User talk:Pixelface

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Happy Saint Patrick’s Day![edit]

Irish clover.jpg

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy Saint Patrick's Day to you to. --Pixelface (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome and thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Alert[edit]

I'm just letting you know that I filed a WP:WQA alert, see this page, regarding your behavior on several talk pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm only going to mention this once, as a courtesy. Please watch the tone you take with me and your fellow editors. If you disagree over something, that's fine. Your rudeit i attitude ("you're wrong, yet again") is uncouth, unprofessional, and will not be tolerated any longer. My patience with it has dried up. Just to clarify, because you feel that NOTE is not a requirement does not mean that those who do are "wrong". It is your opinion, nothing more. Your opinion is no more "right" than anyone else's opinion. Please try and respect other people's opinions on Wikipedia, it will only serve you better in the future. Thanks, and cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Listen, you cannot keep making false claims. How can I say that any more civilly? If you say something incorrect, and someone point out that you're incorrect, and you think that's rude, then simply stop spreading misinformation and people will stop telling you that you're wrong. If you say something that's incorrect, I will point it out. It's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of you being clearly wrong and misrepresenting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You are wrong. That's the point. Would you like it if I kept making false statements as if what I was saying was correct? You are blatantly wrong when you say that Wikipedia requires every article to provide significant coverage. That is a fact, I'm sorry to say. I can respect your opinions just fine — but I cannot respect your false statements. If it's your opinion that Wikipedia requires significant coverage in every article, you may want to point out that that's your opinion when you say as much, and stop making people think that what you're saying is a fact. Go ahead and say "In my opinion, every article must provide significant coverage" all you want. But please do not misrepresent Wikipedia's policies and guidelies and say that Wikipedia requires it. Thank you for your message, and you're courtesy. --Pixelface (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTE: "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice." - "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below." - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." - The page clearly says this. Now, it is your interpretation that this does not apply to all articles, but this page does not say "this does not apply to every article". If it said that, then I wouldn't assume that "every" article requires significant coverage. You can do what you want with it, but the page's wording is on my side. The "opinion" part comes from your personal assessment on whether "notability" is something every article must satisfy. If you believe that every episode is notable, then per WP:NOTE it must meet the GNG requirements, as the "episode" is a "topic". Per the GNG, "significant coverage" is required. That is what is says, plain and simple. I'm not making it up, I'm not misinterpreting it, I'm merely citing it verbatim.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and WP:NOTE said topics should be notable up until Equazcion unilaterally changed it last month without consensus to do so, which is discussed on the talkpage. "Should" does not mean must. And a guideline cannot enforce musts anyway. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the topic is probably notable. If a topic has not received significant coverage, that does not therefore mean that the topic is not notable. WP:NOTE has never said "Only if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" — and if it ever does, that phrase is false anyway.
Every article does not require significant coverage. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Do the Himalayas require significant coverage in order to be notable? No. People were noticing the Himalayas before the written word was even invented, and they'll be noticing the Himalays long after you and I are dead. And no, the page's wording is not "on your side." WP:NOTE itself says "Notability requires objective evidence" — not "Notability requires significant coverage." You are wrong. And that section that Kubigula wrote is also disputed. You clearly do not understand the WP:GNG. It currently says, and I quote, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Notice it does not say "Only if a topic.." Learn the difference please. The GNG also says "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." And the GNG is merely Uncle G's opinion anyway.
