User talk:Pixelface: Difference between revisions

Archives

August 2006 to December 31, 2007 January to March 2008 April 2008 to February 2009

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy Saint Patrick's Day to you to. --Pixelface (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just letting you know that I filed a WP:WQA alert, see this page, regarding your behavior on several talk pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only going to mention this once, as a courtesy. Please watch the tone you take with me and your fellow editors. If you disagree over something, that's fine. Your rudeit i attitude ("you're wrong, yet again") is uncouth, unprofessional, and will not be tolerated any longer. My patience with it has dried up. Just to clarify, because you feel that NOTE is not a requirement does not mean that those who do are "wrong". It is your opinion, nothing more. Your opinion is no more "right" than anyone else's opinion. Please try and respect other people's opinions on Wikipedia, it will only serve you better in the future. Thanks, and cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you cannot keep making false claims. How can I say that any more civilly? If you say something incorrect, and someone point out that you're incorrect, and you think that's rude, then simply stop spreading misinformation and people will stop telling you that you're wrong. If you say something that's incorrect, I will point it out. It's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of you being clearly wrong and misrepresenting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You are wrong. That's the point. Would you like it if I kept making false statements as if what I was saying was correct? You are blatantly wrong when you say that Wikipedia requires every article to provide significant coverage. That is a fact, I'm sorry to say. I can respect your opinions just fine — but I cannot respect your false statements. If it's your opinion that Wikipedia requires significant coverage in every article, you may want to point out that that's your opinion when you say as much, and stop making people think that what you're saying is a fact. Go ahead and say "In my opinion, every article must provide significant coverage" all you want. But please do not misrepresent Wikipedia's policies and guidelies and say that Wikipedia requires it. Thank you for your message, and you're courtesy. --Pixelface (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTE: "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice." - "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below." - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." - The page clearly says this. Now, it is your interpretation that this does not apply to all articles, but this page does not say "this does not apply to every article". If it said that, then I wouldn't assume that "every" article requires significant coverage. You can do what you want with it, but the page's wording is on my side. The "opinion" part comes from your personal assessment on whether "notability" is something every article must satisfy. If you believe that every episode is notable, then per WP:NOTE it must meet the GNG requirements, as the "episode" is a "topic". Per the GNG, "significant coverage" is required. That is what is says, plain and simple. I'm not making it up, I'm not misinterpreting it, I'm merely citing it verbatim.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and WP:NOTE said topics should be notable up until Equazcion unilaterally changed it last month without consensus to do so, which is discussed on the talkpage. "Should" does not mean must. And a guideline cannot enforce musts anyway. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the topic is probably notable. If a topic has not received significant coverage, that does not therefore mean that the topic is not notable. WP:NOTE has never said "Only if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" — and if it ever does, that phrase is false anyway.

Every article does not require significant coverage. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Do the Himalayas require significant coverage in order to be notable? No. People were noticing the Himalayas before the written word was even invented, and they'll be noticing the Himalays long after you and I are dead. And no, the page's wording is not "on your side." WP:NOTE itself says "Notability requires objective evidence" — not "Notability requires significant coverage." You are wrong. And that section that Kubigula wrote is also disputed. You clearly do not understand the WP:GNG. It currently says, and I quote, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Notice it does not say "Only if a topic.." Learn the difference please. The GNG also says "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." And the GNG is merely Uncle G's opinion anyway.

