avoided. I can't promise that I will never reply to anything you say, or that I will not edit in areas where you also edit, because we both share common interests. I will, however, attempt to avoid arguing with you, as it is counter-productive. Whilst I appreciate your point of view, I do not agree with your methods or your manner. I repeat the advice I gave you before, I think your energy would be better expended in cleaning up articles so that they are well written, well sourced, concise and comprehensive. I apologise for any offense I may have caused you with my off hand comment at WT:FICT. All the best, Hiding T 09:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I accept your apology. Can you see how it may have hurt me when I stumbled on that comment you made at WT:FICT — after I came to you asking for advice? My replies to you were written out of that hurt.

You pleaded for WP:NOT#PLOT to be removed in November and seemed to agree with me then. You seemed to regret that words you wrote were followed in ways you didn't intend. I contacted you on February 5 about that thread at WT:NOT because you said in November I could leave you a note on your talk page. I won't leave you any more.

I apologize for what I said to you at WT:FICT. It was totally uncalled for. Sometimes talk threads can be good sport, and sometimes someone steps over the line. I stepped way over the line. I've directed a lot of venom at you, and you've taken the brunt of my frustration. I'm truly sorry. I think it would be best if we did disengage from each other — although with regret because I've certainly valued most of our conversations.

I've cleaned up scores of articles, following WP:NOT#PLOT in the process. Lately I've lost the taste for article editing since people are following my every edit. Currently, I'm thinking my time and energy would better be expended off Wikipedia entirely. Thank you for your advice and thank you for your message. I really do appreciate it Hiding. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

in case you didn't see

List of all policies and most guidelines, and their editing statistics (as of February 10, 2009)

links have combined page/talk statistics!

anyhow, i've noticed Masem is one of the most active editors on WT:NOT and WT:Notability fiction, and it seems to me that he is doing RfCU as a way to discredit one of his loudest opponents... 212.200.243.17 (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I really appreciate it. I could work on wikifying it if you want.

And I noticed the combined page/talk stats — it's a good way to see who has the most interest in a page. Looks like I've made 24 edits to WP:NOT and 219 edits to the talkpage. I did notice that Masem has the most edits to WT:FICT, with 953. Looks like I have the 2nd most edits to WT:NOT and Masem has the 3rd most edits to WT:NOT. I also noticed that the editor with the most edits to WT:NOT supports WP:NOT#PLOT being in that policy. --Pixelface (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

i don't think manual wikifying is a way to do it as statistics will change often. better to wait until i write the wikifying script. shouldn't be difficult, just need to look into the wiki table syntax. cheers. 212.200.241.153 (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability

Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it a bit later and offer some input. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize that it took me a month to comment, but I've written some thoughts at User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

Pixelface, you've been brought to ANI repeatedly over your attempts to disrupt certain guidelines that don't reflect your views (WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N). You've been here long enough to know that when you disagree with a guideline or policy, especially a guideline or policy that has been widely accepted for years, you must discuss large-scale changes on the talk page. The guidelines are not intended to reflect the views of any individual editor, but of broad consensus, and at this point consensus does not appear to be anywhere close to what you would like the guideline to reflect. Until you can demonstrate that your view has significant support, you can't just start tagging sections as disputed. The WP:N dispute tags have been removed again, as discussion on the talk page does not demonstrate a large-scale dispute. If you add them back you will be blocked for edit-warring. Karanacs (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You are also coming close to breaking WP:3RR, with three reverts already. While you may be blocked for edit warring before breaking the 3RR limit, you're almost certain to be blocked once you pass it. Please stop your reverts and continue the discussion on the talk page. Fram (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The guideline WP:N may be the subject of ongoing debate, but it is not disputed per se. Please do not place disputed tags on this guideline. Arguing this section is disputed without any justification is a classic example of dispute escalation, and is effectively a form of flaming in all but name. Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them - please try to avoid disruptive edits such as this[77]. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There's currently a RFC on Wikipedia:Notability as a whole, but that's not why I added those {{disputedtag}} templates. I dispute three sections in that guideline. I'm going to ignore the rest of your comment, as I explained what I dispute on the guideline talkpage. Adding {{disputedtag}} templates to guidelines is not disruptive. But this is the third time I've seen you remove a {{disputedtag}} template, Gavin. --Pixelface (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify from Fram's comments, if I see the disputed tags added back at a later date (once we've passed the time limits for 3RR - tomorrow, next week, next month), without any significant support on the talk page for their inclusion, I will block for edit warring/disruption. Enough is enough. Karanacs (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can tell me where on Template:Disputedtag it says that significant support on the talk page is required before they can be added to a page, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Again, I don't think you're a neutral admin in this Karanacs. --Pixelface (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well I have continued discussion on the talkpage Fram. It just took me a while to write my reply to you, and to find when that heading was first added. --Pixelface (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You're incorrect. I haven't been brought to ANI repeatedly regarding my edits to certain guidelines. Please undo your removal of those {{disputedtag}} templates from Wikipedia:Notability. I am not being disruptive.

