User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Call to forum moderators for dead - minning sysop Proto

An request will be lodged at once with the Wiki Illuminati for the head of Proto to be delivered on a platter.
brenneman {L} 11:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ZOMG!!! Not the Wiki Illuminati! Proto::type 11:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay of StarCraft

I wanted to nominate this article for deletion but it's been nominated in the last 6 months. It reads exactly like a game guide. I was wondering if it would be speedy kept if I nominated it or not? Whispering 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General GC question

  • Do you have any plans for how to carry out deletion cases against massive cruft-lairs such as Template:World of Warcraft instances and other stuff that will cause a big backlash from associated WikiProjects? Like, should all of these be nominated together or what? And also when? We probably don't want to start too many gamecruft deletions at once as its hard to argue on multiple fronts at once... If you (or anyone else) have some ideas, feel free to message me. Wickethewok 05:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alrite, I think a good place to start then might be Instance (World of Warcraft) - not that article itself, but more its instance list. Each one of those reads as a how-to game guides that cite no reliable sources. I think I'll nom this at the beginning of next week when I have some time to offer rebuttals to the keep votes. Wickethewok 06:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrexham

I think there is some overlap between the articles on Wrexham (town) and Wrexham (county borough) so I'm going to try to do some weeding out. Others' might not agree!

-- Maelor  10:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää

User Teemu Ruskeepää, who is insisting on a system of reordering on the talk page of Fidel Castro, has been placing polls beneath each talk page discussion. He was also asked to cease this behaviour as it was becoming increasingly disruptive. Many, many attempts have been made to pursuade this user against his actions by other users and admins, taking up valuable time which should be spent elsewhere. Threats of blocking have had little effect. After a small period away, he has continued to add unwanted polls, I removed them as my patience has ran dry I'm afraid. I have a feeling he's about to place more polls and/or kick up a big stink about this. Could you please watch the page - and - although I don't like to say this, ban this user in some fashion. Because no other option has worked, even a clear rfc denouncing his actions signed by a number of users. --Zleitzen 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamecruft

Dear Proto, I recently came across your fight against gamecruft on Wikipedia and although I welcome any effort to improve Wikipedia, I cannot really see why many of the deleted pages would not fit in Wikipedia (although some of them are clear candidates for deletion). First of all, I do not understand why you specifically fight against gamecruft. All your arguments also apply to cartooncruft, televisionseriescruft etc... Take for example the page Homer's Triple Bypass. Calton's argument also applies here:

Divide the world into precisely two groups: those who have seen this Simpons episode, and those who don't: Those who have seen it already know what the episode is about. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none. Those who have not seen it will have no interest in the information in the article. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none. Total segment of world population that this article is actually useful for: none.

I know that it is not totally fair to compare between subjects, but in this case (lists of episodes/characters/etc of a series vs lists of maps/characters/etc of a game) the comparison seems relatively fair.

Taking into account that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, I think many of those articles (given that they are verifiable, but for most lists that is obvious) deserve to stay. After all, in many cases multiple editors contributed to them, they are verifiable and notable to a significant number of people. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On holiday

I am on holiday (vacation if you're a septic), and so probably won't reply to anything til next week. Pip pip! Proto::type 15:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. The preceding boilerplate is just procedural. For what it's worth, I think your reasons were valid. I'm just going to DRV for consistency's sake. Cheers!--Kchase T 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Individual Counter-Strike maps

Just wanted to inform you of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Individual_Counter-Strike_maps (July 17, 2006). I'm alerting everyone who had more than 2 edits in one of the previous AfDs. Kind regards, David Bergan 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surfing AFD

Proto, I wanted to ask you about the Counter-Strike Surfing AFD. I want to say, first off, that I have never played a Counter-Strike "surf" map and I do not like Counter-Strike, so I don't feel like I am biased. I do, however, feel that the AFD is unjustified and many of the delete votes are based on an incorrect interpretation of WP:NOT. I don't feel that the article reads like a how-to guide. Do you feel that it does, or do you feel that "game guide" is a more general term? I believe the context of "Wikipedia is not a game guide" is very specific: it is not for how-to guides or walkthroughs of games. The article is neither. I am certainly not trying to change your mind about the article, but I am trying to better understand how you can justify it. TomTheHand 23:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you seem to be back from your Wikibreak. Welcome back. I'd like to touch base with you on this issue. As you know, the relevant portion of WP:NOT is as follows:

Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.

Again, I was hoping to get your definition of "game guide" according to the above policy. You seem to have a broader interpretation than I do; as far as I can tell, "Wikipedia is not a game guide" is very specific. TomTheHand 19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Proto, still hoping to hear from you on this issue. I'll post a new topic in a couple of days; perhaps you don't check for new comments up this high. TomTheHand 17:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chess articles

I added a few chess articles to your gamecruft page. The WP:NOT policy doesn't specify notability or format with regard to games, only that all game guides have no place on wikipedia. Figure it should go on the list too.

