| Revision as of 15:29, 8 May 2007 editBjrobinson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users774 edits ←Created page with '== Broswer Games == Boy, you wern't kidding about how many non-notable games there were on that list! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. [[User:DarkSaber2k|Da...' | Latest revision as of 23:01, 17 June 2011 edit undoBjrobinson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users774 edits ←Replaced content with 'No longer required.' | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| No longer required. | |||
| == Broswer Games == | |||
| Boy, you wern't kidding about how many non-notable games there were on that list! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. ] 15:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : As this is my user pag i think im allowed to say this... Jesus H Christ you are a total cock. :-) ] 15:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::] applies to talk pages too, but I'll let it drop because I'm not a <i>total</i> cock. ;-) ] 15:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: God you know all the WP:XX pages huh? Shame from what i can see of your contributions you have never actually properly edited a decent Encyclopedic entry on Wp, you just seem to have an addiction to deletion...frankly I'm surprised you haven't tried to afd my talk page yet. But the cock comment was over the top, I retract and apologise. ] 15:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If an article is worth editing, practically anyone will edit it. If in article isn't worth being on wikipedia, surprisingly few people are willing to nominate them. Misplaced Pages does need it's butchers as well as it's surgeons. But also, I edit in my office, and wikipedia is the only site I can get through the filter for some reason, meaning anything beyond minor copyediting is out of my ability. ] 16:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I just read what you said in Ferion, and you're right that a couple of the articles merely need some dedicated attention to satisfy criteria. If you remove the speedy tags from the articles you believe just need some attention I won't object. Your right, I kinda got 'on a roll', but in an overly controversial way. I am willing to work with you on this, as a gesture of good faith. ] 16:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == MMORPGs == | |||
| When 40 articles fall in a single night, there needs to be an accountability. DarkSaber2k has yet to explain himself for doing what I would call a wiki-crime. At the very least, he should be brought before the admins. This should not pass, lest him or some other try it again someday, with some other group of articles, believeing that there be no accountability. Gothador is getting a review, and it will probably be deleted (Rightfully so- it's crap), but I know of 40 or so other REALLY GOOD articles that did not get the chance that Gothador did, because DarkSaber2k abused the system. I want to get some arbitration on this, but I don't know how to go about it. ] 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I totally agree. There is more to this that simply saying they don't comply with WP:Web or WP:blah blah. Its almost like they need to be judged against their peers. I don't know how I got dragged into all this... I used to play inselkampf and wrote the entry, but its more than defending a genre that was once close to my heart, its about defending a 'minority' interest. Something that only a minority may find important. </br> As for Arbitration, this has to be our next step, its the only avenue open to us. Unfortunately WP is sooooooooo hopelessly beurocratic i'm not too sure how to do this either. The problem is most WP admins' absolutely adore deleting pages. Hows about a project page? I have created User:Matt ], we should make a good case before presenting it, when we finally figure out how :-P ] 09:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: (edit conflict) In the ] deletion debate you can see my entire justification for nominating all those articles. They had all been around for sometime. Few of them even made any claim to notability. The fact of the matter is that the browser MMO section of Misplaced Pages is poorly maintained. Most of the articles had no sources, or only provided message boards and such. Looking at the discussion pages showed that requests for sources had usually been made and frequently ignored, or inadequately answered. Some of the articles had previously been nominated for deletion and barely scraped through, and then no work had been done on the article. Those articles were not even tagged for a speedy delete, I followed normal routine and put it up for AfD, where they were subsequently deleted. My point is that all those articles had been around for a length of time and no-one was ever able to come up with adequate proof of notability, despite requests and warnings. Sooner or later a line has to be drawn under just how long an article like that that is allowed to exist in that site. Protecting minority interests is noble, but no matter how minor the interest, it still has satisfy inclusion criteria such as notability and reliable sourcing. You only assume good faith so long before you have to assume that the promised proof doesn't exist. ] 09:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: And FYI, you got dragged into this when you suggested I take a look the 80% of the browser game articles that were less notable than Inselkampf as I recall. Then you decicded to try and push for Admin action when those articles were actually deleted. ] 09:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Ah yes, now i remember. ] 09:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC). My point is i don't even play any of these, its about WP. | |||
| :::::And yet in my case, you are ] ] 10:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Erm, i did assume good faith but a week of watching the way you 'contribute' to Misplaced Pages means I have learnt that that assumption was incorrect after all, its seems to border on a ]. Anyway I'm off to actually '''contribute''' to articles now. After all I have a funny feeling that's the point? There's an article on urban renewal that needs a good going over. Although i will admit this is more fun. ] 10:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So wikipedia is a game to you? That would explain the Jekyll and Hyde attitude change from suggesting that 80% of the broswer game area be looked at with a few to deletion due them being less notable than Inselkampf in it's AfD, then try and screw the person who followed your advice. In fact, if we look above to the Broswer games discussion, we can see where I thanked you for bringing all those non-notable articles to my attention. And how do you respond? With a ] And how do you follow THAT up? With on the ] deletion discussion. ] 10:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::A game? No, thats not what I said, I don't know how you got that impression. I think we should stop this now. ~ ]. | |||
| == ] up for deletion == | |||
| This is one of the best sourced articles in the category. If they bring this article down, they will be able to bring them all down.] 20:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Give it up mate, its too beurocratic to save the category. We both know it needs different 'rules' than others. I'm trying my best, but 'he' (who shall not be named) simply has more time than most people. 'He' manages about 100-200 edits a day most of which are deletion proposals or talk page edits. I had to save ] earlier. I don't know whether you know anything about Gaia online but its has 300,000 hits a day and 2 million users and a '''Billion''' forums posts. Its up there with Facebook as a social networking site. Having this deleted would of made WP a laughing stock, but they can propose delete and if no one defends... usually becuase we don't notice... then it goes. Simple as. This whole net game thing is not my area of expertise. ] 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:01, 17 June 2011
No longer required.