User talk:Kinitawowi

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
 * Ah, cheers for that. I always wondered how the sig thing was done... ;-) Kinitawowi 14:52, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

The Settlers
Great work in The Settlers. Congrats :). Rvalles 17:35, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) I just spotted it in and figured it needed a bit of an overhaul. I'm debating whether or not it would benefit from a list of buildings and object types to illustrate the build trees and prioritisation factors... or whether that's something best left to GameFAQs. Kinitawowi 00:07, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * We're writting an enciclopedia... as it is now, it's better than it was, but still a stub ;) Rvalles 01:18, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Why, in the description of Richie as a "self-obsessed, perverted, wittering git", does git link to Jeffrey Archer? (Apart from the obvious.)
Who's to say?--Crestville 18:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Warcraft characters
Hi, see Talk:List of Warcraft characters. There is no reason whatsoever to have all that information centralized. In a pedia you want information to be linked together and be able to navigate from one article to another, but you do not want every piece of information on the same place (centralization). We have followed this convention of many many fictional characters before. There is no reason to merge this article nor any other article referring to fictional characters. Or do we have all the Harry Potter articles inside list of Harry Potter characters? Please, before you try to be a policeman try to think about the logic that someone followed before working on articles.

I have noticed that you are kinda new to the pedia so let me take a little bit of my time to explain something about consensus...

Firt of, consensus is not a Wikipedia policy and will never be (it goes against the principles of Wikipedia itself). In this case, the "consensus" was to keep the information (although around seven users expressed their opinion to merge it). The consensus of Wikipedia is based on opinions and ideas rather than on scientific research, because of this these opinions are not often for the best of the project. However, many of them are excellent ideas and many of us incorporate them to the pedia when we beleive that they will help the project.

In this case, merging the characters into a single article is not for the best of the project. That alone would set a precedent regarding fictional characters, which if big enough, are given their own article as they deserve it. That is what I have done by splitting the article, what many of us have done in the past, and what some contributors originally did for the Warcraft characters. The only list of characters that I have seen to follow that format is Light Characters in the Wheel of Time series, but I do not know anything about that so I left it how it is for those that are working on them. Since I know about Warcraft I work on them and split them for the best of the project.

It is kinda hard for me to explain, but one of the main principles of information design tells you that you should never force someone to chew on information that they are not looking for. In the pedia we follow the concept of data hiding to some extent, but not completely. For example, in an article about Jesuschrist why should you describe in detail the Virgin Mary and the Twelve apostles? You either follow the convention "Virgin Mary (small description)" or simply link to her through a wiki-link. By having all the information cramped in the same place you force users navigate manually on a same page when looking for information about other characters, instead of providing them with a wiki-link that takes them to other article.

The main reasoning for us at the project to split content is for those users that wish to print the information. What would happen when a user wants to print information about Sylvannas but her information is merged with all the other characters? The user must find which pages on his printer are of Sylvannas alone, and even after doing that he will be printing information about other characters in the same page of Sylvannas. That is what we avoid, that is why we prefer to link information around rather that jamming it in the same place.

&mdash;Joseph | Talk 17:51, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * You say "consensus is not a Wikipedia policy and will never be (it goes against the principles of Wikipedia itself)"? What? Quoting Policy: "Wikipedia policy is formulated for the most part by consensus." Promotion to adminship is by consensus. New policy is reached by consensus. Wikipedia is all about consensus: consensus is at the very core of Wikipedia.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   22:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Additional to Lowellian's comment; if consensus is to be completely ignored, then VfD is a complete waste of time. I'm sure that there's plenty who would agree with that sentiment (you included, judging by this discussion), but while it remains a part of Deletion policy it should be adhered to. Hell, taking Sylvannas Windrunner as an example, it's currently a candidate for speedy deletion under article 5 (recreation of deleted content). Kinitawowi 09:45, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Manchester United/History of Manchester United
Hi,

I noticed you'd been working on Man United-related pages and could do with your opinion on something.