Notability is a subjective opinion. Like you said above, opinions cannot be wrong. So if it's someone's opinion that every episode of a notable show is notable, they cannot be wrong. And the GNG is not a requirement. "Per the GNG", coverage is not required. That is not what it says, so please stop saying it does. You are making it up, you are misinterpreting it, you're not citing it verbatim, so please stop it. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, if Wikipedia really did require every article to provide significant coverage, you never could have created the article Traitor (comics). But you did, and it doesn't. --Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Go back to the page before he changed it, and you'll see that all of my quoted text appears before he changed the wording, so your argument about him unilaterally changing the page is irrelevant because it doesn't affect anything I quoted. The page already stated that topics should meet the GNG, and the GNG says "significant coverage". Even if you stick with the "probably notable", lack of "significant coverage" only means that there is not notability asserted. Without information reliably sourced then you cannot argue something is notable. It's all he said/she said, with no actual facts to back it up. Exactly where, please point it out, does it say "significant coverage is not a requirement". If you can point that out on any policy or guideline, I'll be happy to retract my statement. If you cannot do that, then you cannot say I'm legitimately "wrong". I get the distinct impression that you don't like losing arguments, because you try and twist everything your way. Have what you will. I know I'm right in my assessment. You seem to be the only person actually claiming them I'm wrong (to clarify, you are the only person claiming that the GNG doesn't require significant coverage for all topics, everyone else who disagrees is doing so because they don't agree with the requirements themselves and not because they are in denial about what the page actually says). Anyway, this is like arguing with a brick wall...it's going no where. Believe what you want, but I'm letting you know that if you continue to respond in the tone that you have been with me, or anyone else, on any of the non-user talk pages (e.g., guideline pages, article pages, etc.) the I will go to the Administrative noticeboard. If you disagree with me, that's cool, but try and be more professional and respectful with your tone and choice of words. Good day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No, all of your quoted text does not appear in the version of WP:N before Equazcion changed the wording on February 13. You're free to look for yourself. And Equazcion also tried to sneak "significant coverage" into WP:V, which this thread at WT:V is about. Thankfully, I see that someone reverted Equazcion's attempt to change that policy. I notice now that Equazcion apparently retired on March 7. Please read that message and then compare that with what I'm saying if you have any problem with my "tone."
If you'll notice, WP:N says "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content." WP:N does not say "only if it meets the GNG."
Notability cannot be "asserted." It cannot be "established." Whether something is "worthy of notice" is a subjective opinion. Significant coverage is evidence of notability. But that is not the only evidence of notability. Gordon Brown is notable. Why? He's notable because he's the Prime Minister of the UK. Now, there is significant coverage of Gordon Brown. But Gordon Brown is not notable for coverage. He's notable because he's the Prime Minister.
I don't have to point out where it says "significant coverage is not a requirement." You're the one saying it is a requirement and you have nothing to back it up except your word. You are wrong. I'm not twisting everything my way. You are wrong in your assessment. If you like, go ahead and start a thread at WP:AN or WP:ANI and ask if significant coverage is required in order for a topic to be notable. I asked a similar question of every Arbcom candidate in the 2008 elections. There is no requirement present in the GNG. If there were, it would say "Every article requires significant coverage", and it doesn't.
It's not that I disagree with you, it's that you're saying is blatantly false. Your inability to comprehend the GNG is unfortunate, but not as unfortunate as your unwillingness to cease spreading your false claims. --Pixelface (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/Arbitration Enforcement notification[edit]

