User talk:Krator/Archive/Archive 3

Conspiracies?
Hello Krator. Mention was made on the LGAT article about conspiracies among various editors. Do you think this actually occurs, and if so, is it something I should watch out for? Jeffrire 14:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeffrire, my choice of the word conspiracy was intended to be innocuous. There are multiple definitions for conspiracy. I did not intend to reference collusion. A conspiracy can innocently be "circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts". You are welcome to change my word conspiracy to whatever word you wish.
 * If a person is not paranoid, then that implies that their fears and concerns are justified. If you have justified fears and concerns that articles are being systematically purged of relevant and important data... conspiracy is an appropriate word to describe that. IMHO.
 * Lsi john 15:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I catch your drift. I only meant to ask Krator for a relatively outside opinion or advice. Its not something I have wiki rules on as far as I know. Jeffrire 15:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Often, two editors from the same third opinion case places notes my talk page and discuss the topic - between themselves - on my talk page." --User:Krator (t c) 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Krator. I think I've got Lsi John's viewpoint pretty clearly already though. Jeffrire 05:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

NLP
Were you proposing to engage in any discussion on the Talkpage about removing the entire methods and concepts section from NLP? Its rather a substantial change to make without such a discussion don't you think?Fainites 17:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

SupCom
Yo I noticed that the reception section in SupCom seems to be your baby, but the references in the gameplay section are lacking. An old and widely used trick I've found is to use the description of the game from reviews as refs for parts in gameplay. Basically find a sentence that asserts a fact, and ref it. I could do this, but the time it would take me to orient myself with each reference and find the potential citations would probably take a lot longer than it would for you. Just a suggestion if this is going for GA or beyond.--Clyde (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could I reccomend putting it on GAC? I would certainly pass it, and see no reason it could be failed.--Clyde (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Super Paper Mario
Super Paper Mario = Says Summer (Q3) release date in Official Nintendo Magazine #16 (dated May 2007) in UK.

Reply
I have replied. I consider the matter closed, though you are welcome to respond again. Thank you. Lsi john 14:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...
... for nominating the article Large Group Awareness Training as a candidate for Good Article status. I worked hard on that article, such that the information contained in it is currently sourced to material from (38) reputable secondary citations, and your recognition and acknowledgement is most appreciated. Yours, Smee 12:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
 * No problem. I indeed thought some recognition for all the work that was put into the article, and all the neutrality issues overcome, was in order. Very quick response on your side, quite scary ;) --User:Krator (t c) 12:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, no worries, gotta grab some sleep soon though, hehe. Smee 12:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Your Assistance
(Also posted similar on Seraphimblade's page)

Krator, I need your assistance. As you have pseudo mediated between myself and Smee in the past, I would like your help, if you are willing, to clean up some muck that Smee seems to be trying to stir up.

Smee recently struck perverbial gold when he *cough* uncovered my original username [here] (which I wasn't even aware still existed - though I also hadn't thought about it either) and to which I openly admited.

Now he's creating smoke, to imply that I'm intentionally committing some wrong doing with socks: [here] and [here]

Its absurd, of course. I had no idea that admin was a protected phrase (after all, the system had let me register it). At that point, I also had no idea that a wiki community even existed.

A quick check of the edit history on that account shows it was locked immediately after the 1st posting. It took me a while to figure out what the hell was wrong, and then I saw that
 * "'You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username. Wikipedia:Username policy provides guidance on selecting an appropriate username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account.'"

So, following those instructions, I created this account, and you will see that no further posts were made which could count as abusive.

I posted commentary [here].

I tried to get a sock check on myself, [here] to establish that I'm not one, but mr COI Smee tried to get a speedy delete [here] by demonstrating COI and declaring it an improper check. He was reversed [here] and reprimanded [here]. He again reverted the speedy [here] but reverted himself [here].

I have posted more information regarding his technique [here].

I have no doubt, base on history, that he will show up here on your page and on Lucasbfr's page to add innocent commentary.

Please help me stop this insanity and get those spurious and improper allegations removed.

If I am blocked from doing a check user on myself, then Smee can keep the allegations going, without any formal charges. I request a speedy trial to be able to clear my name and move forward.

Thank you. Lsi john 13:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responded on your talk page to keep discussion unfragmented. --User:Krator (t c) 14:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I responded to your response.. and then I looked at the userbox. Perhaps I'm taking this too seriously and your comment was offhand humor.

