User talk:Krator/Archive/Archive 10

Archiving WT:VG
When you archive the VG talk page, please add the topics to WikiProject Video games/archive topics as well. Cheers, JACOPLANE &bull; 2007-12-3 22:29

FAC
Since you supported my failed Metroid Prime FAC, see if you can do the same now that I restarted. igordebraga ≠ 13:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Arm cannon prod
Damn it Krator, why can't we ever agree on anything?! Just letting you know that I've AfD'd Arm cannon as I still believe it to be deletion-worthy. The discussion is here if you want to comment. I would have let you know yesterday/this morning, but it didn't occur to me at the time for some reason. Cheers, Miremare 18:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification - I had actually seen it up for deletion already, but just didn't comment. My basic reasoning for voting keep on articles like this is that there is a possible future good article there, and that the current content is not bad. It was not a cruftish article, which would have been awful and warranting deletion. User:Krator (t c) 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3
Before I submit it to FAC again, I'd like to see if your concerns about the accessibility of the synopsis setting were addressed. David Fuchs( talk ) 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

StarCraft plans
I've replied to your message over at Talk:StarCraft (series), outlining our intentions for StarCraft articles. -- Sabre (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is my Signature less clashing?
Do you accept?  Blood dripping  on the ground  20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It could lose the grey background. Then, it would not clash with reading talk pages in a screening away any longer. Thank you for your response! User:Krator (t c) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How about:  Fangz of  Blood  ? (not that I really approve) --Jack Merridew 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would find that ok. I indeed do not approve either, but that's a matter of style - many established editors have such signatures. The current state is obstructing proper use of Wikipedia talk pages however, which is something more severe than style. (In the interest of style, I remove excess fluff from this page every once in a while) User:Krator (t c) 22:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I chose this style, it is a mix of Jack's and mine, I am sorry about earlier, I can get bad tempered.  Blood dripping  on the ground  22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be ok with that, but you might want to consider changing your username. It is generally accepted that your signature includes your name. Random trivia: the person you are having a dispute with right now, User:TTN, had exactly the same thing a while ago. He signed posts as Nemu, instead of TTN, for quite some months, and then changed after a request. See Changing username. User:Krator (t c) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:GAMECRUFT
Done. I appreciate the comment, it's hard to remain reasonable when there are so many who irrationally want to delete everything, especially when they feel their end justifies any means. Oddly, I find the people who irrationally want to keep everything easier to deal with. Anomie⚔ 02:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Frank West (Dead Rising)
I noticed your previous defense of the Frank West article, and it needs your help again. TTN and his friends are now attempting to get it merged, even though consensus for a keep was reached on this once before. They have been doing this to alot of articles, or so my research has turned up. The discussion is occuring at the Dead Rising talk page. Smile Lee (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. He, TTN, has been having an ArbCom located here. Smile Lee (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

GameRankings
Hey, Krator.

You stated that "We have already settled that GR and MC are not to be used as sources for actually -ranking- games," however, did "we"? These are the three voices of agreement: That does not make for consensus, especially in an ongoing discussion about whether ranks should be used. Considering that the proposer of the guideline reform, Masem, supported his proposal on the sole basis of two reasons, one being a misunderstanding of statistics as far as I can make out his meaning (if the 1st reason cited means that he has issue that these "absolute averages" are marked on a different numeric scale, this goes to an error calculation, but not towards the calculation of the actual number), and the other reason being a completely unsubstantiated accusation that others rebutted and I was currently in the process of refuting.
 * "I agree with the idea [of "adding some guidelines"] and suggest that also some kind of recommended time frame or minimum number of total reviews in the aggregate score should be included in the usage. — Guyinblack25
 * "Keep them listed and mention the avaerge score but thats it, no ranks. Of cource this is just one look on the situation though" — Stabby Joe
 * "I agree with MASEM. The additional guidelines should be added." — SharkD

How does this qualify as consensus? I realise consensus is not democracy, and thus technically, you can call three people (one of whom admits that theirs is "just one look on the situation") who are in agreement amongst all others who aren't "consensus", but certainly not in an ongoing discussion about whether ranks should be used and if the original reasons submitted for the policy change were even valid in the first place.

