User talk:Kraftlos

Archives

Archive 1 (Account creation to June 2008)

Archive 2 (June 2008 - Late October 2008)

Archive 3 (Late October 2008 - December 31, 2008)

Archive 4 (January 2009 - ???)

Helpful Links
Citing Sources: Wikipedia:Citing_sources
WP Good Article Criteria: WP:Good Article
What Wikipedia is not (I'm surprised how many people haven't read this, it's important!)
Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy
Kraftlos' Top Ten Wikipedia Pet Peeves
Kraftlos' Favorite Wikipedia Quotes
Kraftlos' Admin Criteria

Fairfax County Public Schools

FYI - I have protected the Fairfax County Public Schools article from editing due to the current content dispute. Please discuss the issues on the talk page and attempt to reach a resolution there. Requests for specific edits to the article can be made by and adding a {{editprotected}} template to the talk page after demonstrating consensus for the change. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a doctors opinion on touching and one that is sourced in the existing sources. After I did that it was reverted back repeatedly. I asked for page protection because there was no reason given for the reverts that addressed the actual changes. Do you see a reason that the addition should not be in there?

I am not going to get into the coi, issues, etc. I kind if take it as a personal attack that you even asked me that as I feel my edits have only been neutral. I am more concerned about WP:BITE 71.91.18.218 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 71.91.18.218 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Since already discussing this on the article's talkpage, I think we should keep the discussion there so we don't duplicate our efforts. :P --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the procedure when an editor won't state the reason she/he is against a change and just keeps bringing up personal attacks? Can he block a change by saying that a 'consensus has not been reached' by simply refusing to state his reason he is against/for a change? My change (regarding the 'doctor' under FCPS, no contact rule is completely neutral. So what do I do? 71.91.18.218 (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything I would consider a personal attack. I suggest we just wait and see what happens when the page protection expires. If an edit war starts again, admin action may be required for disruptive editing. Be sure that you don't participate in an edit war, see WP:3RR. Otherwise, this just needs to be worked out on the talk page. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop

Ok, but it is also like that in the Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) article. There are tons of citations in the beginning of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.84.185 (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's best not to use other anime articles for comparison as they're all at different stages of development and quality. One example you might look at is Serial Experiments Lain which is one of the few series articles to become a Featured Article. We also look to the Anime and Manga manual of style for our direction on series articles. though it's rather long and detailed, it's pretty helpful. Evangelion and Cowboy Bebop are both C-Class, which means they're still pretty rough; they both need a lot of work so your help is appreciated! --~~

Glad to be of assistance! If there's anything you could think of for me to help besides the given recommendations, please feel free to let me know. There are a lot of peacock terms in the beginning of the "NGE" article, so if you want to go ahead and remove those, that would be great! Thanks for your advice and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.84.185 (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, a lot of the NGE articles have a lot of drama among the regular editors, so I try to stay out of it. >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

/me sighs

If I include the terms without references, everyone will jump on me as a crazed fan that should be shot like Old Yeller. If I include the terms with references, people will still criticize me as cherry-picking or flimsy sourcing. If I include the terms with a lot of references, now I'll be criticized for stuffing the intro and overdoing. If I don't include the terms at all, I do readers a massive disservice by omitting the out of universe context. I can't win!

'Shuzan held up his staff and waved it before his monks. "If you call this a staff," he said, "you deny its eternal life. If you do not call this a staff, you deny its present fact. Tell me just what do you propose to call it?"'...

--Gwern (contribs) 19:45 21 January 2010 (GMT)

Seriously, it's like they like the C-Class articles and don't want them to change. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, Serial Experiments Lain has been demoted... so let's see our example would actually be Tokyo Mew Mew. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In the context of an edit philosophy made explicit on your userpage, I find myself wondering about the extent to which I have routinely conflated references and explanations?

Your more nuanced view seems to be something like links ≤ references ≤ explanatory prose?

I wonder if simply acknowledging your hortatory list becomes a challenge to create one of my own:

1. Yes – Verifiable sources: everything must be sourced

2. Yes – Consensus: in WP decisions, consensus rules

3. Yes – Time: Not everyone has it

4. Yes – Civility: No matter what transpires, keep in mind WP:Good Faith and don't presume bias or malicious intent

5. Yes – Communication: Open and clear communication equals progress, sloppy or no communication equals conflict

6. Yes – "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing."

Some of your sentences which were especially compelling, e.g., "Use links as references, not as explanations." In other words: "[e]xplanation through clear reasoning is the key to better understanding." --Tenmei (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate it. The list was first brought about by some of my early conflicts with other editors. I've since updated it, but I didn't want to forget what it's like to be new to Wikipedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, your time and your consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?"

Please contact me using Wikipedia's e-mail function. --Tenmei (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Participation

Kraftlos - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Although you reluctantly did not express confidence or trust in me, the community did and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope there's no hard feelings and good luck with being an Admin. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

reply to question

Ja, my pet who unfortunately died recently :(