User talk:Krator/Archive/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

William Welch

Further information: [[:William Welch]]

Can you take a look at my comments regarding WP:NPF please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPS with regard to claims about third parties. I'm hesitant to revert due to 3RR. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Krator, thanks for confronting the issue about this article. I wanted to ask you, if it said something like he "claimed in an interview that he had a relationship with" the Renell person rather than making it out explicitly as if he did, would that make that info acceptable to stay?--ClaudioCastag7 23:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Added a summary. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I usually take a single evening to try and solve a dispute by mediation and reason. If it is not solved by then, I leave. This is the case here. Good luck. --User:Krator (t c) 08:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the help. Checkuser confirmed the account was editing from three different open proxies anyway, so it was a sockpuppet of a banned editor anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

ONIH is now going against the agreement and removing all of the content.66.116.114.111 21:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ohnoez. Try reasonable arguments. --User:Krator (t c) 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment...

It seems that the assessment process in the video game group is falling in your lap, so I'm wondering if you could look over Eastern Front (computer game)? Historically this is a very important game; it was Crawford's first major hit, paid the bills at APX and kept them alive, was the first really difficult (micro)computerzied strategic wargame, and featured a number of technical "firsts". I think it's worthy of more than "mid" importance. The article itself (IMHO, having written it) is detailed, well reffed (there are likely few other refs out there to include), includes links to both the game and the manual, etc. Maury 12:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been busy with non-Wikipedia things for the past weeks, but just now (an hour and fifteen minutes ago, to be exact) that stopped. I'll look over all requests in order, and yours will be fifth. --User:Krator (t c) 12:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Let me know if there's anything I can do to beat it into A shape (you can post here or that talk page). Maury 15:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

See the note on top of this page. --User:Krator (t c) 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Voyage

Further information: [[:Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne]]

Hi Krator:

Thanks for your critique; I've been needing another one for awhile. I've changed most of the faults you pointed out, however there are a few I don't understand.

• Firstly, by paraphrase you mean changing the wording right? Well if I did that, it wouldn't be a quote anymore and I'd have to remove the quotation marks. Is that what you want?
• Also, with the development, I'm not exactly sure how else to put it, other than in a 'timeline' style. Currently it makes sense, but I'm not sure how you would rather it be.
• With the Story v. Plot, do you want me to transfer the backstory to the Setting part? I was thinking that that might be quite awkward, and I don't know how it would fit in with the rest of that paragraph, about the setting itself (as in where the game takes place, and the nature of this setting)

I would greatly appreciate if you could clarify these points. Thanks, again. --Paaerduag 07:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the notice on top of this page. I have replied on the article talk page. --User:Krator (t c) 09:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot3 question

I really need to hook up an archiver on my page (although my volume isn't that big), but when I go to Werndabot it says it's no longer used. So I was interested when I saw the link to Shadowbot3 on this page, but it seems to go to the same place. Am I missing something?

Maury 21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, Shadowbot3 is now doing what Werdnabot did. Just follow the instructions for Werdnabot and Shadowbot3 will automatically do it. No need to change anything --User:Krator (t c) 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

You prefer Setting as the main heading, then subheadings of plot and characters right? What happens if you have a sub-section of setting? Do you really care or just never include a setting section?--Clyde (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sub section of setting? Of what would that be a subsection? I find setting to be a fitting word to describe "the fictional background the game takes place in." --User:Krator (t c) 23:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the members of the Final Fantasy Machine seem to include a setting section. A random example is here. I've seen them before; what would you do if you were working on article that had an importannt setting which helps define the game? Just rename it or something?--Clyde (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

They just turned around the meanings of 'plot' and 'story'. See this random googled link. Specifically, in video games, the "plot" tends to unravel in the single campaign. The story includes background events for the plot in the campaign (i.e.: the forging of the rings in LotR) in chronological order and the setting is the whole world in which all of that takes place. I have seen sections called "Synopsis" or "Overview", but those are horribly ambiguous and to be avoided. I might write up an essay for this. Generally, the best structure is:

Setting "the world is big, contains hobbits and elves, etc."

Characters (characters in the story can be factions or nations too - characters in the abstract way). "Gandalf has a grey beard and is a wizard."

Plot. "They all go to war"

--User:Krator (t c) 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to read it if you ever do write it. In the case where there are no important charcter or setting sections, would it be better to simply decide if you are describing the plot or the story, and name it as such? (like the name I picked for Empires? Best name I could come up with at the time).