An Arbitration Enforcement case regard you has been opened. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I see the thread was archived. --Pixelface (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Someguy1221[edit]

Do you actually have any evidence for this serious accusation? If so, you should open a sockpuppet investigation without delay. If not, you should strike that comment without delay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never opened an SPI before, so I'm unfamiliar with the process. I'll open one, but there will be some delay as I figure it out. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I can help you if you have the evidence Pixel. Ikip (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm busy putting it together, but thank you for the offer. --Pixelface (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've pinged a notable CU. Jeers, Jack Merridew 09:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
To join the secret cabal follow me!Rainbow trout.png

Whack!


Jack Merridew 10:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface, or more like "egg on face" considering your gaff ... have you considered an apology to either of the two editors involved? Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I turned out to be wrong. I've apologized to the people who deserve one. --Pixelface (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
A thread at AN/I has been started about you regarding the allegations you've made about sockpuppeteering. Reyk YO! 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That seems unnecessary, given that he acknowledged being wrong and apologized above. It is time to return to building and improving articles not create needless drama. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. Ikip (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Something different to work on[edit]

Pixelface, why don't we all set the right example by moving away from all these ANI and what have yous and focus on bringing some articles to good and featured status? Check out the April 3, 2009 issue of Entertainment Weekly. Much of this issue focus on profiling "Your Ultimate Guide! Heroes & Villains WHy we Love Them Both" with top twenty lists of "Scariest Villains" and "Coolest Heroes", a top ten list by Stephen King of "literature's greatest evildoers," and a "Rogues Gallery" of four major actors and the characters they played. Anyway, there are lots of out of universe commentary on production, reception, and oddly enough "notability" as presented in a verifiable reliable source. We have everything from commentary from the actors, commentary by one of the greatest modern writers, information on what characters these characters inspired, etc. This issue is by far one of the finest secondary sources I have seen in a mainstream publication for our purposes of improving fictional character articles and it gives us a sense of which ones are priorities to boot. The magazine doesn't just list them, but has a whole paragraphs (and in some cases in multiple separate articles) on each of those I am listing below. All of the following are covered in this extensive manner and from this issue alone has enough information for at least good status (the following is sort of like a list based on the various articles combined of literature and cinema's most notable heroes and villains; if we bafflingly don't have an article on any of these, they are prime candidates for new articles for which we can get DYK credits, i.e. Did you know such as such was listed as one of the top villains of all time due to x, y, and z.?):

The following are also mentioned in sort of "honorable mention" kind of capacities:

Anyway, all of the above on both lists, but especially the first list are fertile fields for DYKs, Good, and even Featured articles (I reckon some might already indeed be up to those standards and if any aren't, let's ignore all the back and forth hubbub and focus on bringing all of the above to such status!). Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


a really good idea. There is nothing that more soundely defeats a fiction deletionist thatn developing n article that he didn't think developable, and finding sources he didn't think were there. At that point, the rational among them admit that in this case at least, they were wrong; the less rational, whom nothing will convice,make it clear to everyone that the dont actually care about sourcing or content, just about deletion of as much fiction as possible. What library facilties do you have available?Let me know and I will make suggestions. .
And if you want to work on some different sorts of fictional people, consider the protagonists of Little Women---all of whom need articles. There's enough material here--its a prime example of something that just hasnt been worked on seriously yet.DGG (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The library at my university is currently being totally renovated, so I am relying primarily on Google Books and Google News. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I may check out the issue A Nobody, but I'm actually going to avoid editing many fictional character articles lately because that only puts a target on them. You mentioning them on my talkpage also puts a target on them. A better question would be if those editors insisting that the WP:GNG is a "requirement" consider that issue of Entertainment Weekly evidence of notability. I certainly do, but I don't need convincing. And I instantly recognize many of those characters. Jumping through other people's hoops in order to show that those articles meet the GNG would only seem to strengthen people's claims that the GNG is a requirement that all topics must pass, when that is simply untrue. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The above are notable to the point that if someone tried to delete he/she would look pointy and as such they would be overwhelmingly kept as the above are all award winning, reliable sourceable ones, some of which are even covered in mainstream encyclopedias. Please do help as I really would like to get some of these to DYK and Good status and I am too busy to do them all by myself. Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've edited four of the articles so far. Hopefully there are some Wikipedia readers that appreciate it. It looks like the top twenty villain list will come online on Monday. Thanks for bringing the source to my attention and thank you very much for providing reference information. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the help. By the way, see also here. Apparently the list is drawing some intention in its own right. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Extending a hand[edit]

