Jump to content

User talk:Randomran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Randomran (talk | contribs) at 05:32, 14 May 2009 (→Standardizing: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive 1

Bot which informs creator of an AFD

You wrote at AFD last year:

A bot that notifies the creator, at worst, wouldn't do any harm. I'd support that. Randomran (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the above comments on WP:AFD, do you know any tech savy editors who would be able to create a bot which contacts the creator of an article when it is put up for Afd? Thanks. Ikip (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Afraid not. It's a good idea though. Just make sure you have consensus to do it. There are others who might be concerned about side-effects. (A lot of people are against using a bot to welcome new editors, for example, because it's too impersonal. I wouldn't see the same problem here, but you never know with Wikipedians.) Randomran (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTPLOT

Thanks, Just fixing it isn't my ideal solution, nor do I think that it's the best thing to do considering the results of the RfC. But I thought I'd give it a shot. Feel free to try something yourself, I'm going to have a hard time arguing for something I think is the wrong thing, even if it's the better thing. But argue I will... Hobit (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also _please_ archive this page :-) Hobit (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but at the same time, things that don't have consensus shouldn't be policy. And a vocal minority shouldn't make it otherwise. Both statements are true, and I'll willing to compromise against what I think is plainly right both in terms of the policy itself and the notion of having policy without consensus. I'll still push for removal, but a half step is probably all we'll get. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I suspect we'll all still !vote in blocks, but with any luck we can find something all the "blocks" agree on. I'm more optimistic today than I have been for a while, but we'll see. In any case, thanks for the kind words! Hobit (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

discussions

yeah, I'm finishing up with school this week, and I'm going to try and finish the bleepin' review of Grand Theft Auto clone next... and then I'm gonna be watching Star Trek... but I'll see where I am next week :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect I can insert myself in this section... Finals period is a week and a half; naturally, I have to wait the whole week and a half, because of a final on next Wednesday. I can't say I'll be super available after, as [first] summer term starts the week after, but not having to worry about finals should increase availability. :) --Izno (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say our finals were last week. Hah I say! Hobit (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, Randomran. You have new messages at Jinnai's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Thanks for your suggestions, I am retiring our discussion. If you have anything else you would like to say, don't hesitate. Ikip (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note regarding the WPVG Newsletter

Due to an apparent lack of interest, the WPVG Newsletter will be switching from a monthly publication schedule to a quarterly one. The next issue be delivered on July 1, 2009, and will pertain to the second quarter of the calendar year. If you have any comments regarding this, or suggestions to improve the newsletter, please post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter.

—VG Newsletter Contributors

Neverwinter Nights 2

The Good Article review for Neverwinter Nights 2 has begun! There is some work to do, but overall it looks like we're in good shape. BOZ (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, duh, and I'm sure I forgot to mention that Planescape: Torment is up for FAC. :) BOZ (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD thingy

Since I'm done with finals and pretty much slumming 'till I can find a job, what was that AfD thing you wanted us to do? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARS

moved from user talk ikip:

