Talk:Raker Qarrigat

Untitled

To Kusonaga

I've put plenty of time into the article (from creation onwards) and several people have come away quite happy with it. If you want to change it to your version, then I suggest we put it to some kind of vote if such a forum for disagreements exist. Let me know. Please do not revert without going tru that forum. I dont feel like starting an edit war and would like to resolve it in a civil way.

Sunburst 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hate to be a dick, Sunburst, but at least compare the two versions will you? Take a look here. Usually, I appreciate editor's loyalty to an article, but this is rather ridiculious. I'm going to point out some stuff that was reverted and you'll hopefully see the error of your ways in this:

• Your version
  • Horrid image. (a clean, whited background as opposed to that mess)
  • No artist credit for the image. (which should pretty much always be employed)
  • Wiki-linking of dates. (only wiki-link dates when they are relevant)
  • No creator listing. (which is particularly asinine)
  • Adding 'none' to SHB's. (which shouldn't be done)
  • Adding the relatives section to the SHB. (which doesn't exist in the box)
  • Lack of present tense throughout the article. (fictional characters exist in a continious literary present. Raker Qarrigat 'was' not a DC character, Raker Qarrigat is a DC character)
  • Lack of relevant info in introduction, which should include first appearance and creator credits.
  • The main body of text is overly verbose, often giving detail that either isn't relevant or tries to make it read like a fanfic. (don't forget, this is an encyclopedia)
  • No bibliography. (The character has all of two appearances, which should be noted)
  • Speculation. (we try and avoid speculation as much as we can)
  • Links to irrelevant sites. (neither site hardly even mentions Raker Qarrigat)

Now, I'm going to revert it again. If you do so again without being able to counter any of the points brought up, we can, if necessary ask other users to weigh in, or as a last resort, bring this to a mediation council, but I don't really think that should be necessary.

Kusonaga 14:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Kusonaga

The discussion I was going for was Civil. By using the word DICK, you proved yourself to be one. The tone of your argument is particularly rude, insulting and arrogant.

Here's what I would have liked to have done

• • Horrid image. (a clean, whited background as opposed to that mess)

     Choice of image is subjective. My opinion is it is good, yours is it is bad. niether opinion has much validity. 

• • No artist credit for the image. (which should pretty much always be employed)

     Good point. agreed.  I didnt add the box, and belittling thier efforts does not help the community orientation of wiki, a simple addition will be fine.

• • Wiki-linking of dates. (only wiki-link dates when they are relevant)

     I didnt wikidate the links, they were done by others. you could have easily said so and it would have been taken care off. 

• • No creator listing. (which is particularly asinine)

     again, rude language. i dont come often to wiki, all that would have been needed was a request.

• • Adding 'none' to SHB's. (which shouldn't be done)

• • Adding the relatives section to the SHB. (which doesn't exist in the box)

        just remove it. 

• • Lack of present tense throughout the article. (fictional characters exist in a continious literary present. Raker Qarrigat 'was' not a DC character, Raker Qarrigat is a DC character)

       What was done by the character was in the past. if current actions were ongoing, it would have been presented as such.

• • Lack of relevant info in introduction, which should include first appearance and creator credits.

       All were discussed in the box.

• • The main body of text is overly verbose, often giving detail that either isn't relevant or tries to make it read like a fanfic. (don't forget, this is an encyclopedia)

      the very defination of people who follow these stories is fan. theres nothing wrong about this.

• • No bibliography. (The character has all of two appearances, which should be noted)

      a simple addition would have suffice rather then hacking the article to bits.

• • Speculation. (we try and avoid speculation as much as we can)

      no idea what you are talking about

• • Links to irrelevant sites. (neither site hardly even mentions Raker Qarrigat)

     didnt add the links, when it was added, i simply respected the intent of the user to add his bit to the page. 

Now, I'm going to revert it again. If you do so again without being able to counter any of the points brought up, we can, if necessary ask other users to weigh in, or as a last resort, bring this to a mediation council, but I don't really think that should be necessary.

Now, I'm going to revert it back. you dont like it, revert it back, be a dick. seems to fit you and your language. if you want to send it to a mediation board, fine. either way i prefer not to have further discussions with you and deal with your manners.

Sunburst 17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here we go. I really didn't think I was uncivil, and I even gave the usual 'sorry if it offends' disclaimer. Really, it was obvious you didn't bother to compare the two versions, because there are some thing that really needed to be cleaned up.

Choice of image is subjective. My opinion is it is good, yours is it is bad. niether opinion has much validity.

Not necessarily. The image I use doesn't have a horrid background. I don't see how this can even be a point of contention. The background hurts the eyes and has no issue. Whiting it out makes so much sense.

Good point. agreed. I didnt add the box, and belittling thier efforts does not help the community orientation of wiki, a simple addition will be fine.

I'm not belittling them at all, I simply changed it. You actually agree with me, so why the hell are you reverting the page. This makes no sense.

I didnt wikidate the links, they were done by others. you could have easily said so and it would have been taken care off.

WP:Be bold. Why are you acting like this is a personal attack? I simply edited the article. Your reverting the article to a clearly inferior version makes no sense. Heck, you even agree. I also shouldn't have to point this out to get it changed, I should just change it (again, see WP:Be bold).

again, rude language. i dont come often to wiki, all that would have been needed was a request.

