User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 1

Cloverfield
I acknowledge that it is not the creature's name per se, but it's how they identify the creature. I cited the relevant passage on the talk page that reflects this. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure if I understand why you're assuming that it has no actual name just because "creature" is interchangeably used with "Cloverfield". After all, the film's title is Cloverfield, so wouldn't it be possible they'd call it the creature to differentiate it from the film as a whole?  I think the Manhattan Project bit is relevant and should be included, but perhaps it needs to be rewritten.  What do you think? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you say so. When he said "per se", it seemed that he was referring to the government classification of Cloverfield, since the Manhattan Project was classified similarly, all secret-like.  If you have the relevant references discussing Abrams' intended marketing with no actual name for the creature, I encourage you to include it at the film article. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, then, I concede. :) Perhaps I need to update myself with sources for the film -- I have Google Alerts set up for film headlines, but they only come weekly. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That analogy makes sense; I remember being informed when younger that "Frankenstein" wasn't the monster's actual name and thinking, "Wow, when I think about it, a lot of people really don't know about this." Thanks for weighing in about the name/case designate/whatever. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, let's hope a better source for Abrams' explanation comes up. Alientraveller (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Article for Deletion discussion
It's not a criticism of users who choose to only add "Keep" or "Delete", however as the AfD discussion is not a vote and is a discussion, I am attempting to inform users, who may believe that the AfD is strictly a vote and by putting a majority of "Keep" or "Delete" that majority will be chosen, that the AfD is a discussion and adding only "Keep" or "Delete" does not quite help the administrator on their final decision. Voting is not a part of Wikipedia, but discussion is. Saying only one or two words does not constitute as a discussion. Wikipedia is not about democracy but about verifiability. Articles should be verifiable, notable, and contain no original research. Even if 90% of users feel an article should be kept, but have no proof of verifiability, notability, and use only original research, the article should not be kept (I am not using Cloverfield (creature) as an example). Also, if users repeat the same points, only in different forms, it is the same as saying that point once. Please, check out Not and Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion. ~ QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True (and I have read them), but you seemed to have missed "Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and will not necessarily be treated as binding." from Wikipedia is not a democracy, on What Wikipedia is Not. In the example you gave, you were speaking of editing which is covered by "Wikipedia works by building consensus, generally formed on talk pages or central discussion forums. Polling forms an integral part of several processes, e.g. WP:AFD; in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used." taken from Polling is not a Substitution for Discussion. ~ QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than you, I have not received any complaints, nor have any other editors who have done the same thing. I am attempting to help the discussion process along, but informing editors who may believe that it is a democratic poll.  I want them, if they don't know, to add to their "Keep" or "Delete" voicing.  I won't put it on their talk page, as the information is part of the discussion.  I'm not informing people of the "rules", but helping them to see that if they can give more information, their point of view will be better seen by the deciding admin.  I understand your point of view, but disagree.  Thank you for your time, but I will continue to do things in the attempted helpful way that I have.  Have a good day! ~ QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 17:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
What does "Ce la Wikipedia" mean? It sounds Latin to me. :D Chetblong TalkSign 05:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability
Those are the production notes. They're cited several times in the article: they're one of its stronger sources. They were released by the studio to the media prior to the film's opening. They've been widely circulated and are posted in several places online. The location where the copy we're using is hosted is irrelevant.

They're marketing materials, which is why there's no author listed. I think you're misreading the verifiability policy there, actually: much of the Bible doesn't have a listed author, either, you know, and we also use wire service stories pretty regularly here. The citation could be formatted better - normally, when there is no author listed, the publishing organization is used instead - but not listing the author or authors' names does not stop the document from qualifying as a reliable source. As you said, I'm an admin - I should know these things. -- Vary | Talk 06:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:STALK
Okay, enough with the wild accusations. You've been describing the incident the wrong way around. I had hardly interacted with you at all on the Cloverfield article when I weighed in on the edit war at Treaty of Tripoli, and it wasn't until after I did that that you started reverting me on the Cloverfield article. I first added the content you're disputing the most heavily just before you were blocked for your actions on ToT. You didn't start reverting that edit until you circumvented your 3RR block to do so the next day. How could I possibly have entered into the ToT conflict in retaliation for a dispute that hadn't happened yet? -- Vary | Talk 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What other edits? What conflict occurred on the cloverfield page that I allegedly took so personally that I 'stalked' you?  I noticed the dispute, I weighed in.  WP:STALKing is a lot more than editing two of the same pages as another contributor.  I did not enter the dispute at Treaty of Tripoli because of events at Cloverfield.  Did you begin reverting me at Cloverfield because of Treaty of Tripoli?  -- Vary | Talk 22:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption." So far as I can tell, there was no disruptive editing by anyone at the Cloverfield article until after you were blocked for disruptive editing on Treaty of Tripoli.  So enough.  File a formal complaint against me, and be prepared to show exactly how I 'continued disruption', or stop making accusations.  But be aware that your actions at Cloverfield look far more retaliatory than mine on Treaty of Tripoli.  -- Vary | Talk 00:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

CUA
Ottava, I am a wikipedia newbie, and do not know whether I am supposed to respond on my talk page or on your own. So here is my answer: I put the insert where it seemed most appropriate to me. If you want to move it somewhere else, you can do so. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)