I thought that the reformed vandal was a tag that You, or another admin, would stick on my username.

And, in all honesty, I was floored that you would start off nice, and then declare me a vandal!

I belive I see now that it is a humorous tag that I would self-apply.

Gota love this text-medium where misunderstanding is so easy to accomplish.

Peace in God. Lsi john 14:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit your response accordingly if you want. It will make the discussion easier to follow for those not following both your and my talk pages. --User:Krator (t c) 14:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I put that remark here as it was a personal side comment of explanation to you. I've added it to the other discussion as well now. Lsi john 14:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct template?
I didn't realize the TBA thing isn't being used either. I'm really not too familiar with these; I just use whatever is used everywhere else on the page. --enbob89 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiLove

 * It's too bad that you perceive that my editing style is not one of WikiLove. It is true, that some editors that I encounter for a time can become very frustrating to deal with, constantly throwing out personal attacks and even sometimes personal insults and foul language/swear words at me, never acknowledging the work I do to research lots and lots and lots of reputable secondary sourced citations.  Sometimes, this behaviour does frustrate me, but for the most part, I think that my responsive behaviour to this inappropriateness, is most often not to respond in kind, but rather to point out how it is rude and inappropriate to do this.  You, in particular, on the other hand, have been kind and polite, for the most part that I have observed you here on the project.  Smee 16:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Personally I do not think WikiLove is necessarily a good thing, and I do not edit in its spirit myself. My remark served to explain why the dispute between yourself and Lsi John came to exist. Your response here explained mostly what I thought was going on. Let us work towards a solution now, then. --User:Krator (t c) 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I took a brief look over at his talk page, still not on my watchlist, and it appears he is harboring a larger festering grudge than I am at this point.  Too bad really.  Smee 16:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

3O
I'm sorry... no usernames should be provided? Where is that said? The only instruction I can find that comes close to that is that the poster should not sign the description, by using five tildes instead of four, which I did. If one is not meant to provide names, then how does the third user know which two other users the dispute is between? As far as I could tell (being obviously and unavoidably biased, as I wrote it and am one of the included parties) the description did not try to lead anyone to a conclusion... I just listed the events which had led to the dispute and what the dispute was in an, I admit, not very brief way. I'll resubmit as more brief and hopefully less biased. âVanderdeckenâ´ â«Î¾Ï 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The new request is a textbook example of a good 3O request. --User:Krator (t c) 17:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your 3O on the Quake III Arena Talk page. Please go through. Mugunth 04:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Constructive editing
Hello Krator. I agree. I think its best to wait till things cool off on the LGAT article. I reverted my doublesourced edit  in the interests of avoiding flamewars. I'll keep my explanations constructive also and most likely on the usertalkpages rather than the main talkpage. I'll work on other articles in the meantime with a similarly constructive purpose. Thanks for the suggestions. Jeffrire 03:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

3rd opinion on gender studies
Thank you for your reply Krator and I'm very sorry that the discussion was so confusing. I've responded to your points. I didn't realize I was making an incorrect making an appeal to authority - when I asked Coelacan's opinion I was jsut looking for advice. I was behaving in good faith and I apologize if I was wrong. For the moment i've removed the disputed content. A gender studies expert other than myself will be needed to give an outside expert opinion I've given a brief opinion in my reply but i realize that it carries little or no weight since I'm an involved party. Thank you for bringing some clarity to the discussion. I hope my reply furthers that.-- Cailil  talk 01:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

PS I can pass the sources in question on to you by email if required.-- Cailil  talk 13:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

TS 2
Hey Krator, you're really the only other experienced editor involved with TimeSplitters 2, so I thought you could give me the most relevant advice. Do you think I should make a navbox for the TimeSplitters series? Right now they are connected with "see also"s and internal links, but the articles are in bad shape and a navbox may streamline them (if only a little).--Clyde (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. It is not a big series, so the navbox won't be huge and clutterish. --User:Krator (t c) 09:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS - informal rfc
I've added a suggestion via wp:brd - to WP:RS discussion. I don't know if you think its relevant/necessary or not, but I'm interested in your input. Thanks. Lsi john 03:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

