User talk:IAmSasori

Welcome!

Hello, IAmSasori, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of SPA tag

I am not "accusing" you of anything. A look through your contributions reveals that your fourth edit was to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classes in World of Warcraft (third nomination), complete with citing policies and using Wikipedia jargon. You have hardly made any edits apart from nominating Warcraft-related articles for deletion. I am not saying this is forbidden (although I disagree with you, you did cite a reason for deletion), but it appears that this account has only a single purpose. I'd be interested to know why you removed the tag. Regards, Melsaran (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: because it isn't a single-purpose account. I have edited for quite a while anonymously before, but can only make AfD nominations with an account.

It is better than doing nothing but editing in Userspace and Wikipedia Space. IAmSasori 14:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs of Warcraft articles

Hi there! I notice you've been nominating several Warcraft-related articles for deletion, and I just wanted to thank you for it - it's about time we got rid of all this unnecessary gamecruft. (I'm now going through Category:Warcraft myself and clearing out all the obviously useless content.) However, I have to ask - is there any good reason why you didn't nominate List of Warcraft organizations as well? Is it notable in some way that the others aren't? Terraxos 14:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job nominating Warcraft material for "cruft." If you're a Narutoverse fan, why don't you go ahead and police your fandom, instead of encroaching on others? I'm sure you could start somewhere. Allandaros 01:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a bit upon my point, let me quote your current userpage for a moment:

There are people that have noted that I have mainly been nominating World of Warcraft articles for deletion thus far. While this is true, it is justified due to the fact that Warcraft is the one having the most articles with notability problems at the moment, numbering to over one hundred pages worth of cruft. It is not discrimination as much as they should not be there in the first place.

As for nominating mainly MMORPG articles, they are the most volatile in terms of fancruft, as players would probably like to add irrelevant detail about their characters or their experiences with unnotable NPC.

I refer you to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your mass AfD nomination shows that you don't care about the content of the article, merely the fact that it's an article relating to Warcraft. This sort of careless action is what turns people away from editing Wikipedia and leads to debacles like this[[1]]. Allandaros 01:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you don't do mass deletions as it damages your reputation (someone will call you a dick sooner or later) and that of deletionists in general regardless of your intentions. Besides, people might be willing to merge/fix the articles if you talked to them first and tell them how to fix it.

I also agree with Allandaros's suggestion that you should fix or even nominate the narutoverse articles as well to prove that you are not a mindless witchunter and hypocrite.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "hypocrite" is going too far here, Lenticel - remember to assume good faith. I do think it would be instructive, however, for IAmSasori to spend a few moments going through the articles in Category:Naruto and come up with a list indicating which of these have demonstrated the level of real-world notability you would expect from Warcraft-related content. All of the Naruto-related articles I've glanced at appear to be sourced either from the manga, the anime, or official source books, so I'd be curious to hear what you feel differentiates these from any number of the Warcraft articles you've nominated. This would assist me in improving some of the articles to address your concerns. JavaTenor 07:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that is too harsh, but it will not come from me but from others who might think he is. I'm trying to give him advise, not to accuse him. Indeed the WoW characters do need much sourcing as well but it references can be found by those who persevere. See my essay.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work; don't let insults detract from the fact that deletion of these articles is fully justified by lack of sources, notability and unnecessary plot summaries. --Gavin Collins 13:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I do not nominate the Naruto articles at the moment is because of a hard-copy source on them. However, just because my interests and edits lie on them does not mean that I am restricted to nominating them for deletion, or else not many articles would be able to be deleted at all on Wikipedia.

However, you are free to nominate them for deletion if you want to. I will not argue, as it probably is very crufty at the moment. I myself will go for unsourced cruft.

And please do mind that I have nominated one non-Warcraft related article for deletion so far. Just Warcraft have so, so much more. IAmSasori 15:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Warcraft got an extensive coverage that consist of many "unsourced" pages, I have to wonder, are the "hard copy sources" mainly the Mangas/Shonen publications? If so, then citing the manga as a source for articles on itself becomes as relevant as using the videogames as a source, and it goes outside the realm of original research since the information is accessible. Also, I would suggest you vary the language you use in the AFDs, maybe to show that you actually tried researching the topics before AFDing them. Youkai no unmei (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings comrade, I for one support your crusade to rid Wikipedia of meaningless rubbish. But your have only scratched the surface. Consider all the Naruto related articles that contain only in-universe citations, articles that would only be of interest to fans of Naruto that already know all this garbage. Surely you agreed that it should all be put in the Narutopedia, where it belongs and where the fans can properly administer to them. (Demigod Ron (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Seconded. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Star

		The AntiCruft Barnstar
		Awarded for excellent work fighting cruft!!!!Pilotbob 13:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that we were in a battle. Though treating it like one could well be self-fulfilling... :-( --Kizor 14:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The award should be change to that of a swastika.. What? just my opinion.Ripster40 (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shush, you. --Kiz o r 22:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Plot

After taking part in the debate over the current wording of WP:Fict I have discover WP:Plot is a much better route to take to get rid of fictional cruft from wikipedia. All the Warcraft articles are nothing more then giant plot summaries. WP:Fict is a guideline that is poorly written and can be deabted, WP:Plot is a clear policy which outweighs other guidelines. AFD's have been way to focused on notabilty. I think by focusing on WP:Plot it will be much easier to reach a delete consensus. Ridernyc 23:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/IAmSasori for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. TheKillerAngel 02:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found no merit in TheKillerAngel's accusation of sockpuppetry and closed IAmSasori SSP. -- Jreferee t/c 18:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pilotbob