I just saw your (very long :D) response to Durova where you brought up the recent Wikietiquette report. I just wanted to thank you for acknowledging that at least some of things you were saying were not civil. I know that we will probably never agree on what constitutes being "worthy of notice" for a separate article, but maybe we can both be a bit more gentler in the tongue (or the fingers, since we're typing) with our response to each other in the future. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You actually caught me right in the middle of typing up a reply to you at ANI. I'll reply there first. --Pixelface (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I stepped away from the computer for a bit, and I thought more about what I was going to say to you at ANI. One thing I was going to say was that I can recognize when I'm being uncivil. I said multiple uncivil things to you at WT:EPISODE and Talk:List of South Park episodes. I am sorry. And I was not exactly civil on this talkpage above. I apologize. You have done a lot of good work on season articles (and scores of other articles as well). I just happen to support episode articles. We probably will never agree about episodes of South Park, but I can agree to be gentler in my responses to you from now on. Thank you for your message. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. And I apologize for any uncivil remarks that I may have made towards you in the past as well. Some things on Wikipedia just seem to bring out the worst in people at times, in this particular case it is WP:NOTE..lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
So what can we do? Between inclusionists and deletionists, is this dispute going to expand until it ends in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2? The ball's in your court. DurovaCharge! 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Durova, you must mean E&C 3. And why should you think that it will settle the issue? anyway it is not between inclusionists and deletionists. One can be a inclusionist pr deletionist with respect to fiction and not other things. Its time to get the argument make into twin streams: content, and separate articles. I dont think people will ever agree on the amount of detail to be devoted to fiction, but perhaps there is room for a compromise about what will consitutes a separate article, here or in other topics. Or perhaps we will only sovled this when we get away form the concept of "an article" . DGG (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration:Characters and Episodes 3 failed. I guess it would still be 3? Ikip (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
E&C1 and E&C2 were both about TTN. But TTN stopped editing in late December. E&C1 didn't accomplish anything. And during E&C1 I said if Arbcom's ruling mentioned List of South Park episodes that those episode articles would be targeted next. Eventually they were, as seen now. E&C2 made things worse for the most part with the time it took for Arbcom to render a decision. And Collectonian's request in December to extend TTN's editing restrictions shouldn't have been rebranded and re-filed as E&C3 by Coren anyway. Once again, that was about TTN. And WP:EPISODE is still not a notability guideline. And WP:N still does not not establish any "thresholds", below which a topic is not notable. --Pixelface (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:N still does not not establish any "thresholds", below which a topic is not notable.

That is intriging what do you mean, maybe you should write an user page essay like DGG does. (or is it that other editor?) Ikip (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Significant coverage is an indicator of notability, but the absence of that means nothing, since other indicators of notability exist. I'll think about writing a userpage essay. --Pixelface (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter![edit]

Hase mit Ostereiern (2).jpg

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you A Nobody. Happy Easter to you too :) --Pixelface (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Creatures in the Half-Life series[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Creatures in the Half-Life series, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creatures in the Half-Life series. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability in Wikipedia[edit]

Didn't you do a ton of research that would help to make the new Notability in Wikipedia article look really good? :) BOZ (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, hopefully you've gone and added all of that to the article. :) BOZ (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I created a timeline of notability guidelines that I haven't updated in a long time, but I'm really not sure how much of that could be cited in the article. However, the coverage that Ikip thankfully found can be. --Pixelface (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil[edit]

If you disagree with my point of view, by all means says so and say why. However, I would be grateful if you could refrain from being uncivil. I like a joke from time to time, even at my own expense, but I don't see this reference about me being Useful idiot as being civil at all. If you have any personal concerns about me as an editor, take them to WP:ANI. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

By directing Wikipedia volunteers to Wookieepedia, you are being a useful idiot. And if you continue to suggest they contribute there instead of here, I will continue to say so. --Pixelface (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(Butting in) Along these lines you [wrote] "Wikipedia, a non-profit project, has no business having a policy that encourages editors to ship fiction content off Wikipedia to Wikia, a for-profit website founded by the same person who founded Wikipedia. A policy that forbids, on Wikipedia, content used to build Wikia and generate a profit for Jimbo Wales, can and may harm the non-profit status of Wikipedia itself. --Pixelface (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008" a view which at this donor banner time of year is interesting. I wonder if a Wikia (I.e. a wiki with less stringent restrictions on what is "notable") could in theory fund Wikipedia if it were merged, and free knowledge, free from donations, free from editors saying "that is not notable" might have its time at last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtak (talkcontribs) (Thank you sinebot)
Pixel, you only hurt yourself by saying things like this, apologize, remove, and move on. Ikip (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think it's interesting that I also told Gavin to stop trolling in that comment, yet it's the "useful idiot" part he objected to. My comment stands. --Pixelface (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Notable[edit]