Notability is a subjective opinion. Like you said above, opinions cannot be wrong. So if it's someone's opinion that every episode of a notable show is notable, they cannot be wrong. And the GNG is not a requirement. "Per the GNG", coverage is not required. That is not what it says, so please stop saying it does. You are making it up, you are misinterpreting it, you're not citing it verbatim, so please stop it. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, if Wikipedia really did require every article to provide significant coverage, you never could have created the article Traitor (comics). But you did, and it doesn't. --Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to the page before he changed it, and you'll see that all of my quoted text appears before he changed the wording, so your argument about him unilaterally changing the page is irrelevant because it doesn't affect anything I quoted. The page already stated that topics should meet the GNG, and the GNG says "significant coverage". Even if you stick with the "probably notable", lack of "significant coverage" only means that there is not notability asserted. Without information reliably sourced then you cannot argue something is notable. It's all he said/she said, with no actual facts to back it up. Exactly where, please point it out, does it say "significant coverage is not a requirement". If you can point that out on any policy or guideline, I'll be happy to retract my statement. If you cannot do that, then you cannot say I'm legitimately "wrong". I get the distinct impression that you don't like losing arguments, because you try and twist everything your way. Have what you will. I know I'm right in my assessment. You seem to be the only person actually claiming them I'm wrong (to clarify, you are the only person claiming that the GNG doesn't require significant coverage for all topics, everyone else who disagrees is doing so because they don't agree with the requirements themselves and not because they are in denial about what the page actually says). Anyway, this is like arguing with a brick wall...it's going no where. Believe what you want, but I'm letting you know that if you continue to respond in the tone that you have been with me, or anyone else, on any of the non-user talk pages (e.g., guideline pages, article pages, etc.) the I will go to the Administrative noticeboard. If you disagree with me, that's cool, but try and be more professional and respectful with your tone and choice of words. Good day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, all of your quoted text does not appear in the version of WP:N before Equazcion changed the wording on February 13. You're free to look for yourself. And Equazcion also tried to sneak "significant coverage" into WP:V, which this thread at WT:V is about. Thankfully, I see that someone reverted Equazcion's attempt to change that policy. I notice now that Equazcion apparently retired on March 7. Please read that message and then compare that with what I'm saying if you have any problem with my "tone."

If you'll notice, WP:N says "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content." WP:N does not say "only if it meets the GNG."

Notability cannot be "asserted." It cannot be "established." Whether something is "worthy of notice" is a subjective opinion. Significant coverage is evidence of notability. But that is not the only evidence of notability. Gordon Brown is notable. Why? He's notable because he's the Prime Minister of the UK. Now, there is significant coverage of Gordon Brown. But Gordon Brown is not notable for coverage. He's notable because he's the Prime Minister.

I don't have to point out where it says "significant coverage is not a requirement." You're the one saying it is a requirement and you have nothing to back it up except your word. You are wrong. I'm not twisting everything my way. You are wrong in your assessment. If you like, go ahead and start a thread at WP:AN or WP:ANI and ask if significant coverage is required in order for a topic to be notable. I asked a similar question of every Arbcom candidate in the 2008 elections. There is no requirement present in the GNG. If there were, it would say "Every article requires significant coverage", and it doesn't.

It's not that I disagree with you, it's that you're saying is blatantly false. Your inability to comprehend the GNG is unfortunate, but not as unfortunate as your unwillingness to cease spreading your false claims. --Pixelface (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration Enforcement case regard you has been opened. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I see the thread was archived. --Pixelface (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have any evidence for this serious accusation? If so, you should open a sockpuppet investigation without delay. If not, you should strike that comment without delay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never opened an SPI before, so I'm unfamiliar with the process. I'll open one, but there will be some delay as I figure it out. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you if you have the evidence Pixel. Ikip (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy putting it together, but thank you for the offer. --Pixelface (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've pinged a notable CU. Jeers, Jack Merridew 09:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

Pixelface, or more like "egg on face" considering your gaff ... have you considered an apology to either of the two editors involved? Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I turned out to be wrong. I've apologized to the people who deserve one. --Pixelface (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A thread at AN/I has been started about you regarding the allegations you've made about sockpuppeteering. Reyk _YO! 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems unnecessary, given that he acknowledged being wrong and apologized above. It is time to return to building and improving articles not create needless drama. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Ikip (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface, why don't we all set the right example by moving away from all these ANI and what have yous and focus on bringing some articles to good and featured status? Check out the April 3, 2009 issue of Entertainment Weekly. Much of this issue focus on profiling "Your Ultimate Guide! Heroes & Villains WHy we Love Them Both" with top twenty lists of "Scariest Villains" and "Coolest Heroes", a top ten list by Stephen King of "literature's greatest evildoers," and a "Rogues Gallery" of four major actors and the characters they played. Anyway, there are lots of out of universe commentary on production, reception, and oddly enough "notability" as presented in a verifiable reliable source. We have everything from commentary from the actors, commentary by one of the greatest modern writers, information on what characters these characters inspired, etc. This issue is by far one of the finest secondary sources I have seen in a mainstream publication for our purposes of improving fictional character articles and it gives us a sense of which ones are priorities to boot. The magazine doesn't just list them, but has a whole paragraphs (and in some cases in multiple separate articles) on each of those I am listing below. All of the following are covered in this extensive manner and from this issue alone has enough information for at least good status (the following is sort of like a list based on the various articles combined of literature and cinema's most notable heroes and villains; if we bafflingly don't have an article on any of these, they are prime candidates for new articles for which we can get DYK credits, i.e. Did you know such as such was listed as one of the top villains of all time due to x, y, and z.?):

