User talk:Chaos5023/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit conflict

FYI: Your recent edit here inadvertently removed some of my comments. Location (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ack, sorry. I was trying to avoid that, but misread the diff. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Cheers! Location (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Chaos: I carefully looked over a lot of your revisions of my recent disambiguations of, and "hat-notes" on top of some of, the 54 weekly Torah portion articles and I see that you had a clear grasp of the situation and definitely improved on my initial efforts to clarify these parsha articles. Thank you for all the time and effort you put in especially with the care, concern and caution you displayed. IZAK (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note. I'm glad I was able to be of service. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

More Culture renaming

Seems I started a trend. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction#"The_Culture" article names. Barsoomian (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

POINT?

Please be careful about what you accuse others of. I think in this edit summary, you were trying to accuse me of stubbornly insisting on restoring my edits but you linked to WP:POINT, which is about bad faith, disruptive editing done to illustrate a point. Even if you think my edits are boneheaded, there's no reason for you to assume bad faith on my part. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 16:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You looked like someone determined to have the last word, to a casual inspection. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
That's not quite how WP:AGF works. You don't assume good faith until someone gives you a sliver of a reason not to. You assume good faith until you can't. Doing otherwise just makes for contention. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind efforts in educating me. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a more extreme interpretation of WP:POINT than I personally subscribe to, incidentally. I'm of the belief that people do pointy things with good intentions all the time. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I suppose that intentional disruption can have noble motivations, but it's still acting in bad faith because it is deliberately harming the project. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
To the point-maker, it's not real harm. Like when one edit-wars in variations on a repeatedly reverted revision because one knows it's a fundamentally good revision, it's just misunderstood. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure the father who savagely beats his children is just trying to "toughen them up." But harm is still harm. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Mmm hmm. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

As I said at the main page, I respect that you did some great work on this. I'm just sorry that a number of other editors have meant that I'm unable to contribute further to it. I/We did what we thought was correct, it was simply one of those situations where nothing is ever going to be right. I was one of the admins that closed the Muhammad Images RfC - and that was simple compared to this. That probably tells you something. My apologies again. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm not mad or nothin'. :) I don't think we're anywhere near where we need to be, but I don't think lambasting you and HJ and EyeSerene is anything to do with getting us there. And at the end of the day, it's probably best for us all to pursue a modicum of serenity. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Abortion and civility

For what its worth Chaos I haven't had any problems with your communication/civility :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah? Cool. Thanks for the vote of confidence. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Chaos5023. You have new messages at JohnChrysostom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi there, I'll have to recuse from the AA area this time, not only because of the issues I outlined on the talkpage but mainly because I'll be very inactive towards the end of this year due to IRL issues (I'm moving house, and to a completely different part of the country), so it would be better if another admin stepped up for this round. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks for the heads up! —chaos5023 (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I was presuming we'd have three brand new admins to close this given the lack of responsibility taken by the first group of closing admins over the closure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not as arms about that as you, and they'd all agreed in principle to work on the new RFC. But Black Kite and HJ Mitchell have bowed out, and EyeSerene is out of action, so it looks like we'll have different closer(s) after all. Do let me know if you have any thoughts as to where we might turn some up. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I would initially suggest posting on WP:AN, but you should make it clear that the topic is controversial and the result is likely to be close. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds sensible. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've started a WP:AN thread. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Voting discussion closure

I think the voting discussion will need closing before the end of the RFC to avoid adding undue pressure to the overall closing admin. We could close it early and get someone to declare a consensus, or we could wait until the 15th and close it during the start of phase two, or we could delay the start of phase two while that discussion is closed.

