User talk:Quack 688

Stupid and serious commentary are equally welcome. Hopefully, I'll be able to tell which is which.

/Archive 1 /Sandbox

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not both make it clear that Wikipedia articles on fictional topics should not be purely or primarily plot summaries. Unfortunately, all of our Babylon 5 character articles are pure plot summary and fictional biography. Compare to our best B5 article - Spoo and you'll see the difference. The issue isn't referencing - it's that the articles are all primarily about the fictional world of B5 and not the real world.

Take, for instance, Susan Ivanova. The article is a fictional biography supported at one or two points by Straczynski's comments, and with a paragraph about same-sex relationships that's good in terms of focus, but is entirely unsourced. But there's nothing at all about the controversy over her departure, the use of her as a red herring in the traitor plot that was known to exist for her predecessor, the way in which season 5 had to be replotted to deal with her absence, etc. All three of these are very important for a general encyclopedia article, in that they are about real-world things. (Real world controversy, interaction with the fan community, production issues)

The problem I have with David Sheridan specifically is that I'm unconvinced such an article can be written for him, since he appears in one novel, and is mentioned in less than a half-dozen episodes. He seems like a topic where all there is to say about him is what he did in a fictional world. Though if you can figure out a way to write a sourced article about his role in the overall themes of B5 and other real-world information, be my guest, and I'll be happy to withdraw the deletion nomination. Phil Sandifer 14:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a couple of things in motion that I've had on the back burner for a while that provide better options than deletion for articles like David Sheridan. I'll make the changes to the article tonight, and you can see what I have in mind. The short form is that the current content will be preserved on the Babylon 5 Wikia, and I'll do up a new article with the out-of-universe information that exists. Phil Sandifer 18:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were consensus demonstrated by pure numbers, in-universe information of the most fancrufty sort would have free reign over the project. Thankfully, it is not. As for the low quality of The Babylon Project, I agree - its articles are stubby and underwritten. Thankfully, we have a large number of articles on B5 topics that are, at present, almost all in-universe information, so it should not be very difficult to furnish that wiki with extensive information while simultaneously improving Wikipedia by refocusing its articles. Phil Sandifer 04:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm glad you asked more about Esperanza. Unfortunately I'm not well-versed in matters relating to Wikipedia process, so I can only partially answer your questions.

First of all, you might want to check out these links: Wikipedia talk:Esperanza and Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul. The second page has a notice about "all Esperanza members are urged to express their opinions," but I don't personally see any reason why a non-member should be barred from the discussion.

Concerning the discipline of Esperanzans/Esperanzians (both terms are used) who have transgressed, I think that if uncivil behaviour is observed, we are supposed to gently point that out, and in cases of repeated incivility, I think that it gets referred to the elected officials of Esperanza, at least some of which are administrators. I think that people who persistently misbehave can be removed from the member list. Now I really am fuzzy about the whole disciplinary thing, and for that matter, I honestly have no idea what an official does that is different from anybody else.

You had asked if Esperanza should have any other goals. Here is an idea, but I'm not sure how to word it. You probably know about WikiProjects in which interested users can contribute towards a certain article or field of shared interest. I was wondering if perhaps Esperanza could function as a sort of "meta-WikiProject" to help connect different users, feed cross-collaboration, and perhaps awaken new interests in Wikipedians. I know that the idea is very vague and probably not well-worded, but I think that something like this would do much to help build the encyclopedia and redeem Esperanza's image.

As I said, I'm probably not the ideal person to answer your questions, but I hope this helps anyway. --Kyoko 19:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - just dropping you a line to say that I thought your comments on the MoS (fiction) page were very well written & certainly in line with my own views. I was thinking about putting together an alternative draft page using our combined thoughts. It might take me a few days cause I want to get it right.

This is my last shot at trying to get some moderation injected into the current attempt to solve the problems of poorly written fan-fiction using the stick rather than the carrot. In my opinion, just putting the "in-universe writing" box and putting articles up for deletion is just going to p*ss off the large number of active contributors to Wikipedia fiction (and cause them to quit), rather than have the desired effect of making Wikipedia better.

Cheers, Dr Aaron 10:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see you also have had run ins with Phil Sandifer - I find that guy has a huge chip on his shoulder & should not have been made an admin.

Hi again - I felt inspired and just came up with a rough draft of the sort of thing I'd like to see- check out Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)/draft_revision. Feel free to make comments or changes. Dr Aaron 11:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a lot of examples that hopefully illustrate what we are banging on about. I think it might be good to present it to the wider community some time soon. Let me know what you think. Dr Aaron 09:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION: A Poll will be conducted for all proposals starting at 12:01 December 1, 2006; please remember to debate the ideas beforehand [1] WikieZach| talk 17:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quack 688, thanks for the encouragement, I'll do my best. I just hope it's enough. Thanks again! --Kyoko 14:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD will no way pass now. I've gone ahead and merged the Klingon material so we can make it better, give it sources, and protect it from its own AfD. Your help would be more than welcome. -Husnock 08:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

On changing the name during an AfD, it happens and I don't think there is a rule against it, but it's generally discouraged simply because it makes tracking the discussion harder. If there is an emerging consensus that an article might be kept under a different title, proposing new names might be a better way to go. Keep and move to XXX are typical comments in an AfD discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, much appreciated! Re: renaming an article under discussion - there's two scenarios I can think of:

1) As a first impression, the article's name might influence people's judgement of its contents, and thus be prejudicial. The name might be POV ("bad politicians" could get a "delete, violates npov", but "politicians convicted of a criminal offence" wouldn't), or just plain inaccurate (an article named after a test subject, but that actually focuses on some notable research carried out, could get a "delete, non-notable person".) People might focus on arguing over the name, when they should be discussing the article's contents.

