User talk:Krator/Archive/Archive 9

Thanks
Thank you for voicing your opinions in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to take the advice the community has given me and wait till someone nominates me next time as well as improve my editing skills. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 Chat 05:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forsaken (Warcraft)
Please review the current state of Articles for deletion/Forsaken (Warcraft) and its subject article. I think the state of that article at the time was sufficient reason to bring it up for AfD, but the topic itself and the current state of the article make it more worthy of keeping. -Harmil 18:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: userpage vandalism
You're welcome. (Your userpage is temporarily semi-protected now.) I left the 4chan raid note so you would be aware of the possible source of the multi-IP vandal attack. Now that you've seen the above post, you might want to remove it (don't feed the trolls). &mdash; User: (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance
Thanks for pointing that out; it's a great article. To be honest, I probably won't be attempting to get this to FL again, but if I manage to get enough out-of-universe info, I'll refer to this. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks, man! Way back when I was working on Eragon (video game), you were the first person I encountered from WP:VG. All my assessing, peer review and guidance stems from the peer review you gave me for Eragon and the assessment for Warlords Battlecry II. I have a lot to thank you for... Una LagunaTalk 20:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Knights of the Nine Featured Article Candidacy
I've responded to your comments regarding Gameplay summarization. Thank you for your time! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your further comments regarding Gameplay and images. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Krator, have the conditions for your conditional support been fulfilled? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Repost of Playable races in the Warcraft series
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Playable races in the Warcraft series, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Playable races in the Warcraft series was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Playable races in the Warcraft series, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you may want to look at the AFD located here; the consensus was to delete the article, not to redirect it to the Azatoth article. Thanks for your time. Regards, Neranei (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I knew about that AFD... Gah. This is pointless, nevermind. User:Krator (t c) 19:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

SGP
Let's discuss changes to the Political Reformed Party article before we make them and prevent us from entering in an editwar. C mon (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG sources proposal?
I noticed you added a section to the proposal. Are you restarting discussion on it? If so, please let me know. I want to help. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The proposal never died, but the reason why I wrote it (people claiming all kinds of things "official" and therefore awesome/relevant on talk pages) did. Help is always appreciated! User:Krator (t c) 23:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Readership of portals
Is the premise of this question, that portals aren't getting read, really true? This might change how often a lot of people work on portals.--chaser - t 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My answer is twofold. Firstly, the purpose of the question is described in the last few words: "does the value you ascribe to your contributions depend on whether they are useful to others or not?" - the actual readership of portals is irrelevant to the question.
 * Secondly, I do think there should be an assessment of portals in this respect, because I have a suspicion (but no evidence) that no one reads them, irrespective of how they look (you claim otherwise, please elaborate). The current setup simply does not give portals a good place within Wikipedia navigation. Only when navigating through "Contents", one will arrive at a portal. Compiling good access statistics for Wikipedia seems to be really hard, though, and I fear such an assessment will never happen. User:Krator (t c) 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, eight are linked directly from the top of the main page (as is Portal:List of portals). Besides getting server log information, the only way I know to get current data is indirectly: by looking for edits from those not regularly involved in a given portal's maintenance and multiplying the number of people that represents by ten (participation inequality says about one in ten readers should contribute from time to time) to get a very rough estimate. After I asked, I found some old data for specific portals here (compare to articles).--chaser - t 22:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can get current data. Portals Top 100 for Nov 07 compared with articles. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Conclusion: no one reads portals, except for the main page linked ones. User:Krator (t c) 12:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD bot
I've left a note at Bot requests. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
I hope our disagreement isn't the reason for your de-listing... I'm not in favour of deleting stuff where merging is appropriate, only where it's inappropriate. Nor, despite any possible appearances to the contrary, am I in favour of deleting anything that doesn't fail the criteria for inclusion. I'd just like to make that clear, as it's easy to give the wrong impression where such things are concerned. So yeah, I'd much prefer you to stay and argue your position (though I don't necessarily agree with it ;)) than leave the department. Miremare 00:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am adopting a "wait and see" position for now. User:Krator (t c) 13:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)