Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:22, 29 April 2009

Archives

August 2006 to December 31, 2007 January to March 2008 April 2008 to November 2008

Your question

I'm not ignoring you; I'm just working through the questions in order. I hope to reply today but I have a stinking cold, which has been getting steadily worse over the weekend, and it's cramping my style somewhat. Apologies, --ROGER DAVIES  09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no problem at all. I understand. Take your time. I'm actually delighted by your message. Thank you very much for answering my first questions. I was a bit worried I hadn't asked my additional questions in time. I hope you get well soon. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Good questions

Hi Pixelface, I wanted you to know that I have read your questions and have every intention of answering them; however, I probably won't get through them all tonight and will continue with them tomorrow. I figure you're not too late at all as long as the candidacy is live. :-) Risker (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I really appreciate you taking the time to read my questions. Feel free to answer as many of the questions whenever you'd like ( as long as voting is still open :) ). Thank you for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions

I must've missed your questions the first time around, because I just now answered them here. I apologize for the delay! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. --Pixelface (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom questions

Hey there.

Just a quick note to tell you that I have answered your followup questions on my candidacy Q&A page. — Coren  03:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. --Pixelface (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fiction sister project

I think we feel similarly about fiction and wikia. Maybe we can get a fiction sister project rolling somehow? I've made comments at Misplaced Pages:Wikimedia sister projects a couple of times, which has led to nothing. Any ideas? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, I apologize if I my reply is too long. I'm not totally against the idea of a fiction sister project, but I think that right now, it would only encourage the removal of more fiction content from Misplaced Pages. Fiction has a rightful place in an encyclopedia. If people keep deleting fiction content from Misplaced Pages, or if a fiction sister project is started, the result is the same — Wikia's revenue goes up.

I really have mixed feelings about Wikia. On the one hand, I think there's a lot of great stuff there. I like reading the site. I don't really mind seeing banner ads, most websites have them. If something is deleted from Misplaced Pages, you can usually find it on Wikia. On the other hand, if something is deleted from Misplaced Pages, you can usually find it on Wikia. If an article appears on Misplaced Pages and Wikia, deleting the article from Misplaced Pages has the direct result of increasing the Wikia article's PageRank on Google, increasing pageviews at Wikia, and increasing Wikia's revenue. Actively removing fiction content from Misplaced Pages is good for Wikia's bottom line. It benefits the people who profit off those banner ads, and does nothing to benefit the readers of Misplaced Pages.

For example, Yahoo! recently said in a year-end review that Naruto Uzumaki (a character TTN is interested in) is the most popular fictional character on the web based on searches performed using their search engine. And they linked to Wikia. Shouldn't it be a link to Misplaced Pages? A Google search for Naruto Uzumaki shows: #1 the WP article for Naruto Uzumaki, #2 the WP article for Naruto, #3 the Wikia article for Naruto Uzumaki. If Misplaced Pages had no article on Naruto Uzumaki, websurfers would be more likely to end up at the Wikia article for Naruto Uzumaki. If Naruto Uzumaki *and* Naruto were deleted from Misplaced Pages (or moved to a free, fiction sister project), Wikia would be the #1 Google hit. Wikia underwent a change in June to have more ads, more prominent ads, and ads based on viewcount. If Naruto Uzumaki was moved to a sister project, it would still be much, much lower in search engine results.

In June 2008, Gil Penchina, the CEO of Wikia, posted an email on the wikia-l mailing list explaining some changes to Wikia. In July 2008, Seth Finkelstein wrote an article that appeared in The Guardian and referred to the email, saying the changes would include "more advertising and for the ads to be more prominent." Finkelstein linked to an email on the wikia-l mailing list by Wikia's Community Development Manager Danny Horn, who wrote "We have to change things in order to make Wikia financially stable." Finkelstein wrote "He went on to explain that ads paying based on view count were needed. And that type of advertiser wants their ad to be displayed where viewers are sure to see it, such as within an article, near the top." In October 2008, Wikia released a statement (according to Alana Semuels, a blogger for the LA Times) saying "as part of a reorganization, Wikia recently let go less than 10% of its salaried employees and is actively hiring in sales and marketing." Semuels also said Wikia "hasn't received funding since December of 2006." In October 2008, Kirkburn, a Staff member at Wikia who said he has worked at Wikia for about a year, announced that Wikia was planning to move WowWiki to a subdomain of wikia.com in order to improve Wikia's US comScore unique visitors statistic which would give Wikia "more pulling power in terms of ads", meaning, "better paying" ads. These actions appear to have been made to increase Wikia's revenue. It's feasible that Wikia employees/shareholders/editors could use Misplaced Pages for stealth marketing by plugging Wikia on Misplaced Pages talk pages. It's also feasible that Wikia employees/shareholders/editors could increase page views at Wikia, increase Wikia's revenue, and increase Wikia's PageRank on Google by arguing to delete articles from Misplaced Pages that appear on Wikia (or could appear on Wikia).

I've suggested Wikia myself as an alternative place for stuff in past AFDs. I argued to keep Template:Wikia in April . But Wikia is quickly turning from an alternative source of information, to a blatant substitute. It shouldn't be a substitute. The situation has transformed from "you can learn more about so-and-so fictional character at Wikia after you've read the article on Misplaced Pages" to "if you want to learn anything about so-and-so fictional character go to Wikia." It's wrong. A Wikia employee could spend all their time deleting fiction content off Misplaced Pages, and they'd be doing search engine optimization for Wikia. A useful idiot could spend all their time deleting fiction content off Misplaced Pages, and they'd be doing search engine optimization...for Wikia.

WP:NOT has mentioned Wikia for over 18 months. WP:FICT mentioned Wikia from August 2007 to March 2008. WP:WAF has always plugged Wookieepedia since it was created in March 2006. The E&C2 /Workshop had tons of Wikia mentions. Talk:List of Scrubs episodes had tons of Wikia mentions. AFDs for fiction content have tons of Wikia mentions. The endorsements need to stop. Right now I would just really like to remove any mention of Wikia from any Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Even talking about the site creates buzz for it. You could say that Misplaced Pages already has a fiction sister project — the bad news is that it's a for-profit website founded by Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley.

I don't think all fiction content belongs at Misplaced Pages. I can understand not allowing articles on Misplaced Pages for every fictional car/enemy/character/location/item/etc...in every videogame/book/film/TV show etc. That's one reason why I wrote this survey. But when I added a note about the survey to {{fiction notice}} so people could edit it before presenting it to the community, Collectonian removed it. I added a note again the next week, and Collectonian removed it. I added a note again, and Collectonian removed it. When Phil Sandifer unprotected WP:FICT and moved his userspace proposal over to WP:FICT and added a note about it to {{fiction notice}}, no reverts. To say it's a little bit frustrating is an understatement.

One idea is creating Misplaced Pages:Wikia and trying to write some policy on how to deal with the site. Although I see that page already exists as a disambiguation page.

We shouldn't have to have a sister project for fiction. Over 28% of the articles on Misplaced Pages fall under Category:Fiction. Fiction has a rightful place in an encyclopedia and therefore a rightful place on Misplaced Pages. --Pixelface (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. I will read it tomorrow morning and respond. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean an ad free wikimedia sister project like wiktionary or commons, not a fiction section at wikia. It might put wikia out of business, so Jimbo might veto it if enough people agreed we should create one. It would allow us to link within articles instead of at external links. It may depend on the freeness of plot summaries. I think they're free, but Masem sometimes says they aren't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought you were talking about, a sister project like wiktionary or commons. I suppose something like that could put Wikia out of business, I hadn't thought of that. But that's not something I'm hoping for. And I kind of like Misplaced Pages being one big tent. I'm a little against creating splinter projects for different subject areas. But maybe a sister project should be seriously considered. Oh, and Masem doesn't know what he's talking about. I know, because last year I was arguing the same thing, about plot summaries being derivative works, etc — and I turned out to be wrong. People can summarize copyrighted works in their own words. --Pixelface (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT

I just checked and it says exactly what I expected it to say. My recent edits have been removing overly detailed plot and original research. You may also be interested to know that I supported the transwiki and deletion of several Xiaolin Showdown articles. I am a bureaucrat at the Xiaolin Showdown Wiki at Wikia. Misplaced Pages was not the place for most of those articles, and possibly the remainder. Jay32183 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that concerns me, that you're a bureacrat at the Xiaolin Showdown Wiki at Wikia and you supported the transwiki and deletion of several Xiaolin Showdown articles from Misplaced Pages. I suppose you're referring to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Journey of a Thousand Miles? Which came first? Were you a bureacrat at the Xiaolin Showdown Wiki before or after that AFD? --Pixelface (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

After, that's why I called for deletion not transwiki. I became a bureaucrat before the character deletions, but that AFD was started by another user, I just added "transwiki" to the list of options there, although I wasn't actually able to get those articles. There is absolutely no issue with sending content to Wikia if the histories are properly imported, or proper attribution is given in some other method. Jay32183 (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI over your WP:WAF/WP:NOT edits

Hello, Pixelface. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --MASEM 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikia

Just so you know, the account on the xiaolinshowdown.wikia.com seems to be based on edits from transwikied articles that I redirected over here and the other one was just created to follow an AfD result of moving the article over there. I don't really care about the entire thing you have against the site, but you don't need to keep citing me as an example of some conspiracy. TTN (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't cited you as an example of some conspiracy, Nemu. --Pixelface (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You've noted twice (possibly more) that I have edits on Wikia. The only possible reason for that is to connect my editing practices to your whole rants about Wikia profiting off of the material. TTN (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have noted twice that you appear to have accounts on Wikia. And Wikia does profit off the material that ends up there. But I've never claimed a conspiracy, like Ned Scott asked about. --Pixelface (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, you need email. I will make this more obvious-can you please email me?..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In general I'm opposed to off-wiki communication because I value transparency. I thought I had enabled email a while ago, but I guess I didn't check a box. I also didn't want to enable my email while the ArbCom elections were still ongoing. Now that they are over, I will consider it. --Pixelface (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your ArbCom questions