I have no particular preference, but I thought I should point it out :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any particular need to wait forever. My thought was to close it in the next few days. I would have preferred to let it run for a while after watchlist notification happened, but as far as I can tell that request is going to be denied by way of being ignored as if no one were talking, so unless some indication arrives that something else might happen it's moot. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought the watchlist notification would be better for stage two. The RFC is pretty well thought out :). I think otherwise you have this covered. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It's much more important for stage two, yeah. (And thanks. :) I'd like it for stage one so people who want to yell later about how they didn't get to rewrite the RFC to their liking have no excuse for not having participated when it was time for that. Not that they'd necessarily have a leg to stand on anyway, I did WikiProject and article notification pretty far and wide, but it's not like there's such a thing as overkill when it comes to that. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I think closing the discussion as no-consensus was the right thing to do - given that no-one was prepared to close the discussion. Ultimately it will be ARBCOM's responsibility to sort out. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Abortion closure

Are you going to go for a single admin closure? That might be best. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just asked TParis to close it. Doesn't seem like holding out for a tribunal is going to help much. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

C++

go ahead and correct my spelling. I can provide links regarding the phobia.ExcessPhase (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I moved this here as ExcessPhase mistakenly added it to your user page. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Pro-abortion

Actually, the Pro-abortion redirect has been discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 29#Pro-Death. I can accept it is not neutral - but that is very different from calling it "incorrect". StAnselm (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I guess you don't realise, that "pro-abortion" is used as a neutral term in the mainstream media in other countries, like Australia: e.g. Pro-abortion activists rally in Argentina and Pro-abortion group fined. StAnselm (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure a discussion where a stem redirect was kept as no consensus (with at least a balance of opinion to delete) and a poorly documented internationalism argument will make this over-the-top POV pushing fly extremely far with the Wikipedia community. Do you think that the fact that I just got done with a year of trench warfare getting an RFC on this asininity resolved means that I won't start another? If you're going to go all WP:SOAPBOX and political WP:BATTLEGROUND, at least pick fights you can win. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

OtherSpace (video game)

Would you mind giving this article a look and help me figure out what the major issues are that I need to fix? Thanks! Carduus (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm going to be busy fielding the results of the closure of WP:RFC/AAMC for a while, but I'll definitely pitch in on OtherSpace. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the help! Carduus (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure. Glad to see the article back online. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anti-abortion movements (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ban
Immortal (MUD) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Content development
Wizard (MUD) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Content development

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Goldmoon and Raistlin

Thanks for your great help in finding sources for these articles. :) Would you say that Goldmoon meets the GNG now, or did you want to see if you could find more first? BOZ (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You are entirely welcome. :) I'm not completely convinced Goldmoon would be defensible at AfD as yet, though I'd call the odds at better than 50/50. I'd like there to be another ref or two before having a definite opinion. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, that's entirely reasonable. :) I'll see what I can do about acquiring some additional help! BOZ (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You are now a reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

— Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 02:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

did you vote?

hi there, your vote in ArbCom elections triggered a spoof CSRF alarm. Would you be so kind as to please confirm that you actually voted? :) Apologies for the inconvenience. Pundit|utter 07:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure did. —chaos5023 (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

More Dragonlance characters

Thank you for your contributions to finding sources for Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere. If you are inclined to helping further on related articles, I have started a new discussion regarding finding sources for the other important characters in the series. If there is any help you can give, please respond there or here. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on Torchiest's comment, Caramon Majere might be a good place to start. BOZ (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I have restored Caramon Majere, Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Tanis Half-Elven, Riverwind, and Kitiara uth Matar, as another user has found sources for each of them; if you can, take a look and see if you can find more. BOZ (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey there! I don't know if you have any sources for those articles I listed above, but if you do now would be a good time to add them because I will probably be starting another merge discussion on the list talk page soon. BOZ (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I've made some minor source review efforts and the results haven't been encouraging. May as well go ahead as far as I'm concerned. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Got you - thanks for checking. BOZ (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I also restored Sturm Brightblade and Flint Fireforge; do you know of any sources for those? BOZ (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

DragonSpires page threatened

Hi. I'm not sure what your connect is to DragonSpires, if any, but I thought you might like to know it is currently under threat of removeal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#DragonSpires I figured perhaps you would be more knowledgable about answering concerns. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of MUD trees for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MUD trees is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MUD trees until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Pburka (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology

It appears that I made the same edit three times on HTTP Secure, which was not my intention. I intended to make it once and discuss it if anyone reverted it. I don't know how it happened -- I must have somehow opened the same page in multiple tabs. Please accept my apology. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Cease and Desist - Removing of AfD from nominated articles

Please do not remove AfD inserts again. It even says not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.175.114 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts on talk pages using ~~~~. I will keep reverting your malformed AfD banner additions until you figure out how to do them correctly; the language in them is not an entitlement to deface the page with broken banners that don't connect to a properly initiated process. Also, your incompetent attempts to initiate an AfD on Cisgender are blatantly disruptive, with both AfDs on that page having been closed keep and the more recent one a snow keep, and the topic being inarguably notable. So I'll respond in kind: cease and desist. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

MUD trees

Do you think it's worth adding sources to the mud tree? I added one just to show what I had in mind, it can be reverted or expanded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MUD_trees#Sources KaVir (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think so, yeah. It's probably best to have the sources right there in any event. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I've added a bunch of sources. They don't cover everything, but it'll be hard to justify the original claim that "There is no indication that reliable sources have covered this topic". KaVir (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone else has started on the MUD trees article now. Is it the case that each and every mud on the tree has to have a reliable third-party source, or is it acceptable to have a few that don't? KaVir (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, WP:V is pretty unequivocal that sourcing has to be at least possible. So that's going to get interesting. I don't think it would be ridiculous to cite Keegan's mud trees directly, though, so that should help. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverting my edits

I respond to what you wrote on my talk page. I tagged as WP:OR what sounded like a biased text written by the person who created the Mud or its fans, and didn't have sources. Self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources ('unless produced by an established expert' e.g. Richard Bartle). Please refer to Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources.

I am thus asking you not to revert my edits, unless you can prove reliability.EternalFlare (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Realms of Kaos for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Realms of Kaos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realms of Kaos until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalFlare (talk • contribs) 08:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Spammer/Conflict of interest

I have noticed (in fact there are two entries on your page here) that user EternalFlare is systematically dismantling various MUD pages, and in particular seems to be hitting the GodWars and RoD pages pretty hard. On closer examination, I believe EternalFlare to be a troll, or perhaps an experienced user on a mission: he has made enough minor non-troll edits to escape detection, and he's smart enough and knows enough to cite plausible regulations as he chips away at articles he doesn't like.

There's also a very strange set of edits regarding the Nimud redirect page being a personal insult, so I wonder if he's a disgruntled mud owner who has had trouble with his own pages here before. Please keep an eye out, we may have to revert a lot of his stuff. Flying hazard (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I wrote a comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Young_Zaphod to justify myself. Please do not indiscriminately revert my edits based on the assumption that I'm Young Zaphod. If you believe that my interpretation of the guidelines, policies and rules is wrong, please engage polite/respectful discussion on my user page or in the talk discussions that I've started, I'm open to all opinions and trying to contribute to the Wikipedia project. EternalFlare (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
As I'm sure you've noted, I haven't been engaging in any such wholesale reversion and don't intend to start; rather, I've supported you when you've made good points. I do have to say, though, that if you are in fact Herb "Locke" Gilliland, and you want to begin contributing productively to Wikipedia, you need to cop to it right now, abandon the account, and return in six months to a year explaining the history of the situation and requesting the WP:STANDARDOFFER. Otherwise you aren't going to get the opportunity you want. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
To clarify somewhat, admitting to the situation now would be a gesture of good faith that I would anticipate pretty well guaranteeing that the community would be pleased to extend the WP:STANDARDOFFER to you in the requisite six months, while making us do the legwork again and effectively "freshening" your banned status would leave a much worse taste in people's mouths and jeopardize your application. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hierarchy of MUDs