Why are you saying that disputing the wording of a section in a guideline is "disruption"? I have not made any large scale changes. I reverted large scale changes by Equazcion and Gavin.collins (this is the history range). Then I added {{disputedtag}} templates in three sections where I dispute the wording. Fram removed all three templates, but it appears they only objected to the addition of one of the templates. Fram reverted while I was typing up my comment to put on WT:N. I reverted Fram, referring to the talk thread. Gavin.collins removed the tags again saying "This guideline is not disputed" but I was not disputing the entire guideline at the time, I was disputing three sections. Gavin.collins has previously removed a {{disputedtag}} templates from WP:NOT that I added. That's why I said in the edit summary "Please stop removing disputed tags Gavin.collins."

Why does Gavin.collins keep removing {{disputedtag}} templates? Hobit also added a {{disputedtag}} template to WP:NOT, and then Randomran reverted. It seems to me that Gavin.collins and Randomran are acting like they own WP:NOT and WP:N. I've been discussing Randomran's alteration of the WP:NNC section since November when Randomran changed it.

Those sections in WP:N I dispute have not had wide acceptance for years. I agree, you should discuss large-scale changes on the talk page. But adding a disputedtag is not a large scale change. I agree, guidelines should reflect broad consensus, but I don't think those three sections reflect broad consensus.

I'm a little confused when you say I "can't just start tagging sections as disputed." Template:Disputedtag says (oldid) "Place {{Disputedtag}} at the top of the page or section that you intend to discuss." and "If the tag applies strictly to a specific section of a policy or guideline, append the following parameter: section=yes"

Template:Disputedtag also doesn't mention "large-scale disputes." I won't be adding those tags back today, but those three sections are certainly disputed.

I question your neutrality in this, Karanacs. --Pixelface (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface, to ease your mind, if I do have cause to block you, I promise I will immediately bring the block to ANI to review. Given your history and the ongoing user conduct RFC over very similar edit-warring over guidelines, I sincerely doubt the block would be overturned. The disputedtag template documentation very clearly states that This template is used only during an active discussion of whether an existing guideline or policy (or a section on a page) should be a guideline or policy at all. ... It is not intended for flagging a project page or section as vaguely controversial, nor for indicating a personal dislike of the document You began the discussion only after the tags had been reverted more than once, and the consensus on the talk page so far is that there is no justification for those tags. Furthermore, the FICT RFC already established that there was consensus for keeping WP:N, and the ongoing RFC about WP:N is (overwhelmingly) confirming that consensus. Judging from those results, there are no grounds to add a disputed tag. To show that the tag is disputed in light of the large consensus currently at the RFC, you'll need to be able to show some significant level of support (not majority, but significant) for the tags being appropriate. Otherwise, it is disruption. Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If I make an edit to a notability guideline and you're thinking about blocking me, I think it would be in your best interest if you let someone else do it, for several reasons. I think your impartiality is in question. First, because of a comment you made at my user RFC where you said you "would support a project-space ban" of me. I also opposed your adminship. Clear back in June I said "if Karanacs is made an admin and gets anywhere near a fiction topic or the subject of notability, I predict bad things." We clearly have different views about the concept of notability. I already promised to not edit WP:NOT for 3 months, of my own volition.