I've answered the outstanding questions. Sorry that I did it at the eleventh hour but I've had real life problems (illness) and not been able to tackle things as quickly as I would have liked. My apologies, --ROGER DAVIES  13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. I really appreciate it. It looks like you're going to be selected, so you have my early congratulations :) --Pixelface (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reaching Out

I think we've gotten off on the wrong foot, because we're used to discussing with arch-extreme inclusionsists or deletionists. I don't think anybody wants to keep wasting their time with polemics that just lead us down the same old debates. I wanted to show you that my efforts to find a middle ground are sincere, and that I don't expect you to just cave into my position. I see common goals, and I also see different goals that don't necessarily have to conflict. I'm not sure what else to say to convince you. Just that collaboration can lead to better results than pushing one side or another. It can even be satisfying. Randomran (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I also think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot. I can kind of see where you're coming from. I appreciate your efforts to find some common ground. I'll reply some more at WT:N. --Pixelface (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we're losing the thread again. We're back to "my position is closer to consensus" / "no mine". We should try to do better than pushing one extreme over another. I want to apologize for not focusing more on our common ground, because it's just meant that I've wasted your time and energy. So let me say that I appreciate your effort to reach out. I'd like to highlight one of your "earlier statements", because I think you were trying to get us to a workable compromise and I missed it:

• "I suppose most people would agree that articles should stay on topic. There is such a thing as too much detail, but that's really a matter for editors to discuss on article talk pages."

So that I'm not taking your comment out of context, let me temper your effort to reach out with a concern you have:

• "... do you want editors removing sentences from that article because of a personal opinion that the information is not notable, and then citing NNC to back them up?"

I respect your concerns. We definitely don't want people removing information just because of a personal opinion. But I'm also asking you to respect my concerns, and work with me. Would you be willing to come up with a short statement about "too much detail" and staying "on topic"? In order to address your concerns about abuse, we would add a statement that would prevent it from being a weapon for people with an "WP:IHATEIT" bias. I'm willing to make concessions in order to find something you can agree to. But are you willing to propose some kind of statement, to be put in some kind of guideline? Randomran (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You haven't wasted my time, and I hope I haven't wasted yours. I can see where you are coming from. And I really appreciate your efforts as well. But I don't think it's a good idea to put "Articles should stay on topic and not contain too much detail" into any guideline. It's good advice, but it can be interpreted in so many different ways on so many different articles, that I think the article talk page is the best place for people to discuss those issues. If that's put in a guideline, people will be arguing on article talk pages, saying such-and-such needs to be removed because XYZ guideline says articles should not contain too much detail. Then other people will say they don't think it's too much detail, and someone will say "Well XYZ guideline has consensus and it's a generally accepted standard. I'm following guidelines and you're not."

Although, the style guideline Misplaced Pages:Writing better articles already has similar information. It has a section, WP:TOPIC, about staying on topic. Although I disagree with "Due to the way in which Misplaced Pages has grown, many articles contain such redundant texts. Please be bold in deleting them." That guideline also has a section about article size and subtopics. That guideline also has a section about summary style. That section says "The idea is to distribute information in such a way that Misplaced Pages can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. It is up to the reader to choose how much detail to which they are exposed. Using progressively longer and longer summaries avoids overwhelming the reader with too much text at once." and also "There are two main reasons for using Summary style in Misplaced Pages articles. One is that different readers desire different levels of detail: some readers need just a quick summary and are satisfied by the lead section; more people need a moderate amount of info, and will find the article suitable to their needs; yet others need a lot of detail, and will be interested in reading the sub articles. The other reason is simply that an article that is too long becomes tedious to read, and might repeat itself or represent writing that could be more concise." That guideline also has a section Be concise. I don't know who wrote most of WP:BETTER, but I agree with much of it and disagree with some of it. --Pixelface (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not saying anything I disagree with. In fact, this may come as a surprise, but I share your disagreement with the statement "please be bold in deleting redundant texts". I would only go so far as to say "please be bold in deleting extraneous copies of texts". I also think that WP:BETTER would be a ripe location to say something to the effect of the ArbCom decision, that "an article is a summary of encyclopedic information on a subject, and not a complete exposition of all possible details". But then also adding what you're getting at: "editors should use common sense and consensus-building to find an appropriate level of summary." If you're willing to help me come up with some kind of wording to improve WP:BETTER, I'd be comfortable changing WP:N -- in fact I'd be happy to add your changes to WP:N myself. I hope you'll meet me halfway. Randomran (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC Update

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

General note

Hello! I really do think we need to distiguish between those who we can compromise with as I indicated at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Sgeureka#Oppose versus what seems like a real problem that really does need arbitration as seen at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_TTN. I really do think Sgeureka can be open-minded and I hope that others can too. Best, --A Nobody 06:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your war on WP:NOT#PLOT

Look, I've seen this go by many times and I've not been involved. Others have gotten into this with you many times and yet you persist.

Cut it out. It's disruptive.

Jack Merridew 12:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess you would know Jack, since you're an expert on disruption. But changing a bad policy isn't disruptive. --Pixelface (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Also; refer to me by my username. Jack Merridew 12:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See; WP:DRAMA#Pixelface and WP:NOT#PLOT. I forgot to mention it. Jack Merridew 12:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U

Please note that I have created an WP:RFC/U case on your recent editing behavior in order to try to work out some compromise. The RFC/U can be found Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Pixelface. --MASEM 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well Masem, I would be very interested to find out which two people have tried to resolve a dispute with me and failed. I checked ANI the other day and the thread you started on me was archived. Care to tell me what happened? What do you want from me? Shall I start an RFC on you? --Pixelface (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface, please seriously consider what parts of what you are doing are helpful and what parts are not helpful. presumably you want to actually accomplish something. DGG (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice DGG. I really do value it, even though I think your approach is too milquetoast for me. It truly is sad to see a Naruto fan armed with Twinkle driving a librarian with doctorate and masters degrees away from the topic of fiction and AFD on Misplaced Pages. Instead of watching with dismay, I decided to start discussing PLOT at WT:NOT over eleven months ago in January. But I should have heeded your advice about reverting policy pages when I asked you in November about the fiction survey I wrote in mid-October. I suggested a survey to Masem in June, because a survey is something Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution recommends. I finally wrote it up after arbitrator Stephen Bain noted in October the community's failure to produce a notabily guideline for TV episodes or fictional characters. I suppose my time this past year could have been better spent buying a subscription to LexisNexis for myself, or gifting one to TTN for Christmas. I do want to accomplish something, and I will seriously consider whether my actions are helping or hurting that goal. Thank you for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Anyway, I have defended you to some extent at the RFC/U's talk page and hope to bring reason and balance to the discussions. I do urge you not to give your critics any ground with which they might critize. Some are willing to compromise, Magiloaditis, DGG, Randomran, and I, for example and who knows maybe if we all start the year off fresh we can get somewhere. To do so, those on both sides need to be open minded and concede where we can. We can still have our principals and all, but if others want to edit war or be incivil, don't react in kind. Neutral observers will be able to see that. A volunteer project as fascinating and worthwhile of an idea as it is not worth getting too worked up over when we have wars, price gouging by oil companies, adulterers, and other more serious and disgusting issues to contend with. Again, Happy New Year! Sincerely, --A Nobody 06:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! I've haven't looked at the RFC much yet, but thank you very much for giving your input there. I did look at the desired outcome, and I've thought of some ideas and concessions I'd be willing to make. Thanks again. Have a happy 2009, --Pixelface (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year Pixel; like I said in closing my statement on the RFC, "we sure do need more vocal editors to support coverage of fictional topics on Misplaced Pages," and it would be a shame to lose you in any capacity. :) BOZ (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too. I haven't looked at what you said, but thank you for your input at my RFC. I don't plan on leaving or anything, although I haven't commented in many AFDs lately since I have snapped at several people there recently. I have promised to not edit WP:NOT during January if that policy is unprotected. I am also considering not editing that policy, and maybe not commenting about PLOT on its talkpage, for a few months or more. I am still typing up and working on my statement for my RFC, although I can recall several people in the past telling me "tl;dr", so I may put a long statement in my userspace and a short statement at the RFC. Thank you for your message :). --Pixelface (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; happy to help! Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. More so than anything else, the best thing we can do is to rescue articles by adding the out of universe information to them. If they still want to delete them even after they have development and reception sections, then that is unacceptable. Best, --A Nobody 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been adding out-of-universe information to articles about fictional topics for quite some time, that is what two barnstars I have received are for. But yes, I can and should do more. But there have been times where I've cited development or reception information, like at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/NiGHTS (which I saved from deletion with my improvements, but afterwards TTN removed most of what I added) or at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hazardous Environment Combat Unit (where Masem dismissed it). --Pixelface (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think they would be amenable to compromises, i.e. reaching out to them as Randomran has done to you? Best, --A Nobody 03:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. Although Masem likely moreso than TTN. Masem did create the WP:POSTPONE proposal in May afterall, after I was saying how PLOT is used as a reason for deletion in deletion debates. But I preferred (and still do prefer) removing PLOT from NOT altogether, rather than POSTPONE. I left a talkback template on TTN's talkpage in early December about his redirects of the Pokemon articles, but TTN just removed it. I had insulted TTN in an AFD and I later apologized, although I should have apologized sooner than a month later, but Masem had started an ANI thread on me the day TTN contacted me. And when I did apologize to TTN for my AFD comment, I said some caustic things as well. I suppose I could "reach out" on Masem's talkpage, but I will probably just keep working on my RFC statement instead. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt trying to reach out to Masem. TTN has not edited since December 26th, so I'm not sure if he's around or what. I think it would be helpful if perhaps everyone involved in the disputes laid out where they would be willing to concede and then go from there. Best, --A Nobody 04:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that about TTN. I've already promised not to edit WP:NOT in January, and I'm thinking about how much longer beyond that. I'm also thinking about not editing other policies and guidelines, or their talkpages, but I'm not ready to say anything at my user RFC yet. --Pixelface (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a reasonable chance that we'll have Episodes and charcters 3. I am not sure if that is a good thing or what. Some of these issues still seem unresolved, but I am confident that enough of us can compromise and be moderate. Maybe the arbitration should therefore focus on the handful who will not concede? Best, --A Nobody 01:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. But I'm more worried about the people currently in a rush to tag FICT a guideline. One idea is having everyone write up their own FICT proposal in their userspace and having three totally uninvolved parties compare and contrast them. By the way, I would really appreciate it if you could edit the survey I mentioned earlier in this thread. You can blank the page and start it over if you want, or make one in your own userspace. If you had to write a survey, what questions would it ask? If you don't want to touch it, please tell me what you think about the survey on its talk page. Thanks. And thank you again for all of your input at my user RFC, and taking the time to talk to me personally on my talkpage. --Pixelface (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check it out momentarily as I am trying to write E-frame#Lawsuit at the moment as I just came across this and trying to see how it can be used. Also, I have been defending you rather throughly at the RfC/U and even on another user's talk page. To be clear, I don't excuse or condone edit warring or incivility by anyone and the crux of what I am getting at is what has been alleged against you is behavior I am seeing from some of those doing the alleging. Nevertheless, as a show of good faith, could you please make a pledge to refrain from any future edit-warring or incivility, even what might be perceived as such and when others are incivil to you, to either ignore them or report them to an admin so as to avoid escalating things and to maintain a moral high ground? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Best, --A Nobody 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very very much A Nobody. I'm really thankful for all you've done at my user RFC. It's a little overwhelming, and it's nice to know there are kind and helpful editors like you here on Misplaced Pages. I appreciate your call to close the RFC, but I still want to respond to several things. I'm still working on a statement. There's just so much to respond to on the RFC page and the talk page that I'm not quite sure how to go about it. People have said it's only open for a month, but I'm not familiar with that rule. I have a lot of information to sort through. And I'm still considering several options. --Pixelface (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I opposed that specific trial, so I will have to gracefully decline. Sorry. --Pixelface (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats ok :-)   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Kiellor and Prufrock

