User talk:Cynical/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Thanks

Thanks for your support on WP:RFA. – ABCD 03:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC

While I agree that WP:MUSIC is imperfect, I'm extremely happy that there are some guidelines for music groups. Would that we had some guidelines for some other topics, such as schools.

As for the bias towards major labels, that's part of the bias towards the PR industry that inevitably pervades Wikipedia: anything featured in Big Media gets a lot of WP coverage (e.g. Terri Schiavo), and Big Music is part of the same system. It's tilting at windmills to spend time resisting that. Anyway, some of the WP:MUSIC criteria, such as international touring, aren't limited to record company power. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Command & Conquer Red Alert

I'm undoing the changes you've made to C&C: Red Alert. It's better to have one Red Alert Series page with all info on one page (since they all relate to eachother) than small individual pages. Also renamed it the "Red Alert Series".

School discussion

Hi there! I've summarized the lengthy Wikipedia:Schools discussion and listed the statements that got approval from most people. I believe it's been a constructive page, and WikiProject Schools has benefitted from the revitalization. Anyway please take a look at it and write on the talk page if you found this acceptable. Also I'd appreciate some help in keeping any future VfD discussions on this matter from getting out of hand (I'm not entirely sure how, but we could set a good example by casting concise votes referring to /Arguments). Yours, Radiant_* 10:59, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Problem with browser and unicode

Hi Cynical,

I think this is something that is still in flux at the moment, but you should be aware that edits from your browser may be causing problems with pages that contain unicode characters. I don't understand the technicalities fully but it seems to be an issue that has appeared after the upgrade to Mediawiki 1.5 - it looks like there is some related discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Lock out unsafe browsers? on the Village pump.

For example this edit seems to have accidentally damaged several of the interwiki links.

I also don't know the solution (I imagine editing sections would minimise the problem) nor where the right/wrong lies - I just thought you would like to know it is happening. -- Solipsist 14:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Broken interwiki links?

This edit that you made seems to have broken some of the interwiki links on WP:CP - I don't know what you see, but I see plausible Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese and Chinese scripts on the left of the diff and question marks in the equivalent places on the right, and the links seem to lead to "no such page" the way you left them. I've put them back as they were, but I thought I'd point out to you that you might inadvertently be causing some problems. Out of interest, are you using an old or unusual browser? --rbrwr^± 14:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh, obviously Solipsist beat me to it. --rbrwr^± 14:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

we have a mechanism in place for dealing with such browsers but we need to identify them first. Can you please tell us what browser you used to make that edit? Plugwash 17:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Response to broken interwiki links

This may be caused by the fact that I had to copy the article to a text editor (Notepad++ if that makes any difference) before I could edit it, as it was not broken down into sections properly and I couldn't find the part I actually wanted to edit. If it makes any difference I'm using Firefox 1.0.4, although the problem is probably caused by Notepad++ (although I'm sure the latter is Unicode-capable as well as being a basic text editor)

UPDATE: Having looked at the 'diff' page that you guys gave me a link to, I am almost certain that Notepad++ is the culprit rather than Firefox. I'll use something completely unicode-capable for any similar edits in the future

Abuse of speedy tags

Please do not use speedy delete tags on articles which clearly do not meet the criteria, like page views. Kappa 12:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Response

I was not 'abusing' the speedy delete tag. At the time I added the tag, it was a plaintext (not standard WP font, don't know how it managed that) dictionary definition, was therefore not encyclopedic and therefore qualified for speedy delete. Cynical 15:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Plaintext is not a speedy criterion, and neither is dictionary definition. Kappa 15:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Not being encyclopedic is Cynical 15:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Which of the criteria says that? Kappa 15:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Articles #1: '# Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.").'. At the time I added the tag, the plaintext formatting (no line breaks) meant that the article was a single, incomplete sentence [the rest of it wasn't displayed]. This means that it qualified for CSD under the criterion I have linked to. Cynical 15:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I really don't think this criterion was intended to get articles deleted merely because their contributor is unaware of wikipedia's formatting system, but I will make a note of your interpretation. Kappa 15:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
          • As I have already said (I'll repeat, since it's clear from your failed RFA that you're an arch-inclusionist), the formatting was not the reason I added a speedy delete tag to this page. very short articles containing little or no context are speedy deletion candidates, regardless of the reason.
            • As I mentioned, I don't believe that was the intention of the criterion, and in fact I think you are stretching it beyond all credibility, but I will make a note of your interpretation. Kappa 16:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

My [Slac's] RfA

Thanks very much for your support on my RfA - I appreciate it, and will rely on you to tell me if I'm ever acting stupidly. I considered making some lame crack about overcoming cynicism, but I decided I really couldn't pull it off :). Anyway, cheers! Slac speak up! 22:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Nathan Hale

Good edit to the Nathan Hale article. I added the poem. Should have deleted the second refence myself. (Note from Cynical: this comment was left by an unregistered user, which is why there's no signature)

Pat Robertson Image.

