User talk:Hiding: Difference between revisions

User:Hiding/build

Archives

• RFA Thanks archive
• 2005
• 2006
• 2007
• 2008
• 2009

It is that article,but I disagree with the current name it should be called fata mosque bombing,FATA is arge area,it just like saying 2009 Punjab sri Lankan team attack.will discuss on article talk page.yousaf465'

An article you significantly contributed too, Graphic novel, has been delisted as a Good Article following an individual WP:GAR as part of the GA project quality task force GA Sweeps effort. This reasons this article was delisted have been detailed at Talk:Graphic novel/GA1. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was looking at an edit you made to the game Word Before last [[1]], where you reverted an edit by a user, stating that only one word should be played at a time.

You're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the user only added one word to each game, and placed two words to start a new game, both of which are allowed. I originated the game a couple of years ago so I've clarified the rules to say that users should only place one word per game.

Thanks,

Knaw (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a lot more typed up (about the parties of and events surrounding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic), but I'll leave it out for now. Please don't edit User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT, but you're welcome to copy and paste the text onto a subpage in your userspace and reply in-line there if you would like. I'll even link to your page from /On NOTPLOT if you want.

Here's what I want to know: If "people creating articles specifically to detail plots of individual story arcs" was the problem, did making WP:NOT#PLOT policy solve it? No, it didn't. X-Men: Eve of Destruction is still here. Annihilation (comics) is still here. Superman & Batman: Generations is still here. House of M is still here. Speaking of Planet Hulk, it was redirected by ChrisGriswold on August 10, 2006 [2], unredirected by Gman124 on November 29, 2006 [3], redirected by Gman124 on December 12, 2006 [4], unredirected by an IP on December 13, 2006 [5], redirected by ChrisGriswold on December 28, 2006 [6], unredirected by Rtkat3 on March 2, 2009 [7], then redirected by ThuranX on March 3, 2009 [8]. It currently redirects to Hulk (comics)#Planet Hulk and World War Hulk. Do any of those articles meet the current version (or any version) of WP:NOT#PLOT? Does it even matter if they do or not?

Did turning WP:NOT#PLOT into policy create any problems? Yes. The most notable being E&C1 and E&C2, which created additional problems. Plus, AFD discussions like these[9][10] being thrown out[11], discussions being ignored, articles deleted, simply because WP:NOT#PLOT was present in WP:NOT. What I don't understand is why you didn't just write up some WikiProject Comics guidance like you asked about here. You took a specific problem, and then ballooned it to all of of Wikipedia. You did the same thing in April 2006 when you proposed that third-party sources line in WP:V because of one article.

Sometimes people add things to policies and guidelines to win an argument. And I think you may have added WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT to win an argument. You said this edit seems to speak for itself well enough. I agree. I think it shows your motive for proposing WP:NOT#PLOT. I also think these two comments[12] [13] of yours at WT:COMICS, which you made days before you proposed WP:NOT#PLOT, show your motive for proposing WP:NOT#PLOT. It looks to me that you were having an argument, and you wanted one up on the other guy. You've done this elsewhere too. You proposed that third-party sources line in WP:V because you wanted to win an editwar over the UGOPlayer article (which was deleted anyway). Please stop editing policies so you can tip an argument in your favor. It's despicable.

Maybe your motives are meaningless, maybe none of it matters. But WP:NOT#PLOT didn't fly in June 2006 and it didn't fly in June 2009 either. So someone created Superman & Batman: Generations I and Superman & Batman: Generations II. And you redirected[14] [15] them to Superman & Batman: Generations. I probably would have redirected them too. But has WP:NOT#PLOT improved Superman & Batman: Generations? By adding WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT, you basically screwed over just about every article under Category:Fiction, because nearly all of them will have a plot summary, and that's often the first thing in an article. Especially when it comes to articles about fictional characters. Topical sentence, plot summary.

You say it's the consensus that matters. Okay. Did the recent straw poll show that WP:NOT#PLOT has consensus to be policy? --Pixelface (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]