Your wiki-parody using "Prufrock" at ] was great, you should frame it. I agree with your interpretation that Kiellor was saying high-brow art is the reason for low-brow public taste, and with your argument that Misplaced Pages has too many intellectual snobs. Unfortunately the material after "Prufrock" really is WP:TLDR. I suggest you: summarise that to 2 fairly short paras; put the "Prufrock" parody in a right-floated div (with border, & poss bg colour) at the top of the section, so the height of the whole lot is not too daunting. --Philcha (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh thanks. I'm glad someone liked it :). I was going to use {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}} tags, but I decided to just post the whole thing. I went a little overboard. Okay, a lot overboard. I think I'll just remove my entire comment and link to the oldid in case anyone wants to read it all. I bolded the part I felt was most important, and I'll leave that paragraph on the page. --Pixelface (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I replied there and restored the full post in {{Collapse top}}/bot; I hadn't see this when I did it. Feel free to change the wrapper. Oh, you left out 'the beast' ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

fyi: User talk:Jimbo Wales#fan wars. I really have read through it three times. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack, I removed that comment from WT:FICT and you re-added it. You also edit-warred on a policy page and called my edits "vandalism" in December. Are you sure you're following the conditions of your unban where you agreed to avoid all disruptive editing? Thanks for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I've been disruptive. On WP:NOT, you were obviously making a non-consensus change and I simply reverted it. In your RfC I acknowledged that I should not have used rvv in the edit summary. As to your long post at WT:FICT, I really don't see how restoring it could be viewed as disruptive. In spite of not agreeing with much of what you said, I was impressed with with it. It has changed how I see you. Cheers (and goodnight), Jack Merridew 16:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's a matter for your three mentors, Jack. I believe one of them left you a note on your talk page about your edits to NOT.

I don't know why you left a note on Jimbo's talk page. Jimbo ignored White Cat's message to do something about your unban, but it will be very interesting if he responds to your message.

My reply may have changed how you see me, but my opinion of you hasn't changed one bit. Cheers, --Pixelface (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth

• User_talk:Randomran#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment.2FPixelface.23Outside_view_by_Randomran

I loved your seething expose and found it very useful here. I find even when i am on the losing side, i get comfort from the fact that these exposes will often come back and bite a person later.

I appreciate your work and I would be happy to help in anyway. Ikip (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Sgeureka#Detailed oppose by Pixelface really was far too long. Your "Prufrock" parody was not the most concise way of making its points, but it was entertaining, and WP needs that occasionally. However an RfA should be strictly business. If you oppose Sgeureka's RfA (I get the vague impression that you oppose), you should state why you think Sgeureka would misuse the tools and provide evidence for your suspicions. Ideally the explanation should be not more than twice the length of this post, and the rest of the "oppose" should be diffs. --Philcha (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree Philcha, it gave me pause, but I had had some excellent interaction with sgeureka after the various debacles at AfD which left me in the 'support' camp. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, your popular Pixelface, with a lot of editors watching your page :)

I would have opposed the nomination. I think he should have kept all of the information, but reorganized, I can refactor it if you wish Pixel. Ikip (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A user RFC can have that effect... I don't wish it to be refactored, but thanks for your offer. You may be interested in looking at this thread I started at the village pump. --Pixelface (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it was way way too long. I should have distilled it down. Contrary to what Masem said at my user RFC, my detailed oppose did have to do with how I thought Sgeureka would operate as an admin — removing episodes articles while he was an involved party of an arbitration case about episodes articles, asserting "consensus" where none exists, a strict deference to what appears on policies and guidelines instead of the views of fellow editors (which is very relevant when closing AFDs), the stuff about "the article creators waste everyone's time", the claim "In the perfect wiki-world, these articles wouldn't have been created in the first place" (a clear sign that the user had never read Wiki is not paper on meta, which is the reason those particular articles were created in the first place), the "high time that these are enforced" stuff, the insisting on merging after no consensus and the subsequent mediation case, the "resistance is futile" stuff, the "there are about a dozen dedicated editors upholding fiction policies and guidelines against a number of hundreds and thousands of editors who have never seen a policy or guideline" stuff, the volunteering to act as a proxy for another editor if they were placed under editing restrictions (and who eventually was for half a year), and when that restricted editor asked the user to do what they were restricted from doing, the user did not refuse; plugging Wikia, the belief that silence equals consensus, the "I have edited according to policies and guidelines...and can thus claim to have consensus" stuff; the "strong local fan consensus, which I see as the real problem here" stuff; the inability to understand Arbcom rulings, the tendency to "only edit abandoned fiction articles where people have lost their fanatic fan attachment", saying his time is limited, the description of his edits by others as "death by a thousand cuts", the "absolute crap" stuff, the "fan" bashing, etc. I guess some editors like that sort of behavior in an admin; I don't. Sorry for the length of this by the way. --Pixelface (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you found my detailed oppose useful; some people thought it was a "ringing endorsement." I don't condone my behavior. In that RFA I posted my initial oppose while drunk, which is the first edit to WP I've ever made while drunk, and I went overboard trying to explain myself on the talk page. I kind of blame myself for that RFA passing, since several people supported "per Pixelface." If I had condensed what I wanted to say and opposed earlier (and sober), the outcome may have been vastly different. See this RFA for example. I often have trouble with brevity.

I think Randomran's analogy is poor, but I haven't posted a response at my user RFC yet because I'm still not sure how to approach everything.

You can help yourself by not doing some of the things I've done, like removing PLOT from NOT 13 times in 9 1/2 months. --Pixelface (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not unless I have a proxy editor like Sgeureka. :) Ikip (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A RfC you participated in is being discussed

• Laws are like Sausages Ikip (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the message. --Pixelface (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

TTN

No idea, no edits since late Dec. --MASEM 14:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Oops, sorry about that. I thought I was just the first to reply :P --Helenalex (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh no problem :) Please change the questions if you'd like. How could the survey be better? --Pixelface (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fiction Survey 2009

Hello White Cat. I created a survey about fictional topics three months ago and I rewrote it recently and mentioned it at the village pump — it's at User:Pixelface/Fiction Survey 2009. I noticed this thread you started at the village pump about your questionnaire and I see it asks about fictional topics. Maybe we could combine the questionnaires somehow? If you'd rather not combine them, I'd be happy to edit yours if you want. I would also appreciate any edits to my survey. If you don't want to edit it, could you tell me what you think of the questions on its talk page? Thanks, --Pixelface (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking of a general questionnaire which includes questions on fiction among other topics. My intended target is the readers of the site. It's a developing idea. Feel free to jump in. -- Cat 14:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Pixelface/Fiction Survey 2009

Please leave me a note when the survey is ready to be answered.

• I don't think the last question about AFD trends is useful. It's a question that takes a lot of time to answer and doesn't really offer much in return. If anything, you'll find the same trends in the answers to the questions or you can have some bot analyse relevant outcomes. - Mgm| 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input. Personally I think noting AFD trends would be useful. I suppose it would take longer to answer, but people don't have to answer the whole survey; they can answer as many questions as they like. I think it would be interesting to compare the survey answers to trends at AFDs, and see if they match. If the trends are the same, all the better. --Pixelface (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

AKA's tool

I've noticed that Aka's tool doesn't go beyond "Conversion script" when it comes to the first edit.

i didn't quite understand that sentence!? 212.200.243.165 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. For example, when you check the editing statistics of Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, Aka's tool says "first edit 2002-02-19 11:35 (Conversion script)". But when you look at the 10 earliest edits to that page, you see that an editor named TOertel actually made the first edit. I hope my English is understandable.

