User talk:Chaos5023/Archive 2

thanks
barnstar moved to userpage &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, alright.
Got'cha about the not encouraging them, I'll keep it in mind. Thanks, User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well argued on Talk:Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)
I just wanted to say thanks for your well argued comments on the move discussion. I've not yet worked out what (if anything) I want to say in response, but I think you've tackled the core of the discussion very well. Thank you. —me_and 18:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! I gave it my best shot. :) &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, appreciate all the leg work you put in to arguing intelligently for the oppose position. --Xtraeme (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Hindu deity
Thanks for the quick fix. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * De nada. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

TPM discussion page
Hey Chaos. About the "Consensus for Lede" section on the discussion page, would you be opposed to moving/having moved your !Vote to the top of the section next to all the other votes? I'm asking some other editors with votes in the middle of the page the same thing. - Digiphi (  Talk  ) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm totally fine with it being moved, but have no particular idea where to put it that wouldn't be breaking up an exchange. Feel free to relocate it as you see fit. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

MUD peer review
I posted some initial thoughts about the article on the peer review page. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! Question: is it usual to carry out edits in response to peer review concerns as the peer review is ongoing, or wait until the end and carry out changes then? &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the standard practice is to make changes as they're being suggested, assuming you agree with them. Many peer reviews are "checklists", so to speak. Reviewers break down problems one at a time, and the article's editor discusses the points with them, either giving confirmation that the changes were made, asking for clarification on the reviewer's meaning, or arguing that a change should not be made for X reason. This is a good example of an average peer review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Protection request for Hugs and Kisses
Of note it should have gone in this section. I've moved it to the right place. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * D'oh. Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden RFC/U
FYI - A request for comments has been started on User:Colonel Warden. Since you participated in this ANI thread which preceded this RfC/U, you might be interested in participating. If so, please see Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Thanks. Snotty Wong  talk 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Kudos
Your comment on flag-waving on Feyd Huxtable's talk page was spot-on, I've nicked it.undefined There's no reason to identify as either 'deletionist' or 'inclusionist', and most people don't. I'd advise anyone not to get sucked into that mindset, it's damaging to the project, and does you no favours as an editor (or a human being!) pablo 00:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Quoted at ANI
Just letting you know that you were quoted at ANI here. un☯mi 12:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Realms of Despair
I tried to make the Realms of Despair article more intelligible to non-MUDders. I'm just letting you know in case you see some further improvements to make. Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Errata for Designing Virtual Worlds
Not sure if you've seen this already, but it has some interesting comments(particularly for GemStone). The question is whether it can be used in the articles? http://mud.co.uk/dvw/errata.html KaVir (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we definitely can; Bartle is a published expert writing in his area of expertise, there, so admissible as a reliable source per WP:SPS. If you were thinking of adding material to GemStone IV based on that, go for it. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not muds, but...
Can you take a look at Sift Heads and APOX? Both are online games nominated for deletion, but each could stand a pair of expert eyes who's willing to look at the sources. Mind you, I'm not canvassing you to keep them, I'd just like the peace of mind knowing that an editor with a good head for the sources and topic and make the call whether they're salvageable or not.... Goodness knows they won't get that from most AfD !voters. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll see if I can dig up anything useful. I just about might play APOX, too.  Hits more than a couple of my buttons. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * APOX looks very salvageable, but I came up with nothing on Sift Heads; !voted keep and delete respectively. We'll see whether I get to do a rescues++. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple muds up for deletion
Since I have a COI with DartMUD, I would appreciate some help explaining why the sources extant in the article are adequate. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like you got a lot of explanatory support way before I got there, so that's all good. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Should they vanish from the list article (Chronology of MUDs) just because their article has been deleted? While I get that having an article is a good exclusion criterion, would it be appropriate to redraw the lines such that existing, verifiable muds that have reached a certain age wouldn't necessarily be erased from all of Wikipedia just because their articles are? Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The way it's set up currently: yeah, definitely. In Chronology of MUDs, "having an article" is just being used as a work-avoidance proxy for "notability", and deletion is pretty much the way lack of notability is demonstrated.  We could make up new inclusion criteria for the article, certainly.  I gotta say I kinda like it the way it is, though.  Literally anything else is guaranteed to be a lot more work than using article existence (and moreover, it'll almost certainly be the worst kind of work possible, arguing-on-the-internet work; gah). —chaos5023 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:MUDs
Please make Template:MUDs autocollapse, since it's a huge template included on a lot of pages. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okeydokey. —chaos5023 (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, autocollapse is the default. You mean default to collapsed state, right? —chaos5023 (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Sadads (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Realms of Trinity in Persistent world
As a matter of respect for our work and contribution to the NWN 2 community for over 3 years, it is only right that we are listed there. We are no fly by night organization, and have contributed to over 5 successful persistent worlds in the NWN2 community. Also, as a point of reference we are NWN2 Community contributors, we promote all NWN1 and NWN2 content via the Neverwinter Nights Podcast and have conducted over 140 interviews with NWN1 and 2 content creators.

