| Revision as of 14:46, 12 July 2008 editDavid Fuchs (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,912 edits →Re: take a look: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:32, 12 July 2008 edit undoEusebeus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,666 edits →Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles: RfC thoughtNext edit → | ||
| Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
| Whether or not it'll work, someone will need to find some diffs if they want to start one. I turned up nothing when I looked. ] (]) 13:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC) | Whether or not it'll work, someone will need to find some diffs if they want to start one. I turned up nothing when I looked. ] (]) 13:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :I initiated last year an RFC against ] and while he disavowed the process and refused to participate in it, the evidence we collected proved to be important in a recent arbcom case, in which Alan was sanctioned and placed on an extended civility watch. LGRC has a major problem with his engagement with other editors (amply demonstrated above) and an RFC is a good first step to document the spamming and harassment. So I would say that an RFC should proceed. MiB makes a good point about the -ionist, but the point here is not to debate the merits of his wikiphilosophy, but the unconstructive manner in which he engages in what he has decided to define as "debate". ] (]) 15:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:32, 12 July 2008
|
 Archives
| ||||
HP articles
Thank you!! I think that only with a complete work, merging every article that is not notable, and removing in-universe fancruft, we can achieve what you are talking about: a topic with lots of GAs. You may take a look at the Talk page of the Notability section of the WikiProject. There are some articles left but I think we have reached the point in which we should be very careful. --Lord Opeth (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I get your point. I personally think that, for example, both the Goathland railway station and the GWR 4900 Class 5972 Olton Hall should definitely be taken out of our discussion list: both are real life things and are only related to HP because of the films. Chandler mentioned that both the websites and the bands (and albums, singles, and stuff) have some jurisdiction and other notability guidelines, that is why the Harry and the Potter albums are not part of this discussion. I am not sure about Draco and the Malfoys, which are indeed in our list, but I think that we should check the music guidelines or ask the WikiProject Alternative Music for some advice on this particular band, and also in the Harry and the Potters albums' individual pages. --Lord Opeth (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we have to remove the WikiProject HP banner: both the station and the train act as "portrayers", and some actors that appear in the HP films have the WikiProject banner as well. I just think that we have not the only right to decide their notability, but it is fine to list them as part of our project.--Lord Opeth (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sweeney Todd merge
Could you possibly undo the merger you made with Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street Deluxe Complete Edition and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street? A couple months back, the former was AFD'ed and ended with the consensus that the latter article was too big to merge with the soundtrack article. If you really think it should be merged anyway, you should probably run it through the AFD process again, to avoid going against what was the consensus at the time of closing. Thanks for understanding! --Mizu onna sango15/ 19:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That's beautiful
I can't believe it. It's actually readable. Thank you for standing up for the real world. Serendious 06:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Core worlds
WOW, that was sooooooooooo long ago: over three years! It could use sourcing to indicate its usage; I'm sure it's around somewhere, but lacking sources it probably should be deleted or redirected. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Happy Independence Day!
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Final Fantasy Legend
Don't nominate it yet! O_O' I still have to redo the plot section, add a bit on skills/weapons/items/abilities to gameplay, and flesh out reception some more. I just got sidetracked with someone trying to remove one of my other articles (Poison (Final Fight) and need to get that one to GA status first. >.<--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Points
Oh, that's nothing really. Basically I personally don't like the low FA to GA ratio they have for Featured Topics, so I want to make sure all the articles besides the fiction and The Myst Reader are FA: Giving an article that's FA 3 points, GA 2, and B 1, I have 13 out of the 27 I would need with 7 FAs and 3 GAs. Don't mind my randomness :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 11:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Hey, I noticed you are one of the vanguards of fiction coverage now. How is it going? — Deckiller 17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
New merge proposals
Hey there!! I came with more merge proposals, this time Neville Longbottom and Luna Lovegood into the list of Dumbledore's Army members. Both characters have failed to meet notability too, just as McGonagall, Lupin, Bellatrix, etc. I provided a link to a draft in both talk pages to give you an idea of how the article would look like.--Lord Opeth (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The WPVG Newsletter (July 2008)
| The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games Newsletter | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
- Newsletter delivered by xenobot 03:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Comics project template box
Hey there, just wanted to drop you a note that answering "yes" to the infobox and image sections of the comics project template tag means the article needs those things, not that it has them. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 20:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: FAs
I'm wary about it for now: I'm playing hell with Alleyway at the moment in terms of FA, and Poison still can't seem to get anyone to give her a GA review. I need to get it accepted all around that CinnamonPirate is a reliable source as well as far as the FFVII Famicom article goes.