You added a copyright violation notice to the first image in the Pat Robertson article. Is there a reason you do not feel it constitutes fair use? It seems to be perfectly fine. - 24.7.186.18 23:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It did not have a fair use tag and you may have been unaware about that provision of US law. I will remove the copyright violation tag and append a fair use tag which the original uploader should have done. - 24.7.186.18 23:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Blatant ripping of someone else's webpage is not fair use Cynical 14:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is so long as credit is given. Especially since the webpage itself does not hold the copyright to the image but it is a publicity photo released by Mr. Robertson. - 24.7.186.18 17:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't aware that the photo was released by Robertson himself - since you didn't put that in any of your previous explanations. That clears things up :) Cynical 20:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Catholic Schools (UK)

Hello, good work on Catholic Schools (UK), and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Can you list in the article any websites, books, or other sources that will allow people to verify the content in Catholic Schools (UK)? You can simply add links, preferably as the inline citations, or see citation templates for different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 03:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give a valid reason why external sources are needed for a collection of uncontroversial, well-known facts instead of just using meaningless boilerplate templates Cynical 16:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of 'liberals wikipedians' category

Hi. I saw you're (like me) listed in this category which is up for deletion. Hoped you'd like to vote in favor of keeping it... Thanks! Larix 23:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Done! Cynical 22:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Final Fantasy X locations

• All the information you need is in one article Spira. They were merged not long ago, into one article from a number of stubs because it's better that way. FFX doesn't need 10+ articles on different cities in the game. It would mostly be fancruft. And it's been standardised like other Lists of Final Fantasy locations. And any more new articles that emerge would just be merged into the main article, leaving this category empty. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Chanlord 23:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(From deletetion page, reposted here for your reading.)

• Your argument on my talk page ('Wikipedia is not a game guide') is entirely false - this is not included in the WP:NOT policy (which you may want to read before making claims based on it) - search the text if you don't believ me - and as such is left down to achievable consensus in discussions such as Afd, Cfd etc. Attempting to shout down my contribution to said discussion would have been a tad more effective if your policy argument had actually been sound in the first place. Cynical 13:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Replying to message on my User Page. All I was doing was providing a counterpoint and a reason why there isn't a need to have that that category. Consensus at the Wikiproject Final Fantasy is to have all the locations in one article and I wasn't making a policy statement, more of an opinion. Wikipedia isn't a game guide, it's an encyclopedia. But please don't think I was making some sort of an attack, just trying to explain why I nominated it. Chanlord 14:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• I wasn't intepreting what you said as a personal attack, I was simply pointing out that you said (and still say, in your most recent response) that 'wikipedia is not a game guide' - whereas the WP:NOT (which defines 'what wikipedia is not') makes no mention of 'wikipedia is not a game guide' Cynical 14:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Response: I wasn't using it as a policy reason to delete this category. If I was, I would of had a link to the WP:NOT page. I was merely saying that I don't think Wikipedia is intended to be a game guide (and so do a lot of people in Wikiproject:Final Fantasy), merely an encyclopedia. Information pertaining to cities, weapons, strategies for video games are better found at GameFAQs Chanlord 01:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I get it now, its just that your initial comments seemed like an unambiguous claim as to Wikipedia policy, rather than a reason/belief. Cynical 17:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: Parts of this discussion in italics were originally posted on Chanlord's talk page, but I have copied them to here for clarity - you can read the entire discussion here. Cynical 17:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• I just wanted to apologise for my earlier mistake - it turns out that, even though you weren't making a policy argument, the policy does actually state that wikipedia is not a game guide after all - point 9 in the 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information' section of WP:NOT. Sorry about that! Cynical 15:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the apology. I wasn't aware of it either so thanks for letting me know. Happy New Year!! Chanlord 21:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

CAoW

Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. --Shanedidona 01:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)