Asinine is not a rude word. What is this fixation with request? I see no creator list, I list the damn creator. WP:Be bold. Read it. Learn it. Live it.

just remove it.

Guess what? I did.

What was done by the character was in the past. if current actions were ongoing, it would have been presented as such.

Comic characters exist in a perpetual present. The standard is to write out-of-universe. I'll go in on this some more in a sec.

All were discussed in the box.

Nonetheless, we add them. It's vital information. It's policy.

the very defination of people who follow these stories is fan. theres nothing wrong about this.

And this is where we come to the clincher. This an encyclopedia, not a fansite. We don't pander to one particular group of people. This is for all people. Secondly, to also come back on the tense: Read WP:Writing about fiction.

a simple addition would have suffice rather then hacking the article to bits.

WP:Be bold. Why stop with one fault I see?

no idea what you are talking about

The bit about immortal is speculation. Wikipedia doesn't deal in speculation.

didnt add the links, when it was added, i simply respected the intent of the user to add his bit to the page.

Again, WP:Be bold. You see something wrong, you do something about it. The article isn't limited to one editor, and people are encouraged to fix each other's mistakes. That friggin' simple.

Now, I'm going to revert it back. you dont like it, revert it back, be a dick. seems to fit you and your language. if you want to send it to a mediation board, fine. either way i prefer not to have further discussions with you and deal with your manners.

It'd be really cool if you got this far, but I doubt it. Seriously, read up on Wiki policy. I've already reverted the page, and I'd appreciate it if you read every bit of this talk page, so you can see the error of your ways. You've shown a clear ignorance of wikipedia policy and just exactly what Wikipedia is about. I would like to avoid discussion as well, since I think this should all be pretty clear. If it isn't, please bring it up, surely, but I hope you've got a clear and backed up reasoning for your actions. Kusonaga 20:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

---

K,

I asked you to talk to me before making such drastic changes again. Given that i wrote most of it, it would have been CIVIL and COURTEOUS of you to talk. But as you said, you were "not" trying being a dick and went ahead and did it.

Yes, I agree with somethings and disagree with others. I havent have the time to make the changes yet.

It was your language and tone that offended me FULLY. Using the word Dick at the begining of your note and then claiming not wanting to offend is doublefaced. at one point you refer to something as asinine (sic). Being that Wikipedia is worldwide I dont know where you are from, but if you used this language directly where I'm from it will have you kicked hard.

Unfortunately I dont have the time to continue this given that i can only once in a while come by and check the page. Given that you have the time, you win this little ego trip of yours by default for now. There is a grammatical mistake i noticed on your page, you may have to correct that (sad you'll be using so much of what i put in).

however, lets make something very clear, you really do seem like a prick, so do correct that opening line of yours.

Sunburst 00:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You really didn't read my previous post, did you? Taking this step by step once more:

I asked you to talk to me before making such drastic changes again. Given that i wrote most of it, it would have been CIVIL and COURTEOUS of you to talk. But as you said, you were "not" trying being a dick and went ahead and did it.

WP:Be bold. It's the last time I'm going to refer to it. I don't care if you wrote most of it. You don't own anything here, and it is a freely editable community. Also, your seemingly inability to justify your actions (whereas I have multiple policies backing me up) means I'm going to revert the article after I make my case. I talked. I reverted.

Now, as I have already said, I may have come of as a dick, and sorry about that, but you've really brought nothing to the table about why I shouldn't just revert the page again now.

Yes, I agree with somethings and disagree with others. I havent have the time to make the changes yet.

Then why are you bothering to revert? Heck, this is just so ridiculous. You're putting stuff back in that you yourself don't agree with. Don't you see how idiotic that is?

It was your language and tone that offended me FULLY. Using the word Dick at the begining of your note and then claiming not wanting to offend is doublefaced. at one point you refer to something as asinine (sic). Being that Wikipedia is worldwide I dont know where you are from, but if you used this language directly where I'm from it will have you kicked hard.

I'd appreciate it if you would look up the word asinine. Actually, I'll help. Calling someone asinine, rude? Yes. Calling something asinine, rude? No. I called the fact that the article has no creator listing was asinine. Therefore, the reverting to a page where it has no creator listing is asinine. That's not me calling you asinine, but the action of reverting the page, sure. That's perfectly logical, and not something you would get your kicked teeth in for. Also, if you actually read what I wrote, the 'dick' thing was in reference to myself, not you.

Unfortunately I dont have the time to continue this given that i can only once in a while come by and check the page. Given that you have the time, you win this little ego trip of yours by default for now. There is a grammatical mistake i noticed on your page, you may have to correct that (sad you'll be using so much of what i put in).

Hate to break it to you mate, but you're the one on the egotrip here. You've consistently reverted the page without giving one good argument in favor of it. Also, I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to with the 'grammatical mistake' thing.

however, lets make something very clear, you really do seem like a prick, so do correct that opening line of yours.

Uhm, no. I'm not going to edit what I wrote. It serves no purpose, and I still don't think I'm the dick here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you one either, but the fact that you still haven't brought anything up to really back up your view on this, just shows that you're mindlessly reverting the page because you can't stand it being edited. Now, if you continue this reverting (thereby breaking WP:3RR) I will probably be asking some folks from the Wiki Comics project to weigh in with their opinions, because I can't seem to convince you. Kusonaga 00:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Qarrigatakopolips.jpg

Image:Qarrigatakopolips.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)