E-mail?
Hi! I was wondering if you could send me an e-mail, as I'd like to ask you something not related to wikipedia (not that much anyways :)). I notice you don't make your e-mail address public, so if you don't want to e-mail me because of privacy, I'm fine with that too. Â· AndonicO Talk 19:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have sent you an e-mail. --User:Krator (t c) 20:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compromise
I'm thrilled. It's lovely. I hope it lasts. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope the same. For further discussions, please use the article talk page. (See above note) --User:Krator (t c) 00:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

edit to Lamer

I just fixed "Know" to "Known"



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 based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. 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 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Reddi
Go ahead and jump in. I feel like I'm flailing. -Amatulic 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

 * Wow. I just saw the new template.  Ironically, I was working on a related one, though on a tighter subject matter, and as a footer as opposed to a vertical scaler, but this looks really great.  I am impressed, to say the least.  Smee 11:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Whoa, a barnstar! Thanks! --User:Krator (t c) 12:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You deserved it. Smee 00:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC).
 * What do you think of the footer template format at Template:Navbox generic ?? Smee 00:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

... about a day and a half after it was created. Your input/thoughts would be appreciated at the Template for Discussion page. Smee 01:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Template:LGAT proposed for deletion...

LGAT
Krator,

I'm a bit puzzled by this edit. There is no mention of LGAT or Large Group Awareness Training in that article.

LGAT is a methodology used, which as you pointed out, does not have a clear or concise definition. It is being used as a way to generalize and clump organizations, in order to brand them.

The anti-cult activists who edit here, say it is a legitimate term, but that is not how they use it. It is not being used to describe a methodology. It is being used as a brand.

They claim it is used by academics and professionals. Ok, I'll accept that. And, in those academic and professional sources, the term 'cult' does not come up. Yet 'cult' repeatedly comes up in our articles.

And, when the term 'cult' comes up, the sources can always be linked back to the anti-cult community. And now we have the term 'cult' at the top of EVERY LGAT ARTICLE. Now, with our new template, we have successfully associated the word cult to every company that we can link to LGAT.

This confirms what I have been saying, LGAT is being used to call companies 'cults', without having to use the actual term, due to libel.

I am assuming that you are a victim to the propaganda, don't really understand what is going on here, or just don't understand the significant pejorative bias associated with the word cult in English and in the USA.

When enough of these tiny points are accumulated, there is sufficient undertone of suggestion. I have neither the time, nor the desire, to contest every single tiny point like this. You are an intelligent editor with good debate and presentation skills. Surely you can see how a twisted word here, and a suggestive phrase there, are being used to set a tone in these articles.

I can't continue to be party to a process that allows an incredibly pejorative term like cult to be associated with companies that aren't cults or cult-like in any way. That combined with editors who play fast and loose with facts, making every fact suspect. I've stopped editing these articles.

Lsi john 13:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some points:
 * The LGAT template contained one entry with the word cult, a book by Margaret Singer. I have removed it because it is not about LGAT in particular. I had considered most of the arguments you display above before adding it, but I thought it to be neutral enough. (i.e: not a classification but just an interesting book) This has now been solved, I hope.
 * As reads, I added it to every entry in List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations. Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness is on that list, and has a source asserting that. If the article does not display anything about Large Group Awareness Training, that could be added.
 * --User:Krator (t c) 14:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can anything be done in these articles to settle on whether LGAT is a noun or an adjective? Lsi john 12:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Knowing that it was your first to award, I'm doubly honored. I've seen them handed out, almost like party favors at times, and thats why I wanted you to know that the one I gave you was my first to hand out. You identified a problematic situation, outside of your field of expertise, and you stepped in and helped out, and in an language that isn't your native (even though you seem to have mastered it very well). In my book, that is the definition of a valuable editor. If you ever feel like chatting off-wiki, my email is always open. Peace in God. Thanks again for your efforts. Lsi john 01:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Large Group Awareness Training
Thank you for all of your help and hard work on this article (and series for that matter), as well as your polite demeanor on associated talk pages. Yours, Smee 03:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for taking an interest and for your cooperation in helping to guide the articles development in an NPOV manner. Lsi john 15:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! The Barnstar Smee and you (Lsi john) now share is the first I have awarded as well. --User:Krator (t c) 16:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are welcome, you deserve it. Smee 23:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

LGAT template added to Hoffman Institute article
I note you have recently added the LGAT template to this article. Why? Are there any references that support the nation that the Hoffman institute is classified as an LGAT provider? Peter Campbell 12:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As reads, I added it to every entry on List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations. That list requires sources to list an item. For this specific case, a book has cited the "Hoffman Quadrinity Process" as being a form of Large Group Awareness Training:




 * This source is on the article Hoffman Institute as well.


