User talk:Revrant: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:09, 18 September 2009

Welcome!

Hey, Revrant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like the site and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful (some of them may sound stupid, but I recommend you check them out):

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
The Sandbox — A great place to experiment
WP:Village pump — A good place for help

While editing, please remember:

Be Bold, but not reckless in updating pages
No personal attacks: be upset with the contributions, not the contributor

You should introduce yourself here at the new user log. I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name, the date, and the time.

For your first edits, I suggest searching for articles that you think might interest you. You could also be audacious and try a random page.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome and happy editing! Cbrown1023 22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply please

Hey, reply on Indestructible's talk page. The point I just tried to make failed utterly, so I want to do it again, but I don't wanna double post, or edit my post. So just reply so I can try again. I'll even admit my last comment made me look stupid as hell. dude527 (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused as to what you meant, but after reading the reply I do see what you mean, but I'll reply and be as kosher as possible. Revrant (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you, once again, to reply now. --The Guy _complain ^edits 05:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Revrant (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting it

You were discussion me more than the actual content dispute, which is indeed a violation of WP:NPA, therefore the template was justified. I would recommend not removing it, because it does you no harm unless you continue anyways, and they expire after a little bit. But you've got to leave it on for any future editors who might want to tag you for anything (not assuming that you will do something wrong, but just in case), then those editors could see that you had one previous offense, and act accordingly. That's the whole point of those templates. I don't care if nothing was "intended," you still violated the guideline, and you gotta face "the template." --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's just a matter of opinion, if you found it insulting I apologize, but everything I said involved you in relation to the article, not you as a person, therefore I did not. Revrant (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FfD

After reviewing your history on FfD, I just have to ask, have you ever voted to keep anything?

Also, have you ever come up with any other reasons than the ones you list which seem to deem everything regardless of it's importance to the subject matter as having no significance to the subject matter, even things covered by major media and thought of as cultural touchstones?

I just have a hard time seeing any logic in your blanket-statements, they really don't seem to do anything positive or constructive for the process of deletion, I wouldn't mind understanding the reasoning behind it, because as of now I'm at a complete loss. Revrant (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your paragraphs in order:

See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_22#Raffaele_Diana.JPG; I know there are quite a few others.
I feel that non-free images of dead people, one album cover per article, and one company logo per article are automatically acceptable. Other non-free images must significantly aid readers in understanding the article by their presence. I didn't make the rule, the Wikimedia Foundation did and this is our implementation of it.
See that caption to Wikipedia up in the top left hand corner of the page? It's "The Free Encyclopedia". That means we want the encyclopedia to be free for anyone to use. Because any non-free content we add weakens that, we must keep our use of such content to an absolute minimum.

I hope that clarifies my position for you. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response, also in order.

But there's another free image of him that's of much higher quality, so why wasn't that deleted and replaced with the better free image? The same isn't true for many that you vote down.
Yes, I did read that, and it makes sense, but I just don't see how you can blanket it across so many different images, many of the images you vote against(indeed, perhaps half) seem to be of great importance, for instance Larry King's picture relating to his troubled past. That image was not only representative of the life he lead as a young man, which even he has admitted was troubled, but I do believe a touchstone for those reading the article to relate with the subject matter. Your statement that it carries no significance and is "decorative" to me seemed without any reason what so ever, however it having no source was a legitimate concern, but the statement itself was close to banal, which seems to be a theme of sorts the more I read.
Yes, I was previously aware of the Wikipedia motto, thank you. That makes sense, but shouldn't there be a system in place before deletion is attempted to discover sources? I just think heaping the responsibility on the poster and not having a system akin to FfD for it is damaging to the articles, illustration is a powerful tool Wikipedia gets to use above all other encyclopedias and I think it's administrators should do more to save, but it seems from the many administrators voicing votes, there's a near-unanimous decision to delete everything presented across the board. Revrant (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we are unlikely to come to an agreement on this matter. I'll just point out that because freedom of content is so important to Wikipedia, several of the processes are quite a bit faster than normal at deleting non-free content. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose further explanation would only exacerbate things, I'll just point out I think it's detrimental for Administrators to handily vote down everything without due explanation, or worse, with blanket statements, and that is directed at the many Administrators that do it so often, not you in particular. Revrant (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Print sources for Indestructible

Hey, I remember earlier this year during the FA nom for Indestructible by Disturbed, you said you had contacted publications to see if you could obtain any back issues. Any luck whatsoever? The Guy ^(edits) 21:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no emails were replied to, and all phone calls were rejected or I ended up being hung up on, the only way to get them is from eBay by the looks of it. Revrant (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll keep making every effort... Regrettably it gets harder and harder with time :/ The Guy ^(edits) 03:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hey, just wanted to give you a warning. You're 1 edit away from violating the 3RR rule on Ten Thousand Fists.

