User talk:Krator/Archive/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Metroid Prime Peer review

Hello, since you usually comment on PRs on video games, I started one on Metroid Prime (which you also previously assessed to the VG project) and I'd like to hear some comments. igordebraga ≠ 23:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fatimah

Thanks for offering your opinion on Fatimah. I posted a comment on Talk:Fatimah if you care to respond. Slacker 09:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Request

Since you commented earlier on [[Talk:WP:VOTE]], there's a similar issue coming up again. Should WP:POLL redirect to (1) Wikipedia:Requests for comment, its traditional location since last september; (2) Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, our guideline about polling, or (3) Wikipedia:Straw polls, an essay dissenting with the above guideline? Radiant 13:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification puposes as Radiant! here has a tendency to be heavy on the omission. Wikipedia:Straw polls was previously a guideline and appears to have suffered a bit of a "voting is evil" sabotage at some point. I've initiated talk about restoring this page back to its once guideline status. Also WP:VOTE should logically point to the newly constructed Wikipedia:Voting disambiguation page. Thanks. (→Netscott) 13:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, Netscott is making false accusations and personal attacks here. "Sabotage" is such a wonderfully laden term for "edits that Netscott happens to disagree with". Radiant 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On which talk page is the dispute? I will not comment on this issue in the user namespace. --User:Krator (t c) 16:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Krator, this is a sort of perrenial dispute between folks who want to deny that Wikipedia is heavily reliant upon polling (despite the fact that polling is so common on Wikipedia) and folks that are cognizant of this preponderance and want the project to properly and neutrally reflect that. You might want to join Wikipedia talk:Straw polls at this point as this is where things seem to be concentrating right now. (→Netscott) 16:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really, it's more like a perennial dispute between one user who wants to change long-standing redirects to a new essay he's writing, and the rest of the 'pedia. Anyway, thanks for your feedback. Radiant 09:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Krator, as I said before User:Radiant! is ever one for omission. You'll note that User:Radiant! himself tagged Wikipedia:Straw polls as a guideline over a year ago. For some reason it got derailed since then. The {{essay}} tagging was a stop gap measure until now. (→Netscott) 10:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's so cute that you try to read my mind. The page has has now been superseded, as you are well aware. Radiant10:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid my talk page in your squabbling. Thanks in advance. --User:Krator (t c) 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel like getting involved in this. My opinion is that WP:POLL should redirect to 'Polling is not a substitute for discussion' for the simple reason that most article talk pages use it to refer to that page. RFC might also do, as it has been redirecting there for a while, but no one seems to use that shortcut for RFC.

I also edited Radiant's comments to remove all the font tags and such - I should hire a janitor for my talk page. --User:Krator (t c) 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't blame you it is a rather big thing to consider wading into. Generally I'd agree with your 3O but given then there now exists a page to disambiguate the whole Voting issue it is more logical that it point there particularly as it is normal that things change and Wikipedia adapts accordingly. I actually created WP:VOTE some time ago and save for about 16 minutes it pointed for a very long time to Wikipedia:Voting is not evil and then Wikipedia:Straw polls... I haven't checked how it has been used since... but I have to be honest and say given the ridirect's history it would be a bit surprising to see it pointing to WP:!VOTE (another redirect I created). Thanks for your time. (→Netscott) 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan#Category:Kurdistan's sub categories

Hi, I replied to you. -- Cat ^chi? 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fatimah again

Hi, sorry to bother you with this again. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and don't know how to resolve this sort of issue. User:Klaksonn insists on flagrant POV editing despite me going out of his way to accommodate him (see Talk:Fatimah). Do you have any advice on how to procede? Slacker 22:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. Slacker 03:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Cybran_Monkeylord.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cybran_Monkeylord.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment needed

I starting doing some cleanup work, and I wanted your opinion on two things:

Can I get rid of the cquotes? I don't see the rationale for keeping them, and they make the recpetion section seem a little awkward.
What are your thoughts on me making an article called "Nations in Supreme Commander", or cutting back on the nations section? If I made a seperate article, the part left in SupCom would probably look like this

Oh and you uploaded the pic in the article without a source.--Clyde (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. I know you have some sort of beef against plot and story headings (I think), but what are your thoughts on the current names? Should it be changed, moved around, left the same? I don't know.--Clyde (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay I made the new article and shortened the factions section. The only reason I wanted to get rid of the cquotes was to add a wikitable that had a bunch of scores, thought that might be helpful. On the image side of things, I think an in-game screenshot would be good. Do you own the game? perhaps you could use printscreen to get one. Otherwise I could find one from the wonderful world of cyberspace.--Clyde (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

