User talk:Mirror Vax

The C64 Frogger screenshot by tyan23 is from the Sega Cartridge version [1]--Tjansen 22:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unlikely that the version is an unlicensed clone, because a) it's a cartridge and b) Sega has released at least one other C64 cartridge, Congo Bongo [2] --Tjansen 22:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit these pages and post a comment in support with an example of how this is true. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Gamaliel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon 24.147.97.230 17:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a list that confirms the existence of this cartridge: [3] --Tjansen 22:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that you tone down your rhetoric and do it now or risk being run up for a request for comment. If I elect to tag articles, I will do so under the rules. If you have a problem, e-mail me and inform me of your concerns. Keep your accusations off of my talk page. - Lucky 6.9 02:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on starting a new one anyway. Your response was the impetus to do so. As for using my page - a public forum - as a place to be called on the carpet, I tend to react rather negatively. There is a ton of garbage coming into this site every day. I edit a lot in the main article space. I've bought six articles to featured status. When not doing that, I feel obligated to help "keep house." I made no threats nor am I malicious. I simply will not tolerate what I feel to be an invasion of my privacy and of my pastime. If I bit back, it's because I believe that you commited a breach of etiquette. I do not wish to fight. If I created extra work, I apologize. - Lucky 6.9 03:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a message on a talk page is not an "invasion of privacy". That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Posting on your user page, certainly would be - that's your personal space - but not a talk page, which is a public forum. It's nice that you've contributed to six feature articles, but that does not give you license to be careless about such a sensitive matter as deleting articles. Why do you think you have to fight against a "ton of garbage" coming in? It's going to come in no matter what. You can't stop it. And most of the good articles on Wikipedia have started out as "garbage" articles. Mirror Vax 03:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Crazy" and "careless." Sheesh. I tried to offer an olive branch and you stuffed my face in it. Please just drop this and let's move on. No answer is necessary. - Lucky 6.9 05:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, but you removed all categories in the article. Of course there are subcategories in actually every category in Wikipedia, in this case e.g Category:Terrorist incidents by year --ThomasK 15:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong; I didn't remove all categories. Category:July 2005 London bombings is a member of the categories I removed (well, all except for the Al Quaeda category, which shouldn't be there). Mirror Vax 15:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just saw that there is a new category. alright --ThomasK 15:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sorting events by year is a common practice on Wikipedia. For example Category:2005 in rail transport or Category:2005 elections. Sorting by region would be useful too, for example something like "Terrorist incidents in Europe" a then sorting by each country. Remember that Wikipedia is a longterm project and there are many terrorist attacks ahead of us in various countries. - Darwinek 17:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A depressing, if accurate observation. Nearside 20:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel has threatend a revert war on Joe Scarborough. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gamaliel#Joe_Scarbourough 67.18.109.218 18:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was sent on a mission from Raul to help him add some files he uploaded; it appears they have since been deleted for copyright concerns. I've removed the links from the page. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What "copyright concerns"? Recordings made by the U.S. government are public domain. Mirror Vax 23:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, one can't merge the contents of a page and then delete the page it came from because this violates the authorship traceablitiy required under the GDFL license. For reference, see Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion#Incompatible_votes. --Icelight 18:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. Mirror Vax 02:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed some of your comments over at CFD, and you seem to be in a grumpy and ill-tempered mood. Is there anything going on that I can help with? --Kbdank71 13:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could start by explaining what you are doing with Category:Christian people. It looks like you moved the subcats into Category:Christianity. That is wrong from the point of view of the existing category structure. Do you plan to completely empty Category:People by religion? Frankly, your changes seem kind of random to me. Probably not improvements, and definitely not clear improvements. Mirror Vax 13:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say something more general about CFD. The category system is complex, and at times downright confusing. To make sound decisions, you have to immerse yourself in it. It is not amenable to snap judgements. The people who vote on CFD are mostly people who just like to vote on lots of things, and they have neither the time nor inclination to contemplate what they are doing. Their input is worse than useless. Mirror Vax 14:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I can help, then. There is no requirement that one needs to be an expert before joining. --Kbdank71 14:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about helping by doing the right thing? There is no obligation to pay any attention to votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the discussion is supposed to matter more than votes. Mirror Vax 14:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to speak with Mel Etitis on that. He thinks I should count votes, and disregard discussion. On a side note, please don't remove the CFD tag from categories until the discussion is complete and closed. This may not be a democracy, but there are procedures to follow, even if you disagree with them. --Kbdank71 14:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag because the person who put it there didn't open a discussion. You did, but that was an error, since you can't speak for the person who put the tag on.

Anybody can effectively delete a category by recategorizing the members. It does not require CFD. People who vote to 'delete' a non-empty category should be required to specify how the articles should be recategorized - and volunteer to do it! Mirror Vax 14:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good point. Truth be told, it's easier to remove cfd tags than list the category on cfd with no idea why it was tagged. --Kbdank71 14:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mirror Vax. Thanks for all your feedback on the article. The nomination failed the first time around, but I have re-submitted it as an FAC. I was wondering if you'd consider supporting it this time around? Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 15:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

...is a very bad idea, regardless of the merits of the nomination. There's the obvious question of recursion: is there any reason to assume the discussion on that nomination will be any less hostile and unproductive as the original one?

