Anonymous 198736
Welcome
edit
|
Please remember No personal attacks When editing Wikipedia. Your edit summary on Strafing was unnecessarily boorish. Just fix the problems without belittling your fellow editors. Thanks, Scientizzle 00:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Look, we both know that there's a modicum of truth in your edits to Strafing, but your edit is clearly designed to make fun of the gaming community as a whole and at least one editor in particular. Additionally, it's hard to assume good faith when you characterize my de-POV edit as "vandalism". -- Scientizzle 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let me break it down:
- "despite the fact that this usage is completely unrecognized outside the so-called gaming community"
- "completely unrecognized" is an unsourced claim and basically untrue
- "so-called" is quite the weasel word
- One Wikipedia editor claims that this occurred because "it was percived [sic] that strafing meant that one was moving in a straight direction whilst firing, and this turned into moving sideways whilst firing." [1]
- "One Wikipedia editor claims" why are you being self-referential to Wikipedia here? Solely to point out a past edit that you find distatesful...
- "percived [sic]" this is just a potshot—yeah, it's spelled wrongly, but it'd be less work to fix it...
- linking to the edit difference is never a good idea in mainspace articles, and it's completely unhelpful because your edits are clearly meant to disparage the gaming community and the author of said edit.
You're violating WP:NPOV & WP:NPA. Additionally, you're losing the good faith of other editors by characterizing their edits as vandalism. -- Scientizzle 17:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
We go in an edit conflict on this talk page. Please see my comment at Talk:Hipster doofus. -- Scientizzle 17:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's start over here...
editI may have gone a bit overboard with the vandalism warnings, so I have removed them. Let's try to work out our content disputes here, okay?
Your last edit here is the best version you've put down. Do you honestly believe that your previous versions were neutral? I find that hard to believe. As I listed above, the sum of all the sniping comments (+ the previously removed "illiterate") read like a personal attack; it was certainly not NPOV. It was a complete violation of Wikipedia policy and totally bush league, that's why I continued to revert to my version, which contains all of the same information and none of the derision.
Concerning your current version:
- "despite the fact that this usage appears to have no popular currency outside people who describe themselves as gamers" is still completely unsourced. I'm no gamer, but I know what strafing means in this context, and I doubt you can show that this statement is true. It should be removed. I will remove it. Feel free to replace it when you find a verifiable & reliable source that seconds you allegation.
- "This entry previously claimed that strafing was perceived to mean that one was moving in a straight direction whilst firing, and this usage eventually evolved to mean moving sideways whilst firing" Thanks for taking out the direct cheap shots. But this statement needn't be in the article. It was another author's (poorly spelled) speculation and shouldn't have been kept in the first place as a violation of WP:NOR. Edit summaries like "mistake," not "misnomer"; "traced," not "led" (wtf? illiterate); "perceived," not "percived." You gamers are a singularly inerudite bunch & calling my cleanup "vandalism" didn't help, either. In any case, the statement shouldn't stay as-is because it unnecessarily refers to previous OR. Rather, I suggest the following for said paragraph:
- Many gamers misuse the term strafing to describe the practice of side-stepping while firing. The origin of this usage is uncertain, but might be traced to early computer games misusing the term in their keyboard settings.
How’s that?
Google searches don’t qualify as verifiable & reliable sources. Really. Read the policies. It's not a primary source. Besides, almost every link is to a no-name blog--and they certainly don't qualify--and many of the search results don't refer to the subject in question anyway. You need to find a primary source to show that there's any widespread usage of the term for anyone other than Cosmo Kramer.
Additionally, you didn't address my statement here that "The rest of the article is just separate definitions of 'hipster' and 'doofus'."
The redirect is the best choice, in my opinion, because Kramer is the only documented "hipster-doofus" -- the rest is just speculation and border-line personal attacks, followed by a terrible "definition".
Comments? -- Scientizzle 00:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Saturn V infobox
editTemplate:Saturn V infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 20:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)