User talk:Kallimina

re: barnstar

Thankyou very, very much for the barnstar, it is very much appreciated. I'm just glad that I could help. :) — neuro^(talk) 23:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very least I could do for the help you've given in resolving what was an impossible situation for some users. Thanks again. (Plus, I got to play with how to use Barnstars.)

Threshold info

I put some info I dug up at User_talk:Cambios/Threshold. It looks like it will help lend towards notability. Also, with regards to notability, I had a look at how JediMUD listed it and I would suggest a similar format with regards to notability. Ismarc (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations

You should be aware that some of my interpretations come from being involved in numerous discussions that crop up regarding these policies, guidelines, processes, etc. Its nothing personal against Threshold and I've debated just as zealously about any number of random topics over the years. If I repeatedly see people stating that reference style X is trivial because its too small, or website type Y doesn't convey notability because only 6 people read it, it might not make its way in to the policy (policies and guidelines often change slowly here) but its a pretty clear indication that members of the community who have commented on it feel that way. If you want to get a clearer idea of some of these things I'd recommend dropping in on AfD from time to time (I usually do it in spurts, I'm heavy in Afd for a week or two..then maybe I don't go there for a month and go back, etc) make some contributions to the discussions at RS, and N, as well as the RS/Noticeboard. Its easy to get burnt out on policy discussion, so thats why I tend to do it in spurts instead of all the time.--Crossmr (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading some as well, but obviously, not as long as you have. I run across opposing arguments repeatedly, and it seems like you can pick and choose which ones to decide upon. If someone wants something deleted, they argue heavily against every citation. If people don't want something deleted, they argue for every citation. It seems like a right mess, honestly, and so convoluted that it seems like people are making things up at times. To be honest, I went to law school, and I've seen tons of these tactics used in trials and have used them myself. The "tricks" of the trade aren't that different. I've noticed that there's a group of people that tend to be pro-delete and a group of people who are very much against deletionists. From all I've seen so far, it seems like rolling the dice. Whether or not an article stays (obviously, we're talking about the ones that actually have references, not just slapped up there) seems very much to depend on which editors show up to talk about it. And please don't take offense. It's not like you're the only one.Kallimina (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, and I hope you don't take it personally here. There are certainly those who might fall in to the category of inclusionist or deletionist on wikipedia. I try to look at each article independently and I've argued strongly for keep and delete at different times. I usually argue for strict adherence, especially to things like WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. In the case of subjects relating to the internet, these debates are often difficult for many of the same reason threshold has been a difficult debate. Anything that is remotely contested can end up with canvassing on a forum, blog, etc and there is often a problem with sourcing. Blogs are a dime a dozen and everyone wants to use their favourite via, via, via blog link to try and establish notability, reliability, etc. I think Threshold's claim to notability is extremely tenuous at best and the process has been severely disrupted. I've made my opinion well know and you guys can hash it out, I'm sure others are going to weigh in on it, unless there is another clearer source I don't exactly feel comfortable with it remaining.--Crossmr (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the recreation of the article while the DRV is still going doesn't exactly help, I think. I mean, do you have any idea what will happen if the DRV overturns the article and the AfD on the current article goes through? I mean what gets deleted, what gets kept, and what the heck do we work on? Wikipedia might be the most confusing place on the internet. Kallimina (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If DRV doesn't support overturning it, I expect the article would be userfied again. Even though TMC is looking much better as a source, I might recommend trying to find some more information about the game that can actually be sourced. Remember. Once you've established notability solidly you're welcome to use primary sources to flesh out additional content, but don't get in to game guide level detail. Articles should be mainly built on secondary sources (Which is repeated in several places) in the meantime try to flesh out the article more, as a rule of thumb I'd really avoid using more primary sources than secondary sources, then try and give it at least a couple weeks and submit it to DRV again with the information about TMC in the DRV statement and go from there.--Crossmr (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we work on the one that's currently up or the one that's userfied? And you wouldn't be interested in helping me make my user page less ugly, would you? :) Kallimina (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV was closed (in an odd way, but whatever), I think we work on the one active now. --Theblog (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N