I just need to manually edit the FIRST EDIT column in your HTML and change "Conversion script" to the actual first edit. You can stop reading now if you want; the rest of this is technical stuff I found out.

User:Conversion script says that script "converted Misplaced Pages from usemod format to the phase II format" in February 2002. (You can see that here.) That page says Brion VIBBER extracted "most history from usemod" and added it to the database. Those are the edits in the History tab beyond (before, prior to) "Conversion script." You can read more at Misplaced Pages:Usemod article histories.

This paragraph in the Misplaced Pages article says "Originally, Misplaced Pages ran on UseModWiki written in Perl by Clifford Adams (Phase I), which initially required CamelCase for article hyperlinks; the present double bracket style was incorporated later. Starting in January 2002 (Phase II), Misplaced Pages began running on a PHP wiki engine with a MySQL database; this software was custom-made for Misplaced Pages by Magnus Manske. The Phase II software was repeatedly modified to accommodate the exponentially increasing demand. In July 2002 (Phase III), Misplaced Pages shifted to the third-generation software, MediaWiki, originally written by Lee Daniel Crocker."

So Misplaced Pages ran on UseModWiki, then PhpWiki, and now MediaWiki. --Pixelface (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar may be awarded to especially tireless Wikipedians who contribute an especially large body of work. This barnstar is awarded to Pixelface, for the incredible work he has done on User:Pixelface/Timeline of notability guidelines and other policy and guideline pages. Thank you so much for tireless striving to make wikipedia a welcome place for everyone's views, not just an elite few. Ikip (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Careful, don't let the barnstar's rotating points stick you, they're sharp! Ikip (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Thank you very much Ikip! :) I really appreciate it — although I haven't updated that timeline in about 4 months. I need to update it and I also need to include some things from the notability "graveyard" on your userpage. I feel bad because my edits to articles have really dropped off lately. I've been afraid to edit articles much because people are following me, and some are reverting my edits. --Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you beat me to it...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no rule in only one barnstar per x amount of days, give him another one! He deserves it. Ikip (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)

There is currently a straw poll at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction). Since this proposal may influence some of the articles covered by this project, any input there would be helpful to help build a consensus regarding the proposal. Thank you. Gavin Collins (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. --Pixelface (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

MuZemike 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bignole

Please stop hounding Bignole with non-sequitors on WT:FICT. If you disagree with his comments, fine, reply and disagree. This kind of badgering is flamebait and that talk page has seen plenty enough of that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is Bignole hounding people who oppose? Why is Bignole badgering opposers? Those aren't non-sequitors. And it's not "flamebait." That article falls under FICT. It shows that Bignole is full of it. If that's going to turn into another RFC where every opposer gets piled on, you can count me out. --Pixelface (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't tell me your argument is right therefore what you're doing is right. "You're wrong because you're a hypocrite, and I have proof!" is a disruptive ad hominem attack, even if you are absolutely correct that he is a hypocrite.

As for his replies to opposes, he's addressing the reason for the oppose directly. That's good (bearing in mind that some of his arguments are less than super IMO). It's the sort of thing that makes that more a discussion and less a shite poll.

Try to address the issues and not the persons, eh? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bignole created Traitor (comics). That's an article, not a person. But the person who created that article doesn't even believe what they're shoveling, speaking of "shite." Does Bignole think responding to every opposer is going to make them change their mind? Let people oppose, eh? --Pixelface (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion isn't about Bignole's conduct, though. Bignole's a hypocrite. So what? Dude can espouse a standard that doesn't include an article he wrote if he wants; I know I've dreaded going back and disposing of my old work just because it isn't up to snuff. He may have forgotten, he may know of sources he hasn't yet gotten around to adding to the article, he may be lazy. I don't know. Whatever it is, you're certainly better served trying to tear his arguments apart at their seams, rather than attacking his edit history.

As for responding to every opposer, what he's got should touch off some useful discussion if it gets a response, and it's a shame if it doesn't. Changing votes isn't the only thing that counts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hooookay I just filled myself in on some of the context here. I stand by what I said above, but there's no sword of Damocles hanging here. I just don't want to see that turn into a bunch of hairball bullshit about "You're a hypocrite!" "No I'm not!" etc. You're not really interested in getting that article saved or deleted, you just want to make a point about how the inclusion standards for fiction make less sense than an Escher painting and are about as complicated (correct me if I'm wrong).

If that's where you are, I'm with you against them. All of this bullshit has been turned into Inclusionist/Deletionist Bout #227585432: Now It's Personal, and doesn't practically project into a scheme that makes emotional sense. I just don't want to see the outside position get marginalized as the troll/shitdisturber fringe.

(This was written before seeing the 13:35 comment.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You weren't at the RFC on FICT in June, so you didn't see the scores of threads under every opposer. That didn't touch off any "useful discussion." That didn't change anyone's mind. I know the RFC isn't about Bignole's conduct. But the long threads under opposers have already begun again.

I just don't want the RFC to turn into another discussion where every opposer is piled on — again. People can oppose if they want to. People labeling each other "inclusionist" and "deletionist" is part of the problem. If someone want to identify themselves with one of those vague labels, fine by me. I re-added my comments, but if you want to remove them again, fine. If Bignole wants to say one thing and do another, fine. I brought up Traitor (comics) because I'm trying to understand where Bignole is coming from. I don't understand and I won't even try to understand. I don't care anymore. I won't be replying to anyone at that RFC. --Pixelface (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to chase you away from that RFC. I'm just saying that if your goal is to find out where Bignole is coming from, you're going about it the wrong way. You come off as accusing him of being a hypocrite, which is a big distraction from the issue at hand even if he doesn't get offended. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As for responding to the opposers, I dunno, this just seems like a difference of opinion. I do know that hounding Bignole for hounding opposers is probably going to accomplish the opposite of your stated desire. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to interfere, but what you say, Black, is not always possible. There are some users on this site who edit articles solely for fights. I mentioned this on the video game project talk page. There are two editors who have staked out certain articles and will randomly revert edits to start fights, even for games they have admittedly never played. Using the fine print and loopholes in Misplaced Pages's rules, they manage to get good info delete, wrong info kept, and then use their admin connections or instigation to get the user banned. With them, pointing out errors in their edits will do no good, since it is the users themselves who are the problems. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

...what does this have to do with the price of tea in China, and why are you calling this out on someone else's talk page? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's called an example of the point I was trying to make. You say focus only on the opinions and not the user who makes them, but I'm saying that's not always possible. As in my example, there are some users who edit for less-than-honorable reasons. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, I don't know where to start, and this isn't the place. If you and Pixelface have no objections, we can transplant this over to User talk:Akari Kanzaki. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have an objection to that. Why would we move this discussion onto MY talk page? My statement was in defense of what you said to Pixel, as part of THIS discussion. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't have anything to do with what's going on at WT:FICT or Pixelface. Plus, we need to chat about what are either serious accusations or basic misunderstandings, and it's kind of rude to do that on a third party's talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, since I'm not accusing anyone, nor does this have anything to do with misunderstandings. You are scolding Pixel for saying something against a user, advising them to instead speak about what the user is saying. I am commenting in relation to that that it's not always possible. If I just said it was impossible, it wouldn't be much of a point, so I offered an example. That's it. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"There are two editors who have staked out certain articles and will randomly revert edits to start fights, even for games they have admittedly never played" is a pretty serious accusation, not one to be made off the cuff.

As for what I was asking Pixelface to stop doing, it's apples and oranges. When the issue is someone's conduct, yes, you should discuss someone's conduct. In this case, WP:FICT is either a good or bad idea regardless of if any of the supporters or opposers are hypocrites, bad people, Moldovian separatists, or whatever. It's just not relevant, unless you're prepared to argue that their arguments are themselves problematic conduct. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was using it as an example. Nothing can be done about those two users. I'm not getting banned. I'm doing what I can to get the articles fixed, but if they get wind of that, I'm going to get banned. It can still come down to conduct, though, even if it doesn't seem like it. Even though they can make it seem like they are following all the rules, because Wiki has so many of them, it is easy to find loopholes that allow users who only want to cause harm to do so. When it comes down to that, arguing their point becomes moot, since they'll just keep whipping out another policy or making accusations of their own. Just a point I was trying to make in general. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're awfully new here to have such a defeatist attitude. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

New to editing, maybe. I've still been here before and seen what goes on. Besides, it became quite a talked-about topic among fans. And I'm a fan. I've followed the argument, hoping right would win out, but I never joined in. That whole thing was actually why I avoided creating an account up until now. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, SyberiaWinx. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/67.163.193.239 Erigu (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's true, I'll be very disappointed. For now I'm going to assume good faith and wait for that SPI. I suggest you do too. --Pixelface (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the SPI is mostly meant for other people... Being quite familiar with the case (unfortunately), I'm 100% confident about this one. Erigu (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not true. Not even in the slightest. I'll still probably be banned, though. I mentioned it above-many innocent editors were banned by her, because she's got friends who are admins here. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved party who's trying his best to assume good faith here, "yeah, I'll do time anyway because the pigs are all corrupt" is not really doing much for your case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but Erigu coming here just to sarcastically claim I'm someone else and post a link to something completely unrelated to this discussion is fine? I know the facts. This kid has friends who are admins. Many people of many walks have opposed her-new uers, old users, and so on,-and she has gotten every single one of them banned as an alleged duplicate account. On top of that, she has gone so far as to harass this "SyberiaWinx", though their is no username that matches that on this site. She is just looking for people to target. It's no stretch to assume I'll get banned like all her other targets. I said from the beginning I would get targeted if word ever reached one of those two trolls, and I was right, wasn't I? Funny how no one ever calls them out on going around and flaming/accusing people. But to even target people not on Misplaced Pages, too... Why doesn't someone say something to her? Akari Kanzaki (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Akari, you may want to comment at that SPI. --Pixelface (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI? Remember, despite her claims, I am new here. I've no idea what that stands for... Akari Kanzaki (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. SPI stands for Sockpuppet investigations. Erigu mentioned you here. --Pixelface (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already posted, but I'm not optomistic. It seems the method of attack this time is, "you must be a sockpuppet, because we can tie your name and some of the other sockpuppets names to Japanese pop-culture". It's going to be a long, stressful day... Akari Kanzaki (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

taking off-list to avoid boring others

You know, your last post on the guidelines talk page didn't make sense. You said didn't mean I was the first person to add a Top ten list section to the WALL-E article., but earlier you said WALL-E was the first article about a 2008 film that I added a Top ten list section to. Small contradiction between the two statements. Then when you said That was just the first article for a 2008 film I — personally — added a section too, I was pointing out that you hadn't *added* a section as I had added it weeks previously only to have it rewritten in prose...leading to the conversation being had on the other page. No worries, but you can see where one could get confused. SpikeJones (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to confuse anyone. I meant, when I began adding Top ten list sections to year 2008 film articles about two weeks ago (after waiting for Metacritic to fill in most of the year-end lists), WALL-E was the first 2008 film article I added a section to. At the time, I was unaware you had previously added top ten list information to that article, because I didn't see any. And when I left a note on your talk page, I was still unaware of your edits to WALL-E. Yes, you did it first. No worries, --Pixelface (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any answers for you

