User talk:69.l25

Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4

Talk page deletion

Why did you remove that talk page message after I specifically left a note asking for more info to see if this was a bug that might need consideration for placement on the page? The Gunny   21:29, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you mean that he did not specifically mean the "reloading bench", rather than what he termed "workbench", and based on that, you mean it should not be on the reloading bench page? Is that correct? I was assuming good faith that he left it on that page with the correct intent to mean "reloading bench" even though he worded it "workbench". The Gunny   21:44, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Considering our "assume good faith" guideline, would it not have been a better course of action to allow the user to elaborate on this possible bug before we determine that his comment violated the talk page guideline? The Gunny   22:06, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Talk page deletions

69, I understand that the constant article talk page removals are "following policy", but some of these removals are extremely questionable. An example is Talk:Smiling Jack, where you removed 6 years worth of TP messages, some of which still fall under TP policy. People bringing up potential bugs is not against policy as it can potentially add something to the article (that's actually the reason I made an account on Wikia; see Talk:Lily Bowen). The same can be said for a user discussing a possible behind the scenes reference for the subject of the article. We can't just go blanking messages without proper cause.

You obviously can't do this for messages from 2008, but if you are going to remove recent TP messages, could you at least leave the OP a message explaining why their message was removed? Erasing it and pretending it never happened doesn't solve anything. I appreciate the work you're putting into the wiki, and I only want to see it improve and become as constructive as possible. Thanks. _{Into the wild blue yonder...} 04:16, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

The policy was never intended for mass deletion. I myself take issue with the fact that the most recent entry you removed was perfectly valid. It pertained completely to the article in question, but even if it didn't, blanking it with no explanation to the user who posted it is just plain rude. Who knows? That guy could've become the next Jspoel, and maybe now he'll never come back.  A Follower  Talk  04:29, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

69, I have to agree with Toci. There seemed to be a lot of things removed that werent just general talk. People looking at the possibility the subject is based on other things, etc.

I admire your passion, but you need to chill out. Your zeal is putting people off and harming both you, and perhaps even the wiki. I think you need to consider more both if removing these items from talk pages is constructive, and how you converse with your fellow editors. Agent c (talk) 04:32, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Ignore the structure, and look at the content instead. Look at the message the user is trying to send you. Agent c (talk) 04:39, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, personal anecdotes? What do you expect? It's a game, how else do we get content? Secondly, yes, between Toci, Chad, and Gunny.  A Follower  Talk  04:40, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

How do you think we got 90% of our bugs? Abnormal personal experiences. IF people don't report on their personal findings, how do you expect we get content? Solely through sourcing the GECK? Well, that's gonna make a boatload of work for a couple people who have advanced skills with it. This wiki was built on personal experiences, verified over time by repetition.  A Follower  Talk  04:46, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

“Talk pages are for the discussion of their respective articles and not for general chatter. Use the forum for the latter. Posts that do not pertain to discussion of an article itself may be deleted regardless of their time of posting.”— User conduct guideline

“This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the page "Smiling Jack." It is not the place for general discussion or sharing stories about the topic of this article. Please use our forum for these purposes.”— Talk page template

69, I am well aware of the wiki's policies, but thank you for making sure. Many of the posts on Talk:Smiling Jack are, indeed within policy. If you insist that I show you the posts on the page that are within policy, then so be it.

“I believe this guy is an homage to Smiling Jack from the PC RPG, Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines. Same names but could just be a coincidence.”— 71.105.192.83

This post raises the same point as the one that was posted no more than an hour ago. While it hardly made a case as effective as the most recent post, it still raises an eye to a possible reference. With more background information on this, we could contact game devs and ask them to verify this speculation, which can lead to information being added to the article.

“It's highly likely Smiling Jack is a reference to Smiling Jack from Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. Besides sharing the same name and both having a jovial disposition, Smiling Jack warns the player in VTMB to 'watch out for shotguns' as they are more volatile to vampires than most guns. 'The Terrible Shotgun' is likely a reference to this interaction.”— 75.109.74.191

This post brings up the same reference as before, and it provides the background for the possible reference. We could use this information to contact devs.

You also saved one of the other posts about the article not containing anything about what he sells (it was a few years ago, so it's obviously outdated, but still).