Perhaps the problem is there is no one word to suffiently describe the charcters, story, plot, setting, etc. as a single all incompassing concept. I don't know if setting is the perfect gold mine, as I will admit I was slighlty misled when I first saw it in the table of contents. Synopsis and Overview are too vague, but if only there was a modifier, adjective, or adverb that could complete the package to introduce these sections. Also, perhaps "Story" sections or "plot" sections, if they describe both, should be "Story and Plot." I don't know.--Clyde (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Eval LGAT

Krator, I'm not sure I follow your comment in the revert for Evaluating a LGAT, Still alive and kicking. WP:NOT a bureaucracy.

I believe my comment said that it should probably be listed in the category, and that the requirement to be listed in that category (per the category page), is that the article qualify to be listed in the LIST. The article on the book, does not satisfy the requirement for the LIST, and hence fails the test to be included in the LGAT cagegory.

I spent quite a bit of effort trying to get the definitions concise, and met with quite a bit of resistance.

I also commented on the talk page at the time I did it.

Lsi john 20:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also have liked to continue to collaborate with you on these articles. Your last post on the subject indicated (with some disgust) that you were no longer interested in editing them. Therefore, I did not solicit your further involvement. Peace in God. Lsi john 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The huge dispute surrounding this subject was manageable when only few (two) editors were involved. When other (unreasonable) editors joined in, it became too time intensive to stay involved. The scope of the dispute also increased - I had previously only been involved with the main article. That article clearly degraded (Compare: 1, 2), which is not very motivating. --User:Krator (t c) 20:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in candid conversation around your conclusion that it has degraded. Especially given that some things you suggested were done, and I believe it is more accurate now. If you are interested in doing so, you are welcome to email me. Lsi john 21:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing stops you from creating a subpage in your own userspace to facilitate such a discussion. I have some time in a bit, and would participate. --User:Krator (t c) 21:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Innocuous conversations on wikipedia are subject to misinterpretation, misunderstanding, misquoting and abusive misuse. Frank and candid ones, more so. Having to substantiate every statement, that might appear to not assume good faith, for the benefit of casual (or uninvolved) readers, is not conducive to a candid and unguarded dialog. Having multiple people involved in such a discussion is equally difficult. (To wit: even you objected (above) when more than two other editors were involved, as problematic in a similar situation. And, in that prior situation, you felt you had achieved peace. I do not feel that was the case. At best, it was a precarious balancing act where we were traveling along the same road removing POV and bias from the article.

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure you are fully aware of the depths of depravity involved. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I am no longer required to assume good faith in some areas. You know my history, my style, and my feelings. I don't have to 'explain' myself to you. However, as perception is reality on wikipedia, in order to avoid a negative perception, I would potentially have to explain every statement in an on-wiki discussion. I have no desire to expend that amount of energy on such a conversation and I also do not wish to offend any individuals here. If you wish to limit the conversation to purely a technical one about specific article items, then we can continue on the article talk pages themselves. In either case, a subpage on my user space is unnecessary. B.R. Lsi john 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. I would not object to using IRC (Wikipedia employs Freenode - my nick there is Krator), but I normally reserve email for private conversations. I am currently online there. Still I would prefer to use a talk page. Perhaps a kind notice not to quote a discussion at the top would work? I am quite sure such a notice will not be ignored, if not out of a sense of honour, then because of a feared loss of face. --User:Krator (t c) 21:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC is an option I had not considered. I will configure a client for it. It cannot be today, as my schedule is overloaded right now. Thank you for that option. Lsi john 21:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a few spare moments and downloaded an irc client and connected to freenode. I don't see you there, so it appears I may have missed you. We'll hook up sometime. Thanks. Lsi john 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Hey man nice job with SupCom. It's a pleasure to have it in the RTS FA family. Let me know if you ever need anything in the future.--Clyde (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Large Group Awareness Training/Csjref

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Large Group Awareness Training/Csjref, by Magioladitis, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Large Group Awareness Training/Csjref fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

nonsense

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Large Group Awareness Training/Csjref, 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Large Group Awareness Training/Csjref itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

supreme commaner edit

reference i use for moding, and no, it is not a fansite, it is started by one of GP's employes, last i heard, and sometimes shows version's changes before they are released by GP. sorry if you think it is vandalism, but it is what all the modders i know use as a reference.