The Guy ^(edits) 23:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be you, not me, so keep your warning and apply it to yourself, you're warring while a discussion is happening, that's against Wikipedia policy, until it is solved leave that portion alone or I'll have to involve an administrator. Revrant (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are both very close to breaking the three revert rule. How about you both stop the edit warring now and finish the discussion first? If you don't, the page will have to be fully protected until the issue is resolved. Tim meh 16:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this a few times now, but he's intent on forcing this on the article before the discussion has reached a consensus. Revrant (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware how close I was as well, I simply wanted to make sure you were aware you were close as well (closer than I when I typed this). However, I'm of the opinion that the reverter holds the burden of trying to change the page, rather than the opposer trying to change it back. In other words, I was of the opinion that because you made the revert, it should have stayed the way it was prior to your reversion until the consensus was reached. Irrelevant now, anyways, but I still wanted to add my two cents. The Guy ^(edits) 03:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to World of Warcraft, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Sinneed (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the source and do not block information from the source or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Revrant (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also give a read to wp:edit war, wp:SYNTH. The wp:burden is on the editor attempting to add disputed content to the article. - Sinneed (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no synthesis, it's a single source, the single source is one sentence long, the single source is explicit and not at all up for debate, if you continue to dispute a reliable source's inclusion this will lead to administrator intervention. Revrant (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As before: I have added 2 more reliable sources. I hope to find the actual book and add it. I have added the quote you claim to cover your wp:SYNTH addition. I can assure you with great confidence that I am well within the bounds of reasonable editing. I do encourage you to open an RfC, or ask for a 3PO if you feel you are being mistreated, but I don't think you will find much support for your position on this minor point. - Sinneed (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I care very little, they have nothing to do with this dispute, the first source is the source of the information itself, the line is intact, you have not added anything as it has been there for quite a while now, information from the line was merely excluded for reasons unknown. Given the source is reliable, the originator of the record, and plainly stated, this issue will be over soon. Revrant (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with Sinneed. A 3rd opinion has arrived at the discussion and confirmed that you seem to be misusing the source per WP:SYNTH. Do we need to do an RFC on this? -- Atama頭 16:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be misusing the source, I wish to quote it directly, and if one more person attacks me using synth, I will file a formal report against them, synth requires creating something out of two sources, I am using one source, therefore it is a baseless accusation and insulting. Given the opinion failed in two places to recognize key aspects of the argument and for some reason spoke of unassociated aspects I will have to take it to someone who will address these points and the argument. Revrant (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From wp:SYNTH - "... or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources..." This is not a break from wp:NPA. Please understand that 3 heavily experienced editors have all carefully read the source and do not agree with your interpretation. One, you requested from 3PO. This has nothing to do with you, personally, it is not a personal attack. It is a disagreement.
It is important to understand that WP cannot assess correctness. It relies on the editors, who can only reach wp:consensus as to the best path. In this case, the consensus is clearly against you. You might choose to pursue an wp:RfC, but this is a very trivial bit, and I suspect will generate relatively little interest. - Sinneed (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it may be, and I have had three heavily experienced editors ignore my argument.

Yes it is, but I will not relent until the points are addressed, you have not addressed them, Atama has not, and the 3PO editor ignored them and addressed totally unrelated information. Revrant (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes it is, but I will not relent until the points are addressed" - Here, if one refuses to be bound by wp:consensus for whatever reason, one will eventually be unable to edit. WP runs on consensus. - Sinneed (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus cannot be reached if the opinions present are not addressed, you did not address them, therefore it could not be reached. Revrant (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 ::::::::Yes it is, but I will not relent until the points are addressed, you have not addressed them, Atama has not, and the 3PO editor ''ignored'' them and addressed totally unrelated information. [[User:Revrant|Revrant]] ([[User talk:Revrant#top|talk]]) 20:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 :::::::::*"Yes it is, but I will not relent until the points are addressed" - Here, if one refuses to be bound by [[wp:consensus]] for whatever reason, one will eventually be unable to edit.  WP runs on consensus.[[User:Sinneed| - Sinneed]] ([[User talk:Sinneed|talk]]) 22:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::::Consensus cannot be ''reached'' if the opinions present are not ''addressed'', you did not ''address'' them, therefore it could not be reached. [[User:Revrant|Revrant]] ([[User talk:Revrant#top|talk]]) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)