I'm sorry to see you so down in the dumps, and in all honesty I don;t really have any answers for you. I understand your frustration. The idea of a poll is perhaps one you may want to look at pushing; but I think if you do feel that is the way forwards, you need to ask yourself which way the community is likely to poll. Do the majority of wikipedians support an encyclopedia with copious amounts of plot summary? To be honest, I think your energy would be better expended in either cleaning up articles so that they are well written, well sourced, concise and comprehensive. It is far harder to delete a page which looks like an encyclopedia article ought to, and which passes the spirit of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Your other option is to look into convincing the community and/or the foundation to seriously consider the setting up of topic centred wiki's, or even one wiki, run on a not for profit basis but funded by advertising. Any surplus cash from the advertising once running costs are covered would be kicked back to either the foundation or perhaps a new charity which promotes values similar to that of the foundation. I'd be more than happy to work with you on that goal. Hiding T 09:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see a non-ad sister project for fiction. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Funding it would be the issue. It might be easier to fly were it ad-funded. What's your proposed model? Hiding T 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

25 percent of articles are fiction

See: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Twenty_five_percent_of_wikipedia_is_fiction_articles.3F where your name is mentioned. We would love your input and explanation of where you got this number. Ikip (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Steady on there...

If you don't know what "notable" means, please look it up isn't nice. I know how you feel about this issue, but please just tone it down a little? Even if you're right about advertising afd just say it all sweet and bat your eyes, ok, please? brenneman 12:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. What's a nicer way of saying please consult a dictionary? --Pixelface (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Try not saying it at all. Try "I disagree with creating a specialized meaning of notability that points to reliable third-party sources, and prefer the layman's meaning found in dictionaries." Everyone is familiar with dictionary definition, and sarcastically suggesting that they don't is not helpful. Randomran (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Do I really need to say "I disagree with you making up your own definiton for words"? It's beyond disagreement. I really don't know if that editor is familiar with the dictionary definition of "notable", judging from the definition they gave in their AFD nomination. WP:N itself defines notable as "worthy of notice." Fine. That definition appears in several dictionaries. So I don't understand where people come to think that the definition of "notable" is "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Probably because WP:N is currently a trainwreck. My suggestion to look the word up was not sarcastic. I linked to several dictionaries. Those don't contain "the layman's meaning." Those contain the meaning. Misplaced Pages guidelines are not legal documents where lawyers can redefine words all they want. --Pixelface (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue with you about your interpretation of notability. But you need to stop attacking peoples' understanding or command of the English language. Engage them on the basis of rational disagreement. Don't insult them. Randomran (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not my interpretation. And I wasn't "attacking" someone's "command" of the English language. My suggestion to look the word up was not intended as an insult. If Someguy1221 took it as an insult, I've seen no indication of that from that editor. --Pixelface (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually did believe it was meant as an insult, but not one worth anyone's getting worked up over. The distinction between how I defined notability in the AFD and how the dictionaries do is the distinction between "notability is presumed if:" and "notability is:" which as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned (in my opinion) is merely a philosophical distinction (so I have ignored it for years) until it is embodied in guideline (which, of course, you disagree with). (And the link to the AFD was provided because I can't stand when people ask vague questions and provide zero context.) Someguy1221 (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't mean it as an insult. There's a difference between "notable means worthy of notice" and "if significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject exist, then X is probably notable." That is the distinction. Pointing to sources and calling them "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is one way of showing that something is probably notable. That is one way, not the only way. --Pixelface (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And I've concluded that this is the actual problem that pervades both deletion and policy discussions, which I believe is exemplified by the massive RFC on notability - the "deletionist camp" (myself included) manifests itself through a desire for maximally objective (and unobtainable) criteria, while another part of the 'pedia believes that subjectively based opinions should have as much weight in building consensus (and/or that there is no such thing as objectivity). These forms of thought can't be reconciled because they reject eachother, although certainly, everything inbetween and outside of these regimes also exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to create an inclusion/exclusion guideline that contains objective criteria. But WP:N is not it, despite what WP:N#OBJ says. The phrase "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is full of subjective phrases. --Pixelface (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking them, if you're unclear, or addressing both. ("If by notable you mean important, then your opinion is noted but isn't really a reason to delete. If by notable you mean meets WP:GNG, then and seem to cover this subject.") - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies

You may be interested in this essay. Ikip (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks very interesting. Although I would say that silence never implies consent. You may be interested in the essay Misplaced Pages:Silence means nothing. --Pixelface (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks!!! I will add it to the see also section. Ikip (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Time to move on

I'm going to adopt the mantra of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution and try to avoid engaging with you. It's no longer productive either for me or for you, it seems to cause stress in both of us, which is quite an unhealthy state and which should be avoided. I can't promise that I will never reply to anything you say, or that I will not edit in areas where you also edit, because we both share common interests. I will, however, attempt to avoid arguing with you, as it is counter-productive. Whilst I appreciate your point of view, I do not agree with your methods or your manner. I repeat the advice I gave you before, I think your energy would be better expended in cleaning up articles so that they are well written, well sourced, concise and comprehensive. I apologise for any offense I may have caused you with my off hand comment at WT:FICT. All the best, Hiding T 09:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I accept your apology. Can you see how it may have hurt me when I stumbled on that comment you made at WT:FICT — after I came to you asking for advice? My replies to you were written out of that hurt.

You pleaded for WP:NOT#PLOT to be removed in November and seemed to agree with me then. You seemed to regret that words you wrote were followed in ways you didn't intend. I contacted you on February 5 about that thread at WT:NOT because you said in November I could leave you a note on your talk page. I won't leave you any more.

I apologize for what I said to you at WT:FICT. It was totally uncalled for. Sometimes talk threads can be good sport, and sometimes someone steps over the line. I stepped way over the line. I've directed a lot of venom at you, and you've taken the brunt of my frustration. I'm truly sorry. I think it would be best if we did disengage from each other — although with regret because I've certainly valued most of our conversations.

I've cleaned up scores of articles, following WP:NOT#PLOT in the process. Lately I've lost the taste for article editing since people are following my every edit. Currently, I'm thinking my time and energy would better be expended off Misplaced Pages entirely. Thank you for your advice and thank you for your message. I really do appreciate it Hiding. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

in case you didn't see

List of all policies and most guidelines, and their editing statistics (as of February 10, 2009)

links have combined page/talk statistics!

anyhow, i've noticed Masem is one of the most active editors on WT:NOT and WT:Notability fiction, and it seems to me that he is doing RfCU as a way to discredit one of his loudest opponents... 212.200.243.17 (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I really appreciate it. I could work on wikifying it if you want.

And I noticed the combined page/talk stats — it's a good way to see who has the most interest in a page. Looks like I've made 24 edits to WP:NOT and 219 edits to the talkpage. I did notice that Masem has the most edits to WT:FICT, with 953. Looks like I have the 2nd most edits to WT:NOT and Masem has the 3rd most edits to WT:NOT. I also noticed that the editor with the most edits to WT:NOT supports WP:NOT#PLOT being in that policy. --Pixelface (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

i don't think manual wikifying is a way to do it as statistics will change often. better to wait until i write the wikifying script. shouldn't be difficult, just need to look into the wiki table syntax. cheers. 212.200.241.153 (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability

Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A Nobody 01:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it a bit later and offer some input. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize that it took me a month to comment, but I've written some thoughts at User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

Pixelface, you've been brought to ANI repeatedly over your attempts to disrupt certain guidelines that don't reflect your views (WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N). You've been here long enough to know that when you disagree with a guideline or policy, especially a guideline or policy that has been widely accepted for years, you must discuss large-scale changes on the talk page. The guidelines are not intended to reflect the views of any individual editor, but of broad consensus, and at this point consensus does not appear to be anywhere close to what you would like the guideline to reflect. Until you can demonstrate that your view has significant support, you can't just start tagging sections as disputed. The WP:N dispute tags have been removed again, as discussion on the talk page does not demonstrate a large-scale dispute. If you add them back you will be blocked for edit-warring. Karanacs (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You are also coming close to breaking WP:3RR, with three reverts already. While you may be blocked for edit warring before breaking the 3RR limit, you're almost certain to be blocked once you pass it. Please stop your reverts and continue the discussion on the talk page. Fram (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The guideline WP:N may be the subject of ongoing debate, but it is not disputed per se. Please do not place disputed tags on this guideline. Arguing this section is disputed without any justification is a classic example of dispute escalation, and is effectively a form of flaming in all but name. Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them - please try to avoid disruptive edits such as this. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There's currently a RFC on Misplaced Pages:Notability as a whole, but that's not why I added those {{disputedtag}} templates. I dispute three sections in that guideline. I'm going to ignore the rest of your comment, as I explained what I dispute on the guideline talkpage. Adding {{disputedtag}} templates to guidelines is not disruptive. But this is the third time I've seen you remove a {{disputedtag}} template, Gavin. --Pixelface (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify from Fram's comments, if I see the disputed tags added back at a later date (once we've passed the time limits for 3RR - tomorrow, next week, next month), without any significant support on the talk page for their inclusion, I will block for edit warring/disruption. Enough is enough. Karanacs (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can tell me where on Template:Disputedtag it says that significant support on the talk page is required before they can be added to a page, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Again, I don't think you're a neutral admin in this Karanacs. --Pixelface (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well I have continued discussion on the talkpage Fram. It just took me a while to write my reply to you, and to find when that heading was first added. --Pixelface (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You're incorrect. I haven't been brought to ANI repeatedly regarding my edits to certain guidelines. Please undo your removal of those {{disputedtag}} templates from Misplaced Pages:Notability. I am not being disruptive.