I will get those three to FA though, no matter what it takes.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: take a look
Ok, I looked :P My thoughts:
- Images: one of the images from the sidescrolling games should be removed, as it offers nothing new over the previous one and prolly would fail NFCC scrutiny. Also, the multiple covers are... ungainly. Since it's commented on, the ZA one should stay no matter what, I'm unsure what should be done about the others. Collapsing the release dates like done for Riven will shorten some of the clutter.
- Do we really need all the game citations?
- Are there any aggregate scores?
- I'll see about dredging up some print sources for use.
Otherwise, some copyediting and it should be fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ugh... don't mention DotA to me... that was by far the most excruciating FAC I've ever seen... not to mention they killed off a good 4KB of solid info because it was sourced to changelogs... ugh. I'm not looking forward to pushing the FLood on them either, given their reactions to it the last go-around. At least it should be a bit more defensible now... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh... look at me bitch. Anyway, if you need help pre-or-during FAC, wake me when you need me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Like I said, I'll help when I can and will check for print sources via ProQuest next week when I'm free. I've got a full caseload on me plate right now, but I'll pop in from time to time to check up on you :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is stuff like ProQuest and LexisNexis require subscriptions (i.e., aren't free;) I've only got the access to ProQuest because User:OranL asked his librarian if he could lend his school ProQuest account to me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, good luck on that... I think we might be able to turn Joseph Staten into something more than a stub, Salvatori, there's pretty much no hope I think (talk about working in your colleague's shadow.) The Halo novels are shaping up decently, we should be able to scrape GA with all of them (Ghosts of Onyx and/or First Strike might have enough material for FA, but I'm not holding my breath.) Also, one thing... wouldn't a better (more simple title) for the article be "The Legend of Zelda CD-i series" or "Zelda CD-i games" instead of "CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series"? For the sources, I'll email you copies of whatever I find. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Update: I got your sources, but you need to set up your email address! :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Like I said, I'll help when I can and will check for print sources via ProQuest next week when I'm free. I've got a full caseload on me plate right now, but I'll pop in from time to time to check up on you :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Cloverfield vandalism sockpuppetry confirmed
Hey! If you recall sometime back we were talking about working together on the Clovefield articles for GA status? Anyway, I just discovered and checkuser has confirmed a sock farm that has been vandalizing Cloverfield related articles. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thedayicametowhiskershouse and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_farm_targetting_Cloverfield_related_articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Further reading
Galland, The World of Warhammer: The Official Encyclopedia of the Best-Selling Fighting Fantasy Game (Thunder's Mouth Press, 1998). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Do you think an RfC would help with him at all? He is getting more annoying and persistent with these terrible arguments every day. He's even gotten like five others to start doing the same thing all over the place by example. TTN (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- And you do not think all these AfDs are not getting more annoying and persistent every day? Should I start an RfC on you? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I like Le Grand Roi, but I agree that his AFD manner has become extremely disruptive because of his refusal to make arguments based on wikipedia policies, not essays. Perhaps we should, as this is getting out of hand. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are you willing to have one on yourself as well, as I and others believe a lot of these mass nominations are getting out of hand? Or would you rather we just agree to disagree? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, RFC's are probably the way to go, I'd rather be (at worst) reprimanded by an RFC than deal with this constant back and forth. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have a better proposal, why not have a localized discussion at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, because 1) I would never respect an RfC made against me, 2) I am more apt to respect civil and constructive criticism on a page that I set up just for that, and 3) you would not have to risk yourself coming out bad either. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing as you're likely to never back down from your position, I doubt that would really do very much. Do we have any good diffs to use for the "evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute"? I doubt that any comments from the AfDs would be very helpful. TTN (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Do you really want a rehash of the episodes and characters arbcom conisdering how it worked out last time? I am giving two an honest chance to discuss with me civily on that talk page. You will not look good if you do not give it a chance first. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Work it out how? I'm going to say something to do with you toning down the constant harassment (i.e. cast your vote and leave it at that), and you'll reply with a number of sentences that have little to do with anything. Then that'll go back and forth four or five times until I become annoyed with the fact that you ignore policies and guidelines and instead use your own extremely biased views to completely skew anything you didn't ignore. That pretty much sums up every discussion I've ever had with you. TTN (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you do not want to engage in discussion with me, then just ignore me. If you think we should "cast a vote and leave it that" then you miss what a discussion rather than a vote is. We are supposed to engage and challenge each other in discussions so that in the end we actually get to a real consensus, i.e. in which we've exhausted all alternatives to finding a clear reason as to why an article should or should not stay on our project. If you would rather approach it is a vote than a discussion, then okay, you need to reply to or acknowledge any of my comments and no on else has to either if they don't want to. But we obviously have fundamental disagreements about notability policies and guidelines. In fact, a tremendous amount of the community does, which is why the notability guidelines are undergoing spirited and thorough discussion at present. Does that mean we should start immediately assuming bad faith on each other or not look for areas where we could work together? Certainly not. And as always, I am of course willing to help anyone who disagrees with me in whatever way I can to improve articles as well. Notice above how remember a past effort of Judgesureal and I regarding the Cloverfield articles, I thought it courteous to let him know about a sock farm I uncovered that was targetting those articles. Anyway, I set up a page that charts my XfD participation in which my hope is neutral editors would review them and offer suggestions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Discussion within AfDs is fine. What you're doing is not discussion. You just spam the same links and the same arguments over and over and over and over and over. You do not back off, you are very rude on a constant basis (changing around a comment to be witty one time is one thing, but you do it all the time), and it pretty much is pure harassment on your part to make this site work like you want it to work. That is the farthest thing away from productive and engaging discussion to find a consensus. Whether or not you can be productive outside of AfDs is irrelevant. This is purely about your conduct within them. TTN (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- And many of the responses I have received from others are copy and paste replies. If that is not itself rude, then what the heck? In many AfDs I am also working to improve them as well and have actually rescued many articles in the process. I really wish you would be willing to help in those efforts and then be able to say, "Hey, I did the best I could, but couldn't get any farther," then I could say okay, but to not even make any effort to help and then to just dismiss what other people find notable and want to work on can also be seen as rude or unproductive. Why not take some of these articles in question, use the various sources mentioned, and let's see if we can do something to save them? I bet we'd all feel a great deal of accomplishment and comraderie in the process. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- We are getting off topic, which is the use of off-topic arguments in AFD's and increasingly aggressive badgering of those who want to eliminate unverifiable content. We all want to improve content, but AFD is for content that the nominator feels has little to no chance of being verified. We have considered the possibility it is notable, and believe it is not, so we nominate it for deletion. There is nothing to "work on" in that case, or "rescue". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- With that said, I and others who argue to keep in these discussions feel otherwise, which is why we do argue to keep and which is why many an AfD closes as keep or merge or redirect. And in some cases, I am able and willing to find sources that do not just turn up on the regular Google search, which is why I sometimes work on userfied articles for months before trying again with mainspace. I believe the content in many of these cases can be verified, so do the others who argue to keep in many cases. We disagree at times as to what is and is not verifiable, sure, but sometimes we're right, sometims we're not. Would it be appropriate of me to say something like, based on and , you're badgering or harassing everyone who has disagreed with you in that discussion? Should I criticize you for making such nominations as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matoran (2nd nomination)? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Trying to accuse any of us here of not wanting to improve articles is downright silly given our mainspace contributions that show volumes of articles we've brought up to the next level. The issue is the manner in which you participate in AfDs, namely throwing essays at every single person that goes into a discussion. It's fine to leave your !vote and then stop. If you see "Delete - garbage", then you can respond, but badgering structured delete !votes ad infinitum with the same arguments over and over again is simply harassment. Put it this way - what do you gain out of it? Is the person who !voted "delete" ever going to change their mind? All you've done with your actions is convince everyone that you can't be constructive in these discussions. Sephiroth BCR 05:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- My hope is that it will encourage editors to make stronger, more valid arguments one way or the other. Again, should I criticize your comments to others in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of After Colony mobile units or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series (yes, I know before I realized "per x" was weak...)? Besides, it's not as we always disagree. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh joy, bring up AfDs from nearly a year ago to throw at me because it's relevant to the discussion. And yes, we agreed in the case of an obvious hoax, which basically is the only time you ever !vote "delete" on AfDs. In 95% of the AfDs we participate in, we disagree. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the badgering that you do per TTN's comments below. Sephiroth BCR 05:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have a problem with the badgering that the nominators do in many such discussions? I don't think I'm somehow the one looking worst at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Master Shake or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kracko (2nd nomination), for example. Or relook at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Julie-Su keeping in mind that Graevemoore turned out to be a sock of banned Eyrian. Or how about Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy), which now is a delete, even though one account (AnteaterZot) was operating sock farms at the time and another (Jack Merridew) turned out to be banned eidtor. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Those are not examples of badgering. Those are actual discussions as I describe below. Those are extremely different from your actions, which are essentially harassing at a certain point. I have no idea what a few sock cases have anything to do with this. TTN (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- If those aren't, then nor any suggested against me. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Those are not examples of badgering. Those are actual discussions as I describe below. Those are extremely different from your actions, which are essentially harassing at a certain point. I have no idea what a few sock cases have anything to do with this. TTN (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have a problem with the badgering that the nominators do in many such discussions? I don't think I'm somehow the one looking worst at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Master Shake or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kracko (2nd nomination), for example. Or relook at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Julie-Su keeping in mind that Graevemoore turned out to be a sock of banned Eyrian. Or how about Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy), which now is a delete, even though one account (AnteaterZot) was operating sock farms at the time and another (Jack Merridew) turned out to be banned eidtor. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Starting small discussions for one or two votes every few AfDs is one thing, but you do it with dozens of votes in dozens of AfDs at a time. That doesn't help anything. You should be able to go through a few AfDs with only one edit. In another, you may see a single comment that sums up much of the opposition. You then comment and hold a discussion about that one single comment. You may do it with another comment in the AfD, but you do not need to repeat that fifty times. If you see a number of "Delete - Pure crap" votes, feel free to comment away at them. TTN (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, I wouldn't comment on certain "votes" if I didn't think them really weak, but I have a different idea on how to approach these discussions differently in the future. I do hope, however, that at the same time, you will also keep a greater open-mind to improvements made to the articles under discussion as well and consider revisiting your stance accordingly or not be afraid to pitch in with the improvement efforts if they look promising. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh joy, bring up AfDs from nearly a year ago to throw at me because it's relevant to the discussion. And yes, we agreed in the case of an obvious hoax, which basically is the only time you ever !vote "delete" on AfDs. In 95% of the AfDs we participate in, we disagree. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the badgering that you do per TTN's comments below. Sephiroth BCR 05:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- My hope is that it will encourage editors to make stronger, more valid arguments one way or the other. Again, should I criticize your comments to others in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of After Colony mobile units or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series (yes, I know before I realized "per x" was weak...)? Besides, it's not as we always disagree. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Trying to accuse any of us here of not wanting to improve articles is downright silly given our mainspace contributions that show volumes of articles we've brought up to the next level. The issue is the manner in which you participate in AfDs, namely throwing essays at every single person that goes into a discussion. It's fine to leave your !vote and then stop. If you see "Delete - garbage", then you can respond, but badgering structured delete !votes ad infinitum with the same arguments over and over again is simply harassment. Put it this way - what do you gain out of it? Is the person who !voted "delete" ever going to change their mind? All you've done with your actions is convince everyone that you can't be constructive in these discussions. Sephiroth BCR 05:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- With that said, I and others who argue to keep in these discussions feel otherwise, which is why we do argue to keep and which is why many an AfD closes as keep or merge or redirect. And in some cases, I am able and willing to find sources that do not just turn up on the regular Google search, which is why I sometimes work on userfied articles for months before trying again with mainspace. I believe the content in many of these cases can be verified, so do the others who argue to keep in many cases. We disagree at times as to what is and is not verifiable, sure, but sometimes we're right, sometims we're not. Would it be appropriate of me to say something like, based on and , you're badgering or harassing everyone who has disagreed with you in that discussion? Should I criticize you for making such nominations as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matoran (2nd nomination)? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- We are getting off topic, which is the use of off-topic arguments in AFD's and increasingly aggressive badgering of those who want to eliminate unverifiable content. We all want to improve content, but AFD is for content that the nominator feels has little to no chance of being verified. We have considered the possibility it is notable, and believe it is not, so we nominate it for deletion. There is nothing to "work on" in that case, or "rescue". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- And many of the responses I have received from others are copy and paste replies. If that is not itself rude, then what the heck? In many AfDs I am also working to improve them as well and have actually rescued many articles in the process. I really wish you would be willing to help in those efforts and then be able to say, "Hey, I did the best I could, but couldn't get any farther," then I could say okay, but to not even make any effort to help and then to just dismiss what other people find notable and want to work on can also be seen as rude or unproductive. Why not take some of these articles in question, use the various sources mentioned, and let's see if we can do something to save them? I bet we'd all feel a great deal of accomplishment and comraderie in the process. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Discussion within AfDs is fine. What you're doing is not discussion. You just spam the same links and the same arguments over and over and over and over and over. You do not back off, you are very rude on a constant basis (changing around a comment to be witty one time is one thing, but you do it all the time), and it pretty much is pure harassment on your part to make this site work like you want it to work. That is the farthest thing away from productive and engaging discussion to find a consensus. Whether or not you can be productive outside of AfDs is irrelevant. This is purely about your conduct within them. TTN (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you do not want to engage in discussion with me, then just ignore me. If you think we should "cast a vote and leave it that" then you miss what a discussion rather than a vote is. We are supposed to engage and challenge each other in discussions so that in the end we actually get to a real consensus, i.e. in which we've exhausted all alternatives to finding a clear reason as to why an article should or should not stay on our project. If you would rather approach it is a vote than a discussion, then okay, you need to reply to or acknowledge any of my comments and no on else has to either if they don't want to. But we obviously have fundamental disagreements about notability policies and guidelines. In fact, a tremendous amount of the community does, which is why the notability guidelines are undergoing spirited and thorough discussion at present. Does that mean we should start immediately assuming bad faith on each other or not look for areas where we could work together? Certainly not. And as always, I am of course willing to help anyone who disagrees with me in whatever way I can to improve articles as well. Notice above how remember a past effort of Judgesureal and I regarding the Cloverfield articles, I thought it courteous to let him know about a sock farm I uncovered that was targetting those articles. Anyway, I set up a page that charts my XfD participation in which my hope is neutral editors would review them and offer suggestions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Work it out how? I'm going to say something to do with you toning down the constant harassment (i.e. cast your vote and leave it at that), and you'll reply with a number of sentences that have little to do with anything. Then that'll go back and forth four or five times until I become annoyed with the fact that you ignore policies and guidelines and instead use your own extremely biased views to completely skew anything you didn't ignore. That pretty much sums up every discussion I've ever had with you. TTN (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Do you really want a rehash of the episodes and characters arbcom conisdering how it worked out last time? I am giving two an honest chance to discuss with me civily on that talk page. You will not look good if you do not give it a chance first. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing as you're likely to never back down from your position, I doubt that would really do very much. Do we have any good diffs to use for the "evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute"? I doubt that any comments from the AfDs would be very helpful. TTN (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have a better proposal, why not have a localized discussion at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, because 1) I would never respect an RfC made against me, 2) I am more apt to respect civil and constructive criticism on a page that I set up just for that, and 3) you would not have to risk yourself coming out bad either. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, RFC's are probably the way to go, I'd rather be (at worst) reprimanded by an RFC than deal with this constant back and forth. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are you willing to have one on yourself as well, as I and others believe a lot of these mass nominations are getting out of hand? Or would you rather we just agree to disagree? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I like Le Grand Roi, but I agree that his AFD manner has become extremely disruptive because of his refusal to make arguments based on wikipedia policies, not essays. Perhaps we should, as this is getting out of hand. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Start a RfC. He's free to hold his views - you can't change that in any shape or form, but his near-constant badgering of oppose !votes in AfDs with inane arguments (i.e. badgering "per nom" !votes or copy and pasting people's responses to him and changing a word or two) is definitely something that's appropriate at WP:RFC/U. Fire away. Sephiroth BCR 05:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would not respect an RfC or even acknowledge one if users are unwilling to discuss with me first on that talk page I set up for AfDs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for butting-in and not reading the huge thread above me, but I'd also like to see an RFC. I've tried extremely hard to assume good faith, but I am really starting to believe that his main purpose on Misplaced Pages is to frustrate, bait, and waste the time of those who support deletion for even the most obvious deletion candidates. Regarding his comment above, I have considered trying to raise the issue of his AFD conduct on his talk page, but assumed that he would simply act in the same manner as he does in deletion debates - reply with roundabout, run-on, vague statements and copypaste reversals of my comments with the intention of annoying me until I got fed up with the "discussion". Please let me know how this proceeds or if you need my help in some way (diffs and whatnot). By the way, just from watching random discussions here and there, I could probably list a few other editors who would likely want to participate in the RFC as well. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Don't throw stones at your neighbors if your own windows are glass, given your "mission" and unwillingness to argue to keep. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of such a comment? Threat? Bait? Intimidation? What are you trying to accomplish by saying that to me? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just pointing out how unconstructive your comment above was and how there is no way I would take an RfC seriously if it came from non-neutral editors or if such editors did not make some attempt to discuss with me first at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have already addressed your point in my initial comment; I stated specifically why I have never brought this to your talk page. This kind of nonsense is precisely what I am talking about. You just blatantly ignore what has already been said. There is no need for you to respond to this comment as I will reserve anything else I might want to say for the more official dispute resolution methods if/when they proceed. However, I know you're already aching to reply and get that last word in, so go for it! Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- For the love of God, someone start the RFC already, so this conversation can be moved off my talk page! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry! I'm done I promise! Drop me a note on my talk page if something comes of your efforts. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I absolutely will not respond to or respect any RfC if efforts are not made to discuss with me first at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- For the love of God, someone start the RFC already, so this conversation can be moved off my talk page! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)Oh, and editting previous comments after I have already replied to dig up diffs from 9 months ago? Classy. Do you have those bookmarked or something? Should I paste your blocklog and claim that you're a sockpuppet??? Again, no need to reply. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- You should focus on improving the project rather than needlessly escalating a discussion that does not need to be escalated. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it will hopefully begin to resolve the issues we have been having by bringing in neutral, outside wikipedians to help. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you are willing to ask a neutral (non-deletionist/non-inlcusionist, never been blocked, not sanctioned by arbcom for content disputes) party to comment on that talk page I link to above, then I would indeed actually seriously be willing to give their thoughts real consideration. I wouldn't even bother to look at an RfC started out of this discussion nor would I even read any comments from it posted on my talk page. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- If we can identify one, great, but it doesn't matter to me if you participate in the slightest, it will be consequential regardless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I absolutely would not respect or even acknowledge any results from an RfC made with failure to first try to discuss with me on that talk page or to find a neutral editor to offer advice first nor would I have any respect for any editors who were unwilling to attempt a proposed alternative first. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- If we can identify one, great, but it doesn't matter to me if you participate in the slightest, it will be consequential regardless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you are willing to ask a neutral (non-deletionist/non-inlcusionist, never been blocked, not sanctioned by arbcom for content disputes) party to comment on that talk page I link to above, then I would indeed actually seriously be willing to give their thoughts real consideration. I wouldn't even bother to look at an RfC started out of this discussion nor would I even read any comments from it posted on my talk page. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it will hopefully begin to resolve the issues we have been having by bringing in neutral, outside wikipedians to help. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- You should focus on improving the project rather than needlessly escalating a discussion that does not need to be escalated. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have already addressed your point in my initial comment; I stated specifically why I have never brought this to your talk page. This kind of nonsense is precisely what I am talking about. You just blatantly ignore what has already been said. There is no need for you to respond to this comment as I will reserve anything else I might want to say for the more official dispute resolution methods if/when they proceed. However, I know you're already aching to reply and get that last word in, so go for it! Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion, those proposing an RFC here are responsible for behaving in ways similar if not more extreme than LGRdC. He is entitled to his opinion and has a right to vigorously advocate his positions within the bounds of Misplaced Pages policies such as civility. As do you – a right that I've seen you exercising enthusiastically as well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- And this, right here, is why there's no chance of any RfC having any effect. The dispute is officially partisan, which means that disinterested "average Wikipedians" will simply skip right over it and assume that one side is as bad as the other. See also: all other wikidram, ever. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Would I like to see him, you know, actually discuss instead of badgering everyone? Absolutely.
Do I think that any RFC is going to be Inclusionists vs. Deletionists '08 (now starring extra trolls)? You betcha.
I don't find personal RFCs to be terribly useful most of the time, and given that Le Roi has disavowed any RFC that isn't on his terms, I don't much see the point. The way you deal with this, really, is by pointing out that his arguments are terrible, deflect the reversals as mostly pathetic ploys, and just debate circles around him. AFD isn't a vote, so he can copy-paste votes linking to essays all he wants. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, there's nothing that drowns out a -ionist AFD argument like getting a reputation for being an -ionist. (Ask TTN.) Once you get a fanclub, you're going to find all of your arguments picked to death by your opponents, and any vote you cast cancelled three to one. Your only hope in this case is to retire, or make arguments that withstand the hellfire they'll inevitably have to endure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not it'll work, someone will need to find some diffs if they want to start one. I turned up nothing when I looked. TTN (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I initiated last year an RFC against User:Alansohn and while he disavowed the process and refused to participate in it, the evidence we collected proved to be important in a recent arbcom case, in which Alan was sanctioned and placed on an extended civility watch. LGRC has a major problem with his engagement with other editors (amply demonstrated above) and an RFC is a good first step to document the spamming and harassment. So I would say that an RFC should proceed. MiB makes a good point about the -ionist, but the point here is not to debate the merits of his wikiphilosophy, but the unconstructive manner in which he engages in what he has decided to define as "debate". Eusebeus (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)