I use it too for reference, but as long as it does not have an official status, it is inappropriate to list. Besides, a lot of GPG sites are linked already, and it is easy to navigate from those sites to supcom.hacked.in --User:Krator (t c) 09:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The link is already added here :- http://supcom.wikia.com/wiki/External_Links. --SkyWalker 10:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and regarding the Netherlands locator map

Hello, and thanks for your feedback. Yes: I do mind:

• The colours are clear and provide adequate contrast, and are yet consistent with the majority of maps used for most other countries: throughout locator maps in Wikipedia, water is white, and land is green. I may consider recolouring; e.g., water to blue.
• These are locator maps: neither these maps nor the prior maps are meant to (or need to) possess excessive details. The prior maps are far too busy and excessively complex. I can add the Frisian Islands; I can also add Ijsselmeer, but they yield nothing new about where the Netherlands are located -- as well, the colour and encircling on the world maps do that. Speaking of which ...
• The movement of the world map to the upper left is intentional: countries are a global phenomenon, not merely a European one. As well, the current map depicts the EU in relation to the world, while the predecessor does not. In the former, the rather minimal world map in the lower right occludes part of Western Asia, where territories are wholly unclear (e.g., Cyprus); also see the next point.
• The major function of the 'larger scale' is to include territories commonly reckoned in Europe (not just the EU), per the United Nations scheme of countries and regions -- by many accounts, Svalbard is a part of Europe, and Greenland (though generally considered a part of North America) is politically married to Denmark. Nonetheless, this is partially why Greenland is conveniently overlaid by the world map and, thus, taking advantage of the space. As well, those territories tangentially place Europe and its constituents, something lacking in the prior maps. In addition, the basic map will be provided, which can be used for other EU/Europe articles in Wikipedia.
• I am somewhat ambivalent regarding the circles, and may yet remove them; however, I hardly see how they distort the overall picture when they may aid in identifying smaller territories amidst larger ones.
• As above, such maps do not need to depict, say, Santorini; yet, you can't clearly identify Malta on even the preceding locator map or (only after how many insets?) its own locator map (which will be updated) and is irrelevant to the issue of where the Netherlands are. As for its size, the more agreeable map uses an azimuthal equidistant projection, so the Netherlands (and other countries depicted) is no larger than it needs to be. In addition, I can generate maps in SVG format, but decided not to due to simplicity.

I boldly decided to create maps anew and, as you can see, I disagree with you on most points and consider the prior maps inferior. So far, you are the only one who has objected to this new map, which was created to rectify some of the inadequacies of predecessors. One of the fundamental qualities of a locator map is to answer the question, "Where is this country?" -- and the prior maps often failed to deal with this, and thus ... Anyhow, I am open to enhancements, so please do not hesitate to contact me with added feedback or questions. Thanks! Quizimodo 16:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You do realise that you just violated the three-revert rule on the Netherlands, having reverted that article four times in the last 24 hours? Quizimodo 16:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You could get an admin to block me for that, yes. I am fully convinced I was improving Wikipedia by doing it. Your behaviour was not angel-like either, repeatedly ignoring my kind requests to first discuss, and then change the article. --User:Krator (t c) 16:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I am not a saint, but nothing of yours has been ignored; conversely, you appear to be ignorant of my efforts/comments, which (for example) is demonstrated through your reversions (2nd and 4th) without, per BRD, awaiting my responses to them. Quizimodo 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Something interesting

Krator,

I recently found this essay, which very accurately describes many of the LGAT articles on wikipedia. I also discovered that the phrase LGAT is actually a Neologism for cult which has been used by enough anti-cult psychologists that a few reputable individuals have also used it.

Hopefully this will make sense to you. It was like a light-bulb going on for me. It was nice to see that someone else had already very accurately defined what I've been seeing. Lsi john 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree partially, but I do not think it is a very good summary of what is going on at LGAT. The absence of a difference between nominal subject and the subject actually discussed is a major dissimilarity between a coatrack and LGAT. The article is indeed unbalanced, but I do not think that was the intention of the editors (including me). Rather, no reliable source has been bothered to write about LGAT outside a circle of psychologists. We must assume then, that those psychological articles are all that there is to the subject. I have frequently searched the web for other information, but never found anything. Therefore, the bias is present, but there is no fact picking going on.

Because of the zeal (Mistranslation from Dutch - you know what I mean. Search an online Dutch-English dictionary for "Geestdrift" for a more neutral word) of some editors involved, I have been convinced that there is more to the subject. However, there is nothing more that can be written on Wikipedia, because of the lack of sources.