Why are you saying that disputing the wording of a section in a guideline is "disruption"? I have not made any large scale changes. I reverted large scale changes by Equazcion and Gavin.collins (this is the history range). Then I added {{disputedtag}} templates in three sections where I dispute the wording. Fram removed all three templates, but it appears they only objected to the addition of one of the templates. Fram reverted while I was typing up my comment to put on WT:N. I reverted Fram, referring to the talk thread. Gavin.collins removed the tags again saying "This guideline is not disputed" but I was not disputing the entire guideline at the time, I was disputing three sections. Gavin.collins has previously removed a {{disputedtag}} templates from WP:NOT that I added. That's why I said in the edit summary "Please stop removing disputed tags Gavin.collins."

Why does Gavin.collins keep removing {{disputedtag}} templates? Hobit also added a {{disputedtag}} template to WP:NOT, and then Randomran reverted. It seems to me that Gavin.collins and Randomran are acting like they own WP:NOT and WP:N. I've been discussing Randomran's alteration of the WP:NNC section since November when Randomran changed it.

Those sections in WP:N I dispute have not had wide acceptance for years. I agree, you should discuss large-scale changes on the talk page. But adding a disputedtag is not a large scale change. I agree, guidelines should reflect broad consensus, but I don't think those three sections reflect broad consensus.

I'm a little confused when you say I "can't just start tagging sections as disputed." Template:Disputedtag says (oldid) "Place {{Disputedtag}} at the top of the page or section that you intend to discuss." and "If the tag applies strictly to a specific section of a policy or guideline, append the following parameter: section=yes"

Template:Disputedtag also doesn't mention "large-scale disputes." I won't be adding those tags back today, but those three sections are certainly disputed.

I question your neutrality in this, Karanacs. --Pixelface (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface, to ease your mind, if I do have cause to block you, I promise I will immediately bring the block to ANI to review. Given your history and the ongoing user conduct RFC over very similar edit-warring over guidelines, I sincerely doubt the block would be overturned. The disputedtag template documentation very clearly states that This template is used only during an active discussion of whether an existing guideline or policy (or a section on a page) should be a guideline or policy at all. ... It is not intended for flagging a project page or section as vaguely controversial, nor for indicating a personal dislike of the document You began the discussion only after the tags had been reverted more than once, and the consensus on the talk page so far is that there is no justification for those tags. Furthermore, the FICT RFC already established that there was consensus for keeping WP:N, and the ongoing RFC about WP:N is (overwhelmingly) confirming that consensus. Judging from those results, there are no grounds to add a disputed tag. To show that the tag is disputed in light of the large consensus currently at the RFC, you'll need to be able to show some significant level of support (not majority, but significant) for the tags being appropriate. Otherwise, it is disruption. Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If I make an edit to a notability guideline and you're thinking about blocking me, I think it would be in your best interest if you let someone else do it, for several reasons. I think your impartiality is in question. First, because of a comment you made at my user RFC where you said you "would support a project-space ban" of me. I also opposed your adminship. Clear back in June I said "if Karanacs is made an admin and gets anywhere near a fiction topic or the subject of notability, I predict bad things." We clearly have different views about the concept of notability. I already promised to not edit WP:NOT for 3 months, of my own volition.

My user RFC seems to be filled mostly with editors who have conflicting views with me over certain policies and guidelines — mostly related to the concept of notability and fiction. My user RFC came about because I removed WP:NOT#PLOT again on December 30 and after I was reverting a self-admitted sockpuppet who had been indefinitely blocked up until 3 weeks earlier and was calling my edits "vandalism" — this after agreeing to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned. That sockpuppet then started an ANI thread and my user RFC was created by a user who's reverted my removal of WP:NOT#PLOT the most times, and who had previously started ANI threads about my removals of WP:NOT#PLOT in November and December — but in those threads no admin felt any action was necessary. On June 6, 2008, I added a {{disputedtag}} above WP:NOT#PLOT and Gavin.collins removed it. On June 9, 2008, I added a {{disputedtag}} above WP:NOT#PLOT and Seraphim removed it. On November 4, 2008, Hobit added a {{disputedtag}} above WP:NOT#PLOT and on November 9, Randomran removed it. This is not the first time I've disagreed with Gavin.collins or Randomran. They've both become increasingly uncivil in the past few days. Hiding wondered if Gavin.collins is a troll. And Gavin.collins's second user RFC recently ended. Gavin.collins and that sockpuppet became friends on Commons when that sockpuppet was banned after admitting to be a user banned in May 2007 for harassing another editor. I too have been harassed by that sockpuppet.

As I said in my user RFC, I repeatedly removed a section of policy that does not have consensus to be policy, WP:NOT#PLOT. If a section of policy does not have consensus to be policy, it cannot be policy. But several people at my user RFC have the strange idea that you need consensus to remove on the talkpage before a section of policy can be removed. No. A section of policy must have consensus to be policy. Not merely no consensus on the talkpage to remove it. People have been re-adding a section of policy that does not have consensus to be policy. But if I don't remove the section, but instead add a disputedtag template, the template is removed. Why?

I've also removed text from WP:N that does not have consensus to be in that guideline, text that Randomran added. I added one of the disputedtags to that section. The documentation about the section function of Template:Disputedtag appears lacking. Most of that template seems to refer to overall pages.

I did add the tag before I started the talkpage thread. If that's considered blockworthy then Template:Disputedtag certainly needs to mention that. I did start the talk thread after you reverted me. But when you reverted me I was still typing up the thread offline.

There is justification for those disputedtag templates. Certainly for the {{disputedtag}} under the Notability of article content heading (which Randomran changed in November all by himself). Certainly above the WP:FAILN shortcut (which Randomran created just the other day and added all by himself). And I also dispute the Notability requires objective evidence section, which apparently Kubigula wrote all by himself. I also dispute the nutshell change that Kanodin made based on Gavin.collin's suggestion in this thread, which Randomran supported. Kanodin also worked on the wording in the NNC section that I dispute. I also dispute that Gavin.collins removed a true statement from WP:N.

I don't know which FICT RFC you're referring to, but if you're referring to the one started by Masem in June 2008 or the one started by Protonk in January 2009 (both of whom just so happened to "certify" my user RFC), I don't think either one established that there was consensus for keeping WP:N. The RFC on N started by Randomran in September 2008 didn't confirm that either, the question wasn't even up for debate then. Drilnoth did close this thread about the existence of N as a guideline in the ongoing RFC about N as a snow keep, but I think that was a hasty close, with not enough input from the community.

I've already explained what I dispute in WP:N and why it's disputed. I couldn't tell you what the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation is.

In your opinion, would an {{underdiscussion}} template be "disruption"? --Pixelface (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion you adding any tags to that policy right now would be disruption. Continue the discussions on the talk page to determine if there is a significant minority consensus that there is a problem (you and A Nobody don't constitute a significant minority-just a loud one). This is a well-established guideline, and your personal opinion is not enough justification for adding tags that are repeatedly reverted. The disruption occurs when you continue to change guidelines/policies to support your opinion when consensus is not even close to being in your corner. Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC) PS I have no hard feelings whatsoever that you opposed my RFA (I had actually forgotten that tidbit). I don't hold grudges, and, frankly, the tools aren't that important to me. Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't plan on adding any more tags to that guideline today. I asked if you think the {{underdiscussion}} template is disruption. You say Misplaced Pages:Notability is a "well-established guideline", but I think if you look through the archives of WT:N starting in Archive 1 and also examine the early edits to it, you'll find that it's anything but well-established. The fact that there was an RFC on WP:N in September 2008 and a current one, is an indication it's anything but well-established.

But if WP:N isn't going anywhere, it needs a rewrite. Why is my opinion not enough justification to add tags but your opinion is justification to remove them? I'm convinced you didn't read my entire comment above if you think "consensus is not in my corner." Do you think Randomran changed the NNC heading with consensus in his corner? Do you think Randomran added the FAILN shortcut with consensus in his corner? Do you think Gavin.collins removed a fact from WP:N with consensus in his corner? And if the tools aren't that important to you, you may want to consider giving them up. --Pixelface (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clear for anyone reading the first RFC that it was not disputing WP:N as such, but was asking clarifications about spin-out articles and about subject-specific subguidelines of WP:N. To use this RFC as evidence that the guideline has been long disputed and needs a rewrite is not based on the basis of the RFC, nor on the outcome where it was clear that most people agreed with the general principle of it. The second RfC has currently on the basic question of "should WP:N stay a guideline" a support of 41 against 11 opposes, which is quite clearly a consensus. This does not mean that the guideline is perfect, but to have on the heels of two RfC's which clearly showed support for the guideline, an editor intent on marking it or large sections of it as "disputed", in one case only because he disagrees with a shortcut to the section, is highly disruptive.