• Alex DeLarge (covered in "The Top 20 Villains" and "Rogue's Gallery")
• Alex Forrest
• Annie Wilkes (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers" and "The Top 20 Villains")
• Anton Chigurh
• Atticus Finch
• Batman (already a Featured article!)
• Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four)
• Buffy Summers
• Captain James T. Kirk
• Catherine Tramell (covered in "The Top 20 Villains" and "Rogue's Gallery")
• Count Dracula (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers" and "The Top 20 Villains")
• Darth Vader
• Dr. Hannibal Lecter (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers," "The Top 20 Villains," and "Rogue's Gallery")
• Ellen Ripley
• Foxy Brown
• Frank Booth (Blue Velvet)
• Gordon Gekko
• Hans Gruber
• Han Solo
• Harry Callahan (character)
• Harry Potter (character) (already a Good article!)
• Indiana Jones
• Jack Bauer
• Jack Torrance
• James Bond (already a Good article!)
• John McClane
• J.R. Ewing
• Max Cady
• Max Rockatansky
• Michael Myers (Halloween) (already a Good article!)
• Mr. Burns
• Nancy Drew (currently a good article nominee; I already did what I could with the information on her)
• Norman Bates (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers" and "The Top 20 Villains")
• Nurse Ratched (covered in "The Top 20 Villains" and "Rogue's Gallery")
• Pazuzu (The Exorcist)
• Popeye
• Queen (Snow White)
• Reverend Harry Powell
• Rhoda Penmark
• Robin Hood (already a Good article!)
• Sauron
• Spider-Man (already a Good article!)
• Superman (already a Featured article!)
• Sydney Bristow
• The Joker
• The Wicked Witch of the West
• Voldemort (covered in "In Bad Company: In an issue celebrating heroes and villains, here are my picks for literature's greatest evildoers" and "The Top 20 Villains", but anyway, already a Good article!)
• Will Kane

The following are also mentioned in sort of "honorable mention" kind of capacities:

• Agent Smith
• Alexis Colby
• Anakin Skywalker
• A Time to Kill's Jake Tyler Brigance
• Benjamin Linus (already a Good article!)
• Cora Papadakis
• Cruella de Vil
• Cujo
• Dexter Morgan
• Dorothy Gale
• Drake Merwin
• Flynn Carson
• Freddy Krueger
• Frederick Clegg
• Jack T. Colton
• Jason Bourne
• Jason Voorhees (already a Featured article!)
• Jaws
• Jigsaw Killer
• Kate Austen
• Lara Croft
• Luke Skywalker
• Magneto (comics)
• Maleficent
• Miss Havisham
• Neo (The Matrix)
• Obi-Wan
• Sherlock Holmes
• Tom Ripley
• Tony Stark
• Ursula (The Little Mermaid)
• Velma Dinkley
• Veronica Mars (character)
• Wolverine (comics)

Anyway, all of the above on both lists, but especially the first list are fertile fields for DYKs, Good, and even Featured articles (I reckon some might already indeed be up to those standards and if any aren't, let's ignore all the back and forth hubbub and focus on bringing all of the above to such status!). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a really good idea. There is nothing that more soundely defeats a fiction deletionist thatn developing n article that he didn't think developable, and finding sources he didn't think were there. At that point, the rational among them admit that in this case at least, they were wrong; the less rational, whom nothing will convice,make it clear to everyone that the dont actually care about sourcing or content, just about deletion of as much fiction as possible. What library facilties do you have available?Let me know and I will make suggestions. .

