User talk:Old64mb

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! D. J. Bracey (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

McReynolds
I see you replied to a comment of mine in the McReynolds talk page. I don't know if you noticed, but the comment was actually quite old, dating from September of 2005. There have been substantial changes since that comment, as well as some discussion based on accusations by another user. The discussion and the article have moved quite a ways since that comment was made. Magidin 19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, I noticed, which is why I responded there rather than jumping in what looks to be a wee bit of a nasty edit war between you and whomever is claiming your references don't add up (which having read the Knox book a while back, they do) that has moved to the talk page. My feeling, though, was that one of the problems with a slugfest like that is that it tends to throw the whole article out of whack from a flow standpoint.  I was offering to take a stab at it from an entirely fresh perspective at some point once I'm done doing some catch up work and once I've reread the relevant material...last time I donned my fire suppression gear it seemed to turn out well, so just wanted to warn all involved that I might do so and proceed if there aren't screams.  Cheers. Old64mb 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * By all means! The other person has engaged in questionable behavior on other articles (including use of sock puppets and getting blocked), and has not contributed anything to the McReynolds article other than complain, accuse, and some questionable minor modification (such as writing that McReynolds "was accused by his critics" of being anti-semitic). I rewrote the section with primary source material rather than rely only on the secondary ones I used before. The article is a bit overbalanced now, since I put in all that material from primary sources, but I think what it really needs is someone knowledgeable to write on McReynolds the Justice and his opinions (see for example the recent excellent additions to the Robert H. Jackson page for the sort of thing that I would like to see in the James Clark McReynolds page). Magidin 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Expos

 * You misunderstood my comments, and I apologize if they were unclear. I did not suggest that chronological order takes "supreme precedence" over everything else.  The spirit and intent of WP:TALK is that one does not screw around with the comments of other editors unless absolutely necessary.  So, yes, sometimes it is necessary to add headings or indents to the comments of other editors, to make the page legible, and occasionally the comment of an inexperienced editor has to be moved when (s)he obviously places it inadvertently in the wrong place on the page.  But no matter how well-meaning the intent might have been, one should not be revising comments, whether it involves deletions or not, by moving them around and removing them from chronological order and the context in which they were made, unless there is a very important reason to do so. And here there was not.  The ongoing comments on the merger do not represent an evolving analysis of the issue, but almost entirely represent new editors every once in awhile raising the same question as before (shouldn't the articles be merges?), generating generally the same responses as before.  There are far less disruptive ways of consolidating these repetitive comments than by wholsale reorganizations of the talk page, either by reproducing the links to the discussions (and including links to discussions elsewhere) as I did, or your great suggestion of creating an archive page which simply reproduces the comments in one place.  And just to add: I think you are reading far too much into the guideline discussions on "centralized discussions".  The guidelines urge us to avoid situations like the one WalterWalrus3 created last week, where he started the same merger discussions in two separate places -- on the Washington Nationals talk page, and on the Expos talk page.  The guidelines are not giving other editors free license to cut and paste the comments of others, whenever we feel that one comment might more logically be placed elsewhere. The goal is to interfere as little as possible with the talk page comments of other editors.  Although your reorganization was generally well done, it creates a bad precedent.  If other editors feel that they have free license to reorganize talk pages to fit their determination of what constitutes a more logical order, they may not do so as carefully as you did. Skeezix1000 13:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Blooming onion
You are correct. I completely overlooked your earlier edit adding references. My apologies there. I've updated the template to refimprove as there's still a way to go with referencing of the proceeding sections. -- Longhair\talk 00:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Achaea
Obviously I'm not an experienced or very knowledgeable Wikipedia user, so thank you for explaining that more in-depth. I'll attempt to explain myself here and maybe you can help me in deciding how best to post that so it's in compliance with Wikipedia standards. The thing that I was responding to was, itself, a post on the forums, which was in turn taken from the survey given in game. The survey was accessible to any active player, meaning it was, very likely, voted upon multiple times by the same person using different characters. To truly explain the dynamics of the player opinion on the Wikipedia page would be pretty futile, as I would imagine an entire book could be written on it. Essentially, once this survey showed possibly negative results, there was a meeting amongst the staff and one of the results of that was that the producer, Minae Lee (Maya, in game) appointed myself and two others to supervise sections of the extensive forums so that the players who said they were having a negative experience because their ideas and suggestions were not being heard now had an ear. While I, of course, have a bias toward the section providing criticism, that particular bit of criticism was a) likely added by someone with a bias against the game, such as a supporter of another competing game, and b) handled as I have just explained, which I think warrants inclusion. Additionally, and somewhat unrelated, the comments that some things cost "4000 credits" is untrue, as the highest costing item we offer, and I believe have ever offered, is 2000 credits. While it's not a huge difference, I still feel like the entire section is written with a POV from someone who supports another game and wrote it trying to defame Achaea. I hope you can give me some advice on how to best express the fact that the staff does address complaints, rather than the current text of the article that seems to end on the note that nothing is done about it. Pentharian 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings. I know I'm not the most experienced or knowledgeable Wikipedia contributor either so I can't say that I'm the best resource to explain a lot of the policies and guidelines, but I'll give it a try.


