User talk:Havok/archive07

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

Re: Classes in World of Warcraft[edit]

Apologies, but once a week is not nearly enough to lock a page. If it gets to several times a day, let me know. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you posted on the talk page of the article a bit. As a note, Classes in World of Warcraft is now up for AFD. It should go, in my opinion. The article reads alot like a game guide, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. RobJ1981 01:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

World of Warcraft Launcher
Tank (computer gaming)
Tokyo Game Show
Nintendo Super System
IRiver G10
Alterac Valley
Swan Crystal
Red Steel
Caverns of Time
Game Boy Printer
Call of Duty 3
Color TV Game
Razorfen Kraul
Super Mario 128
Game Boy Advance Wireless Adapter
Add Sources
Luigi's Mansion
Computer and video game industry
Meisner technique
Rinaldo Gandolfi
Retro Gamer
Battle of Mount Hyjal
Eastern Kingdoms
Map protection

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why you are wrong about notability[edit]

I see that your opinion that notability is a silly criterion is affecting your editing style, and very much to the detriment of the encyclopedia I think. Notability is important because we exist here to serve our readers. We want to give them useful, relevant information, not just a complete data dump. Your original research into dozens of people who used to work at Blizzard is a very good example of why we need to think about notability.

An encyclopedia is not a data dump. It serves to give readers a quick essential summary of what they want and need to know. In order to do this effectively, we must exercise careful and thoughtful editorial judgment, and one part of editorial judgment is an understanding that treating irrelevant data as on equal footing with the essentials, is confusing and a disservice to the reader.--Jimbo Wales 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In no way are my views on notability detriment to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. My notes on WP:N are clear as I find the whole premise to be both a curse and a blessing when editing articles. Is Wikipedia a data dump? No. But again, many things can be found not notable if enough people actually go against it. Which I also think is the reason WP:N isn't an official policy(?). I have seen time and time again people using notability to kill articles who are in actuality notable, so yes, it works counter productive to WP. I have also seen the guidelines being used to remove articles that are there as pure vanity etc. Which works very well for WP. All in all, a good guideline, but it's not the end all and be all of Wikipedia by any stretch. Havok (T/C/c) 09:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Why you are wrong about notability[edit]

1. I did not add the initial information, I only found the sources for the information. 2. They are in fact verifiable, as you can see per my sources. 3. I felt removing the section was detrimental to the actual article. Sure, it can be cut down, but not cut out. At least in my opinion. You, like everyone else on Wikipedia, are allowed to voice your view and concern about any article. Which is what I did in this case. I wish to keep this section in some form, seeing as Blizzard Entertainment has spawned a whole slew of companies that have made many great games, and believe it or not, that is actually something that can work in advantage to the article and the information there in. I look forward to hearing more from you on this topic. Believe me when I say I do understand your concerns, but there are other ways around this without removing information. Cheers. Havok (T/C/c) 22:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What I think would make sense, then, is a very simple paragraph stating the facts. A detailed list of past employees is not at all relevant. But can you find a third party source which tells us that Blizzard has been in some way unique in the game industry as a spawning ground for other companies? Personally, I very strongly doubt it. The entire software industry, from Microsoft to Google and beyond, has had a strong tradition of enterpreneurialism. The normal cycle is that a core team makes a ton of money on stock options from early participation in a success, and go off to pursue new projects on their own, in groups with people they knew. Why is this remarkable in the case of Blizzard? I think the answer is: it is not. But if you have a source which says otherwise, then a short paragraph noting that Blizzard has been important in this regard can be sensible.--Jimbo Wales 23:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be the normal cycle in a company. But I still feel it is worth mentioning. Let's say hypothetical that Sergey Brin decided to leave Google and start his own company, would you write about that in the Google article? Of course you would. The same goes for Blizzard; Some of the employees where not just buss boys in the company following a dream, many of them where chief executive officers, former president and vice president of the company and so on. And mentioning that they now have left to start new companies that now create great games is a way to tell that Blizzard was the catalyst of this. Don't you agree that it deserves a mention? Remarkable? Not the slightest, but still worth mentioning. Havok (T/C/c) 23:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

About External Links[edit]

Hi, I haven't been subject to you deleting any of the external links that I've added (and generally I agree with you about the site not being a link site but an information site). I'm curious, though, because I've been tempted to delete a few external links myself, in particular where it's purely something like a musical artist (since that's mostly what I'm here for) and it's their RSS fee added as its own external link.

Do you think these deserve to be here?

Just curious

--lincalinca 09:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Further to your response, I've found a user who has been doing this. In particular, RSS feeds: [1]. I just think it's a bit silly to add these in. I think it's fair enough to have a few fansites and the official site, but not to have every drip and drab of information available. Semi-reliable sources really are all I believe belong here (as I find Wiki to only be semi-reliable itself). Anyway, I don't really know what to suggest. This guy (if you look at his contributions history) has pretty much only ever put in RSS feeds and hasn't done anything else.
What do you think?
--lincalinca 08:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

vBulletin Page[edit]

I figured out who is doing all the link changes on the vBulletin page... Read the talk page for that, information is there. Can we do something about this guy? He's just abusing things. Joeychgo 17:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Joeychgo

I've reported him. Word of advice, don't argue with him, just ignore him. He has proven that he has no intention of understanding how Wikipedia works, and by arguing with him you are only adding fuel to the fire. Continue to remove the links he adds, he will most likely grow tired eventually. Havok (T/C/c) 07:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming template changes[edit]

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Daniel.Bryant 09:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swords of Xeen[edit]

(Re-posting my response to your reply on the AfD.)

Havok, you seem to consistently forget that cleaning up an article is not the responsibility of the people who think it should be deleted. You also overlook that this is a discussion about deleting an article. The comment you replied to was stating why they thought the article should be deleted, as they are supposed to. If someone disagrees, then it is up to THEM to put the proof in the article, which I note that despite making snotty comments about to other people, you yourself never do. So if I were you I would either practice what I preach and clean-up the article myself, seeing as it's you who disagrees with the AfD, or, if your not prepared to do that, stop making snotty little copy+paste comments in AfDs when someone says why they think an article should be deleted. The Kinslayer 11:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)