My user RFC seems to be filled mostly with editors who have conflicting views with me over certain policies and guidelines — mostly related to the concept of notability and fiction. My user RFC came about because I removed WP:NOT#PLOT again on December 30 and after I was reverting a self-admitted sockpuppet who had been indefinitely blocked up until 3 weeks earlier and was calling my edits "vandalism" — this after agreeing to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned. That sockpuppet then started an ANI thread and my user RFC was created by a user who's reverted my removal of WP:NOT#PLOT the most times, and who had previously started ANI threads about my removals of WP:NOT#PLOT in November and December — but in those threads no admin felt any action was necessary. On June 6, 2008, I added a {{disputedtag}} above WP:NOT#PLOT and Gavin.collins removed it. On June 9, 2008, I added a {{disputedtag}} above WP:NOT#PLOT and Seraphim removed it. On November 4, 2008, Hobit added a {{disputedtag}} above WP:NOT#PLOT and on November 9, Randomran removed it. This is not the first time I've disagreed with Gavin.collins or Randomran. They've both become increasingly uncivil in the past few days. Hiding wondered if Gavin.collins is a troll. And Gavin.collins's second user RFC recently ended. Gavin.collins and that sockpuppet became friends on Commons when that sockpuppet was banned after admitting to be a user banned in May 2007 for harassing another editor. I too have been harassed by that sockpuppet.

As I said in my user RFC, I repeatedly removed a section of policy that does not have consensus to be policy, WP:NOT#PLOT. If a section of policy does not have consensus to be policy, it cannot be policy. But several people at my user RFC have the strange idea that you need consensus to remove on the talkpage before a section of policy can be removed. No. A section of policy must have consensus to be policy. Not merely no consensus on the talkpage to remove it. People have been re-adding a section of policy that does not have consensus to be policy. But if I don't remove the section, but instead add a disputedtag template, the template is removed. Why?

I've also removed text from WP:N that does not have consensus to be in that guideline, text that Randomran added. I added one of the disputedtags to that section. The documentation about the section function of Template:Disputedtag appears lacking. Most of that template seems to refer to overall pages.

I did add the tag before I started the talkpage thread. If that's considered blockworthy then Template:Disputedtag certainly needs to mention that. I did start the talk thread after you reverted me. But when you reverted me I was still typing up the thread offline.

There is justification for those disputedtag templates. Certainly for the {{disputedtag}} under the Notability of article content heading (which Randomran changed in November all by himself). Certainly above the WP:FAILN shortcut (which Randomran created just the other day and added all by himself). And I also dispute the Notability requires objective evidence section, which apparently Kubigula wrote all by himself. I also dispute the nutshell change that Kanodin made based on Gavin.collin's suggestion in this thread, which Randomran supported. Kanodin also worked on the wording in the NNC section that I dispute. I also dispute that Gavin.collins removed a true statement from WP:N.

I don't know which FICT RFC you're referring to, but if you're referring to the one started by Masem in June 2008 or the one started by Protonk in January 2009 (both of whom just so happened to "certify" my user RFC), I don't think either one established that there was consensus for keeping WP:N. The RFC on N started by Randomran in September 2008 didn't confirm that either, the question wasn't even up for debate then. Drilnoth did close this thread about the existence of N as a guideline in the ongoing RFC about N as a snow keep, but I think that was a hasty close, with not enough input from the community.

I've already explained what I dispute in WP:N and why it's disputed. I couldn't tell you what the consensus at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation is.

