User talk:Pixelface

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
August 2006 to December 31, 2007
January to March 2008
April 2008 —


Contents

[edit] GTA IV violence

I am attempting to build consensus about the "Pre-launch violence" section in the Grand Theft Auto IV article. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Plot summaries

I would actively welcome your participation in this page so that we can attempt to establish an inclusive consensus. I would also welcome the views of anyone else you know of who do not believe their views are adequately represented. Thanks, Hiding T 12:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to your comment on the talk page, but I'd like to ask here as well if you'd be interested in writing up a section at Wikipedia:Plot summaries on what we should do with articles that consist solely of plot summary. Hiding T 10:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

You've changed three redirects to point towards Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I do not like it instead of their correct targets.[1] [2] [3] Please do not do this. Firstly, it makes the shortcut inconsistent with the documentation at the (correct) target page, and secondly, people often memorise the shortcut, and rightly expect it to point towards the appropriate page. If you disagree with people who use these shortcuts, then state your concerns; don't disrupt the discussion by trying to undermine their arguments. I've reverted your edits. Jakew (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please look at where WP:ITSCRUFT redirects to. It follows that any variation of ITSCRUFT should redirect to the same location. --Pixelface (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Pixelface, there are many WP shortcuts, and there is no particular reason why vaguely similar shortcuts need to point towards the same location. They each have their own purpose. You need to consider why people use these shortcuts. When people type WP:ITSCRUFT it's a shorthand way of saying "I think 'it's cruft' is not a valid argument for these reasons". But when people type WP:GAMECRUFT (for example) it's a shorthand way of saying something "I think this material goes beyond the scope of WP's coverage, as explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information". And it's very unlikely that one would ever type one while meaning the other.
The problem is that, by changing the shortcuts, you're changing the apparent meaning of people's arguments. It's like going through an AfD and actually editing other people's rationales. Jakew (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If saying something is "cruft" is not a valid reason for deletion, neither is any variation of "this is cruft" — be it "gamecruft", "listcruft", etc. If someone wants to say "I think this material goes beyond the scope of WP's coverage, as explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information." then they should say that. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information doesn't even contain the word "cruft". I'm not changing the meaning of people's arguments. If someone says "this is gamecruft", they are saying "this is cruft" — which is just another way of saying "I don't like it." --Pixelface (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Pixelface, when you type WP:ITSCRUFT, are you actually saying that you think that something is cruft? I very much doubt it. What you're actually saying is something along the lines of "here is a link to an essay that explains a viewpoint that I wish to express." There's a lot more information in the link than the name of the shortcut itself.
Similarly, if someone types WP:GAMECRUFT, they aren't simply saying "this is cruft about a game". Just like the person citing WP:ITSCRUFT, they're providing a concise link to an in-depth explanation of their argument.
Now, if you read the last paragraph of WP:ITSCRUFT, you'll see that it reads as follows:
Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Wikipedia. "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it is cruft.
So, in linking to WP:GAMECRUFT or whatever, editors are actually giving more information than simply saying "cruft": they're explaining (in shorthand) their rationale. Jakew (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your note on the article guidelines page

Hey there,

From your note on WT:VG/GL regarding some edits of mine in 2007, I gather you may have some questions to ask me. Feel free to post some questions on my talk page, and I'll answer them as soon as possible. User:Krator (t c) 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. Regarding your comment, on the issue of consensus judging, I actually thought we had achieved consensus at Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV on the issue of leaving it with "Eastern European", which is why I stated at "List of..." that consensus was reached. Perhaps I should've pointed them to the consensus, as not everyone is up-to-speed on all talk pages at all times. Anyhow, I've considered your statement and I will ensure that I look at all sides of a debate before making a determination with regards to consensus. Your suggestions about including all sources (both "Eastern European gray-area" and "Serbian" and contrasting them) also made a lot of sense. There were some other issues at my RFA, which I've examined here. Your comments are welcome. There's also some templated rfa thank-spam below. happy editing, xenocidic (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam

[edit] Wikiquette alert

I have opened a Wikiquette alert for your behavior in the WP:FICT discussion. Please understand that I respect your opinion of how fiction should be handled and am trying to work with everyone involved to resolve this; that is not the point of this WQA. Instead, I believe your commenting approach is souring the discussion as it is very defensive and aggressive and falls into uncivil behavior, as I commented on previously. However, if the community doesn't believe that is the case, then I preemptively apologize for bringing this up to that board. I'm trying to find a solution here that works for Wikipedia and everyone involved, and that means calm and rationale discussion instead of what I feel you are providing. --MASEM 03:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal basically seeks to wipe out millions of hours of volunteer work via a remote corner of Wikipedia, so if my responses seem defensive, I hope you can understand. And considering the sheer size of the Oppose section and all of the comments from aggresive supporters that people have to deal with in the Oppose section in comparison to the Support section, I hope you can understand. You may want to consider whether all of your replies to people in the Oppose section and your repeated mention of "derivative works" is souring the discussion. Thank you for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)