2) The original name was valid, but during the course of the AfD, the article was changed in such a way that it is no longer appropriate, e.g. a "Bob the Widjit" article up for deletion gets reworked into a comprehensive article of the Widjit community, of whom Bob is simply the most famous.

An advocate for such articles is in a catch-22 situation if they get deleted. If someone goes to DRV with the existing name, most users will be unable to see the article, and judge its worth solely by its name. If, OTOH, they revive the article themselves, and give it a better name, they'll be accused of bringing back a deleted article against consensus.

I can see how it would make tracking a discussion harder if people started getting into a revert war over the name. What if, during an AfD discussion, someone forgets about the keep/delete question for a moment, and simply asks (as a comment), "Would this article be better (not necessarily keepable) if it was named "blah"? If people agree, the article could be renamed, with no prejudice towards keep or delete based on that decision - a deletionist could easily agree that "Widjit community" is a better name for the article than "Bob the Widjit", then turn around and say that a "Widjit community" article should still be deleted as non-notable, for example.) Quack 688 07:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved: Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Moved I love your assume bad faith icon, I am going to use it too... he he. Travb (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added your 2 user boxes to my webpage yesterday.

Today someone emailed me asking if I was a sockpuppet of you. I was offended, because if anyone is a sockpuppet, you are a sockpuppet of me. Not vice versa. He he.

Thought you would get a kick out of this.

It is the first time I have ever been accused of being a sock.

Some users, like Morton, get accused of being a sock all the time, (including incorrectly by me User_talk:TheOnlyChoice#Sockpuppet, User_talk:Zer0faults/Archive_3#Morton_devonshire_is_using_a_sockpuppet, Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Morton_devonshire God that was so embarrassing)

I now see why Morton and other users find it so funny when they are accused of being a sock. Travb (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quack (if i may call you that), I have extensively reviewed the governance discussions and the results of the poll, along with yours and other's proposals for a new charter. I wish to have a final compromise version that we all can agree on by January. I know Christmas is right around the corner, but if you can, please help me "write" it, thanks

WikieZach| talk 02:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and respond swiftly please :) WikieZach| talk 04:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just believe that having a charter will the popular ideas is better. I believe the main sticking point is of the AC. In what way do you support or oppose it? I believe it is good in it's current structure. And yes, I would agree to a review of each other's charter proposals. WikieZach| talk 04:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your query on my talk page.  The Transhumanist   00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really annoyed.

After I and you and many others worked hard to make this article truly excellent and indeed an exemplar list on wikipedia, the same people that tried to get the previous list deleted come along a pull a scam like this.

I don't know if the deletion was marked at the top of the page, but I check the article from time to time and didn't notice it. They picket the holiday season when no one was looking, lost the vote, deleted anyhow using the same argument that was explicitly rejected by the community now and before. They gave no notice to the people who were watching the article. Doc Glasgow had previously been involved in the article and should have recused himself anyway. Hundreds of hours of people's time have been deleted on the whim of a admin with in axe to grind.

Carefully worked out criteria, methods of discussion, 120 references, dozens of articles linking in, a fantastic resource.

Again to refute the silly argument made by some that dictator is an "inherently POV" descriptor, simply search wikipedia for the word dictator and notice how many people are described that way. Britannica, Encarta etc all do so, as do all news outlets.

What can we do?

juicifer 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should MessedRocker Solution be implemented, the main page could possibly feature a short essay (see KISS principle) on what Esperanza was and why it was shut down. Then it could write on how a bumbling bureaucracy isn't needed to make someone's day... see where I am going with this? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 07:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The point of MessedRocker's Solution is to maintain an archive while making it, and I quote, essentially deleted. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider "rotation" to mean it's playlisted and played regularly, so definitely more than once. In the absence of a definitive rule as to how many times constitutes 'rotation', though, I guess you just have to go with the 5 - 15 times. Many radio stations have playlist information on their websites ... have you tried looking for that? Proto::► 11:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small word of thanks from a passing bystander for your elegant explanation at 2nd arbitrary section break. Somewhere I've a treasured piano blues/boogie woogie record with the singer exhorting a dancer to "shake your fat fanny, that's what I'm talking about". Wonderful thing language.. dave souza, talk 19:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, and for your handy userboxes – WP:ABF looks pretty handy! Of course Queenie's Inglis isnae the real leid, an' forbye ah've naethin' agin USian or the leid of Oz, ye'll ken ah'm aye fond o' Scots language... dave souza, talk 11:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left some comments at your journal's page, it was rather long so I didn't want to clutter up your talk. Seraphimblade 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sounds good. Does Amazon have the DVDs? :-) Jordan Brown 04:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Quack, I just wanted to make sure you realised that in addition to the OR, the article does not even say "war crimes" once! Regardless of whether you reconsider your vote, I appreciated your voice on the article, and hope to see you around the 'pedia. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! In January, you participated in the discussion for the 2nd deletion nomination of Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). After two months of rewriting, reorganizing, and referencing, the article is now undergoing a WikiProject Comics peer review. Your editorial opinion would be most welcome to help us improve the article to A-class status. Thanks for your time! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 06:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]