ikip, I just want to chime in here and say we need to be able to discuss this without accusing each other of bad faith. If we can't do that, there's no point on continuing our discussion, and we may as well invite a group of independent editors to deal with it. I can understand why you might assume bad faith from AMiB. I don't understand how you can do it from me, and continue to push comments about me and WP:FICT that are both incorrect and irrelevant. If you don't think that I would make the same criticisms should a deletionist contact hundreds of other deletionists to join some Wikipedia space and subsequently link to various policy discussions, then you don't know me very well, and you're assuming bad faith. I know it's hard to have a discussion about your behavior and not take it personally. I hope that you can look at the number of times I've tried to disagree with you in a way that's constructive and helpful. But the only other thing I can point out is that I'm not looking for a punishment, because I don't think you've done anything with malice, bad faith, or even awareness of the full consequences. I just want the problematic recruitment and discussion-linking to stop, and my hope is that some neutral party will help you to understand why you should do it voluntarily. I think we're going to have to get outside input on this issue anyway. But if we inevitably do, I'd rather it were at a forum where we were talking about the appropriate use of ARS, and not at a forum where we have to start discussing personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. That part is really up to you. Randomran (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a long response written, which I removed. Because I am concerned about the subtle warning in your last couple of sentences.
I am willing to follow all rules and guidelines of wikipedia, and I have. No one is arguing that I have not. I would appreciate an acknowlgement of this by you. If the current rules and guidelines are not to your satisfaction, the wonderful thing about wikipedia is that anyone, if they have a convincing enough argument, can change them. Ikip (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say that I don't know if you have acted in bad faith. But in terms of rules, you still WP:GAMEd the system. At best, you did this unintentionally. If you were to link 300 inclusionists to a single discussion page, you'd be in trouble for WP:CANVASSing. What you did, instead, was link 300 inclusionists to WP:ARS, and then you and various other peopel linked WP:ARS to several different discussion pages. It's not against the rules on the surface, but it's such a mockery of the rules that it accomplishes the same thing as breaking the rule directly. (It would be like using the 3RR one day, then waiting 24 hours, and using it again, and repeating this ad nauseum. Or like if your friend said "Randomran is definitely a deletionist" and you said "I agree, and deletionists should be treated as vandals", but then you say "I never called Randomran a vandal".) My point is that obeying the rules to the letter is not a defense for violating their overall spirit and purpose. Finding creative ways to get around rules can be a form of WP:WIKILAWYERING.
Because I consider you a good editor, I'm not turning this into a user conduct issue. The fact that I'm talking to you should show you that I'm not looking to punish you. I think other people would, but I'm not them, and I don't want to be grouped with them. I'm asking for a voluntary solution to prevent ARS from being systematically abused, because I think you can understand how disruptive it would be if AMiB were to link hundreds deletionists to WP:SCISSORS and subsequently link WP:SCISSORS to various discussions that are only indirectly related to its scope. I'm open to ideas to stop this indirect form of canvassing. I can't imagine a way to rebalance ARS's membership, so the only thing I can ask is that ARS stops linking to talk pages (or at least substantially scales it back), and confines its work to tagging and rescuing articles. Maybe temporarily, until things are less lopsided at ARS. If you have any other ideas to fix this systemic problem, I'm all ears. But for us to cooperate, there has to be some work towards a solution.
If we can't cooperate on a solution, I hope you'd at least have the civility to work with my on preparing an RFC on the issue. I may not be an inclusionist, but that doesn't mean we can't work together to get closure on the issue. We'd at least be able to agree on what actually transpired. And we'd be able to agree that other attempts to resolve it, such as by AMiB, have not been helpful, and escalated the problem too much too quickly. The only area we'd disagree on is whether or not there is a problem, and what should be done to fix it. We'd pose the question to the broader community, and try to get rid of any input from the usual faces so it doesn't become an inclusionist/deletionist food fight. (We could make a list of people who have tried to personally attack you, if necessary, and say that we'd ask them to voluntarily step aside and let other users deal with this for now.) I think that if we actually get independent feedback on the issue, not only would we get closure, but it may totally vindicate your approach. But you'd also have to accept that what you've done may be viewed as disruptive by the broader community, and that some sort of solution will be necessary. But I wouldn't ever want it framed in a way that calls for you to be punished, because you haven't descended into acts of bad faith, or attacking others. I hope that you never do. Randomran (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I consider you a good editor, I'm not turning this into a user conduct issue. The fact that I'm talking to you should show you that I'm not looking to punish you.
As you have begun to use my words in more casual talk page settings as evidence of unacceptable behavior, I would appreciate all comments back and forth being in a more formal setting, such as WT:ARS, I will cut and paste all comments on my talk page to WT:ARS. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to what you mean, but okay. Randomran (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Hi. I noticed that your page has finally been archived. Would you mind if I applied {{talkarchivehist}}, which adds historical and diff links? Flatscan (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I'll deal with it myself eventually. Randomran (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD business

I'll try and do some of this tomorrow, but we should look to standardize the headers for each month. that way I can get a script written to tell us how many of XYZ category VG articles were kept/deleted/no consensus per month. For some months we can get month to month data (though I don't imagine there is a seasonal variation to it. I have some other ideas once we get that out of the way. Protonk (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the help. David Fuchs looks like he's going to finish up the month of November. I was actually going to do just that as the next step: turn the sorting by month into a sorting by type. Ideally, I'd like to find someone who can script something that will convert it to a nice table with a few columns: the type, a link to the article/discussion, the month, the result of the discussion, and maybe if it was later merged. Let's wait for David to do his thing. Randomran (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should hang on to the sorting by month but just make sure that types are constant across months. It's arbitrary but it keeps chunks of the AfDs to a size that is remotely manageable. Protonk (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Fair points. Well, the page is protected, which'll probably help. Gives some time for consensus to emerge. I'm not sure I like it being in WP:NOT still, but if we start by defining it not as "not plot summaries" but something more specific, then at least the major problems get dealt with, and by cutting back to the minimum, we can at least get something to move forwards from. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. Just hope it works out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neverwinter Nights 2

Are you (or anyone else who is working on that article) planning to make the corrections that I noted at the GAN? Per convention, I normally give seven days for those to make the necessary corrections, otherwise I cannot pass. It's getting to about seven days with no improvement on verifiability (the fair-use rationales are a rather easy fix and am not worried about that as much). Thank you, MuZemike 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standardizing

I've started merging/renaming section headings. I think that at first we will lose some specificity and gain some workable comparisons--if we only have 1-2 articles per month in a category it is hard to make claims with any degree of confidence. If you think I'm messing some stuff up feel free to send me a note to stop or to reconfigure section headings. Down the road we can break out larger categories and see whether or not there are any patterns to very specific types of articles. My suspicion is that there are not, but we shall see. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're not losing bits and pieces here and there, we'll be fine. You're right that we can always drill down more specific categories if any of them grow too large, or if we notice some sort split trend. Randomran (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randomran&oldid=289823329"