The discussion is somewhat moot now, but WP:N states that "Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice"."; this isn't established by "subjective opinion", but reliable sources, primarily secondary sources. The sources that establish Half-Life's notability do not automatically establish notability for the creatures of Half-Life. If there are sufficient sources to do this, then, for verifiability, they should be directly cited in this article. If there are insufficient reliable sources for an article to establish notability, then by all means what little sourced content there is should be merged into the parent article. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether something is "worthy of notice" *is* a subjective opinion. Secondary sources are just one indicator of notability, not the only indicator of notability. Notability cannot be "established." And there are plenty of secondary sources about the creatures in Half-Life. --Pixelface (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Baiting[edit]

RE: "Please stop behaving like a petulant child." on another page in response to you.

It would be nice if you took the high road, instead of being baited into a uncivil argument. Ikip (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen that remark, and it's not worth responding to. --Pixelface (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I decided to reply afterall. I guess we'll see what happens. --Pixelface (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Good. :) you are too valuable of editor. Ikip (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refactor the personal attacks in the NOT#PLOT discussion.[edit]

Pixelface, I generally agree with where you are going, but you need to remove those comments (like your RfA and probably the "to win an editwar" thing). Otherwise you are going to be blocked very shortly indeed. Not a threat, and please don't take it that way. I'd just rather not see you blocked and I dislike seeing the personal attacks. Hobit (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of those comments are true, and I'm not going to remove them. The truth can hurt, but those are not personal attacks. They are statements of fact. --Pixelface (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd argue that things can still be personal attacks when they aren't exactly on target to the discussion. But not my call. Best of luck! Hobit (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration[edit]

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. Tiptoety talk 05:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. After I posted my statement, I noticed it was about twice that length — but I do think my statement was the most informational. It looks like that request was declined so I suppose it's moot now. --Pixelface (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

I am just starting this page: User:Ikip/p, to create a straw poll for all ARS members to comment in.

I welcome your comments and contributions. Ikip (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The page looks like a redirect now, but the section looks okay to me. I'm not an ARS member by the way (although I appreciate what they do). --Pixelface (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar-lightbulb3.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For creating User:Pixelface/AFDs bilateral relations, my new favourite page on the web! I just wanted to let you know that the effort of compiling all those articles into one list has not gone unnoticed! HJMitchell You rang?

Just a token of my own, and, no doubt, everyone else's appreciation! HJMitchell You rang? 23:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It may have been a poor idea for editors to create so many of those articles, but a handful of editors steamrolling with AFDs when there is no deadline sure does put a strain on other volunteers willing to do research. --Pixelface (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "A deletionist proposal"[edit]

I thought I'd handled the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#A_deletionist_proposal quite, er ... robustly, but you made me look like a Sunday school teacher. Your rhetoric and choice of examples were right on target, and had me laughing by the end. If certain people had any sense, they'd give up or at least adopt a more moderate line - but that's a huge "if". --Philcha (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. And I really thought your comments were quite good. I agreed with everything you said. But I didn't see them until after I posted. I just felt I had to comment myself after seeing the proposal. People should be working on finding common ground. Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that WT:FICT will hit Archive 100 sooner than much sense entering the discussions there. --Pixelface (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
On the bright side, if you're right WT:FICT will give us plenty of much-needed opportunities to let off steam. Then we check which deletionist is getting most ........ and ....... --Philcha (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Rehoboth Carpenter Family[edit]

Regarding Rehoboth Carpenter family - We have surveyed, we have compromised, we have repeatedly asked to user Iwanafish to communicate. He refuses with his snide comments and reversions to non-wiki versions. We have warned him "offically" a lot more than 3 times. Repeatedly, we have asked for mediation, we have asked for help and I do not know who else to ask. Can you pass this up the chain of editors?