Although these addition by an anonymous user might seem silly at first (and have been removed by another user by now), he does have a point. The exemplary article Sample chess game is an outright guide on how to play chess. Would love to hear your opinion on what to do with such articles. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly figure that a debate on the major chess articles would force a decisive clarification of the policy, instead of a dozen drawn out debates of essentially the same substance, argued by the same parties. It's getting a little tiresome trying to figure out if articles are being deleted primarily for being unverifiable and unsourceable, currently unsourced, not notable enough, or if the WP:NOT policy alone is enough to warrant removal of all game-related material. The first reason is obvious and already well-established grounds for deletion for any article, the second is grounds for editing and sourcing, the third would make for a matter of debate for individual pages, and the last result would warrant a pruning of a vast amount of wikipedia material, which could all be referenced by the precedent set by an AFD on the offending chess articles. I think this is important because the last two reasons have been combined with regards to CVG deletions recently; when Reaverdrop made the initial comparison to chess in a recent AfD, the gut reaction from many editors was, "But Chess is important, while these articles are gamecruft". Therein lies an important contradiction which must be resolved if the NOT policy is to be invoked. 129.61.46.16 13:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]


Dear Proto, I noticed you removed the chess articles again, which is your good right. I just want you to know that I was serious and not trolling with regard to feeling that Sample chess game should be on the list. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the simple act of refusing to even state his rationale behind why chess articles should be treated differently speaks volumes, since notability has been repeatedly stated as not being an issue. 129.61.46.16 17:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]

Eon8

Hey, just wanted to apologize for my words regarding the eon8 thing. I was upset at the time and in retrospect I realize I was being a jackass. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamecruft

So can anyone edit this page or is it just your personal playground? Whispering 17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can do what you like... it's a wiki! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proto (talk • contribs)
Sorry had to ;)
How about redirects? Should we put those on the page? Whispering 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when an article is deleted, the attached redirects should go anyway. And if they don't, there's a few bots that pick them up. Proto::type 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnostic Movement

Smart decision to close and reopen -- it's a muddle. --A. B. 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Proto::type 11:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the edit.

Well, I must say that your hack and slash editing of the "Eastern Kingdoms" clearly tells me how things work around here. I turned some of the bland, badly spelled, and poorly thought out articles into something interesting to read. I was well aware of the "if you don't like your work mercilessly edited" bit but dang. I think it would be better to not contribute anymore. There's a point where even I feel it's time to walk away. Please delete my account. Hyde v 17:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't like the changes, there's nothing stopping you from readding some info. It was fun to read, but it read like a travel guide to sunny azeroth, and needed some frankly merciless editing to make it encyclopedic. I can't delete your account anyway (noone can), but please don't quit over one edit. Proto::type 17:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with your speedy deletion

Please stop with your speedy deletion of articles that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. You are repeatedly deleting the article for Glen Cedar Park without the required AfD review. If this happens again, I'm going to have to notify the other administrators again. If you get a kick out of deleting stubs, I invite you to use Wikipedia's |Random article feature to find articles which have little content and no images. Daloonik 23:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It contains no content, which is CSD A3. However, as you have recreated this article, I ahve put it to AFD. You can find that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Cedar Park. I seem to remember that last time you notified the other administrators, nothing happened other than you getting blocked for sockpuppetry. Proto::type 11:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ZIL 131 02.jpg

Hi Abu. You tagged the above image as a copyright violation from [1]. This site says images may be used on non-commercial sites, with attribution. Attribution exists, and Wikipedia is not a commercial site. The image is therefore not a copyright violation. Regards, Proto::type 14:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia do not accepts non-commercial only licenses. See {{Noncommercial}} --Abu Badali 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad. Thanks for the info! :) Deleted as a copyvio. Proto::type 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheNuevara's RFA

As part of project to quiz people as to their specific reasoning for voting in RFAs, I've left one or two questions for you in the RFA (as you hadn't put a particular reason for support). Please feel free not to respond. Thank you. Best, Moreschi 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KarazhanInterior01.jpg on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:KarazhanInterior01.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Not exactly the best wording from that template, but it gets the point accross... Maged123 23:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I didn't know that in fact it is a 'well-known' thing that Whatlinkshere doesn't give you any info about images that appear in articles. You have to rely solely on the Image: page itself for that. This seems weird to me, since you could have the most used image on Wiki report that nothing links to it! (Which I suppose is true in the strict sense of an inclusion not being an actual link. Sort of.) Anyway, that's the way it is, apparently. The same applies to categories, I'm told, where it makes more sense. -Splash - tk 16:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft?