Don't open this can of worms, please. Let it have its five days, then stand back and mock it. This is just fanning the flames. JRM · Talk 13:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought about just blanking the page, but I figured I would follow the rules. I don't know why the admins didn't close the VFD immediately, since it is nothing but a personal attack and attempt to censor a disliked proposal (which, of course, was going nowhere anyway). Mirror Vax 13:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A personal attack is directed at a person, not a proposal. Questioning the value of contributions in polite terms is always allowed and does not constitute a personal attack. There are in particular concerns whether this proposal is compatible with Wikipedia's fundamental goals at all, which would make VfD'ing it appropriate, if still not particularly constructive. You're quite right that the rest of the discussion quickly degenerated into flame wars, but arguing that the nomination constituted a personal attack seems baseless to me.

The mere fact that administrators are not closing the VfD (though there was discussion, as you can see) should be enough indication that few people take this as an obvious personal attack or a censorship attempt without merit. In that vein you're kindly thanked for not blanking the page. JRM · Talk 13:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An attack on speech is also an attack on the speaker. VFDing a new proposal, which does not violate any rules, is not an attempt to start a "polite" discussion, but rather an attempt to prevent any discussion. Mirror Vax 13:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a huuuuuuuge amount of discussion as a result of the VfD! Admittedly, the ratio of constructive discussion to petty bickering isn't as high as it should be, but there've been a lot of interesting points raised on both sides of the issue. KeithD (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with using the Talk page? That is where discussion is supposed to take place. Mirror Vax 14:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Which does not violate any rules" is exactly what was disputed. And a VfD nomination is empathically not an "attack on speech"; by that logic, VfD == censorship and every nomination of could be construed a personal attack. That's one way of looking at it, but it's not a constructive way. And if VfD, especially this VfD, fails at doing anything, it is probably preventing discussion. Constructive discussion is another matter. But as I've said on the talk page: this is not going to get any sort of consensus to begin with. Rather than second-guessing the second-guessing of the project, it's probably better to let this run its course and make up the inventory. If it is to be closed, a VfD is not the right way to go about it (for one thing, that vote would last longer than the original!) You could try the Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard, where this point is also being raised. If enough people agree, it may yet end prematurely. JRM · Talk 13:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong; the nominator did not assert any rule violation. The nominator said, essentially, "this is a dumb idea" and argued against the merit of the proposal. Well, most proposals are bad ideas. That's the nature of proposals and is not a valid reason to censor them. Mirror Vax 14:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, correction. "Which does not violate any rules" was one thing that was hinted at ("introduces POV") and subsequently disputed (along with "violates 'no legal threats'"). The nominator also argued it was not merely dumb, but actively harmful in introducing bias, and a WikiProject is not a proposal—it's something that's established and immediately starts being a presence. A proposal to set up a WikiProject like that would have been another matter.

Last but not least, a VfD nomination doesn't censor anything. That's why it's a vote and not an announcement board. Regardless of what the nominator intended, the subsequent discussions were enlightening (and stupid and irrelevant, of course, all flavors are present). VfD has a long-standing policy of not cutting short discussion that's well underway and not clearly being shot down as bad faith by many people, which this wasn't. JRM · Talk 14:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps superfluous and irrelevant, but I'd like to point out I voted Keep for reasons much resembling yours in spirit (if not in execution). JRM · Talk 14:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "no legal threats" was completely spurious. There are people who are fastidious (even fanatical) about complying with laws (e.g. copyright), and we don't accuse them of making legal threats. Mirror Vax 14:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. JRM · Talk 14:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I do not think I have made an irrationally heavy contribution to VFD recently. Radiant_>|< 07:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• No, per m:instruction creep, and the fact that any arbitrary limits are gamable. If somebody is making many spurious nominations in bad faith (which is rare) we can already admonish him for vandalism or WP:POINT. If the nominations are in good faith, then regardless of how many there are, there's no need to limit that person's ability to clean up. I would like to hear what problem you perceive. Radiant_>|< 08:04, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • VFD is dominated by a small number of people, while most Wikipedians rarely participate. As a result, the "community consensus" of VFD is the consensus of the community that likes to vote on things. Limiting the frequency of votes, and holding the VFD window open longer, would enable broader participation. Mirror Vax 09:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your assertion is not entirely true; if a heavily-trafficed article is nominated for deletion, loads more people flock in to express their opinion. However, lengthening the period for a VFD nom is not really going to help - the only thing that would seriously let people join is having a smaller VFD page. However, 80%-90% of nominated articles are unanimously deleted, so arguably there is good function to most VFD nominations. If it were easier to get rid of obvious junk, it would give us more time to form a better consensus on articles that are truly controversial. Radiant_>|< 12:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Correct, the main problem is with lightly-trafficked articles, especially newly creates ones. That's where a longer VFD window would help. I have no problem with making it easier to delete things as long as it is also made easier to undelete. Ideally, VFD/VFU would be eliminated and deleting/undeleting would be treated as normal editing. Mirror Vax 14:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point about VFU. However, please bear in mind that some amount of deletion will remain necessary to keep vanity and spam at bay. Radiant_>|< 12:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I also have the feeling Walsh is a long time Wikipedian on a troll. Why else suddenly start the homophobic bit? I suspect he is a student who is working off a different IP address during the holidays and has worked out he is unlikely to be booted before school restarts. --Gorgonzilla 01:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to remove legitimate information I added about his congressional history and his rock band because we disagree about the issue of Lori Klausitis. Gamaliel 23:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't look closely enough. Mirror Vax 23:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]