User Iwanafish continues to disrupt and vandalize this page and it has spread his behavior to other pages. John Carpenter (bishop) John Carpenter, town clerk of London What else can we do but shut down the articles involved and provide warnings that when they are restored by user Iwanafish that they are garbage? Has wikipedia lost the ability to police itself? I am beginning to think this is a hopeless cause where such bullies can inflict such damage to wikipedia. What else can be done? John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I would characterize their edits as vandalism, as I don't know enough about the situation. The editor may have legitimate concerns, but not voicing those concerns makes things very difficult. I've asked that editor if they could explain their thinking on the article talk page. You might also try asking an active admin to look at the situation. Based on your username, an admin may point you to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which I think you should read. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The supreme, inviolate, pure virtue of Wikipedia[edit]

This page came up on MfD and after some spirited discussion, I was moved to #rd it to Wikipedia talk:Five pillars. The MfD may now be moot but on the offchance that the #rd gets deleted, you may want to change your links. — Xiongtalk* 18:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. At first I thought "My links? What?" but then I checked whatlinkshere and now I understand. I see why you left the page blank. I guess if you think the page should be a redirect, that's your call. Your post at WT:5P is interesting, and I found myself agreeing with several things you said. --Pixelface (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the redirect is not my call; see the outcome of the MfD. This is exactly the sort of thing that provokes me. I cannot see for the life of me why the #rd should not stand; I much doubt that there will ever be harm done by it. On the other hand, I can't see sufficient payoff from contesting the deletion. Once again, the bean-counters, the dossers, with nothing better to do, overcome rational argument from editors who are just too busy earning a living and taking care of business.

WP, lacking any inviolate core values, is fat prey for those with more free time to push their viewpoints than sense. If I didn't think something important was at stake, I'd leave it alone. I've tried -- manfully -- and failed, because again and again I'm driven to stand for something in a community that seems to stand for nothing. — Xiongtalk* 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTPLOT[edit]

Hello, I'm contacting folks who have been participating on NOTPLOT to get their feedback on Masem's proposal which seems to have some traction. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments. I was pretty sure that's what you were going to say. I agree with you about removing NOTPLOT, but I view this as an improvement over what is there now and is perhaps the best bad thing we are going to get... Hobit (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • If people want to pretend the straw poll didn't happen, they can write and rewrite WP:NOT#PLOT to their heart's content. While the proposed section is better than the current section, just about anything would be better than current version of WP:NOT#PLOT, which appears to be end run attempt to make WP:N policy, when there is no consensus for it to be policy. --Pixelface (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My talk[edit]

I've replied at my talk page rather than WT:NOT as it saves swamping debate there. I left a note at WT:NOT, but the page seems to be geting a lot of reverts lately. Hiding T 12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply there within the next few days. --Pixelface (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation at WP:FICT[edit]

I'm suggesting we ask for mediation to help build teh guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). What I propose is that a mediator be the only person to edit the project page itself and be the one to guide discussion and discern consensus. I've proposed it at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Mediation. As a past participant in the lengthy debates, I'd appreciate your input and hopefully your agreement. Hiding T 10:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Until the policy status of WP:NOT#PLOT is resolved (meaning, until WP:NOT#PLOT is properly removed from that policy page), I don't think mediation regarding WP:FICT or WP:FICTION can be productive. I will however comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction, which I noticed in {{cent}} today, and noticed you created. --Pixelface (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm hoping to at least get some clarity on the issue of whether any agreement is possible, because if it isn't, then I would prefer that Wikipedia took the approach that it is better to agree to disagree than try to enforce anything as having consensus. That might actually allow parties to work towards areas of agreement rather than areas of disagreement. Hiding T 12:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Hiding hastily added" and WP:WAF[edit]

That's perfect. I think that's a fair reflection. I'm perfectly willing to agree/concede I was hasty. However, regarding WP:WAF, there never was any guidance that admins should not close discussions they've participated in back then when I did it. Please strike or refactor that assertion at WT:NOT. Also, you seem to have missed a reply regarding how widely advertised WP:WAF was, [1]. Might be wroth re-factoring to mention that too. Hiding T 12:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm glad you're willing to agree/concede you were hasty, and I'm interested to learn there was no such guidance about admins back then, I'm not going to refactor any of it. There was no policy on plot summaries at the time that scores of articles under Category:Fiction were created either, during the first 5 1/2 years after Wikipedia was founded. But WP:NOT#PLOT "enforcers" don't let articles created prior to WP:NOT#PLOT off the hook. It's funny how guidance sometimes works retroactively.