I'm going to express the same things that I have stated on both the Protoss and Zerg from StarCraft. I don't believe that the passages you deleted are fancruft. Both of the sections you deleted are essential to the understanding of these species within the context of the universe. Perhaps all of the specific game information could be cut out and the descriptions trimmed down, but I think their outright deletion is ridiculous, as that information could be more encyclopedic with some trimming down. bob rulz 04:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have seen what you did to Civilization IV: Warlords, I am completely convinced that you are going to far with this vendetta against fancruft. The information you have removed from the articles that I have mentioned (and who knows what other vital information you have removed from other game articles) is all information that is necessary and vital to the understanding of the games for which you are deleting this information from. The stuff that is in the games is what makes the game a game. Without knowing what is in a game, there is no game. You are removing the heart and soul of what games are by deleting this information. While I agree that some of the information contained in these articles could easily meet the definiton of gamecruft, you are going far too far in your deletions, removing vital information necessary to the understanding of the games. For example, with your previous deletions to Civilization IV: Warlords, we know what some of the new information is, but we don't know what any of it truly is in a gameplay sense. What good does this do us? What good does it do to the people who are trying to come to Wikipedia as a legitimate source of information and go around to learn information on these games? I believe that I can rewrite some of these articles to please both of us, but you seem to think that outright deletion, as opposed to a compromise rewrite, is the answer, when all you're doing is destroying the whole purpose of the articles you are deleting the information from. bob rulz 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my message on the talk page of the article. Information such as a trieme has Str 2, Move 2, Cost 50; +50% vs. galleys, cannot enter Ocean, no cargo space is NOT suitable information for an encyclopaedia. Removing it is not 'removing the heart and soul of the game' or 'destroying' them, and your over-reaction and exaggeration is not helpful. Proto::type 15:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my RfA

Thanks for your support in my RfA! Unfortunately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your support was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here!
Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MoS:DP

your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mon&diff=next&oldid=59172805 violates http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28disambiguation_pages%29&oldid=57437179#Individual_entries point 6 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring as an alternative to deletion

Have you considered refactoring, as per the suggestions in the discussion? Uncle G 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 Year Old Girls

Seeing as you voted on the previous AfD, I thought I would alert you to a new AfD on 14 Year Old Girls. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game

No doubt the first of many messages on the subject. I'm afraid this is more of a sigh than an argument, but I had to make it. You saw what happened last time - a prolonged and bitter vote-turned-battle that dragged on for weeks, involving dozens of editors, with vengeful arguments, out-of-process actions and pure spite.

And you really believe it's worth going through again to get rid of one single small article. Thanks. --Kizor 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Proto::type 06:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Very well then. --Kizor 07:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of the Game AFD

Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I've written to the closing admin of the recent Game AFD, contesting his closing opinion that WP:V arguments are "moot" due foreign sources being acceptable. I think this misses the point of most of what the delete voters were arguing. The note I've left the admin is here. I'm happy to support future AFDs on this article, but I think a closing judgement like this will prompt keep voters in future to claim that the WP:V issue has been conclusively resolved in favour of keeping the article - when I really think it hasn't. (btw, the admin is on wikibreak so may not reply for a few days at least) Bwithh 22:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my RFA

Hi, Proto. I would love to hear your opinion on my RFA. I plan to get involved on adminstrative works on image use issues, as I already do a lot of work on this field as an editor. Thanks in advance. Best regards, --Abu Badali 00:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Warcraft AfDs

Hi. I was about to propose a group nomination of several Warcraft character pages for deletion (draft), but I noticed by following backlinks while composing the draft that you have a page, User:Proto/gc, that is a sort of gamecruft watchdog project. If you have planned a similar AfD campaign for these pages, then I will leave it to your more capable hands. If not, would you care to look over the draft of this nomination before I make it live? Thanks. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you appear to be on a break, I've gone ahead with this proposal. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Spong

Hi. Please do not delete the article Clive Spong, which you did twice and it makes me mad. I have had to recreate it since you deleted it. Don't do that again. Thanks, Felix 9:49, 10 August 2006

Giovanni33 proposal

Hi, Proto. As you've commented on the Giovanni33 case before, I thought I would direct you to new discussion, in case you have missed it. Jayjg has now confirmed through checkuser that Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks are all sockpuppets of Giovanni33.[2] [3] Giovanni has now come as close as I think he can come (without losing face) to admitting sockpuppetry. He has agreed here that it doesn't pay, and has asked to be unblocked on certain conditions which, if enforced, would make the use of sockpuppets completely futile. I've made a proposal here, at the Incidents Noticeboard. Also, this section of Danny's talk page gives a summary of this history and contains links to all or nearly all the places where it has been discussed. The blocking admin has indicated that he's prepared to unblock early, and I'd be happy with that, but I think we need to work out the conditions that Giovanni agrees to first. Assuming that the sockpuppetry stops, I'd also be happy with removing the puppeteer tag from his own user page, in order to help him to make a clean start, free from any unnecessary humiliation. Don't feel you have to get involved, but if you have time, a comment at the noticeboard would be welcome. I'm hoping to have this sorted out as soon as possible, because I'm about to go on wiki-break to finish some writing, and will probably be taking Wikipedia off my "Favorites" in my browser before I go to bed tonight. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

list of beat 'em ups

Hello! I was the creator of the "list of beat 'em ups" article that was deleted, and somehow completely missed its deletion nomination. While I support the decision of the AfD, I put a lot of work into that article, and it had many red links to articles that I was planning to go back and create later. Is there any way for me to view an archived version of that page, so that I can at least create stubs for the games that don't have articles yet, so that they'll show up in the category list? Hope to hear back from you soon! Luvcraft 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh! I discovered the process for making this sort of request, so here it is:

list of beat 'em ups on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of list of beat 'em ups. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fish_and_karate/Archive_9&oldid=237792049"