User talk:Peer-LAN

HelloOOOOOO ! Please leave a message (if you are not a bot):

Leave a new message.

By way of response

It was nominated as substantially identical to the two previously deleted (via AfD) versions. I'll be glad to make a quick comparison to confirm or disprove that and toss it back up if not. One moment please. - Vianello (Talk) 10:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

DO That! Because deleting good articles for no reason is just absurd! I haven't even saw how the previous article looked like and I wrote it from scratch. FreeOrion confirmed with Wikipedia standards and was well written. Please undo your action and let me improve the article further. Peer-LAN (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't conform to standards, actually, because it doesn't list one single independent reliable source that establishes it as notable, but you're correct that it is distinct from the previously deleted version. It's been reinstated, but unless you can demonstrate notability, I wouldn't necessarily count on that being permanent. - Vianello (Talk) 10:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I should've taken a closer look. I don't mean this as offense or an insult, but I don't think the odds of this one making it are necessarily good, but maybe you'll buck the trend this subject's been stuck in. And if you can pull that off, hey, thumbs-up on that. Just get out there and grab yourself some good third party sources and give it a go! I'd suggest looking hard at WP:Notability and WP:Reliability for an idea of what you need to do to get a firm position going. - Vianello (Talk) 10:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just Googled and found See FreeOrion, FreeOrion (note the "visited by" figures), and similar pages. The big problem is that the text on all the pages I found is a quote from the project's own mission statement. I could find no independent comment except for blog and forum posts, which are not accepted as sources. The nearest I found to an independent review was "This is still in beta fase. It is supposed to become like Master of Orion, but there is still a long way to go. Still, a great innitiative" at Review for Freeorion by savage on Wakoopa. I'm no deletionist, in fact I thoroughly dislike that ideology and have said so quite bluntly; and I'm also a fan of Master of Orion and Master of Orion II. But FreeOrion seems to have made near-zero impact. --Philcha (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm so glad people like you exist on Wikipedia, I was losing hope. I'll try to join the development team this summer (when I'll be more free) to help speed up the game development so it will have a big impact as I have advance knowledge of C++ and Python. Cheers and I really needed this comment :). Peer-LAN (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I agree with you that we should keep the FreeOrion page, and said as much on the discussion page. Thanks for turning me on to it. Peyre (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I raise my glass for you, have a great day mate Peer-LAN (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

For next time

Please read WP:CANVASS. Quite aside from contacting nearly a dozen editors directly about the AfD (with edit summaries which don't indicate the purpose), posting comments externally to Wikipedia encouraging editors to weigh in on AfDs is not acceptable. For now I'm going to sit this one out - I don't feel strongly one way or the other regarding the content, but I agree broadly with the comments made so far in the third AfD.

... Oh, and for what it's worth, going out of your way to attack "wikipedia admins" on the FreeOrion forums while one of the project's lead developers is telling you that he doesn't believe the project is notable yet shows a serious lack of judgement on your behalf. It's likely to lead editors to treat any of your future contributions with caution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, it goes as a "Friendly notice" thank you, as the message was Neutral and scale was Limited posting and Open. I feel like I'm in twilight zone over here, why the hell do you even bother to tell me that, like I have to feel like a freaking criminal when I'm just writing on Wikipedia. Jesus... what's with all the Kabuki? Peer-LAN (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be far more tempted to see it as a neutral posting if your off-site comments hadn't included "I don't know what was wrong with those versions but please improve what you can before some crazy ass admin starts feeling important". Up until I saw that thread I was even inclined to help out and look for references. Half of the reason the article looks like getting deleted again is due to your attitude in defending it - remember that we're all human, and there's a diplomatic aspect to basically any work that goes on here. If I were you I'd consider working on this article in your userspace (any admin will move it for you) until it's better-referenced and then asking nicely - without the explicit condemnation of unspecified admins - to get it moved back out into articlespace. This is far more likely to result in the article being kept than getting irate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me that I didn't though the Gestapo will listen and read my private messages. I guess this is a good tutorial on how to behave in a police state, but hell I didn't expect this (and by that it wasn’t even directed at admins, the conversation about the deletion wasn’t even in place at that time). And when I wrote the comment I wasn't even expected this whole circus, I just meant that we should hurry so we get the article in a good condition (as I thought the article was deleted before for not being good enough, as the game is well enough known for an open source type). I’m just waiting to see when the audio file of the telephone call I had last night show up here, because I’m sure people here will find that relevant. Anyway, I’m glad to talk with you, I’m getting such queasiness feeling about Wikipedia lately that is nice to talk with someone for a change. Peer-LAN (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)