I am only trying to help here. Killing TP discussions before they can grow drives users away from the wiki, which is precisely what we are trying to avoid. _{Into the wild blue yonder...} 04:53, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

You're ideas are good in theory, but you are completely ignoring practical applications of them. Not every user is as confident with wikia editing as you and I, perhaps they feel more confident in a less formal setting, and can you blame them? Regardless, even if what you just wrote to me applied, it is your responsibility to apply it and explain to the user what they did wrong and that the proper course of action is. Blanking and ignoring does nothing, and gives off a bad impression. And I for one will not let you or anyone make our wiki seem like an unwelcome one. We as extra-rights users are here to help guide new users and anons, regardless of whether or not it's officially part of our position or not. It's something we do, and while your ideas have a sound theory, you are not employing them in a proper way.  A Follower  Talk  05:02, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'm going to have to step in as a 'crat here. You need to focus less on the form and instead address the content. it doesn't matter what it "encourages", if people suggest a possible bug or reference as an anecdote, its a potential page improvement even if it is in a conversation style- even if its debunked as we can use it as evidence that it isn't that later. Strategy stuff, feel free to zap into the either, but if a potential factual issue is raised, let it stand. Agent c (talk) 05:04, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

I've seen your message on Toci's page. I'd advise you to just take a break for now. Come at it with a clean mind tomorrow. Agent c (talk) 05:44, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 69.l25. You have new messages at Limmiegirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bugs

Please refrain from removing content from talk pages having anything to do with bugs, this includes questions about the status of something as a bug/possible workarounds/possible fixes/etc. ---bleep196- (talk) 23:58, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough, and I'm assuming the admin you cleared it through Limmie since she is the one who answered that question. I will remov the question again, as per your request. However, bear in mind that I pay very close attention to all matters having to do with bugs as I have pioneered many of the policies regarding them. I would like to suggest in the future that before you remove something to do with a bug on a tp that you clear it with me first, as anything on the tp's having to do with them is considered discussion of improving the article. ---bleep196- (talk) 00:27, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Forum

I don't think its particularly required, but you can if you really want to. I think I've seen enough peoples reaction on removal now on the wiki, in chat, and in private to be confident that your removals are against the consensus view. Agent c (talk) 00:22, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Its not that one incident (of which I haven't actually seen). Its the other repeated incidents. Look, we've got chat, we've got a previous vote and forum, and we've got the private communications. You may feel its a witch hunt, but I think the communities view is clear and on the record. Agent c (talk) 00:30, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily because of you. I read all the talk page messages before I made that more visible. It seems everything got straightened out today. I changed that because I wanted to make sure that anyone reading that in the future understood the importance I placed on it. Emphasis on everyone.and future. (plus, I've been having fun with html lately. Call it a dirty little secret:P) The Gunny   01:30, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Roger. Will do. The Gunny   02:21, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

A (late) Holiday Gift

You have been given a recharger pistol. Your efforts and diligence have not gone unnoticed, and you have been given a small token of appreciation. Merry Christmas and a happy new year, I know i may be a bit late, but had exams then and decided to delay my wishes a bit. If it's too late for you, then consider it a Chinese new year ;) Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 10:30, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Votes

One was public. Others have been in communication with us directly/discretely. Agent c (talk) 22:23, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, those people chose to contact us in a non public fashion because they wanted their names left out of it. Agent c (talk) 22:33, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

We're not doing "private votes" at all, but we can't ignore that we were contacted multiple times either. It is just one factor in our decision, and yes, they did tell us that.

I'm sorry you're not happy with it, but I think its clear you don't have community support to take on the role of admin at this time. Agent c (talk) 22:44, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

No, Im not going to give you their names. They've been in touch privately because they want that communication to be private. If they wanted it public, they would have taken the extraordinary action Toci did. Agent c (talk) 23:04, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Let me clear this up. We came to a unanimous decision about your request before factoring in anything the numerous people said to us, either publicly or privately, about their change of support for you. The fact that many people voiced a change of support simply validated our decision, it did not make it for us. Their change of support, to me, was important though, and in the future, we'll take into consideration whatever we deem necessary to make these decisions. The Gunny   23:24, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Userpage

I hope you won't do anything with what you just posted on your userpage. Better remove it I think, people won't be pleased to see it there. You've been declined adminship at this point and you've discovered how some people feel about you. It's hard, but you can also see it as a challenge. A lot of room for improvement, which you can work on in the coming 2 months or so. Shift your focus on what people think about you and build confidence doing what you do best, editing. In the meantime you can also work on your communication skills. Let this go now and start anew is my advice. Jspoel 00:01, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Let me be blunt. By posting that there you've now caused us a lot of problems. We suspected some people were misusing the log as some sort of secret police rather than a chat investigation tool. By posting that on your user page, you've now put that straight in our face. We're now left with the position that we are now forced to take down the log bot because we know that you and others are misusing it.

You're going to have to get used to a few things. Firstly, people bitch, complain, moan and gossip about people - friends and foe alike. This is normal human behaviour, and you're just going to have to get used to it. This isn't a wiki thing, but life.

Second, perhaps rather than post that there you should instead reflect on what people were saying. "he comes off as an arrogant ass.", "he just comes off as arrogant." "he's been annoying me lately" " He's been nothing but arrogant this entire time". These are the critiques on your behaviour you seem to want. Rather than take them as proof of some persecution, take them as feedback. How you are percieved is based on how you act. How you act is solely in your power. Agent c (talk) 00:14, February 2, 2014 (UTC)