The history section was split out of the page last year (I think) but someone then wrote another history section in the main page. Both pages are now well over the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article, and it's getting to the stage where I suspect people are editing them without reading them all the way through (which would explain why the Glazer takeover is mentioned twice in Manchester United, in roughly the same amount of detail each time.

So, my idea is to create new pages for different eras in United's history, merge the relevant bits of Alex Ferguson, History of Manchester United and the History section of Manchester United into each new page and put summaries of each new page on Manchester United, with comments asking people not to make the summaries too long. The new articles would have titles like:


 * Manchester United pre-1945
 * Manchester United 1945-1968
 * Manchester United 1968-1986
 * Manchester United 1986-present

I think something like this is necessary to keep the pages manageable, but obviously don't want to make such big changes to other people's work without hearing what people think first. Please let me know what you think, at the Manchester United talk page.

Thanks, Cantthinkofagoodname 11:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Psycho Pinball
Good job expanding the article, if you feel like adding more (particullary on the PC version, as I don't remember playing it at all) go ahead. wS;✉ 13:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Shall do, although I'll probably need to find a Mega Drive version from somewhere to make sure I don't end up ripping out anything version-specific. Kinitawowi 00:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game) DRV closure
I'm not trying to start another fight, I'm just interested... what led you to the decision to keep this article? Kinitawowi 09:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The debate in question was a deletion review, which reviews deletions and the outcomes of deletion debates. In this case, the action being reviewed was a deletion by User:Zoe, after this deletion debate. I merely interpreted the result of the vote in the review, and since a majority voted to restore the article, that was the outcome. --bainer (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed you about something that others have been preventing people from telling you. If you do not receive it, please respond on your talk page. Dagedzil 08:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Pop Culture Section in the Enola Gay Article
I've removed the pop culture section in the Enola Gay article again. There are multiple issues with the pop culture section and the OMD reference. The song does have a implied reference to the Enola Gay mission, but again I believe there needs to be sourcing involved in adding the reference. The other part of the problem is that the pop culture section is that because there has been no criteria for adding entires, it has been abused by users adding such trivial things as cheat codes. At one point the pop culture section had so many things in it that it started to detract from the quality of the article itself.

I hope you'll take these things into consideration and read what has been said on the talk page rather then reverting it back. Thanks.. Davidpdx 09:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the objection specifically to the reference to the song (which needs to be linked by disambiguation, at the very least), or to the existence of the whole section? My suspicion is the latter - the song's references to the mission are explicit (unless the quotes in the song are unique to the Sash! edit that appeared on The OMD Remixes EP). Kinitawowi 10:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally have never heard the song, but I have looked up the lyrics online. I believe that the song could be adequately sourced if someone would take the time to do it properly. The problem is everytime it's added, there are no sources to back it up.


 * Yes, most of my objection is to any pop culture section in the article. The problem being that people are not being responsible about adding things and no one else is willing to clean it up other then me. We have on the talk page talked about possible solutions, one of which was to set guidelines for entries on the articles. Unfortunately, there was no real effort put behind any of the ideas and it pretty much died.


 * As I've stated, my objection is that the pop culture section bogs down the article too much because you have multiple anon IP's adding stupid stuff. The article and the event is of historical significantance, I think it really degrades the quality of the article by allowing just about anything to be added. In short, it's become a free pass for any reference regardless of the significance to be added.


 * I'm open to listening to possible solutions to this, but I feel just randomly readding the song without a reference doesn't work. Davidpdx 11:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The best way to do it, then, is probably by simply disambiguating at the top of the article in the usual way - something like


 * This article is about the bomber. For the OMD song inspired by/about/alluding to the Hiroshima bombing, see Enola Gay (song).


