User talk:Krator

Shadowbot3 automatically archives this page to the archive.

March 07 · April 07 · May 07 · June 07· July 07· August 07· September 07· October 07

I will respond here.

For various reasons, I prefer all discussion, even personal notes, on article talk pages. Not here.
Note: notifications of replies somewhere else are appreciated.

Readership of portals

Is the premise of this question, that portals aren't getting read, really true? This might change how often a lot of people work on portals.--chaser - t 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My answer is twofold. Firstly, the purpose of the question is described in the last few words: "does the value you ascribe to your contributions depend on whether they are useful to others or not?" - the actual readership of portals is irrelevant to the question.

Secondly, I do think there should be an assessment of portals in this respect, because I have a suspicion (but no evidence) that no one reads them, irrespective of how they look (you claim otherwise, please elaborate). The current setup simply does not give portals a good place within Wikipedia navigation. Only when navigating through "Contents", one will arrive at a portal. Compiling good access statistics for Wikipedia seems to be really hard, though, and I fear such an assessment will never happen. User:Krator (t c) 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, eight are linked directly from the top of the main page (as is Portal:List of portals). Besides getting server log information, the only way I know to get current data is indirectly: by looking for edits from those not regularly involved in a given portal's maintenance and multiplying the number of people that represents by ten (participation inequality says about one in ten readers should contribute from time to time) to get a very rough estimate. After I asked, I found some old data for specific portals here (compare to articles).--chaser - t 22:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can get current data. Portals Top 100 for Nov 07 compared with articles. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: no one reads portals, except for the main page linked ones. User:Krator (t c) 12:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forsaken (Warcraft)

Please review the current state of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forsaken (Warcraft) and its subject article. I think the state of that article at the time was sufficient reason to bring it up for AfD, but the topic itself and the current state of the article make it more worthy of keeping. -Harmil 18:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: userpage vandalism

You're welcome. (Your userpage is temporarily semi-protected now.) I left the 4chan raid note so you would be aware of the possible source of the multi-IP vandal attack. Now that you've seen the above post, you might want to remove it (don't feed the trolls). — ERcheck (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance

Thanks for pointing that out; it's a great article. To be honest, I probably won't be attempting to get this to FL again, but if I manage to get enough out-of-universe info, I'll refer to this. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks, man! Way back when I was working on Eragon (video game), you were the first person I encountered from WP:VG. All my assessing, peer review and guidance stems from the peer review you gave me for Eragon and the assessment for Warlords Battlecry II. I have a lot to thank you for... Una Laguna^Talk 20:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of the Nine Featured Article Candidacy

I've responded to your comments regarding Gameplay summarization. Thank you for your time! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your further comments regarding Gameplay and images. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krator, have the conditions for your conditional support been fulfilled? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Playable races in the Warcraft series

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Playable races in the Warcraft series, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Playable races in the Warcraft series was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Playable races in the Warcraft series, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you may want to look at the AFD located here; the consensus was to delete the article, not to redirect it to the Azatoth article. Thanks for your time. Regards, Neranei (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I knew about that AFD... Gah. This is pointless, nevermind. User:Krator (t c) 19:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SGP

Let's discuss changes to the Political Reformed Party article before we make them and prevent us from entering in an editwar. C mon (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG sources proposal?

I noticed you added a section to the proposal. Are you restarting discussion on it? If so, please let me know. I want to help. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal never died, but the reason why I wrote it (people claiming all kinds of things "official" and therefore awesome/relevant on talk pages) did. Help is always appreciated! User:Krator (t c) 23:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD bot

I've left a note at Wikipedia:Bot requests#AfD sorting based on WikiProject banners on article talkpages. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I hope our disagreement isn't the reason for your de-listing... I'm not in favour of deleting stuff where merging is appropriate, only where it's inappropriate. Nor, despite any possible appearances to the contrary, am I in favour of deleting anything that doesn't fail the criteria for inclusion. I'd just like to make that clear, as it's easy to give the wrong impression where such things are concerned. So yeah, I'd much prefer you to stay and argue your position (though I don't necessarily agree with it ;)) than leave the department. Miremare 00:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adopting a "wait and see" position for now. User:Krator (t c) 13:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving WT:VG

When you archive the VG talk page, please add the topics to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/archive topics as well. Cheers, JACO PLANE • 2007-12-3 22:29

FAC

Since you supported my failed Metroid Prime FAC, see if you can do the same now that I restarted. igordebraga ≠ 13:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arm cannon prod