 * --User:Krator (t c) 12:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I recommend double checking the exact wording and context for the citation. Make sure that the source specifically identifies Hoffman as an organization that uses LGAT methods. I have found several mis-quoted citations in these articles where the source does not match the text in the article. In some instances cherry-picking words has completely reversed the intended meaning of a full-context quote. Lsi john 12:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Part One
Could you give me feedback on my response here? Talk:University of Miami 2006 custodial workers' strike

Thanks. Lsi john 18:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems I have my writing hat on today, so extensive comments are yours:

Format
The format in the way RfC does it like "Comments by Involved editors in favour", "Comments by Involved editors opposed" and "Comments by uninvolved editors" is generally note done in Third Opinions, and I would advise against using it except in cases where editors relentlessly personally attack each other, worse than anything ever seen on the LGAT talk page. That is because:
 * Third Opinion allows low-profile and simple disputes to be listed easily. Requiring sections to be made increases formality.
 * Third Opinion is for two editors only. Sometimes more are allowed, if it is clear two editors are the main involved parties. A section for each position is redundant, and increases formality.
 * A third opinion usually is one opinion only, and not multiple, and most of the cases are 'solved' after the third opinion is given. A section for further uninvolved editors is redundant, and increases formality.
 * Increased formality is a bad thingâ¢, because it increases the threshold for editors to list a dispute for 3O. They will instead not list it at all, and the dispute will remain unsolved. Editors looking for a formal solution are better off with RfC anyway.

Meta-opinion

 * What to do with horrible discussions and unstructured arguments? I agree with you that it is very difficult to read some discussions. I have found a good solution in telling the involved users that their formatting did not aid their points, presenting a good example with the third opinion itself. See for example my 3O at Talk:Gender_studies, and notice how the previously horribly structured editor writes a neat list of arguments below. If there is no structure in a discussion, introduce it yourself in your third opinion, by summarizing and listing the other's arguments.
 * State explicitly what your answer to the question is, if it is a different answer than what might be expected. Your explicitly stated on the talk page that you "are not qualified to 'pick' the better/more accurate/less biased version", but this was exactly what was asked, and I usually stick to the question. Note that I think your answer was good in this case, but I'll get to that later. Your answer to the question "keep the unsourced material or not?" was "keep it, but add fact tags". Place the answer as such in the text - add it at the beginning (I usually add a summary at the beginning) and/or at the end (.. with these arguments, I arrive at the conclusion that: ..).
 * People usually need something to work with when an article is listed for Third Opinion. Place all proposals and suggestions at the end, especially unrelated ones. ("find sources for unrelated section Y" is a popular one in third opinions I write) In your example, the "place fact tags" suggestion could have been written right after the main body, and the "label the references" suggestion, as a relatively unrelated proposal, could have gone after that.

Arguments

 * Do not weaken your own statements on purpose. You do this on numerous places, and it generally does not aid your point. This is not a good habit to have. Examples, with alternative, positive statements in italics behind them, with comments behind that.
 * "I, for one, am not qualified to 'pick' [...]" - "No one can pick ..." - unnecessary, simply.
 * "For my convenience" - "For article readability ..." - are the editors involved likely to care about your convenience? No, they care about the article, as shown by their dispute over what they believe to be the best way to write it. Even if it is for your own convenience, it might be better to just state that it is for the good of the article, or just write that you have done so per policy. Policies and good articles are better reasons for doing things than convenience.
 * "Technically I should not have done this without a consensus, and anyone is welcome to revert those edits." - "I have been WP:BOLD and ... " - if anyone disagrees, they can read the bold page (or know it already) and revert per the guidelines on that page. Stating that you are being bold is better than stating that you are not following the guidelines, and that you invite others to undo your own edits.
 * "I'm not familiar with locating archived copies of news reports, but the Herald links need to be corrected." - "The Herald links need to be corrected." - the least important in this list, but still, for the sake of pointing out the habit, I listed it. Why you should state that you are not familiar with that process? An involved editor might do that as an excuse for not making the edit himself, but in a third opinion, it is not necessary.
 * "Though it is allowed ..." - Remove. WP:IAR technically allows anything, so this is no news.
 * "The opinions expressed are solely my own." - Remove. Do not do general disclaimer-like statements like this. Be the argument - either stand for it, or do not write it. There is no legal reason, too. Wikipedia has a general disclaimer for that.


