Jewish-wargamer

ASL

It seems like unnecessary wordage that doesn't fit with the neutral tone we write encyclopedia articles from. Unless an independent source can be cited, its your point of view that this is complex compared with other games. All that said, this is a minor point and if you feel strongly about it, feel free to put the wording back in and I won't object. Gwernol 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

List of miniature wargames

It really seems to me that you don't understand Wikipedia notability policy. For a list, it is important that the subject of the list (in this case miniature wargames) be notable, not the list itself. This is well established. I don't really understand where you got the idea that you're pushing. Even those who are anti list (see WP:LISTCRUFT) acknowledge that. I've removed the tag again because it's against the consensus of the page and of Wikipedia in general.Chunky Rice 02:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so you linked to Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content, which says that individual entries on a list do not need to be notable. I'm not sure what your point is with that.

And then you linked to Wikipedia:List_guideline#Criteria_for_inclusion_in_lists, which is about sourcing entries. And I agree that entries need to be sourced. That's why I left the "needs sources" tag.

Neither of these links question the notability of the list itself. Which is why the tag about notability is not appropriate. Unless you can actually come up with a policy or guideline that supports your position against consensus, I'm going to remove it again and start an RFC to resolve it. -Chunky Rice 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to go ahead and start up an RFC (request for comment) regardless. Can't hurt to have more input. -Chunky Rice 20:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The result of the RFC is (so far) unanimously in favor of removing the tag. As such, I've removed it. I hope you'll accept this and let it stand. -Chunky Rice 13:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

An RfC request is posted at RfC so that users who have no involvement with the article in question can give their opinions on a content dispute. Given the results, I'm comfortable reverting your change as it is clearly against consensus. If you insist on editing in contravention of this consensus and Wikipedia policy, the next step, I guess is mediation, and then, I guess Arbcom. -Chunky Rice 18:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you truly think that this list shouldn't be on Wikipedia, I suggest that you nominate it for deletion. Will that put your concerns to rest? -Chunky Rice 18:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sign using your own name

You should sign comments with your own name and not someone else's! Craw-daddy 21:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh! I found that template on some other page and just copied it. By the way, how did you pick up on that? Are you watching my account or something? Jewish-wargamer 18:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made, you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

FYI, WP:3O is for when a dispute is only between two people. At List of miniature wargames the dispute is between you and several other editors. The third opinion request will likley be denied on those grounds. An RfC is what is appropriate. And we did one. And it favored removing the tags. -Chunky Rice 20:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think of it as edit warring. I tried to talk to you, but given that you're absent from Wikipedia for months at a time, that's simply not a practical option. I performed an RfC, fully willing to abide by that result and left the tags intact while it ran. I feel entirely comfortable with the my actions. If you have a problem with the way I've conducted myself as an administrator, feel free to make a report at WP:ANI, though I note that I've used no administrator tools in this dispute. -Chunky Rice 20:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I would prefer it if you did take the article to AfD. At least then maybe you'd accept that it's not a "false consensus." -Chunky Rice 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not treating you differently because you're an infrequent editor. I merely point out the difficulty in having a discussion with someone who's not there. -Chunky Rice 21:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I have no idea what you're talking about (as usual). I never said that your absense was a disadvantage to me. I only said that it makes having a discussion difficult when one party is absent for months at a time. You may disagree. But I find it to be difficult to talk to someone who's not there. -Chunky Rice 20:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)