User talk:Aidoflight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Chaos War reply[edit]

I don't know, but when Asgardian tried to improvise some of the articles on the Marvel characters by merging all of the media appearances and brief histories, he got banned. Too bad we can't file a complaint to the webmaster or his or her inner circle. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. Tenebrae and David A are supported in the Chaos War part by TriiipleThreat. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
And yet, they all seem to be well-meaning, to some extent, and have tirelessly worked to help Wikipedia and its many articles. While they seem to focus on a great deal of issues together, I think that indicates nothing more than simply they have many similar interests of editing on Wikipedia. I shall try to civilly reason and compromise with them as much as possible, if need be, but certainly I will do all I can to prevent this from degenerating into a heated, lengthy argument. Aidoflight (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, User:Asgardian got banned due to systematic manipulation, deceit, ever-ongoing WP:GAMEs, sarcastic psychology, ambitious troll demonstrative/sarcastic point-pushing manipulative agendas, and sockpuppet usage, until people eventually got sick of the sheer unreasonable scale, and that he simply responded to all his temp-bans with getting more insiduous about it. Talk to User:Nightscream if you want the in-depth version, as he's the one who devoted the time to structuring just a small part of it, which was still enough to get him banned. It was extremely well-deserved, and had nothing to do with "merging media appearances" as far as I recall.
He has apparently continued to attempt to evade it though, most visibly focusing on the God Of War slaughter/gorn game franchise, and I may or may not have run into him on another site, but I'm not up to date about it, I simply automatically notice details here and there, which eventually pop up as some pattern or another.
As for User:Tenebrae, he's almost unquestionably one of the most well-respected, sensible, helpful, honest, and reliable Wikipedians related to the comics project, so his intentions are definitely well-intended afaIk, so let's skip the "us versus them" silliness unless it turns ridiculously warranted, as in the Asgardian case (I tried to give benefit of doubt and be patient with him for a few years mind you, but as gradually thorughly disproven through our interactions, and also have an extreme aversion to roundabout insincere manipulation, whereas he practically lived by the principle).
Anyway, yes, the best way of dealing with me tends to be through honest open and reasonably civil.


I have a question: I notice a good amount of material in the article supported by 19 different citations. Was the character referred to as such during these appearances, or just alluded to, as with, for example, Odin mentioning "There is a power far greater than mine" in the Thor Annual? Nightscream (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to your request, I made a vote of "Possible Keep" on the deletion discussion page. Sorry I can't make it a "Keep" but there are too many original research concerns there. However, this discussion goes, please don't take it personally. God is bigger than a Wikipedia article or a comic book character. Mtminchi08 (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

First, please keep messages in the same relevant section on my talk page. Individual sections are not warranted for each message.
As for as the article in question is concerned, using in-universe sources like the Official Handbooks is discouraged, as explained here. You say that they mention the character by name in three different profiles; I would ask if it would be possible for you to determine which comics those passages were based on, and whether the are among the 19 mentioned in the article at present, and if not, whether they can be added. That would go a long way to addressing the point that the character has made sufficient appearances to qualify for notability.
Focusing on what types of articles other users work on is an ad hominem argument, and completely irrelevant to a dispute such as this. In addition to comics, I myself work on articles related to New Jersey, and Hudson County in particular; Scientific Sketicism & Pseudoscience; and popular entertainment such as TV & Movies, with considerable emphasis on reality television. Should an editor who disagrees with an edit of mine to the James Randi article, for example, argue that I spend more time on comics or entertainment articles? The answer is no. Arguments should be based solely on policy/guidelines, and the proper interpretation thereof. Nothing else. If your opponent is not adhering to policy, or is applying or interpreting it in a manner you feel is incorrect, then you should confine your responses to that. Nightscream (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've posted on the discussion page. Nightscream (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's never a disturbance when another editor needs help or an ear to listen. :-)

I'm not an expert in deletionism/inclusionism, or in the deletion process, but the discussion took place over the course of 9 days before the article was deleted. The last post in the discussion February 10 at 6:33, and the article was deleted 48 minutes later at 7:21. Is that not a reasonable duration for a deletion discussion, or is there a guideline or policy that mandates it be longer? What exactly would constitute a "final consensus" for you?

As for not participating in the discussion, isn't that intentional, in order for the admin making the ultimate decision to remain objective? What in his/her behavior indicates that he/she thinks himself/herself "superior" to others?

Again, my lack of expertise in this area severely limits my ability to give a decisive answer as you'd like. I sympathize with your frustration, and respect the passion you have for an article you believe to be a inherent value, as I've seen articles or chunks of articles I've created or worked on go that way myself, particularly when I was more of a newbie. But if you feel that some policy, guideline or operating spirit of the project has been violated or ignored, I would suggest reporting it at the Administrator's Noticeboard. I hope that helps. Nightscream (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I never formed any questionable impression of you based on your comments, or what anyone else said about you, as I don't even recall anything said about you by anyone else. The only thing I understand by your messages to me was that you genuinely felt that the article should remain, and that you wanted assistance in that regard, nothing more.
Again, I'm not sure what the exact criteria are by which an admin forms a conclusion from what is said during a discussion. I would suggest that you ask others with expertise in that area, and maybe talk to Sandstein, the admin in question. Yeah, various editors/admins opposed the deletion, but various others supported it, so maybe you should ask Sandstein how he/she came to his/her conclusion.
And thank you for the kind words and the compliment. Ditto. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Angel video games[edit]

Category:Angel video games, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion[edit]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)