User:Deckiller/archive64

Thanks for Section restores
Hey Deckiller

Just wanted to say thanks for restore of sections (Voyager:In The Flesh) to be specific. I'm amazed that you went to so much trouble to track down the particular article. Guess now I have to hold up my end and try to improve it ;). I've read so much of the fighting and nonsense here at Wikipedia, it's really nice when I see that "Guardian Angel" work that admins (and other editors too) do here. I'm just a (relatively) new editor getting his feet wet, and wanted to express my appreciation for all the "behind the scenes" work.  Thanks again. Ched (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability Proposal
Hello, just wanted to let you know I re-emphasized the second proposal in the lead sentence. Not wanting to edit war over it, its just that the Notability template erroneously leads people to the proposal even though its not supposed to link to proposed guidelines, only accepted ones. Because of this many users are glancing over the basic lead and missing this. I know it seems and really is redundant but it is for the common good of the general user. As soon as it is accepted (if it is) it can be removed. Hooper (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Glad to see you're back. Yeah, we really need to jumpstart the Final Fantasy Project again. Sadly, I've been focusing on just about anything BUT articles within that scope, mostly articles under WikiProject Square Enix. The only thing I've managed to accomplish in the past few months is bringing Secret of Evermore to Good status. We really do need to get those FF articles back up to speed; Ryu Sinclair is probably rolling in his wiki-grave. Let me know what I can do to help. ~ Hibana 17:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Characters of Final Fantasy VII
Hi Deckkiller, over on the Characters of Final Fantasy VII page a user moved the article to Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series with no discussion or consensus. I moved the article back to the original title and asked him to seek consensus by speaking with other users, but he did not. He simply moved the article back to the Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series page and has now proceeded to delete large chunks of the article- now I'm not opposed to a new title for the article or trimming down the information in it- but he has failed to discuss the issues with people on the talk pages. Can you help resolve this? Gavin (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, he informs me that the move is fine because it is uncontroversial- and he could be right, I note the Discography of the Final Fantasy VII series is working under that title... Gavin (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Writing guide for VG articles
Hey Deckiller- I noticed that you are kinda back. Good to have you back by the way. Anyway, I was hoping I could get your input on a draft of a writing guide the VG project collaborated on a while ago. It was created to help less experienced editors learn how to write Good and Featured quality video game articles. Please read it when you have time as it's something I'd like to see up and running sometime soon (or eventually). (Guyinblack25 talk 17:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

Hey
My internet connection has been funky for a month but today is finally resolved, so perhaps we could collaborate on something to get the Final Fantasy project back up and running! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VIII featured topic under retention
See here, thanks - rst20xx (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Flesh (Star Trek: Voyager)
Hi Deckiller. Hope life is treating you well. Anyway, I revisited the In the Flesh (Star Trek: Voyager) article, and did some copyedit. Hopefully for the better. Anyway, I remembered (ok - I re-read it on the talk page) that you helped me when I first started editing the article. I had questioned why a section had been blanked on the talk page, and you restored the info with description of proper procedure. I wanted to get back to you because I revisited the article now that I've had a little more editing experience, and because I removed one of the tags (in the reception section). My edit summary and talk page entries explain my reasoning. I didn't feel comfortable with removing the primary tags at top of page, and didn't know if you were interested in looking back over it. I'm not sure if you have an interest in sci-fi or if your attention was solely that of an administrator. Just sort of a "full disclosure" thing to let you know I was there. — Ched (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Final Fantasy FAR notification
nominated Final Fantasy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

6 July 2006 article deletion
Hello, Deckiller.

I had written an article on the book Evil and the God of Love by John Hick. One day some time ago, I could not find it nor any record of what happened to it but found an added section in the Hick article about the book, which needed a lot of work. Recently, I found that the that section had been greatly shortened, for the worse IMO. I was going to resurrect the earlier book article, but found this note in the Edit mode for the replacment article:

11:14, 6 July 2006 Deckiller (talk | contribs) deleted "Evil and the God of Love" ‎ (copyvio/essay)

I was shocked at the reason given above for deletion. I am familiar with what constitutes plagiarism and was (and am) careful to avoid that. I assume that someone requested article deletion, alleging plagiarism. It is possible that plagiarism occurred after I stopped editing, but I don't know that any Edits occurred much less whether they were plagiarism. I would like to revive the article with as close a version of my latest edit. If that is not available, I'd use the latest version I worked on from the John Hick article section, at here at section for 22:37, 7 October 2006. I'd appreciate your feedback. I'll look for your response here. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, Deckille. Mine is at User talk:Thomasmeeks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A subtle Edit. Points well taken as well. I shall acknowledge your assistance. It's a work worth saving. Thank you again.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about cracking it before :-)

 * I'm just off a six month ban, and it's been slightly frustrating not having to be able to make changes to articles (especially 24). Didn't mean to snap before :-) Steve Crossin Talk/24 02:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had no idea you were an admin till I saw your userpage. Facepalm.svg Steve Crossin Talk/24 02:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Long time no see
Pretty good. I do a few edits here and there. :) The Wookieepedian (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm doing just fine. :) It's good to see you back! Everything OK on your end? MahangaTalk 20:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for the offer of help. I think I've hit a decent level of work on WP:3PARTY, so feel free to make some changes. Absolute worst case, if I think the essay starts to move away from its original spirit, then I'll just edit it further. As for the user/talk page, I prefer mine messy and unmaintained. Call it an experiment. :) By the way, I appreciate the exchange we're having at WP:NOT. It's nice to have a discussion about this that doesn't erupt into accusations of bad faith, and moralistic posturing. Randomran (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I sympathize. The debate at WP:FICT tested my patience. I'm disappointed it didn't yield a guideline, but I did see progress, and I still have a lot of patience left. It's hard to have a discussion about how to meet everyone's interests when people are accusing you of trying to accomplish some kind of hidden goal, or people are secretly doing that themselves. It's a relief when one person can say "well, I don't want people removing entire sections worth of plot", and the other can say "well I don't want entire articles written as a scene-by-scene analysis", and they can find a way to accomplish both. Of course, there are more than two people involved in every discussion, and I've noticed that it only takes one person to stall things, let alone sew the seeds of hostility and bad faith. Anyway, thanks again for making Wikipedia a little more pleasant. Randomran (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What's sad is I can't even tell if you're being sarcastic :) I haven't been around for long. Randomran (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I still poked my head in around then. It *was* an innocent time. But then, articles on political topics were filled with a *lot* of non-neutral stuff, or at best original research... articles read like an active debate. The solution to everything, since then, has been verifiability. That kind of ruined things for a lot of people though. I've seen a lot of former GAs that were written in a time when people didn't care too much about sourcing, but only about good prose. Verifiability has helped on contentious topics. But verifiability is annoying. It takes up more time. It's not user friendly. And, of course, now you have a lot of debates about what sources are appropriate. I'm not sure which is better, then or now. Randomran (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might have a point. A standard that makes sense in one place doesn't necessarily make sense across the board. Randomran (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And all the more reason it's unfortunate that we don't have a subject specific guideline for fiction, or at least for video games. We deal with a whole other set of problems than, say, an article on Marxism or George W. Bush or affirmative action -- for better or for worse. Randomran (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the appropriate level of detail is a lingering issue for us. I maintain that at plot we might not be able to agree that "we aim for 5 out of 10 in terms of detail", because too many people want more detail, and too many people want *less* detail. But I think there are enough people who would agree that "it's not less than 2 out of 10", and we can say "it's also not more than 9 out of 10". Even if we could just rule out the extremes, we'd have made a lot of progress. Randomran (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)