And I did see that reply from Amcaja. When he said it's "pretty widely known, methinks", I take it with a grain of salt because it was his proposal. And we're talking about something that under 20 people voted on during one week in June 2006. I saw that you apologized, saying "I thought a week was an acceptable period given it was a straw poll rather than an official poll, and there was such a strong consensus." Charcaroth also said "I don't think everyone who was interested in this proposal was aware of it."

I do notice that it had strong support, but I guess all the editors who've edited the 1,000,000+ articles under Category:Fiction, but weren't one of the dozen and a half editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) during 8 days in June 2006[2] are out of luck? The irony is that Amcaja said during the straw poll "The last thing I want to see is all-out war on in-universe articles."

If the straw poll to make WAF a guideline looked like the recent straw poll about WP:NOT#PLOT, would you have marked WAF a guideline? What does that say about WP:NOT#PLOT? --Pixelface (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Replies to this, that and the other[edit]

I didn't actually amend policy and guidance to win any argument, I asked questions to find out what the consensual position was from people I thought would know, and acted accordingly, in line with what I understood to be Wikipedia practises. It was never about one article it was about something more, it was about what was expected. I didn't want to devote my time to an activity that would prove meaningless. Which, ultimately, is ironic. It was never an argument and it was never one article, it was trying to work out what we were building before I helped build it. Kind of how a builder will have plans from which to work. I'm sorry that Wikipedia practises have changed such that what I have done cannot appear to be undone, because that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia I believe in. How we would change that I have no idea, because it is quite clear we can't actually work together given you feel the need to hold me accountable for your frustrations. I've already countered your argument that any change of mine to policy affects x amount of articles; it's a redundant argument. Any change to any policy affects everything. And no, I'm not going to hold off editing policies and guidance, and I reject the accusation that I am despicable. Where I edit policies I do so in one of two manners: after gaining a consensus on the talk page, or to test consensus. I find it more troubling that people allege that you cannot edit policy. That's despicable, and that's dangerous. All of our policies should be editable, at all times, otherwise we have failed ourselves and the future. Why do I believe this? Because sometimes we do get it wrong, and we need to be able to admit that, but more importantly, correct it. I've already said somewhere in the endless WP:PLOT debacle that I believe most in the idea that our policies must represent consensus. I think that answers any lingering questions you have of me. I find your final question: "why should people who've never edited an actual encyclopedia before be writing a rulebook on how to do it anyway?" amusing, since it begs the retort "why should people who've never edited an actual encyclopedia before be writing one anyway?" Isn't that how we got in this mess in the first place. I think at the end of the day we have very different wiki-philosophies. I walk an antifactionalist-eventualism path, and you seem to be wandering an factionalist-immediatism one. I think all we can agree on is a conflict-driven view of wiki. Personally, I think you'd have a better time of it if you stopped attacking people and started attacking the issue itself. But you need to escalate it, get more people involved, and stop allowing people to tar you as a fringe view by building a broad consensus for your opinion. You won't do that by scatter-shot accusations against me or Masem or whoever falls into your firing line. You need to do it by holding to a line that PLOT does not belong in NOT because of the impact it has on Wikipedia, and that the general idea that is behind PLOT needs to be better explained in one page which deals with how we edit articles on fiction. And that page needs to explore the competing philosophies and highlight what we expect from all of them. We expect people to provide sources, but we expect people to afford them time to do so. We have a style on fiction, and always have, and articles should be edited towards that style, rather than away from it, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform from a neutral point of view. Personally, if we could get all articles on Wikipedia something like what the Dr Who project turn out, I don't think either of us would have a problem with that. I'd like every television series, every comic book series, every novel treated like that, provided we can source it. I believe Wikipedia is not paper, but I also believe it is an encyclopedia. Anyway, all the best, and see you around sometime. And seriously, if I'd known how it all would turn out, I doubt I would have done it. I have the sneaking suspicion someone else would have, though. I always troubled to leave a back door. I doubt other people would. Read very carefully the sentence in WP:V, If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. I was very careful to write no, because I firmly believe that one is enough. The reason we ended up with multiple at WP:N, which for me goes too far, is because some people think that what I wrote means that one news article would justify an article. And that's when I learnt the lesson you seem to be attempting to teach me. We don't need any more rules, and we need to deprecate a vast number of them. I recall trying to merge a large number of policies, but we never got anywhere, because, weirdly, people like policies. That's the inertia you've got to fight and change. Not me.I'll march to hell and back for WP:CONSENSUS because that's what I believe in. But I have no idea how we get rid of WP:PLOT, because any path looks like it will lead to arb-com. I don't think I'm the first to work that out. No-one wants mediation though, so it's best if I just trundle away. I'm sorry you have such a poor opinion of me, but all I can say is that I am one person. Ask yourself, can one person really matter that much? Hiding T 11:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also[edit]