As far a creating a wiki page, I did and it was rejected as an advertisement, which is odd, since there are at least several other ones listed. A better explanation of your removal of our entry would have sufficed and appropriate measures would have been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsb5652 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The content of Wikipedia's articles is not a matter of anybody's entitlements, nor does the sentence you're modifying need to be made into an example farm in order to promote your organization. You need to review WP:PROMO. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What was the name of the article you created, by the way? It apparently wasn't The Realms of Trinity or Realms of Trinity, and I can't seem to find a deletion discussion on the topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

GOW: Blood & Metal
Greetings. I've left a new comment here, but you have sold me on a merge of the relevant information into the main God of War (series) article. I'm happy to ask for the AfD process to end now as I think we can see where it is going. Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Further to this, thanks for the comment on the now deleted Century Babies. Just out of curiosity, are AfDs your thing? I know some users like to gravitate to certain areas, and you appear to be quite good in this arena. Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. :) I wouldn't say they're "my thing", really, but I try to pitch in there every now and again, especially since participation seems pretty spotty lately.  I learned my way around that neck of the woods because I do a lot of work in a subject area that suffers from really, really scant sourcing (MUDs). —chaos5023 (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting subject! Good to have a pet topic - I find working on it helps keeps the mind sharp. All the best. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No mop yet?
You're still not an admin? If you're interested in becoming one, it would be my pleasure to nominate you. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, bit-free to date. :) Thinking about it, I believe I'd be happy to receive such a nomination.  RfA is a little scary, but I guess it won't kill me.  I don't imagine I'd use the mop other than in a highly gnomish fashion, but witnessing the seemingly ever-escalating drama spiral, I suspect that's likely a good thing. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So you want to help me put the nom together on-Wiki or in email? Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like email. "E-mail this user" should work on me to get a thread going. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten you. ArbCom stuff has just blossomed (exploded?) recently such that it's going to take me until at least next weekend to get back to you with any substantial feedback. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Sall good, but thanks for the update. I continue to be in no hurry. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is anyone else interested in co-noming you? Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody's mentioned it. Talk page stalkers are welcome to chime in. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Reality programming
I agree with your original edit: it falls most appropriately under the heading of fiction, and in any case shouldn't be explicitly called out as "non-fiction". Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, calling it non-fiction is a bit much, isn't it. Will restore. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Cthulhu
Heated discussion aside, check this out:. Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! That's adorable. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some examples of patronizing language at Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture (2nd nomination):
 * "Any particular reason you're ignoring Colonel Warden's?"
 * "Are you just posting boilerplate?"
 * "Dude."
 * "Your comments above are based on stark incomprehension of the subject matter."
 * "You're kinda just going farther and farther afield here. I think you do understand the difference between Cthulhu and the Cthulhu Mythos now, but it's clear you didn't when you opened the nomination, or there's no way you could've argued that the article was redundant with Cthulhu (I can WP:AGF all day long, and in case it matters I totally believe you were trying to fix something you thought was a problem, but I can't assume that you grasp facts after you demonstrate otherwise). I totally get being embarrassed by that."
 * "Can you not issue insulting orders as if I were your subordinate?"
 * You have strayed into NPA territory here. If you wish to read my polite question to you as a personal attack, you're welcome to--and please do report me at ANI or WQA. If, on the other hand, you would not talk to other editors as if they were children, that would be very nice. Perhaps you don't realize how you sound to others. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the requested feedback. No, I have not strayed into NPA territory; pointing out an editor's error of fact is not an attack on them, nor is pointing out when they themselves have been insulting.  I continue to have difficulty reading your self-described "polite question" as a polite question rather than the way it would sound if spoken in real life, so perhaps it may be worth it for you to examine what's going on there on your own part.  I can't see any need to "report" you anywhere; we appear to be adults and capable of effectively exchanging views on the matter, and I don't believe you're under any misapprehensions, or needing any reminders, about whether you should've engaged in namecalling.  I'll give thought to the tone you're perceiving in the above quotes; I accept that it's perfectly likely I am at fault to some extent. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased some of the language you noted to what I hope is a more collegial tone, particularly messages I've received no response to and so can freely rephrase without making the flow of conversation unclear. If you're still interested in providing feedback, it would be useful to know whether, in your opinion, the revisions do or don't indicate that I'm seeing where you considered me to be going wrong. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I watched the movie Hobo with a Shotgun recently. There's a demonic duo in that who seem to spend their downtime wrestling with a tentacled monster in their basement.  That's just a cameo but I immediately thought "Cthulhu!".  And I always loved the explanation in Illuminatus that the Pentagon is that unusual shape so that it could hold Yog Sothoth - it makes so much sense. :)     I came here to explain the typo in my edit summary just now - should have been WP:WQT.  But it's more fun to share Cthulhu references.  That's not just WikiLove &mdash; it's WikiLovecraft. Warden (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiLovecraft! It's possible I may have loled.  Ahem.  Thanks, Colonel.  I figured you meant WP:WQA, but, y'know, six of one, half a dozen of the other. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Got your note. All good. I'm all for a Legacy section, but just feel we need to do some streamlining. On an aside, love to know how Tintin and the Captain got away from Cthulhu!
 * Through raw, untrammelled pluckiness, one is forced to assume. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No kidding!
My first response to your note on my talk page was going to be: I'm trying to make Zhang and DuPree and Eraserhead's heads explode.  Zhang just archived my discussion with V. (Hope V doesn't have a conniption). All that eloquence wasted. Maybe I'll copy it to my talk page. --  Kenatipo   speak! 00:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent reversion
I am just wondering why you recently reverted my edit on Cthulhu. Was it the grammar mistake? Or was it being irrelevant? I think because it being unsourced is silly because "I play the game" isn't usually good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.11.209 (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The gist of why I reverted that has a lot of detail at WP:TRIVIA. Basically, some editors did a lot of work cutting the Legacy section to entries that are not just trivia items that nobody cares about -- the preferred method for demonstrating that being that some independent reliable source discussed the item in some significant depth.  Various of us who keep an eye on the article are working to keep it in that state rather than ballooning again with every name-drop of Cthulhu ever made (which the Terraria appearance blatantly is, the "Eye of Cthulhu" monster has absolutely no bearing on the character and it being Cthulhu's eye has no bearing on the game -- it could've been called the Eye of Sauron and would have made exactly as much sense).  You will probably find that being cited to an independent reliable source is the minimum possible criterion for inclusion in Cthulhu at this point. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just by the by, I'll tackle the issue of relevance with some of those authors soon, but with Cthulhu and surrounding works it deserves a solid hour or two and I don't have the time at present. Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