 * If I understand your concerns correctly, your major concern here seems to be that you disagree with a section of criticism that you believe that 'defames' Achaea, and that the inclusion of a survey that may be from someone who was the supporter of a competing game and was done (essentially) out of malice.


 * Let's start with the former. In general, if there's a question about the suitability of a contribution to an article, the first and best place to raise the question is on the discussion page of the article, as described in WP:TALK.  (You'll note that's where I moved your contribution.)  You're more than welcome to address what you believe might be a trend towards unjust criticism on that page, and others may or may not disagree.  It's what it's there for.


 * But if you do so, keep in mind another major philosophy. While we all disagree with each other a lot, WP:GOODFAITH pretty much points out that unless there's direct evidence to the contrary we're all in this together and we're not going to accuse each other of rampant bias unless there's a pretty good reason to do so.  In this case, you believe that the person adding the survey was supporting another competing game and wrote it trying to defame Achaea - a pretty tall leap over WP:GOODFAITH unless you have evidence to back it up.  Unless documented, those kind of accusations are those that I would avoid in the future.


 * In this case, however, I can directly address your concerns. I added the survey myself, and if you'd like I'd be happy to explain why on the discussion page (it may take a while as the Achaea article is very, very low on my priority list, though, and I've spent way more time recently messing around with it than I'd like).  A short summary is that I believe that there's been an awful lot of turmoil recently that cannot be documented to standards of WP:V, but the survey does based on any number of criteria - not the least of which that it (may) have led to some of the actions taken by the producer and staff.  That alone makes it worthy of inclusion.  (I'd also point out my editing history suggests that I'm not promoting any other games or such.)  Keep in mind too that the criticism section is very, very carefully footnoted and worded to adhere to WP:V and WP:NPOV - and its not a single user but rather many that have contributed to that section.  If there's a bias it's one that is backed up by a bunch of verifiable facts.  The entire point is to present the facts and let the reader decide.


 * Your points about an response may be something that is worthy of inclusion in some way. However, the biggest problem with you including anything about the response is that because you are a major contributor to that response as well as the game in general WP:COI pretty much clearly indicates it's a topic that you should not touch with a 10 foot pole.  You are a stakeholder that cannot prove that they are not 'receiving other benefits or considerations' and on this particular topic WP:COI very strongly urges you to avoid contributing here.  If you absolutely feel you must add to the article, you are (to quoth WP:COI) strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page.  I'd also note that there's actually nothing in the article that even mentions staff response one way or the other; given you picked it up it may suggest that you're waaaay too close to this to touch it.


 * My advice? Work on many of the other of the nearly 2 million articles Wikipedia has to offer for a month or two before jumping in to this particular one; WP:COI is a very tough thing to get around, and if you really feel you absolutely positively have to it'll give you a better feel for what is and isn't considered good work and good verification before you start tangling with that mess.  Read a lot of the WP:FA articles as well while you're doing that and you'll be off to a great start.


 * Finally, I've added a footnote in the main article to address your concern that the 4000 credit item for sale is 'untrue'. It appears to be for sale.  Old64mb 16:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then, in response to your statement that the survey is worthy of inclusion because it led to action by the Producer, is not that action by the Producer itself also worthy of inclusion? In my mind, it would be like an article in some kind of news compendium that talks about the Duke Lacross players without then going on to say that it turned out they were innocent and that the prosecutor was later found to be being malicious. Can you think of any way to include this information in such a way that it meets guidelines? Also, as to the 4000 credit item, I do apologise as I for some reason thought that the particular one you cited was, in fact, 2000. Obivously I was wrong! I'm not sure if you're supposed to move the whole conversation back and forth or what, so I'm moving it here and you can tell me I'm sure Pentharian 19:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)