I would be grateful if you could review the case of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pilotbob, as a good editor has been block for nominating AfD's. If there is anything you can do to get him unblocked, I would be grateful. --Gavin Collins 16:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zones of EverQuest

Some articles, like Zones of EverQuest really do need to exist for administrative reasons. Look at all of the EverCruft articles like [2] that are redirected to Zones of EverQuest after being merged. Now, I'm the first to admit that the current EverQuest article is over-long and full of OR that should be tagged or simply deleted, but having the core article in place serves and important purpose. As for notability, this article is about the primary fictional setting of EverQuest, the once most popular video game in the world. I don't think it's a reach to say that we should have such an article. -Harmil 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that you left the comment you did, after my work on the article... sources from somewhere other than a game site? You mean like IEEE Spectrum? -Harmil 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replicated comment from my talk page:

The source you provided appears to be more relevant to EverQuest than Zones of EverQuest. While it is acceptable to use it for that one quote in the Zones of EverQuest article, there is still many more in that large table in the Zones section of the article that requires references. However, for sources, it would be very hard to find a third-party reference for it (An example such as: "In the game of EverQuest, players may find wonders and uniqueness in the Planes of Mischief.").

One is a good start, but more is still needed for the article to be considered acceptable. IAmSasori 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I moved the sources administrative template down into the zones section... yes? Are you just mistaking me for an advocate of the article? If so, disabuse yourself of that idea. I'm interested in improving any article which lacks sourcing. That it needs more sourcing is certainly clear. -Harmil 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. It would do good for you.

And I am not the only one with problems with the article, as the consensus ended with No consensus, not a Keep. IAmSasori 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?! Where did I fail to assume good faith?! This conversation is getting stranger by the second. Can we just drop it? I don't care about the article that much. -Harmil 22:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You assumed that I assumed you are an advocate of the article and told me to reject an idea, questioning my faith. IAmSasori 22:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, made no such assumption. Nope, I never "questioned your faith" (I'm used to that phrase meaning something very different). I said, and I quote: "Are you just mistaking me for an advocate of the article? If so, disabuse yourself of that idea." That's not an accusation. That's not an assumption. That's a question, and a conditional request that you disabuse yourself of the idea should you entertain it.

I want to be very clear, here: I'm not saying that you are a bad person for pointing out flaws in an article that I pointed out flaws in. I'm not saying that my improvements to the article elevated it past anything more than the simple threshold that we keep it with appropriate administrative templating for poor sourcing. None of these things came out of my mouth (or keyboard) at any time in this conversation, nor did I make any value judgments about your contributions. If anything, I'd just suggest that you too re-read WP:AGF. -Harmil 22:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

Two of the sources provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance (Warcraft) (the third NY Times and the Inquirer one) appear to provide significant coverage (the other ones don't) to satisfy WP:N, so the page probably shouldn't be deleted, though may require cleaning up. I'm a bit pushed for time for the next few days so I'd rather not get bogged down in any more debates yet, but just be sure to keep pointing out any faults in the opposing arguments and the closing admin will (or should at any rate) ignore any amount of meritless keep votes. It's a thankless task, but keep it going. :) Miremare 02:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me, but you didn't.

Sorry, but which of my edits are disruptive? If you told me in the first place I'd actually know. You certainly don't assuming good faith.--Seriousspender (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what policy or guideline have I broken by editing pages RuneScape related pages? You haven't told me how my edits are incorrect, unproductive and causing a 'disruption'. Please fill me in on that, thank you.--Seriousspender (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove a point to who, or what? If you disagree with my edits, that is a content dispute, but you wouldn't know much about that as all you do is delete world of warcraft material, and seem to be very proud of it by the looks of your user page. RuneScape players fill wikipedia with inappropriate content, such as Fagex, just to name one I came across. So it is a crime to try and remove some of it?--Seriousspender (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC) <-- Read this message again.--Seriousspender (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't told me what point I am trying to demonstrate and how my edits are disruptive, which you did use in the sock puppet page. So please answer the question, surely you know the answer if you were concerned enough to create the page in the first place.--Seriousspender (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed AFDs

You should also try deleting Leeroy Jenkins and Corrupted Blood. 68.33.31.173 (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not taunt the man. --Kiz o r 14:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the above contributor's defense, the guy kinda brought it on himself. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, he's raised a lot of anger, but each of us has the option of standing up from the chair and going to yell at the houseplants. Now that we're well past the part of creating an unprecedentedly comprehensive work and into the significantly more difficult part of maintaining one, Wikipedia is dependent on a functioning, stable, exclusively online community. If that doesn't scare you, it should. Mutual respect is pretty much Step One.

Conversely: IAmSasori, if you ever get back to this, can you have a chat with me first? I cannot force you to do this, but I've been giving the above some thought and believe that approaching the issue with the virtual equivalent of a sledgehammer ultimately did more harm than good. --Kiz o r 02:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've been trying to get the source for the material that he AfDed for some time. It looks to me like if anyone had been paying attention, the deletions wouldn't have gone through; and if they're cleaned up and consolidated, he can't make any accusations of "fancruft."

Which isn't to say that he probably won't anyway. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the official warcraft encyclopedia sourcable since you know, its there word of mouth? Ripster40 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IAmSasori hasn't been active for weeks, and likely won't be for months. If he does return, I hope (as broached above) to be there and able to articulate why I believe that his methods do more harm than good in a collaborative environment, whether or not the targets are legitimate. At the moment, however, there is no dialogue to be had here. Sorry. --Kiz o r 23:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]