RFAR on Abortion
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 05:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Database-as-IPC


The article Database-as-IPC has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable computer science stub. Tagged as unreferenced and OR since June 2009.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

H. P. Lovecraft template discussion
Hi! Just wanted to let you know that there's a discussion currently underway here about the proposed edits that PurpleHeartEditor wants to make to the H. P. Lovecraft navigational template. As someone who has recently reverted edits to the template, I thought that you might want to chime in. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Carduus/OtherSpace
I'm currently improving the OtherSpace entry. If you get a chance, would you look through your post-1998 mud-related books for OtherSpace references? I don't think it's in Designing Virtual Worlds, but I can't be positive without the print copy available. Thanks! Carduus (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, but almost nothing I have is post-1998. The golden age of MUD-related books was pretty much 1996.  I imagine you'll want this, though:  —chaos5023 (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. Carduus (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed
An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * All articles related to the subject of Abortion:
 * shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
 * shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
 * are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:
 * 1) Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
 * 2) Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
 * 3) User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
 * 4) User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
 * 5) User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion
Resolved by motion at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows: Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:
 * Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

AFD of interest?
Articles for deletion/Non-game might be of interest to you. I'm not sure on it myself. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I'm kinda on the fence myself -- it's getting usage, but usage isn't always exactly coverage. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Virtual World Trademark?
re: 05:57, 28 December 2011‎ Chaos5023 (talk | contribs)‎ (50,345 bytes) (revert history of corporate self-promotion, spam and use of wikipedia to promote trademark claims inconsistently with WP:MOSTM) (undo)

Hello, What exactly is invalid about this statement? Were not trying to self-promote anything, just let people know that "Virtual World" is in fact a registered trademark of 3Dchat Inc as accordance with the USPTO. I see many references like this regarding trademarks and there parent companies. I wrote the 3Dchat article as I'm a huge fan and it's one of my favorite virtual worlds without a current wikipedia page, and I'm trying my best to follow all guild lines. Please let me know how this needs to be written.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 17:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Abortion amendment request
Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles notification
Hey Chaos5023. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  22:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

C'mon!
You said and I wanted to say, that was not very cricket of you. In addition, somebody hijacked the entire discussion thanks to all that, and hid it in a hidden archive. And people wonder why WP has turned into the mess it is.-- Djathink imacowboy  21:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Pro-life and outside the US
I see your point about coverage outside the US. I think we should discuss this as it seems an important issue. I was thinking Template:Globalise was the way to go - but it appears there is no guideline or policy behind that.