It seems to me you prematurely forced the end of the discussion and found consensus in things that were instead contentious. Even more improbably, you asserted a guideline that is only justified upon completely fabricated and unsubstantiated accusations. Surely such a proposal for a guideline doesn't even merit consideration for consensus anyway. clicketyclick yaketyyak 18:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is one sub-topic there is consensus on: the rankings are not to be used. Whether averages and such are to be used is still up for discussion, and I encourage that. This was in fact the reason for userfying one section of the discussion: it was basically about whether GameRankings is manipulating rankings. Furthermore, the discussion, as it went on, turned out to be a soapbox for a user to prove his point that GameRankings is "evil". This is not productive. User:Krator (t c) 19:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The "sub-topics" were divided by another user after the fact and do not necessarily reflect the reality of whether or not certain parts of the discussion are over. Being one who is taking part in the ongoing discussion, I can tell you that discussion is ongoing about whether rankings should be used. Wikipedian06 may indeed be using the page as a soapbox, however, he is merely attempting to back up Masem's original accusation that GR is biased (since Masem didn't provide evidence for it and a number of users including myself challenged that point), which was the basis upon which he justified guidelines against using GR's rankings . If Wikipedian06's efforts to prove Masem's allegations are considered soapboxing, then surely Masem's unsubstantiated accusations are to be considered soapboxing too, and not worth consideration to form policy from.


 * You removed Wikipedian06's alleged proofs of Masem's original allegations and my refutations of his alleged proofs, and in so doing, you removed a critical, ongoing discussion over the very basis upon which any guideline restricting the use of GR's rankings is justified. Again, I ask you, how can you conclude that there is consensus on the institution of a new guideline when 1) discussion is ongoing on the subject of that very guideline 2) the reasons for instituting the new guideline, upon further and closer inspection (which you removed to a userpage), are being shown to hold no water and are instead completely fabricated and untrue? Why is policy being created on the basis of untruths and unsubstantiated personal opinion? And why are you removing from view on the project page the discussion that demonstrates this? clicketyclick yaketyyak 20:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, let me state that I am completely against the use of the aggregate review sites in Wikipedia article, and let this be proof of the point that my removal was not done with the objective of removing points that did not suit my own beliefs or anything. It was purely the soapboxing that led to that. User:Krator (t c) 20:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing you of an ulterior motive. I'm trying to get an explanation from you for why it is that you consider attempts at proving allegations to be "soapboxing" while not attempting to prove those same allegations is considered to be a valid basis for instituting policy! clicketyclick yaketyyak 20:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In list format, then, for clarity: User:Krator (t c) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not consider any policy/guideline related to aggregate review sites as approved by consensus at this moment.
 * The only thing where I could see a consensus of, was the fact that rankings (i.e. the actual "top 10 lists") are not to be used. Everyone so far agreed to that.
 * It was not so much the objective and goal of the discussion, nor the kind of arguments that were used in it, that were the reasons for my userfication. These reasons are purely related to the tone and style of the discussion: it was a rant that tried to prove a point, and would never be able to establish consensus, nor be productive.
 * How has everyone agreed to it? Where do you see this stated agreement from everyone? But moreover, what does it matter, since the basis for the policy against using top 10 rankings is based on fabricated and untrue accusations?
 * It may have been a rant to prove a point but that point was to substantiate Masem's original accusations, which are the basis for his proposed policy of not using rankings . If you admit that Wikipedian06's attempted proofs of Masem's claims can never lead to consensus, then you have just refuted your own argument that consensus was established upon Masem's proposal. clicketyclick yaketyyak 20:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus on that sub point was established on wholly different arguments in November. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive33. This wasn't a heated discussion back then, because the point not to include rankings is quite straightforward, and of a different nature. Even if the sites were reliable, we still wouldn't/shouldn't use the rankings. I had cross-posted this to the current discussion for clarity, but it was ignored. I thought that was because this point was established, and the current discussion about a different thing: reliability. The whole discussion that "GR is unreliable because they manipulate rankings" is irrelevant - because we do not use rankings from GR. User:Krator (t c) 21:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. In that discussion, Masem stated that the purpose of the discussion was not about rankings. He said: "I don't argue these shouldn't be used." It was instead about instituting a policy that a minimum time limit should apply before listing rankings. Anything that did not deal with that specific issue was off-topic and should have been separated into a different discussion so that people would not miss the second issue under debate.
 * 2. There were very few people involved in that debate. You account for 25% of the voices in that debate. When a single voice is weighted so heavily, establishing "consensus" becomes a joke.
 * 3. The grounds upon which 'consensus' was established in that previous discussion were brought up again by Masem in the current discussion. In other words, he reopened debate on the issue. And now, surprise surprise, there is more contentiousness — could that be a product of having more than four people involved in the discussion?
 * 4. Since Masem reopened debate on the issue (and anyone is free to challenge established guidelines and even rules at any time), you cannot close the debate on the grounds that it has already been decided. clicketyclick yaketyyak 21:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to give up here. Feel free to restart whatever discussion you want, but please keep to WP:POINT. User:Krator (t c) 21:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I like it when people give it up. ;-) I'll do my best to observe the guidelines. Thanks! clicketyclick yaketyyak 21:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)