User talk:Pixelface

Archives

August 2006 to December 31, 2007
January to March 2008

hoax!

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) .[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Sceptre reverted my removal of a portion of policy that does not have consensus on the talk page. Sceptre then gave me a {{uw-vandalism3}} warning on my talk page.[13]. Sceptre then again reverted my removal of a portion of policy that does not have consensus on the talk page. Sceptre then 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.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=[[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 <span class="nowrap">{{</span>[[Template:uw-vandalism3|uw-vandalism3]]<span class="nowrap">}}</span> 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. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |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 <span class="nowrap">{{</span>[[Template:uw-vandalism3|uw-vandalism3]]<span class="nowrap">}}</span> 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. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |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 <span class="nowrap">{{</span>[[Template:uw-vandalism3|uw-vandalism3]]<span class="nowrap">}}</span> 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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}