User talk:Larry laptop

Don't bother leaving a message, I'm done this was the straw that broke the camels back, a moment of clarity - I feel I've been wasting my time here. Now it could be the "keepers" are right and it's not a cruft-filled games guide but I just don't see it - that means I'm too far out of whack with the rest of the community for carry on, this is a waste of my time. Let me just quote someone - WikiProjects on fictional universes are more apt to defend articles than WikiProjects on aspects of the real one. I would not expect Wikipedia:WikiProject Science to defend a biography of a non-notable scientist just because it was on a scienctist and therefore related to "their" subject. But I've never seen a fiction WikiProject say "this is too much detail" or "this is effectively original research".

I really think there are two wikipedias developing here - there is the factual wikipedia that deals with living people, arts, the sciences and the humanities. I think by and large this side of wikipedia (let's call it factopedia) works well, people discuss and argue but they generally try and move forward in an objective manner. Then there is the fictional side (let's call it cruftopedia) - a ugly cruft filled side - where no article is too long to extend, no subject too minor to have it's own separate article, no game item too small to have pages of lists created for it. I actually spent most of my time editing cruftopedia but it's just depressing for someone who wants to develop wikipedia as a well-sourced general reader's encylopedia, which has strong to the point articles.

Take the crufopedia article I've linked above - the standard lines have alright appeared "it's notable" - yeah every pair of booties a fictional character wore is notable and suitable for a general reader's encylopedia. The main weapon of cruftopedia is the this shouldn't be afd'd this should be cleaned up - in theory with many articles (not with that one) they are right, in practice they are wrong. I've followed a number of AFDs and clean-up notices on cruftopedia and the pattern is always the same "Clean-up, we'll clean it up!" and of course it never happens, no clean-up is attempted. So of course when a tool does not work, you have to escalate to the next tool, by either proding an article or AFDing. I think most factopedia editors already know before they AFD an article that the special interest groups on cruftopedia will never allow their precious cruft to be removed - it has to grow and grow and grow. However with AFD, there is at least a chance they will be forced into a clean-up of an article.

So I wish you all the best - hell I might just get a new identity and become a full-time cruftapedian myself - I might start with list of costumes that the wasp worn once in the avengers during the 1969-1980 period - something with a lot of value to the general reader. --Larry laptop 10:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)