On Talk:GodWars the question has been raised about using the "Hierarchy of MUDs" as a tertiary source. The exact same source is used in a number of other mud-related articles, so I thought you might be interested in sharing your thoughts. It's worth noting that Bartle also cites it as a reference in the Bibliography of Designing Virtual Worlds, where his comments clearly indicate that he is familiar with its content. Ref: http://www.mud.co.uk/dvw/bibliography.html KaVir (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Famous mud people

The Bartle Test article has a link to the stats page of Erwin's original test, which in turn links to the results: http://www.andreasen.org/bartle/stats.html - that page includes a list entitled "People currently marked as "famous"". Is that any use for references? If nothing else, perhaps it could be linked from some of the articles (for example there's only one "famous" killer in the original Bartle Test). KaVir (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem tremendously useful at first glance. Andreasen would have to be documentable as a "published expert" in the field for the document to be considered reliable, and I'm not aware of any publication credits to his name. Might be doomed to be no more than an elink. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
After some rummaging around I've found a copy of The Mud Companion issue #1 - a commercial printed magazine which credits 1 editor and 4 contributing editors. Pages 33-35 have "The Mud Personality Test" by Erwin Andreasen and Brandon Downey. Any better? Note that The Mud Companion is also mentioned in Designing Virtual Worlds, although only briefly. KaVir (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, hey, that's a publication credit, innit. Looks like we have a case for considering Andreasen a published expert. I don't think anybody who knows him from a hole in the ground would say he's less than an expert, do you? Which means the published part is the hurdle. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I follow. Do you mean the lack of being published was previosuly the hurdle (and that now we can use the source), or do you mean that we have to somehow prove that it was really published? If the latter, would the mention of The Mudcompanion in Bartle's book be sufficient? KaVir (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I'm mixing up two things. Whatever was published in The Mud Companion is usable directly. That publication credit also raises the possibility of considering Erwin Andreasen a "published expert" on MUDs, which would make his online self-publications usable per WP:SPS. I think what we should do is open a proposal on the MUD task force talk page for whether we should consider that the case, but in the meantime whatever's in the magazine is fully usable. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Ew-too for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ew-too is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ew-too until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalFlare (talk • contribs) 20:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chaos5023. In the AfD you said you couldn't find any sources for "ew-too" (sometimes written "ewtoo", if you're using a text search). Did you also look for "Elsewhere", "Foothills", "Simon Marsh" and "Burble"? I know you've got a lot of books you use for mud sources, but do any of them cover talkers? KaVir (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't. My own knowledge of talkers doesn't run that deep. I think a couple of my books mention talkers, but as a sidebar, not getting as far as naming any. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:StickMUD login screenshot.png)

Thanks for uploading File:StickMUD login screenshot.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Poke

Can you send me an email sometime? My wiki handle at gmail will work. Lawrie (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Dragonspires mud up for deletion. I searched for books that mentioned it, and you have referenced these in other articles

Dragonspires is a rather notable mud, made by a rather notable game developer. Its at AFD now. If you have access to books that mention it, could you please see what it says? Google preview leaves out anything valid. One of the first Google book search results is Interactive Internet the insider's guide to MUDs, MOOs and IRC by William J. Shefski and I search for that on Wikipedia and found various Wikipedia articles using it as a reference already. You put that reference in one article I checked the history of, among other books as well. So, can you please search it for Dragonspires, and any other books at your disposal? Dream Focus 16:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Virtual goods

The Virtual goods page includes the statement "When Iron Realms Entertainment began auctioning items to players of its MUD, Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands, in 1998, it became the first company to profit from the sale of virtual goods".

However the reference is a dead link. The same interview can be found on the Iron Realms website, but it doesn't actually say they were the first - which is understandable, because they weren't. At least three other muds beat them to it by a couple of years, and at least one of those was a company (although the only sources I can find are usenet which doesn't really help).

Do you have any references to the muds and sale of virtual goods in your mud library?