I'm not sure what exactly I think about it, but I am curious to hear your thoughts. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My thinking isn't that it's a situation where that template should come into play. My point is that when the articles were titled Pro-life and Pro-choice, those titles defined scopes of the United States political movements that use those names, and that the original error was in trying to make them catch-alls for the related topics of political advocacy in re abortion.  Those articles shouldn't be globalized, at least not the way many of us are thinking; rather, their scope should be reined in, and global perspective should be addressed by different articles -- most likely Abortion debate, as it seems to already be making a fine effort that way.  (Of course we should cover the US political movements from a usefully global perspective; what I mean is that articles about specific movements shouldn't be used as umbrellas for related political positions in a global scope.) —chaos5023 (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, its seems like an interesting idea and one that could well work well. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hi chaos. You've had a lot of helpful and clear-headed things to say over at Requests for comment/Abortion article titles. However, this series of edits comes across to me as unnecessarily hostile and bordering on WP:POINTy. You know what they say about catching flies with honey or vinegar, and all that. I'm just suggesting that you take a step back and consider. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for the feedback. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Compliment
Hi, Wanted to compliment you on the work you've been doing at the abortion article talk page, especially where it concerns the refactoring of the brainstorm outcome and thereby creating a truly structured debate. I hope it will be used as the main content of the RfC. JHS nl (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Somehow I missed this message for almost a week, but it was nice to find.  Thanks for sticking with the process -- it's very easy for people to go "ack, it's scary" and go wikignome instead. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Abortion RFC
Hi, didn't want to clog up the vote so thought I would respond here.

I actually disagree that my vote is caused by confusion of what the RFC is for. The problem, as I see it, is actually that we're being asked to vote on the wrong thing. I think it would be much better if there were one article called something like "The debate over legalisation of abortion" which presents both sides of the debate in a structured fashion. I accept that we're unlikely to change to a single article - I can see benefits to the dual article position but feel that on balance one would be better. With the problems that are inherent with a two article system, and given that those articles are attempting to cover the global debate, I don't think that we should be using article titles that are themselves part of the debate. KingStrato (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is something that came up during the discussion of options and I agree: a general article outlining things with links to the pro- and con- pages. But it does make sense to first figure out what the names of those two pages should be. Kovar (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're still taking as assumed that these articles are, and should, be "attempting to cover the global debate". I am saying, and have been saying repeatedly for a very long time now, that if their titles give them a local scope, then they have a local scope, and they are not covering the global debate, and there is nothing wrong with that.  In fact, I contend that the US pro-choice and pro-life movements were their original topics, and it's only because they used the incredibly-bad-idea titles Pro-choice and Pro-life that this got confused and people started using them as catch-alls, and that because of this WP:PRESERVE directly calls for bringing them back to that scope. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding a place to discuss techincal details.
I started to add the following but after trying several different places couldn't figure out where it should go. What appeared to work best would be putting a new section between General Comments and Voting but I really don't like adding a new section to something like this. Any suggestions? And I don't know if I've come up with the right title to catch peoples attention - Discussion of technical issues? Methodology? I've gone with the most basic, though, and think that if it's followed up by a comment it might start the section rolling.

Sure, most people will ignore it anyway but it's worth the attempt. Kovar (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"How this works

Some of the comments have wandered off into how things are done, voting, about Wikipedia, how the RFC works, etc. Those are relevant issues, since they deal with the process, but they're tangling up the discussion of what to name the articles. Please put them here instead so they can be followed on their own.