 * The structure is quite clear, though could be improved, as outlined in the previous section.
 * The question - RS vs OR.
 * I have changed the sources ...
 * Improvement over deletion -> tag it.
 * Archived newspaper articles ...
 * Deletion is not polite.


 * A better structure would be:
 * The question - RS vs OR.
 * Improvement over deletion.
 * Deletion is not polite.
 * Improvement can be stimulated by tagging.
 * References changes & newspaper archives.


 * The last could also be at the very top, depending on your style.
 * Both arguments (improve, don't delete; deletion is not polite) are solid.
 * You did miss, however, a point: WP:POINT, no pun intended. This was mentioned in the discussion between the editors involved just above your Third Opinion. As this was the only good point user Stephan Schultz had (his citation of WP:BLP was invalid, another thing you could have mentioned), it would have balanced the 3O a bit. A good argument here would have been, "However, if information is trying to lead the reader to a desired conclusion, deletion may be preferable over placing fact tags, because the text does not only violate RS then, but also NPOV."

Conclusion
Well written, but room for improvement. It is good to see that I can help others by sharing my experience with debating techniques.

Do not take the above too literal, and do not edit your opinion afterwards, that is bad form. I look forward to seeing more third opinions by your hand.

--User:Krator (t c) 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you.. for all of the above.


 * I assume by "don't edit your opinion afterwards", you mean don't run back and fix it based on your suggestions here, but move forward and improve next time. As opposed to fixing a spelling mistake or something? Or do you mean.. do it once, and if you mess it up... too bad - should have used spell check. ?


 * The disclaimer at the bottom, wasn't intended to be lawyeresque, it was more that someone else could come along and give an entirely different set of suggestions and that I wasn't representing any official 3O group. I'm new to giving 3O and didn't want to be presumptions. I assume I'm welcome to give 3O, but I'm not sure if there is an official group or if just anyone can pop in and answer one.


 * Maybe its just the group I've been editing around.... I'm gun-shy after being smacked down so many times by some editors.


 * thanks again. Peace in God. Lsi john 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Editing spelling is all right, but I meant don't implement my suggestions indeed.
 * You can pop in and answer one :) - more is better. It is what I did, at least. Do not worry about being presumptuous.
 * --User:Krator (t c) 23:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What about removing those unused 'overly formatted' sections? :) Lsi john 23:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that would be a good exception then. --User:Krator (t c) 23:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. I've snagged a copy of this for later review. thanks again. Lsi john 23:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)



Part Two
How did I do with this one? Lsi john 17:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well written in general, and a textbook example on how to solve (simple) disputes like this. Nitpicking gives me the following. Note that these are really small things, and could be due to my personal preferences in written text. This is a good 3O.
 * As above, you sometimes weaken your own statement (twice here). See above for why this is bad. It does not aid your point, and it does not make a point seem "nicer" either. For example, "If I understand correctly" could be removed, or replaced with something akin to "From what I read here ...". The latter is attributes eventual inconsistencies in the topic to the information present. The former is doubting your own analytical qualities.
 * Formatting could do with some paragraphs. A new paragraph at "That being said.." would make the most sense.
 * More on formatting, some more Wikilinking could do. The fact template using t1, spam linked to the spam policy, etc.

--User:Krator (t c) 18:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again :) It is through feedback that we grow.

I had considered other things, like mentioning that if there are no other verifiable sources, the entire article was in jeopardy of being non-Notable. But decided that my firm stance on needing reliable sources would resolve the other issues.

ps. There is a new paragraph at 'That being said...', so I'm confused about what you're suggesting.