KaVir (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I've got Castronova's Synthetic Worlds, which since it's primarily an econ work I'd hope might say something about it. Pretty good preview on Google Books, though I'm not finding what I'm looking for in it. Good old Designing Virtual Worlds seems like a likely suspect too. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and if we have a citationless assertion which also happens to be false, there, no reason not to just remove it as failing WP:V. Something can be put in where it was when a relevant verifiable statement turns up. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U for User:Folken de Fanel

Hello,

Because I mentioned you, I am inviting you to participate in this Request for Comment on user conduct. Please read my statement, and if you agree, please certify it by adding your signature under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". You may also add a statement of your own under the "Outside view" section.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel

Thank you. BOZ (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"unnecessary and hostile editorialization"??

Please remember to assume good faith. Clarifying that cisgender, cissexual etc are neologisms is not an attack. Nor is it unnecessary - it provides a simple and logical explanation for why they do not appear in any standard dictionary such as OED or Merriam-Webster, which is where many people will turn to find out what a word they are unfamiliar with means.

I have no problem with your "more concise" new edit so am happy to let the matter rest there, but please follow the key principles of Wikipedia (like AGF) in your future conduct with others.

Good day.

almightybob (pray) 14:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Al-banner.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Al-banner.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 360i

The article 360i has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is narcisistic piece of self promotion. All the refs seem to be self conglatulatory and many point to the web site of the article's producer

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jodosma (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

360i Rfd

No discussion occurred because you didn't allow time for it. Are you personally involved with 360i? Jodosma (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Computer language user templates

I apologize for my mistake but I didn't have the time to treat all your templates properly, I just propose to rename them (eg: {{user LPC}}) because:

  1. User:Chaos5023/Userboxes/LPC is located at C instead of L into the category, which doesn't allow to check if they are in double (which was the case of many other templates of the "user" namespace).
  2. Its name makes think about a preproduction as it's not called "template" (and it's not aligned in the list which slows the reading). This also doesn't provide a full community confidence feeling.
  3. This name looks like those of the several new contributors which copies the templates contents instead of transcluding them.

Thank you for your works and best regards. JackPotte (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And in the purpose to the Wikidata links addition, I propose myself to rename these templates in a few days. JackPotte (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Help test better mass message delivery

Hi. You're being contacted as you've previously used global message delivery (or its English Wikipedia counterpart). It doesn't feel so great to be spammed, does it? ;-)

For the past few months, Legoktm has built a replacement to the current message delivery system called MassMessage. MassMessage uses a proper user interface form (no more editing a /Spam subpage), works faster (it can complete a large delivery in minutes), and no longer requires being on an access list (any local administrator can use it). In addition, many tiny annoyances with the old system have been addressed. It's a real improvement! :-)

You can test out MassMessage here: testwiki:Special:MassMessage. The biggest difference you'll likely notice is that any input list must use a new {{#target:}} parser function. For example, {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales}} or {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales|test2.wikipedia.org}}. For detailed instructions, check out mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage.

If you find any bugs, have suggestions for additional features, or have any other feedback, drop a note at m:Talk:MassMessage. Thanks for spamming! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Beginning of MassMessage, end of EdwardsBot

Hi. You're being contacted as you're listed as an EdwardsBot user.

MassMessage has been deployed to all Wikimedia wikis. For help using the new tool, please check out its help page or drop a note on Meta-Wiki.

With over 400,000 edits to Wikimedia wikis, EdwardsBot has served us well; however EdwardsBot will no longer perform local or global message delivery after December 31, 2013.

A huge thanks to Legoktm, Reedy, Aaron Schulz and everyone else who helped to get MassMessage deployed. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

GURPS

You might be interested in this thread given your past activity in the subject area. BOZ (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Star Wars MUSH login screenshot.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Star Wars MUSH login screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on MUD. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Aoidh (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, how utterly ridiculous. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 360i

The article 360i has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tapestries MUCK logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tapestries MUCK logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chaos5023/Archive_3&oldid=1076061144"