And yes, sometimes you're going to be responding to what someone has included in a comment about naming articles. Go ahead and move that part of the thread up here, just start with something such as "In reference to . . ""


 * I think that's what Requests for comment/Abortion article titles is for, actually. It's kind of clogged now, of course, but that appears to be its purpose. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What a Brilliant Idea
barnstar moved to User:Chaos5023


 * Thanks, Yaris! Super glad it helped. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summery
While others typically shouldn't edit others' specific comments, and so I understand why you reverted, the edit summery (as you might agree in hindsight) probably wasn't appropriate.
 * [This diff

I think we all agree that this page has the potential to bring out strong emotions, but let's please not exacerbate it. - jc37 19:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I was as perfectly aware in foresight as in hindsight that it wasn't appropriate. I chose to make abundantly clear how offensive I find telling other people what they meant to say in preference to being appropriate. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply from OliverTraldi
Appreciate your comment. It seems to me as though the voters are weighing multiple factors and, at least for many people, the seeming inherent bias in the names is the biggest problem. It would be different if the names of the movements were titles (capital letters etc.), but as it is, they're not actually viable descriptors of any real movements. Nor were any of the other choices. This seems to me to be the best way to deal with this issue of not having a good way to refer to them. "Abortion debate" and "Abortion debate in the [country]" certainly isn't perfect, but it seems better to me than reifying/naturalizing the biased names. I don't see why this article couldn't cover the movements (their culture, history, affiliations, etc.) - even a section entitled "Movements" or something like that - or a the article could be called "History of the abortion debate". I think neutrality is a bigger issue to most people than exactly how on-topic the "Abortion debate" article remains. OliverTraldi (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, then they're wrong. Our first mission is to build an encyclopedia.  We don't choose what topics to cover in a squeamish attempt at neutrality; we choose notable topics and then work to cover them in a neutral fashion. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't want to avoid the topics because covering them isn't neutral. We want to avoid the non-neutral names. I think it's very different. If you imagine analogous situations with other topics, I think you'll agree. For example, if the gun control lobby managed to name itself "pro-life" and anti-control groups "pro-gun", those would also be fairly objectionable article names, and I'd vote there in favor of subsuming them under a "Gun control debate" article (even if the debate covered more than the legal control of guns - maybe availability, maybe R&D into new gun technologies, whatever). Anyway, I'm not a very active editor, but I just thought I would weigh in on the RFC since I spent quite a while reading the article and felt rather strongly afterward. Perhaps it was improper to do so given my inexperience. Like I said, I very much appreciate the spirit in which you brought it up with me. OliverTraldi (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:POVTITLE. 's policy.  I dunno what else to tell you. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Officious whining
Hi Chaos5023,

I am sorry we could not come to an agreement regarding the Armageddon MUD wikipedia page. However, your language is inappropriate and not necessary here at Wikipedia. Please refrain from cursing at other uses in the future, and find other ways to mediate disagreements beyond calling them "bullshit" and telling them to "fuck off". I am specifically referring to your comment "20:11, 25 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-53)‎ . . Armageddon (MUD) ‎ (Undid revision 494356603 by 68.80.95.140 (talk) link is specifically excluded by WP:ELNO #11, and you can seriously fuck off with your "deface" bullshit) (top)". Thanks, and have a nice Memorial Day weekend. 68.80.95.140 (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't engage in bullshit behavior and your behavior won't get called bullshit. Referring to someone keeping your pathetic linkspam out of a page, in compliance with Wikipedia policy, as "defacing" the page is serious bullshit.  I know you think that, because you've seen Wikipedia muckity-muck people talking in a prissy officious tone like you're using, that means you'll get your way if you push that tone hard enough, especially since I have (gasp!) used profanity, but this is cargo cult behavior on your part; sticking feathers in your ass does not make you a chicken.  As you might have guessed from my present demeanor, I am in a spectacularly irritable mood, so please, test me on this.  It's an excellent day to set somebody on fire. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Chaos 5023, I'm not looking to pick a fight with you. I'm attempting to continue to improve the Armageddon MUD page. I understand that you have put a lot of time and effort into that page, and Wikipedia appreciates it, but my modifications are not an attack against you. Personal threats and cursing are completely unnecessary, and if we cannot come to an agreement about this then you may feel free to elevate the dispute to a higher level.68.80.95.140 (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the site you're trying to link to, and seriously, that's your story, that you're "attempting to continue to improve the page"? By linking to a hastily thrown-together, crap site whose only real content is a whiny hatchet job article the upshot of which is to promote one of Arm's competitors?  You amaze me.  Here I thought it was just a link to an inconsequential fansite, but actually you're attempting to use a Wikipedia article to promote a PR attack on its topic.  Super classy, dude. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFC/AAT
HJ Mitchell has announced the long-awaited summation and I have commented at talk. I'm thinking your voice going forward will be helpful. If you have any backdoor observations to me about my appendages to your essay, please comment below. JJB 17:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

D&D
I agree with you, it seems to be pointless. I hope someone closes the Lamia and Afanc AfD soon, the wait seems to make us impatient. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

merge proposition for Lamia (D&D)
Hello, as you took part in Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention a discussion on whether to merge or not that has opened on the article talk page.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)