Lsi john 18:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With the paragraphs, I meant that the only paragraph break (sh/c)ould be at "That being said". Right now there's a break at every other sentence. It's just nitpicking, really. --User:Krator (t c) 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mate, I nitpick. So your nitpicking is welcomed. There is no point in striving to be average. Tkx. Peace in God. Lsi john 19:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

After the 3O, they have reverted to a company written article. *sigh*. I posted a followup and did some editing. Lsi john 03:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now they're wanting to revert to yet another 'unsourced' version. I've posted a rather stern response here and I left a note on an admin's page to look at the article for possible speedy. Lsi john 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Part Three
Stop me whenever you get tired of responding. Otherwise, I gave another 3O here, for which I would like feedback.

Thanks. Peace in God. Lsi john 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

--User:Krator (t c) 23:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As with the previous two, you start with "As I understand it". This weakens your point.
 * Your reasoning is flawless, however, you might want to note WP:UCS. In this page, it is explained not to follow the letter, but the spirit of the rule. The distinction you make between guidelines and policies is indeed valid, but is not in the spirit of the rule.
 * A lot of highlights are present, as well as emphasis, both bold and italic. Avoid using too many ways of adding emphasis. Both bold and italic in the same sentence are confusing. Within the same paragraph, bold words attract the immediate attention as well. Because of this, add emphasis to key words in the logic of a sentence when needed (e.g. "not" and "significant"). Reserve bold for the key words in the arguments, for example "that viewpoint is not significant" (note that I removed the word "probably" which was unneeded) or "not every view gets equal weight." Sometimes changes in sentence structure are needed to make a bold part seem like a sentence to itself. This is partly due to the Wikipedia style used: bold in Wikipedia attracts a lot more attention than bold in a 12pt Times New Roman email to a relative. Use italics and bold sparsely.
 * When naming/attacking a user specifically, always try to introduce at least one comment that is 'against' the other user. Here, a simple etiquette warning not to ignore other's questions and remarks would be appropriate - the other user simply ignored questions on sources sometimes. A WP:POINT pointer (pun intended) could do as well.
 * Try to give some very concrete suggestions at the end. Something that could be done with an edit summary of "Per 3O" and not easy to dispute. In this case, when the actual article is a stub, a suggestion of a neutral addition (specifics of the bombs? media response?) just gives the editors some work to do.
 * "Hopefully this has helped." - See previous. If this is your style of writing, I will stop bugging you with it.
 * If my style needs improvment, then you aren't bugging me, you're helping me. I'll continue to seek feedback, until you clip my tie. Note: Tie's are cut off, and hung on the wall, when a student pilot does his first 'solo' flight.
 * I had specifically chosen 'As i understand it', based on trying not to say 'if i understand./ etc', so as not to weaken my position when I restated what I saw the debate to be. Obviously, I'll have to look deeper into debate and presentation skills. :)
 * I'm still getting used to wiki highlight/italics. I was attempting to add the extra wiki-links you suggested and some highlighting to emphasize some of the important points/words. I don't particularly like wiki bold, but others object to CAPS, and I find italics to be less than noticable in some cases. I wasn't comfortable with the mixture that I used, but I also didn't want to be overly critical of myself, so I clicked Save.
 * I had actually looked for something critical to say about the other editor. I think that I'm so used (numb) to being reverted in the LGAT articles, that I didn't even think to point out that reverting as a first line of 'defense' is bad. What I tried to do, instead, was 'pseudo' agree that his judgment could be correct, but was improper.
 * The idea about media response is a good one and *noted*.
 * I don't know if you read the followup or not. And, I haven't been back to see if there was another.
 * All feedback helps. If you weren't being helpful, I wouldn't continue to ask for feedback.
 * It is appreciated. Lsi john 23:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC comment?

 * I do not quite understand your RFC comment, what is your position on the use of the templates in the article? Smee 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I honestly do not care any longer. --User:Krator (t c) 22:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * About the template issue, or improving the article to FA status? Smee 23:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Well, if you don't feel like answering that one, what is your opinion on a potentially less objectionable version of the template, with the "organizations" and "individuals" removed? I placed a potential version at my Sandbox.  Yours, Smee 07:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Triforce (arcade system board)
Headline a link to the Triforce games as you stated in pokÃ©mon batrio talk page as i provided it so you can learn what it is all about. Richardson j 01:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
I need some help creating the section for Creatures and races. Do you think you could help? Thanks in advance! Taric25 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

SupCom
Just passed its GA nom! Congratulations. G1 gg  y  !  Review me! 07:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --User:Krator (t c) 11:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)