And if you want to work on some different sorts of fictional people, consider the protagonists of Little Women---all of whom need articles. There's enough material here--its a prime example of something that just hasnt been worked on seriously yet.DGG (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The library at my university is currently being totally renovated, so I am relying primarily on Google Books and Google News. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may check out the issue A Nobody, but I'm actually going to avoid editing many fictional character articles lately because that only puts a target on them. You mentioning them on my talkpage also puts a target on them. A better question would be if those editors insisting that the WP:GNG is a "requirement" consider that issue of Entertainment Weekly evidence of notability. I certainly do, but I don't need convincing. And I instantly recognize many of those characters. Jumping through other people's hoops in order to show that those articles meet the GNG would only seem to strengthen people's claims that the GNG is a requirement that all topics must pass, when that is simply untrue. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above are notable to the point that if someone tried to delete he/she would look pointy and as such they would be overwhelmingly kept as the above are all award winning, reliable sourceable ones, some of which are even covered in mainstream encyclopedias. Please do help as I really would like to get some of these to DYK and Good status and I am too busy to do them all by myself. Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited four of the articles so far. Hopefully there are some Wikipedia readers that appreciate it. It looks like the top twenty villain list will come online on Monday. Thanks for bringing the source to my attention and thank you very much for providing reference information. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the help. By the way, see also here. Apparently the list is drawing some intention in its own right. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your (very long :D) response to Durova where you brought up the recent Wikietiquette report. I just wanted to thank you for acknowledging that at least some of things you were saying were not civil. I know that we will probably never agree on what constitutes being "worthy of notice" for a separate article, but maybe we can both be a bit more gentler in the tongue (or the fingers, since we're typing) with our response to each other in the future. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You actually caught me right in the middle of typing up a reply to you at ANI. I'll reply there first. --Pixelface (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stepped away from the computer for a bit, and I thought more about what I was going to say to you at ANI. One thing I was going to say was that I can recognize when I'm being uncivil. I said multiple uncivil things to you at WT:EPISODE and Talk:List of South Park episodes. I am sorry. And I was not exactly civil on this talkpage above. I apologize. You have done a lot of good work on season articles (and scores of other articles as well). I just happen to support episode articles. We probably will never agree about episodes of South Park, but I can agree to be gentler in my responses to you from now on. Thank you for your message. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And I apologize for any uncivil remarks that I may have made towards you in the past as well. Some things on Wikipedia just seem to bring out the worst in people at times, in this particular case it is WP:NOTE..lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what can we do? Between inclusionists and deletionists, is this dispute going to expand until it ends in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2? The ball's in your court. Durova^Charge! 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, you must mean E&C 3. And why should you think that it will settle the issue? anyway it is not between inclusionists and deletionists. One can be a inclusionist pr deletionist with respect to fiction and not other things. Its time to get the argument make into twin streams: content, and separate articles. I dont think people will ever agree on the amount of detail to be devoted to fiction, but perhaps there is room for a compromise about what will consitutes a separate article, here or in other topics. Or perhaps we will only sovled this when we get away form the concept of "an article" . DGG (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration:Characters and Episodes 3 failed. I guess it would still be 3? Ikip (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E&C1 and E&C2 were both about TTN. But TTN stopped editing in late December. E&C1 didn't accomplish anything. And during E&C1 I said if Arbcom's ruling mentioned List of South Park episodes that those episode articles would be targeted next. Eventually they were, as seen now. E&C2 made things worse for the most part with the time it took for Arbcom to render a decision. And Collectonian's request in December to extend TTN's editing restrictions shouldn't have been rebranded and re-filed as E&C3 by Coren anyway. Once again, that was about TTN. And WP:EPISODE is still not a notability guideline. And WP:N still does not not establish any "thresholds", below which a topic is not notable. --Pixelface (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N still does not not establish any "thresholds", below which a topic is not notable.