I think most people are interpreting it how they want to for a particular given subject. For example, this [1] is apparently a decent source for the Anthony Watts article? I've tried to get that removed a few times and always got shut down. And that is a WP:BLP which has stricter standards than normal articles. Reaching out beforehand does seem to help, because that way you have a few people hopefully supporting you before the argument starts, although this is a really tedious way to get anything done. --Theblog (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a round table discussion that's been transcribed. I don't even see Anthony Watts on it. Kallimina (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, who knows. Some people just want to win an argument. When I used Wikipedia a lot before I found a few people who were honest with similar interests and helped them out. Eventually you get to a point where you can get a lot of stuff done. Do this though you need to spend a fair amount of time on Wikipedia because you will be faced with people who make hundreds of edits a day. --Theblog (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not likely for me. Two games, a book, and kiddos won't allow that. I've been poking around, though, but it's hard to get motivated to do much considering it wouldn't take much to take some of these other articles down should some editors come by who don't like it. Kallimina (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

I'm obsessed. Can you get banned for giving out too many? I'm restraining myself, but I am curious. Kallimina (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just have to note that this feature seems to be one of the coolest things on the editor side of Wikipedia. Kallimina (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. Thanks for the note. You've done very well yourself. Going from accused sock-puppet to calm advocate is hard to do. It is easier for me to be calm and distant because I'm not blocked and something I care about isn't threatened. It was much harder for you to do so, yet you did. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crossmr

I'd go easy on crossmr. I don't think he's 'out to get' anyone. I likewise don't think that he fundamentally misses the point of important wikipedia policies. I think that he does this because it is important to stand on the parapets. Take a look at AfD for a few weeks and you'll see the stream of crap that we deal with. Most of the deletions there are uncontroversial, but some are very controversial. The level of controversy surrounding each deletion doesn't correlate with its propriety, so we have to careful in wading into debates or ceding them to the loudest participants. We can agree that the Threshold AfD was a mess (for all concerned). People got banned who shouldn't have been. People lost their tempers. Outside folks tried to take our cheese and we did what most cultures do--got xenophobic.

We know who these folks are (Jennings, Bartle, Koster et al.), but most people on wikipedia don't. Threshold is a reasonably obscure game in a reasonably obscure genre. It is not a venial sin to mistake that obscurity for irrelevance. To his credit, I'm surprised that we kept the article. The subject (really) is on the razor's edge of notability--on any given day were we to AfD an article like it (where a blog post, a list entry and a website are the only source), we would get results all along the spectrum. So I can understand his frustration at the outcome. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your advice to heart, especially since he came over here to explain to me why he's here and what he's doing. And, when you've been to law school, you meet people like him: good people who try to interpret the law in the strictest manner possible. I have to admit, though, I can't follow some of his logic/reasoning, so I worry what happens in these other AfDs.

I don't think any of us were arguing that Threshold's article should stay the way it was written and cited. It, however, didn't have much of a chance of improvement once people started getting banned, and that, ultimately, came down to a serious conflict in personality, imo. The AfD and DRV gave people time to dig up the sources including going to libraries and digging through old newspapers. The process is still continuing, but at least we have a chance to improve it before it faces another AfD. Kallimina (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RosMud

I think this can be put in there somehow, I am not sure how though! Someone indicated that having a box in a store was a good thing for notability, so having a client designed for Threshold can't hurt. --Theblog (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll tell the owner to box up some copies and sell them at the local Gamestop! Kallimina (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus you can get the picture on the Wiki page. Didn't thresh have a gmud version too? --Theblog (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did. I don't know if Ari still has a copy or not. I sure don't. RosMud is the current thing, I think. Kallimina (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Help understanding Notability and Verifiability

Sorry, I couldn't help a month ago. I don't log into Wikipedia often anymore. I've been an editor, as well as a business executive, long enough to know when organizations have all but fallen apart. Adraeus (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for new Manual of Style for Thailand-related articles

A drafted new version of the Manual of Style for Thailand-related articles has been started here. Still at issue are specific naming conventions for Thai royals and nobles and settlements. As a member of WikiProject Thailand, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand#Updating the Manual of Style (part 2). Paul_012 ^(talk) 18:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page decorations

Kalima, I saw that you were looking to change your page configuration. Take a look at mine and see if you like it. If so, feel free to just copy the code (obviously, change the tab titles :) ) if you want! KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 20:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the offer!Kallimina (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]