Damn it Krator, why can't we ever agree on anything?! Just letting you know that I've AfD'd Arm cannon as I still believe it to be deletion-worthy. The discussion is here if you want to comment. I would have let you know yesterday/this morning, but it didn't occur to me at the time for some reason. Cheers, Miremare 18:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification - I had actually seen it up for deletion already, but just didn't comment. My basic reasoning for voting keep on articles like this is that there is a possible future good article there, and that the current content is not bad. It was not a cruftish article, which would have been awful and warranting deletion. User:Krator (t c) 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 3

Before I submit it to FAC again, I'd like to see if your concerns about the accessibility of the synopsis setting were addressed. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft plans

I've replied to your message over at Talk:StarCraft (series), outlining our intentions for StarCraft articles. -- Sabre (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is my Signature less clashing?

Do you accept? Blood dripping on the ground 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could lose the grey background. Then, it would not clash with reading talk pages in a screening away any longer. Thank you for your response! User:Krator (t c) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about: FangzofBlood ? (not that I really approve) --Jack Merridew 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would find that ok. I indeed do not approve either, but that's a matter of style - many established editors have such signatures. The current state is obstructing proper use of Wikipedia talk pages however, which is something more severe than style. (In the interest of style, I remove excess fluff from this page every once in a while) User:Krator (t c) 22:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I chose this style, it is a mix of Jack's and mine, I am sorry about earlier, I can get bad tempered. Blood dripping on the ground 22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ok with that, but you might want to consider changing your username. It is generally accepted that your signature includes your name. Random trivia: the person you are having a dispute with right now, User:TTN, had exactly the same thing a while ago. He signed posts as Nemu, instead of TTN, for quite some months, and then changed after a request. See Wikipedia:Changing username. User:Krator (t c) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAMECRUFT

Quoted from User talk:Anomie:
“	On WT:VG, you previously wrote that the intent of my WP:GAMECRUFT proposal was good, but the wording was vague. I would like invite you to make the changes you would like to see to the page itself, as I trust I agree with them. In fact, on a related note, it is good to see someone else on WP:VG who takes a kind of middle ground in the gamecruft discussions. User:Krator (t c) 20:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]	”

Done. I appreciate the comment, it's hard to remain reasonable when there are so many who irrationally want to delete everything, especially when they feel their end justifies any means. Oddly, I find the people who irrationally want to keep everything easier to deal with. Anomie ⚔ 02:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank West (Dead Rising)

I noticed your previous defense of the Frank West article, and it needs your help again. TTN and his friends are now attempting to get it merged, even though consensus for a keep was reached on this once before. They have been doing this to alot of articles, or so my research has turned up. The discussion is occuring at the Dead Rising talk page. Smile Lee (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. He, TTN, has been having an ArbCom located here. Smile Lee (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameRankings

Hey, Krator.

You stated that "We have already settled that GR and MC are not to be used as sources for actually -ranking- games," however, did "we"? These are the three voices of agreement:

"I agree with the idea [of "adding some guidelines"] and suggest that also some kind of recommended time frame or minimum number of total reviews in the aggregate score should be included in the usage. — Guyinblack25
"Keep them listed and mention the avaerge score but thats it, no ranks. Of cource this is just one look on the situation though" — Stabby Joe
"I agree with MASEM. The additional guidelines should be added." — SharkD

That does not make for consensus, especially in an ongoing discussion about whether ranks should be used. Considering that the proposer of the guideline reform, Masem, supported his proposal on the sole basis of two reasons, one being a misunderstanding of statistics as far as I can make out his meaning (if the 1st reason cited means that he has issue that these "absolute averages" are marked on a different numeric scale, this goes to an error calculation, but not towards the calculation of the actual number), and the other reason being a completely unsubstantiated accusation that others rebutted and I was currently in the process of refuting.

How does this qualify as consensus? I realise consensus is not democracy, and thus technically, you can call three people (one of whom admits that theirs is "just one look on the situation") who are in agreement amongst all others who aren't "consensus", but certainly not in an ongoing discussion about whether ranks should be used and if the original reasons submitted for the policy change were even valid in the first place.

It seems to me you prematurely forced the end of the discussion and found consensus in things that were instead contentious. Even more improbably, you asserted a guideline that is only justified upon completely fabricated and unsubstantiated accusations. Surely such a proposal for a guideline doesn't even merit consideration for consensus anyway. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 18:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]