quote farm

Krator, thank you for your interest in the Mind Dynamics article. I believe I was the one who originally put in the quotefarm tag and I am the one who removed it. The entire series of LGAT articles is incredibly biased and one-sided. Any attempts to add neutrality or information from an opposing view are deleted. The deletions either cite strict violation of a wiki rule or they simply 'happen' amoung a rapid series of other edits. It seems clear to me that, based on an edit history and repeated patterns, the reader is being intentionally lead to a desired conclusion. At this point, I believe that the only way to get any neutrality in the article is to allow it to become a quotefarm and 10000% unbalanced. Only when its bias is so grossly obvious, will the neutrality be introduced by its obvious absence. I respectfully request that you remove the quotefarm tag. Best Regards. Lsi john 13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Krator, thank you for your response. I have no desire to get anyone involved anywhere they do not wish to be involved. You contributed to the article and talk, and I responded with a request and an explanation. While I agree it may not be the wiki way, I have also read the page that describes wiki's intentions. And the intention is to have balanced articles which accurately reflect reality. I believe it is also not the wiki-way to use cited sources in order to flagrantly inject POV while repeatedly removing or re-writing other contributor's edits. However, that is being done with this particular series of articles and I'm unaware of any process on wiki to prevent it. Thank you again for your time and contributions. Best Regards. Lsi john 14:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Krator, I am hurt to hear you say that "it is a badly written article" - though I will work on paraphrasing the quotes in at least half of the places, the very fact that there are (33) citations in the article from highly reputable sources was due to a lot of painstaking work. Hopefully you can at the very least acknowledge that. Thank you for your time. Smee 19:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Amsterdam

It would be nice to make a good article of Amsterdam. To achieve this, among other things, the information in the section Amsterdam#Demographics should be properly sourced. If you feel like it, you can help with that. Maybe this source is useful: http://www.os.amsterdam.nl/ english/. – Ilse @ 14:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What you could also do is expand either one of these new articles:

– Ilse @ 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Famous Amsterdammers

Thanks, I hope it stays. Or actually, I hope the section doesn't stay. :) Garion96 (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

skeptic

Thank you for the 3O on skeptic.com.

I'm not familiar with the website and therefore do not know their editorial standards of peer-review. I've seen several definitions/articles there which seem to be interesting Original works/opinions, with no verifiable research.

Do I understand correctly that any article or definition on skeptic.com is citable here (on wiki) as a reliable resource? And, for clarity, is that listed anywhere as a policy I could cite to someone?

Lsi john 18:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So how do we make a determination? Take this link: http://skepdic.com/lgsap.html It seems to say things, and make claims, with no cited sources or verifiable research, that we could never get away with in a wiki article. Allowing this link, seems like a back door to unverifiable research and opinion. No?

"The main drawback to publishing on the WWW has nothing to do with the dynamism of such texts. The main drawback is the one which comes from self-publishing. There is no peer or professional review process." http://skepdic.com/preface.html

I thought part of WP:RS involved peer review and reliable publication process (presumably meaning verifying citations and findings?):

WP:RS - What is a reliable source? - Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process;.."

He is a PhD. with a dissertation in "The Common-Sense Philosophy of Religion of Bishop Edward Stillingfleet (1635-1699).", so I grant that he is informed about the subject of religion. However his book/website also state that he intends to have humor and that his articles are intentionally biased against the subject matter. And I'm not sure LGAT is a religion or an occult.

My desire is to understand the specifics on the criteria used to make these decisions. There is no point in my objecting to material if is permitted.

You kindly gave your 3O and I appreciate your time.

Any further help you can provide, in understanding the details and logic behind the decisions would be very much appreciated.

Lsi john 22:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for your time. Asking questions is the only way I know of to find some of this information. Some of the rules appear to be subjective and I would prefer to get an outside opinion and guidance. You've been most helpful. -Peace in God. Lsi john 12:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your random note on the third opinion talk

I'm not sure why, as I haven't read any Asimov books yet, but when I saw your comment from my watchlist, it made me smile. =)

Seraphim Whipp 01:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

intention

(relocated discussion to talk page of relevant article. Lsi john 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

ACK

i was working on it... :P now i have a bunch of edits in a conflict :P Lsi john 12:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC) heh, i finally figured out that it was a double reference. I'm new, gime time :P I eventually get there. Lsi john 12:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This was intended as a personal comment, not technically related to the article itself.

It was about my (in)ability to fix syntax. I put it here because I didnt think it was necessary to put on the article discussion page (not out of disrespect for your desire to discuss things in the article's talk page.)

I dont know any other way to make quick personal comments. When I put comments like this on a user-page, as far as I am concerned, they can be deleted after being read.

Lsi john 14:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just putting the further template on top of this so I remember what this was about in half a year when I browse through my archives for some reason. It was good to comment here, as I saw the 'you have new messages template', and quick viewing was needed. --User:Krator (t c) 15:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have put the ironic message here to (to be deleted), as it really was intended for you and not the entire discussion page. I put it there, because we had moved the entire thread there, and you had requested that the discussions be kept on the discussion pages. Communication here (on wiki) is often very tedious and difficult, as we must be very careful with our choice of words. What I might be able to say to you, in person, I cannot necessarily say to you in a wiki discussion, since you might understand my language of expression but others could easily misunderstand. Lsi john 15:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

cited your text

Krator, in Talk:Erhard Seminars Training#Eisner I cited your verbiage slightly out of context in an explanation to someone along a similar vein. I am letting you know, so that you can refute my usage, or confirm it if you wish.

Thanks. Lsi john 13:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)