Please check WP:POL#Changes to guideline and policy pages, a policy which deals with this:

If you have grounds to claim that a section was recently added or substantially altered in breach of the proper procedures for establishing consensus, then you may use {{disputedtag|section=yes|talk=Discussion Title}} instead.

Like all editing tools, these can be overused, and be disruptive; please be sure that these are marking a real dispute.

Bold editors of policy and guidelines pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. If your changes are removed, please make no further changes until the issue has been appropriately discussed on the talk page.

Discussion is happening, the tags are not needed now. Fram (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, 41 people seems like quite a bit. But Category:Wikipedians against notability has over 150 people in it. How many of them commented in that thread before Drilnoth closed it? And 41 people pales in comparison to the 160,000+ people who have made at least one edit in the last 30 days.

WP:N is currently undergoing an RFC to reevaluate it. It is not disruptive to dispute the wording of a section of a guideline. Randomran created the WP:FAILN shortcut all by himself, and added it to WP:N all by himself. I removed it from WP:N. Randomran re-added it. So the {{tl|disputedtag|section}} template is quite appropriate.

I did notice that section in Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines. It looks like instruction creep. It was apparently added in October. I'll start a thread about it later. --Pixelface (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Whack!

• Pixelface, I think where you are making a mistake is by assuming that WP:N is disputed because it does not work, when in fact it does work as a set of inclusion criteria, although no one disputes the fact it works imperfectly. The second problem for opponents of WP:N such as yourself, is that while WP:N is not perfect by any means, the alternatives such as providing exemptions for spinouts do not work any better, and give rise to more problems than such solutions set out to solve. If you can develop a set of inclusion criteria that work better than WP:GNG, then Misplaced Pages will be forever grateful. However, putting the disputed tag on this guideline just because it is imperfect is not appropriate, and is a waste of your time. Like government, taxes and death, they all suck, but protesting against them is like spitting in the wind. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Gavin, there is a difference between {{disputedtag}} and {{disputedtag|section}}. The first is used to dispute a whole guideline. The second is to dispute part of a guideline. I used the second. --Pixelface (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you dispute a shortcut, tag the shortcut, don't tag the section it points to. Fram (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

:) --Pixelface (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Misplaced Pages:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Misplaced Pages:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy Saint Patrick's Day to you to. --Pixelface (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Alert

I'm just letting you know that I filed a WP:WQA alert, see this page, regarding your behavior on several talk pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm only going to mention this once, as a courtesy. Please watch the tone you take with me and your fellow editors. If you disagree over something, that's fine. Your rudeit i attitude ("you're wrong, yet again") is uncouth, unprofessional, and will not be tolerated any longer. My patience with it has dried up. Just to clarify, because you feel that NOTE is not a requirement does not mean that those who do are "wrong". It is your opinion, nothing more. Your opinion is no more "right" than anyone else's opinion. Please try and respect other people's opinions on Misplaced Pages, it will only serve you better in the future. Thanks, and cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen, you cannot keep making false claims. How can I say that any more civilly? If you say something incorrect, and someone point out that you're incorrect, and you think that's rude, then simply stop spreading misinformation and people will stop telling you that you're wrong. If you say something that's incorrect, I will point it out. It's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of you being clearly wrong and misrepresenting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. You are wrong. That's the point. Would you like it if I kept making false statements as if what I was saying was correct? You are blatantly wrong when you say that Misplaced Pages requires every article to provide significant coverage. That is a fact, I'm sorry to say. I can respect your opinions just fine — but I cannot respect your false statements. If it's your opinion that Misplaced Pages requires significant coverage in every article, you may want to point out that that's your opinion when you say as much, and stop making people think that what you're saying is a fact. Go ahead and say "In my opinion, every article must provide significant coverage" all you want. But please do not misrepresent Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelies and say that Misplaced Pages requires it. Thank you for your message, and you're courtesy. --Pixelface (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTE: "Within Misplaced Pages, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice." - "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below." - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." - The page clearly says this. Now, it is your interpretation that this does not apply to all articles, but this page does not say "this does not apply to every article". If it said that, then I wouldn't assume that "every" article requires significant coverage. You can do what you want with it, but the page's wording is on my side. The "opinion" part comes from your personal assessment on whether "notability" is something every article must satisfy. If you believe that every episode is notable, then per WP:NOTE it must meet the GNG requirements, as the "episode" is a "topic". Per the GNG, "significant coverage" is required. That is what is says, plain and simple. I'm not making it up, I'm not misinterpreting it, I'm merely citing it verbatim.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and WP:NOTE said topics should be notable up until Equazcion unilaterally changed it last month without consensus to do so, which is discussed on the talkpage. "Should" does not mean must. And a guideline cannot enforce musts anyway. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the topic is probably notable. If a topic has not received significant coverage, that does not therefore mean that the topic is not notable. WP:NOTE has never said "Only if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" — and if it ever does, that phrase is false anyway.

Every article does not require significant coverage. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Do the Himalayas require significant coverage in order to be notable? No. People were noticing the Himalayas before the written word was even invented, and they'll be noticing the Himalays long after you and I are dead. And no, the page's wording is not "on your side." WP:NOTE itself says "Notability requires objective evidence" — not "Notability requires significant coverage." You are wrong. And that section that Kubigula wrote is also disputed. You clearly do not understand the WP:GNG. It currently says, and I quote, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Notice it does not say "Only if a topic.." Learn the difference please. The GNG also says "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." And the GNG is merely Uncle G's opinion anyway.

Notability is a subjective opinion. Like you said above, opinions cannot be wrong. So if it's someone's opinion that every episode of a notable show is notable, they cannot be wrong. And the GNG is not a requirement. "Per the GNG", coverage is not required. That is not what it says, so please stop saying it does. You are making it up, you are misinterpreting it, you're not citing it verbatim, so please stop it. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, if Misplaced Pages really did require every article to provide significant coverage, you never could have created the article Traitor (comics). But you did, and it doesn't. --Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Go back to the page before he changed it, and you'll see that all of my quoted text appears before he changed the wording, so your argument about him unilaterally changing the page is irrelevant because it doesn't affect anything I quoted. The page already stated that topics should meet the GNG, and the GNG says "significant coverage". Even if you stick with the "probably notable", lack of "significant coverage" only means that there is not notability asserted. Without information reliably sourced then you cannot argue something is notable. It's all he said/she said, with no actual facts to back it up. Exactly where, please point it out, does it say "significant coverage is not a requirement". If you can point that out on any policy or guideline, I'll be happy to retract my statement. If you cannot do that, then you cannot say I'm legitimately "wrong". I get the distinct impression that you don't like losing arguments, because you try and twist everything your way. Have what you will. I know I'm right in my assessment. You seem to be the only person actually claiming them I'm wrong (to clarify, you are the only person claiming that the GNG doesn't require significant coverage for all topics, everyone else who disagrees is doing so because they don't agree with the requirements themselves and not because they are in denial about what the page actually says). Anyway, this is like arguing with a brick wall...it's going no where. Believe what you want, but I'm letting you know that if you continue to respond in the tone that you have been with me, or anyone else, on any of the non-user talk pages (e.g., guideline pages, article pages, etc.) the I will go to the Administrative noticeboard. If you disagree with me, that's cool, but try and be more professional and respectful with your tone and choice of words. Good day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, all of your quoted text does not appear in the version of WP:N before Equazcion changed the wording on February 13. You're free to look for yourself. And Equazcion also tried to sneak "significant coverage" into WP:V, which this thread at WT:V is about. Thankfully, I see that someone reverted Equazcion's attempt to change that policy. I notice now that Equazcion apparently retired on March 7. Please read that message and then compare that with what I'm saying if you have any problem with my "tone."

If you'll notice, WP:N says "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content." WP:N does not say "only if it meets the GNG."

Notability cannot be "asserted." It cannot be "established." Whether something is "worthy of notice" is a subjective opinion. Significant coverage is evidence of notability. But that is not the only evidence of notability. Gordon Brown is notable. Why? He's notable because he's the Prime Minister of the UK. Now, there is significant coverage of Gordon Brown. But Gordon Brown is not notable for coverage. He's notable because he's the Prime Minister.

I don't have to point out where it says "significant coverage is not a requirement." You're the one saying it is a requirement and you have nothing to back it up except your word. You are wrong. I'm not twisting everything my way. You are wrong in your assessment. If you like, go ahead and start a thread at WP:AN or WP:ANI and ask if significant coverage is required in order for a topic to be notable. I asked a similar question of every Arbcom candidate in the 2008 elections. There is no requirement present in the GNG. If there were, it would say "Every article requires significant coverage", and it doesn't.

It's not that I disagree with you, it's that you're saying is blatantly false. Your inability to comprehend the GNG is unfortunate, but not as unfortunate as your unwillingness to cease spreading your false claims. --Pixelface (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/Arbitration Enforcement notification

An Arbitration Enforcement case regard you has been opened. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I see the thread was archived. --Pixelface (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Someguy1221

Do you actually have any evidence for this serious accusation? If so, you should open a sockpuppet investigation without delay. If not, you should strike that comment without delay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never opened an SPI before, so I'm unfamiliar with the process. I'll open one, but there will be some delay as I figure it out. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I can help you if you have the evidence Pixel. Ikip (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm busy putting it together, but thank you for the offer. --Pixelface (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've pinged a notable CU. Jeers, Jack Merridew 09:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Whack!