That is intriging what do you mean, maybe you should write an user page essay like DGG does. (or is it that other editor?) Ikip (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is an indicator of notability, but the absence of that means nothing, since other indicators of notability exist. I'll think about writing a userpage essay. --Pixelface (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you A Nobody. Happy Easter to you too :) --Pixelface (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Creatures in the Half-Life series, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creatures in the Half-Life series. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you do a ton of research that would help to make the new Notability in Wikipedia article look really good? :) BOZ (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did this research: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Journalists Ikip (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully you've gone and added all of that to the article. :) BOZ (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created a timeline of notability guidelines that I haven't updated in a long time, but I'm really not sure how much of that could be cited in the article. However, the coverage that Ikip thankfully found can be. --Pixelface (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with my point of view, by all means says so and say why. However, I would be grateful if you could refrain from being uncivil. I like a joke from time to time, even at my own expense, but I don't see this reference about me being Useful idiot as being civil at all. If you have any personal concerns about me as an editor, take them to WP:ANI. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By directing Wikipedia volunteers to Wookieepedia, you are being a useful idiot. And if you continue to suggest they contribute there instead of here, I will continue to say so. --Pixelface (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel, you only hurt yourself by saying things like this, apologize, remove, and move on. Ikip (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's interesting that I also told Gavin to stop trolling in that comment, yet it's the "useful idiot" part he objected to. My comment stands. --Pixelface (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is somewhat moot now, but WP:N states that "Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice"."; this isn't established by "subjective opinion", but reliable sources, primarily secondary sources. The sources that establish Half-Life's notability do not automatically establish notability for the creatures of Half-Life. If there are sufficient sources to do this, then, for verifiability, they should be directly cited in this article. If there are insufficient reliable sources for an article to establish notability, then by all means what little sourced content there is should be merged into the parent article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something is "worthy of notice" *is* a subjective opinion. Secondary sources are just one indicator of notability, not the only indicator of notability. Notability cannot be "established." And there are plenty of secondary sources about the creatures in Half-Life. --Pixelface (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Please stop behaving like a petulant child." on another page in response to you.

It would be nice if you took the high road, instead of being baited into a uncivil argument. Ikip (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen that remark, and it's not worth responding to. --Pixelface (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to reply afterall. I guess we'll see what happens. --Pixelface (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. :) you are too valuable of editor. Ikip (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface, I generally agree with where you are going, but you need to remove those comments (like your RfA and probably the "to win an editwar" thing). Otherwise you are going to be blocked very shortly indeed. Not a threat, and please don't take it that way. I'd just rather not see you blocked and I dislike seeing the personal attacks. Hobit (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those comments are true, and I'm not going to remove them. The truth can hurt, but those are not personal attacks. They are statements of fact. --Pixelface (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that things can still be personal attacks when they aren't exactly on target to the discussion. But not my call. Best of luck! Hobit (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. Tiptoety ^talk 05:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. After I posted my statement, I noticed it was about twice that length — but I do think my statement was the most informational. It looks like that request was declined so I suppose it's moot now. --Pixelface (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am just starting this page: User:Ikip/p, to create a straw poll for all ARS members to comment in.

I welcome your comments and contributions. Ikip (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page looks like a redirect now, but the section looks okay to me. I'm not an ARS member by the way (although I appreciate what they do). --Pixelface (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For creating User:Pixelface/AFDs bilateral relations, my new favourite page on the web! I just wanted to let you know that the effort of compiling all those articles into one list has not gone unnoticed! HJMitchell You rang?

Just a token of my own, and, no doubt, everyone else's appreciation! HJMitchell You rang? 23:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It may have been a poor idea for editors to create so many of those articles, but a handful of editors steamrolling with AFDs when there is no deadline sure does put a strain on other volunteers willing to do research. --Pixelface (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd handled the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#A_deletionist_proposal quite, er ... robustly, but you made me look like a Sunday school teacher. Your rhetoric and choice of examples were right on target, and had me laughing by the end. If certain people had any sense, they'd give up or at least adopt a more moderate line - but that's a huge "if". --Philcha (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you. And I really thought your comments were quite good. I agreed with everything you said. But I didn't see them until after I posted. I just felt I had to comment myself after seeing the proposal. People should be working on finding common ground. Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that WT:FICT will hit Archive 100 sooner than much sense entering the discussions there. --Pixelface (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side, if you're right WT:FICT will give us plenty of much-needed opportunities to let off steam. Then we check which deletionist is getting most ........ and ....... --Philcha (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]