 * and deal with the referencing at the actual Enola Gay (song) article (the official OMD website provides adequate sourcing, I think). That then acknowledges the song and it's inspiration without it being in a trivia section. Kinitawowi 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I never thought about it that way. Ingenious! I say go for it. This would be in place of it having any reference in the main Enola Gay article right? If that's the case, then I totally back the idea. I think something should be put on the Enola Gay talk page. Can you please do that after my most recent comment? I'll back you up on it. Hopefully this will discourage adding the pop culture section in the article for awhile. Thanks.. Davidpdx 11:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like there is already an article about the song Enola Gay (song), the disambiguious page just has to be added and both of them listed. Davidpdx 11:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Now 68
I think we can now have a Now 68 page as according to the now forums, we now have a release date (19th November) and a cover design, what do you think? I'll upload the cover design if you agree regardsICryOverSpiltMilk 09:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC) These another thing that bothers me, how come US Now 26 is allowed with predictions and our Now 68 isn't?
 * I didn't know there was an article for Now! 26 US - I'm not particularly interested in that series. ;-) (I collect the UK one, so I'm interested in that and articles within it, but I'm really not arsed about the Yanks.) As for the details... well, after much consideration, it's proof enough for me - but several nitpickers here dispute the use of forum posts as sufficient to establish accuracy and/or notability. And release dates posted on online stores are always liable to slippage - and I'm pretty sure that Play had a release date and cover before it was even mentioned on the forum. You'd need to run it by the salting admin (User:Daniel Case) to have it made available again, and if he did reopen it it would almost certainly be under the strict proviso that speculation about the tracklisting has to stay off the article. Kinitawowi 09:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah I collect the UK nows as well Now 53 onwards, and now we have a release date, you can't say it isn't going to happen, as it's going to now, thanks for your comments ICryOverSpiltMilk 15:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with whether or not it's going to happen - that was never in dispute, which is why my initial intention was not to have the article locked but protected for three months (which would have meant until about the beginning of November, by which time some actual information would have been available). What was in dispute was 1) the existence (or lack of, until recently) of verifiable, sourced information about it; and 2) the repeated violations of WP:CRYSTAL involved in putting in bogus tracklists, which is the only part that really bothers me personally. Seriously, I would never have even thought about trying to lock or delete the article but for the tracklist spam - and the sad part is that as long as that spam exists, we're going to go through this cycle with Now! 69, then Now! 70, and so on ad infinitum. That's why we couldn't have an article - because there's no good place to draw the line. If Now! 68 has an article, then why not Now! 69? And if Now! 69, then why not Now! 70? Etcetera? Kinitawowi 17:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

NetHack mindflayer
Very amusing, but please don't disrupt Wikipedia just to make a point - someone has to clear up afterwards. --McGeddon (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I like to watch.
I read your summaries. >:).-- Kerotan Leave Me a Message  Have  a nice day :) 00:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. ;-) It's mostly frustration with the IPs on that article; they keep on adding stuff despite three months of edit summaries saying "Provide a source", so I figured I'd have a play around... Kinitawowi (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You talking about the Now Thats What I Call Music 69 page? Why did CD Wow do that, feed the trolls? ICryOverSpiltMilk (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, you made me laugh! I see you're doing a great job with List of Skins characters, your help would be more than welcome at Skins (TV series), which I'm trying to bring up to Good Article standard. &mdash; PretzelsHii! 20:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking we're better off waiting until next week (after S4 finishes) to try and properly fix all the Skins pages; right now the vandals and over-writing loonies are making things unmanageably chaotic (List of Skins characters got so bad it needed sprotting), but if you've got any idea for what can be addressed sooner, I'd be glad to help out. Kinitawowi (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what you mean - it's been a lot more active lately. There's a list of to-do's at Talk:Skins (TV series)/GA1, the main one being to cut down the plot synopsis to cover overall story arcs, instead of every minute detail. Harder than it sounds! &mdash; PretzelsHii! 01:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look and see what I can do (the List Of Characters page needs similar work). Kinitawowi (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Goal of the Season for deletion
The article Goal of the Season is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Goal of the Season until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sandman888 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)