Pixelface, or more like "egg on face" considering your gaff ... have you considered an apology to either of the two editors involved? Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I turned out to be wrong. I've apologized to the people who deserve one. --Pixelface (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A thread at AN/I has been started about you regarding the allegations you've made about sockpuppeteering. Reyk _YO! 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary, given that he acknowledged being wrong and apologized above. It is time to return to building and improving articles not create needless drama. Sincerely, --A Nobody 14:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Ikip (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Something different to work on

Pixelface, why don't we all set the right example by moving away from all these ANI and what have yous and focus on bringing some articles to good and featured status? Check out the April 3, 2009 issue of Entertainment Weekly. Much of this issue focus on profiling "Your Ultimate Guide! Heroes & Villains WHy we Love Them Both" with top twenty lists of "Scariest Villains" and "Coolest Heroes", a top ten list by Stephen King of "literature's greatest evildoers," and a "Rogues Gallery" of four major actors and the characters they played. Anyway, there are lots of out of universe commentary on production, reception, and oddly enough "notability" as presented in a verifiable reliable source. We have everything from commentary from the actors, commentary by one of the greatest modern writers, information on what characters these characters inspired, etc. This issue is by far one of the finest secondary sources I have seen in a mainstream publication for our purposes of improving fictional character articles and it gives us a sense of which ones are priorities to boot. The magazine doesn't just list them, but has a whole paragraphs (and in some cases in multiple separate articles) on each of those I am listing below. All of the following are covered in this extensive manner and from this issue alone has enough information for at least good status (the following is sort of like a list based on the various articles combined of literature and cinema's most notable heroes and villains; if we bafflingly don't have an article on any of these, they are prime candidates for new articles for which we can get DYK credits, i.e. Did you know such as such was listed as one of the top villains of all time due to x, y, and z.?):

• Alex DeLarge (covered in "The Top 20 Villains" and "Rogue's Gallery")
• Alex Forrest
• Annie Wilkes (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers" and "The Top 20 Villains")
• Anton Chigurh
• Atticus Finch
• Batman (already a Featured article!)
• Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four)
• Buffy Summers
• Captain James T. Kirk
• Catherine Tramell (covered in "The Top 20 Villains" and "Rogue's Gallery")
• Count Dracula (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers" and "The Top 20 Villains")
• Darth Vader
• Dr. Hannibal Lecter (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers," "The Top 20 Villains," and "Rogue's Gallery")
• Ellen Ripley
• Foxy Brown
• Frank Booth (Blue Velvet)
• Gordon Gekko
• Hans Gruber
• Han Solo
• Harry Callahan (character)
• Harry Potter (character) (already a Good article!)
• Indiana Jones
• Jack Bauer
• Jack Torrance
• James Bond (already a Good article!)
• John McClane
• J.R. Ewing
• Max Cady
• Max Rockatansky
• Michael Myers (Halloween) (already a Good article!)
• Mr. Burns
• Nancy Drew (currently a good article nominee; I already did what I could with the information on her)
• Norman Bates (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers" and "The Top 20 Villains")
• Nurse Ratched (covered in "The Top 20 Villains" and "Rogue's Gallery")
• Pazuzu (The Exorcist)
• Popeye
• Queen (Snow White)
• Reverend Harry Powell
• Rhoda Penmark
• Robin Hood (already a Good article!)
• Sauron
• Spider-Man (already a Good article!)
• Superman (already a Featured article!)
• Sydney Bristow
• The Joker
• The Wicked Witch of the West
• Voldemort (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers" and "The Top 20 Villains", but anyway, already a Good article!)
• Will Kane

The following are also mentioned in sort of "honorable mention" kind of capacities:

• Agent Smith
• Alexis Colby
• Anakin Skywalker
• A Time to Kill's Jake Tyler Brigance
• Benjamin Linus (already a Good article!)
• Cora Papadakis
• Cruella de Vil
• Cujo
• Dexter Morgan
• Dorothy Gale
• Drake Merwin
• Flynn Carson
• Freddy Krueger
• Frederick Clegg
• Jack T. Colton
• Jason Bourne
• Jason Voorhees (already a Featured article!)
• Jaws
• Jigsaw Killer
• Kate Austen
• Lara Croft
• Luke Skywalker
• Magneto (comics)
• Maleficent
• Miss Havisham
• Neo (The Matrix)
• Obi-Wan
• Sherlock Holmes
• Tom Ripley
• Tony Stark
• Ursula (The Little Mermaid)
• Velma Dinkley
• Veronica Mars (character)
• Wolverine (comics)

Anyway, all of the above on both lists, but especially the first list are fertile fields for DYKs, Good, and even Featured articles (I reckon some might already indeed be up to those standards and if any aren't, let's ignore all the back and forth hubbub and focus on bringing all of the above to such status!). Best, --A Nobody 18:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

a really good idea. There is nothing that more soundely defeats a fiction deletionist thatn developing n article that he didn't think developable, and finding sources he didn't think were there. At that point, the rational among them admit that in this case at least, they were wrong; the less rational, whom nothing will convice,make it clear to everyone that the dont actually care about sourcing or content, just about deletion of as much fiction as possible. What library facilties do you have available?Let me know and I will make suggestions. .

And if you want to work on some different sorts of fictional people, consider the protagonists of Little Women---all of whom need articles. There's enough material here--its a prime example of something that just hasnt been worked on seriously yet.DGG (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The library at my university is currently being totally renovated, so I am relying primarily on Google Books and Google News. Best, --A Nobody 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I may check out the issue A Nobody, but I'm actually going to avoid editing many fictional character articles lately because that only puts a target on them. You mentioning them on my talkpage also puts a target on them. A better question would be if those editors insisting that the WP:GNG is a "requirement" consider that issue of Entertainment Weekly evidence of notability. I certainly do, but I don't need convincing. And I instantly recognize many of those characters. Jumping through other people's hoops in order to show that those articles meet the GNG would only seem to strengthen people's claims that the GNG is a requirement that all topics must pass, when that is simply untrue. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The above are notable to the point that if someone tried to delete he/she would look pointy and as such they would be overwhelmingly kept as the above are all award winning, reliable sourceable ones, some of which are even covered in mainstream encyclopedias. Please do help as I really would like to get some of these to DYK and Good status and I am too busy to do them all by myself. Your friend, --A Nobody 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've edited four of the articles so far. Hopefully there are some Misplaced Pages readers that appreciate it. It looks like the top twenty villain list will come online on Monday. Thanks for bringing the source to my attention and thank you very much for providing reference information. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the help. By the way, see also here. Apparently the list is drawing some intention in its own right. Best, --A Nobody 17:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Extending a hand

I just saw your (very long :D) response to Durova where you brought up the recent Wikietiquette report. I just wanted to thank you for acknowledging that at least some of things you were saying were not civil. I know that we will probably never agree on what constitutes being "worthy of notice" for a separate article, but maybe we can both be a bit more gentler in the tongue (or the fingers, since we're typing) with our response to each other in the future. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You actually caught me right in the middle of typing up a reply to you at ANI. I'll reply there first. --Pixelface (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I stepped away from the computer for a bit, and I thought more about what I was going to say to you at ANI. One thing I was going to say was that I can recognize when I'm being uncivil. I said multiple uncivil things to you at WT:EPISODE and Talk:List of South Park episodes. I am sorry. And I was not exactly civil on this talkpage above. I apologize. You have done a lot of good work on season articles (and scores of other articles as well). I just happen to support episode articles. We probably will never agree about episodes of South Park, but I can agree to be gentler in my responses to you from now on. Thank you for your message. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And I apologize for any uncivil remarks that I may have made towards you in the past as well. Some things on Misplaced Pages just seem to bring out the worst in people at times, in this particular case it is WP:NOTE..lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So what can we do? Between inclusionists and deletionists, is this dispute going to expand until it ends in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2? The ball's in your court. Durova 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Durova, you must mean E&C 3. And why should you think that it will settle the issue? anyway it is not between inclusionists and deletionists. One can be a inclusionist pr deletionist with respect to fiction and not other things. Its time to get the argument make into twin streams: content, and separate articles. I dont think people will ever agree on the amount of detail to be devoted to fiction, but perhaps there is room for a compromise about what will consitutes a separate article, here or in other topics. Or perhaps we will only sovled this when we get away form the concept of "an article" . DGG (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration:Characters and Episodes 3 failed. I guess it would still be 3? Ikip (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

E&C1 and E&C2 were both about TTN. But TTN stopped editing in late December. E&C1 didn't accomplish anything. And during E&C1 I said if Arbcom's ruling mentioned List of South Park episodes that those episode articles would be targeted next. Eventually they were, as seen now. E&C2 made things worse for the most part with the time it took for Arbcom to render a decision. And Collectonian's request in December to extend TTN's editing restrictions shouldn't have been rebranded and re-filed as E&C3 by Coren anyway. Once again, that was about TTN. And WP:EPISODE is still not a notability guideline. And WP:N still does not not establish any "thresholds", below which a topic is not notable. --Pixelface (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:N still does not not establish any "thresholds", below which a topic is not notable.

That is intriging what do you mean, maybe you should write an user page essay like DGG does. (or is it that other editor?) Ikip (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Significant coverage is an indicator of notability, but the absence of that means nothing, since other indicators of notability exist. I'll think about writing a userpage essay. --Pixelface (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody 07:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you A Nobody. Happy Easter to you too :) --Pixelface (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Creatures in the Half-Life series

I have nominated Creatures in the Half-Life series, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Creatures in the Half-Life series. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability in Misplaced Pages

Didn't you do a ton of research that would help to make the new Notability in Misplaced Pages article look really good? :) BOZ (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I did this research: Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Journalists Ikip (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, hopefully you've gone and added all of that to the article. :) BOZ (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I created a timeline of notability guidelines that I haven't updated in a long time, but I'm really not sure how much of that could be cited in the article. However, the coverage that Ikip thankfully found can be. --Pixelface (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil

If you disagree with my point of view, by all means says so and say why. However, I would be grateful if you could refrain from being uncivil. I like a joke from time to time, even at my own expense, but I don't see this reference about me being Useful idiot as being civil at all. If you have any personal concerns about me as an editor, take them to WP:ANI. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

By directing Misplaced Pages volunteers to Wookieepedia, you are being a useful idiot. And if you continue to suggest they contribute there instead of here, I will continue to say so. --Pixelface (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Pixel, you only hurt yourself by saying things like this, apologize, remove, and move on. Ikip (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)