Can you think of anywhere else to publicise Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction? Hiding T 12:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Linked on Google News[edit]

Hello Pixelface,
great idea; see my answer there. --- Kind regards, Numbo3 (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Overstepping the mark[edit]

Pixelface, even by your own standards you have exceeded the requirements of WP:CIVIL with this post. I know that we disagree about the validity of this policy, but you don't have not make ad hominem attacks on editors with whom you disagree in order to get your views across. What point is there too it? If editors can't discuss plot only articles in a civilized way, what hope have editors got in discussing controversial topics such as politics or religion? Both of us are long established editors at Wikipedia, so we have to lead by example when it comes to civility. WP:PLOT is not a policy which is about me personally, so I would be most grateful if you would edit out the disparaging remarks you have made about me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand by every word I said. And I'm not going to change any of it. And I hope you will give a reply at WT:NOT to what I said.

Ignoring for one moment who wrote WP:CIVIL, and how it became policy, and the legitimacy of that policy, and how it is actually appliedWikipedia:Civility says "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." That's exactly what you've done with your repeated (and nearly lone) insistence that WP:NOT#PLOT is not disputed (with comments at WT:NOT as well as removals/modifications of disputed tags on the policy page itself [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]) — when it clearly *is* disputed. And that's exactly what you did with this comment to me, which I was responding to. You accused me of "hiding", suggested I said things I never said, and suggested I had made no rational arguments for removing WP:NOT#PLOT — after I had already pointed you to User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT three months ago.

If that's your idea of "civility", give me primitivism any day. Are you familiar with the term "crank"? Personally, I would rather talk to a person who speaks with uncivil, blunt honesty rather than a perfectly civil crank — or troll. --Pixelface (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
My view is that this type of ad hominem attack is little more than flaming, and needs to stop. I have asked for swift administrator intervention in this matter at WP:ANI. As I have said before, these attacks are unnessary and unwarranted, and I recomend that you modify your behaviour with immediate effect. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Recent death}}[edit]

Please see this discussion which is related to a proposed change to {{Recent death}}. An example of how this change would appear is on this userpage. --Brian McNeil /talk 00:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day![edit]

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 05:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Status[edit]

Hey, I have not seen you in like a month. Is everything okay? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween![edit]

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving![edit]

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of 1996 box office number-one films in the United States[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article List of 1996 box office number-one films in the United States has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced - fails WP:VER

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Creatures in the Half-Life series[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Creatures in the Half-Life series, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creatures in the Half-Life series (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in this AFD[edit]

List of Bratz products is up for its second deletion nomination here. You took part in the first one so I thought you might be interested. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know[edit]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)