In your opinion, would an {{underdiscussion}} template be "disruption"? --Pixelface (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion you adding any tags to that policy right now would be disruption. Continue the discussions on the talk page to determine if there is a significant minority consensus that there is a problem (you and A Nobody don't constitute a significant minority-just a loud one). This is a well-established guideline, and your personal opinion is not enough justification for adding tags that are repeatedly reverted. The disruption occurs when you continue to change guidelines/policies to support your opinion when consensus is not even close to being in your corner. Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC) PS I have no hard feelings whatsoever that you opposed my RFA (I had actually forgotten that tidbit). I don't hold grudges, and, frankly, the tools aren't that important to me. Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't plan on adding any more tags to that guideline today. I asked if you think the {{underdiscussion}} template is disruption. You say Wikipedia:Notability is a "well-established guideline", but I think if you look through the archives of WT:N starting in Archive 1 and also examine the early edits to it, you'll find that it's anything but well-established. The fact that there was an RFC on WP:N in September 2008 and a current one, is an indication it's anything but well-established.

But if WP:N isn't going anywhere, it needs a rewrite. Why is my opinion not enough justification to add tags but your opinion is justification to remove them? I'm convinced you didn't read my entire comment above if you think "consensus is not in my corner." Do you think Randomran changed the NNC heading with consensus in his corner? Do you think Randomran added the FAILN shortcut with consensus in his corner? Do you think Gavin.collins removed a fact from WP:N with consensus in his corner? And if the tools aren't that important to you, you may want to consider giving them up. --Pixelface (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clear for anyone reading the first RFC that it was not disputing WP:N as such, but was asking clarifications about spin-out articles and about subject-specific subguidelines of WP:N. To use this RFC as evidence that the guideline has been long disputed and needs a rewrite is not based on the basis of the RFC, nor on the outcome where it was clear that most people agreed with the general principle of it. The second RfC has currently on the basic question of "should WP:N stay a guideline" a support of 41 against 11 opposes, which is quite clearly a consensus. This does not mean that the guideline is perfect, but to have on the heels of two RfC's which clearly showed support for the guideline, an editor intent on marking it or large sections of it as "disputed", in one case only because he disagrees with a shortcut to the section, is highly disruptive.

Please check WP:POL#Changes to guideline and policy pages, a policy which deals with this:

If you have grounds to claim that a section was recently added or substantially altered in breach of the proper procedures for establishing consensus, then you may use {{disputedtag|section=yes|talk=Discussion Title}} instead.

Like all editing tools, these can be overused, and be disruptive; please be sure that these are marking a real dispute.

Bold editors of policy and guidelines pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. If your changes are removed, please make no further changes until the issue has been appropriately discussed on the talk page.

Discussion is happening, the tags are not needed now. Fram (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, 41 people seems like quite a bit. But Category:Wikipedians against notability has over 150 people in it. How many of them commented in that thread before Drilnoth closed it? And 41 people pales in comparison to the 160,000+ people who have made at least one edit in the last 30 days.

WP:N is currently undergoing an RFC to reevaluate it. It is not disruptive to dispute the wording of a section of a guideline. Randomran created the WP:FAILN shortcut all by himself, and added it to WP:N all by himself. I removed it from WP:N. Randomran re-added it. So the {{tl|disputedtag|section}} template is quite appropriate.

I did notice that section in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. It looks like instruction creep. It was apparently added in October. I'll start a thread about it later. --Pixelface (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Whack!

Jack Merridew 12:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Pixelface, I think where you are making a mistake is by assuming that WP:N is disputed because it does not work, when in fact it does work as a set of inclusion criteria, although no one disputes the fact it works imperfectly. The second problem for opponents of WP:N such as yourself, is that while WP:N is not perfect by any means, the alternatives such as providing exemptions for spinouts do not work any better, and give rise to more problems than such solutions set out to solve. If you can develop a set of inclusion criteria that work better than WP:GNG, then Wikipedia will be forever grateful. However, putting the disputed tag on this guideline just because it is imperfect is not appropriate, and is a waste of your time. Like government, taxes and death, they all suck, but protesting against them is like spitting in the wind. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Gavin, there is a difference between {{disputedtag}} and {{disputedtag|section}}. The first is used to dispute a whole guideline. The second is to dispute part of a guideline. I used the second. --Pixelface (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you dispute a shortcut, tag the shortcut, don't tag the section it points to. Fram (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

:) --Pixelface (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)