User talk:MrStalker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archives 2 Need for Speed XI 3 CFD closes 4 Command & Conquer

[edit] Archives

1. Archive 1

---

[edit] Need for Speed XI

Hi MrStalker, I've objected to the "no consensus" ruling on the AfD here: User talk:Rlevse#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Need for Speed XI. Please don't take this personally, I just feel that its important that Wikipedia remains verifiable, which I feel do not is the case for unnannounced video games with sources that consist of purely fansites. I hope to collaborate with you in the future, and I invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Take care, JACOPLANE • 2007-03-3 19:42

I've got no problem with that, although I do not agree with you, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. My arguments have already been heard in the AfD, so if an admin in spite of that decides the article should be deleted, so will be it. Reading the discussion you've had with Rlevse, I fell confident that he is fully capable to make a good decision. There's no hard feelings, and I might even hook on to that project of yours. You take care too //MrStalker 23:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm...I've been patiently waiting for a reply for over a week now... Hbdragon88 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Rlevse made everything pretty clear. --MrStalker 14:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse was only talking about the context of the AFD and CRYSTAL, which is separate from the issue we are discussing. Future events are expected to have some reliable sourcing. The fan sites (which are not independently checked or verified) cannot be used as sources. I don't mind if you drop off the randar for a few days, but I expect a response - especially considering that the posting by Rlevse was already there when we started to debate the merits of reliable sourcing. Hbdragon88 05:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article meets the verifiability requirement, which Rlevse also said. And no, Rlevse post was not there when we began discussing the merits of reliable sourcing. Look at the time stamps. I posted 9:59, Rlevse 11:56. --MrStalker 09:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse's comment doesn't grant a free pass on posting unverifable information. Everything needs to be well-sourced. Take Duke Nukem Forever, for instance. There aren't any wild theories and speuclation about what characters might be in the game, what weapons, what kind of specs are going to be needed - only what the 3D Realms developers have said and what other sites have reported on it. As EA Games has said relatively very little about the game, the article should thusly reflect on what they've said as opposed to what the fans have said. Hbdragon88 22:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT unverifiable information. The article presents the facts as they are, everything is verifiable and true, because, the article doesn't say it's official, it doesn't say it's announced, it doesn't say everything is going to be in the final version of the game or when it's revealed. What it does say is that it is rumours, the article only repeats what other sites have been reporting. All sources are referenced very clearly, thus meeting the verifiability requirement. AS you said: only what the 3D Realms [in this case EA] developers have said and what other sites have reported on it. --MrStalker 06:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If the other sites were reliable, like GameSpot, or IGN, I would have no issue with it (I liberally relied on those two sites to form the backbone of the DNF article). They are not. They are self-published sources that WP:ATT has solidly struck down on (with two exceptions, which this situation doesn't fall). Hbdragon88 22:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the sources are unreliable and therefore the article is unverifiable. I think the sources are reliable and therefore the article is verifiable. I'm not alone with my opinion, you aren't either. I won't change my mind, and I suppose you won't either. So how do we solve this? Well, my mama always said it's better with to much information then to little. --MrStalker 10:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliability is not negiotatable. Self-published sources (fan sites) are not reliable sources, period, as stated in the core policy WP:ATT. Not even saying "oh it's just a rumor" is good enough unless some reliable source picks up on it. You think that too much info is better? That's not the way things work here. You don't cite it with a reliable enough source, it can be challenged, and it will be removed. Seraphim Whipp thinks that my verison is better, that's WP:CON (breaks the deadlock between you and I), and therefore I will revert to my preferred version. Hbdragon88 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Both Rlevse and Seraphim Whipp thinks the article is verifiable, so apperently it is negiotable. --MrStalker 13:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

But Seraphim Whipp has also said that he thinks that my trimming down of the article is better than your version. Hbdragon88 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD closes

The CFDs will be closed soon. CFD never runs especially quickly, although it's more up-to-date now than it used to be. There are still discussions open from 13 March. Even when they are closed, there is no guarantee that the recategorisation gets done right away. I am not an administrator and will not close anything that is not open and shut, but these seem to be uncontroversial, so I'll close them tomorrow if they are still open. Regards, 23:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You aren't? I thought only admins were supposed to close discussions. --MrStalker 14:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Command & Conquer

All done. Make sure it's how you want it, please.--Mike Selinker 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks a lot. --MrStalker 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)