I might respond more lengthy later, but I am busy writing some other things and nominating WP:CB for deletion. --User:Krator (t c) 11:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

When I say LGAT, I am referring to the entire series of tiny articles about tiny companies, and spin-off articles, and articles about insignificant books, etc etc etc. There are dozens of stub and WP:COATRACK articles, all with the goal of linking cult and misconduct to Landmark Education that cast the net out wide enough to catch any fish that swims by and reads any article that can be remotely linked to the source. Lsi john 12:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never, and will never, be involved with articles besides the main LGAT article. Making that template and writing on that list article was bad. --User:Krator (t c) 12:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

By that, I assume you mean unpleasant and distasteful. If that is what you meant, I agree. If not please clarify. I find that working in any article with uncooperative editors is unpleasant and distasteful. I recently spent 2 hours reworking a section on vegan to help with POV concerns, only to have a pov editor blank it all, merge the references (without the text) into 1 paragraph, remove all the concerns, and call me a pov troll. Heh, and I don't have an opinion one way or the other about veganism. In fact, I don't think the article has anything 'negative' about veganism. It only had some legitimate 'concerns' about some vitamin deficiencies in an ill-planned diet. Certainly nothing which would scream "never become a vegan". Not being passionate about the subject in either direction, I've stepped away to let someone else slug it out with him. I would like to see a good NPOV article there, but in my experience, the only way to combat edit-warriors, is with edit warring, and I choose not to do that. Lsi john 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Unpleasant is a good description, yes. On veganism, I personally avoid editing anything remotely related to today's hippies. You know, the guys with Che Guevara t-shirts, voting leftist, chaining themselves to trees, and beating police officers at G8 summits. I have Cartman-like opinions on those people. --User:Krator (t c) 13:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well veganism was started in 1944, as an offshoot of vegetarianism. I'm not sure that I'd associate it with hippies, though I suppose given that the 1960's hippies (in their 20's) were born in the 40s, it certainly isn't something they started. I don't have an opinion about veganism itself. To me, its just another form of food selection. I think that some of the reasons for choosing to be vegan are a bit odd, but that isn't a reason not to choose to eat as a vegan, it just means I wouldn't be a vegan for those reasons, I'd be one for other reasons. For me, I happen to like meat, so I'm not a vegan. But that doesn't mean I'm against veganism. Lsi john 14:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Suppose you did not see the South Park episode I referenced above. Forget that attempt at humour. Anyhow, we still have not yet had the conversation your requested on Irc. --User:Krator (t c) 14:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't watch south park, or simpsons, or king of whatever.. that probably makes me some sort of communist I suppose. :) Today is a busy day, with a deadline for tomorrow.. perhaps tuesday late, or wednesday. I'll let you know. Thanks. Lsi john 14:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR

The point is to get people to discuss and stop edit warring. It's no big deal if the "wrong" version of the page is on top for a while. I would suggest that when you realize that you're edit warring, you take a step back and request broader input and/or page protection. >Radiant< 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This must be one of those examples why Wikipedia doesn't work in theory, and only in practice. I was about to theorize a lot about this problem, only to remember that quote. --User:Krator (t c) 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Destructive creativity, AfD and further updates.

Dear Krator,

Your attention and comments on one of my first Wikipedia articles, Destructive creativity, are appreciated.

Definition of destructive creativity in economic crime: The drive to create new profitable sources of income that are not beneficial to society can be denoted destructive creativity. [1] ( By: Halvor Mehlum, Karl Moene, Ragnar Torvik, "Destructive Creativity" Department of Economics, University of Oslo, 16th September 2003) This academic source is verified and needs to be read through to see that term economic parasitism is not related to parasitology.

Other sources give descriptions of destructive creativity in Terrorism and Organised crime, in Software engineering, where destructive creativity in internet crime is defined in A Tester's Mindset. Combination of "destructive creativity" and analytical systematicity. Try to break, try to falsify, be nasty. (see on page 27) [ http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:lJKMl0biioEJ:www.iam.unibe.ch/alumni/alumni/Dokumente/FolienTestingMurbach+destructive+creativity]. One source is focused on "Destroyers vs Builders" struggle. Psychiatric underpinnings of behaviors causing crime, destruction of property, attacks on people, self-destruction, vandalism and other crime) are described in very carefully worded medical terms on three thousand pages of DSM-IV Sourcebooks on destructive behavior of diagnosed people with mental disorders, who, sadly, engage in destructive creativity by committing various crimes. Undiagnosed and untreated people may still have intermittent destructive behavior.

Creativity is a mental process (see Wikipedia), as well as destructive creativity, where mental process is in disorder (see mental illness, mental disorders and all five DSM-IV Sourcebooks). Professional terms, such as mentation, underdiagnosed, and many other are not in Wikipedia yet. Criminology, forensic psychiatry, pathology sources on serial killer cases, as well as terrorism related sources on current advancements in destructive creativity are classified for professional use only.

A conference of experts from eight countries stated on September 11, 2006: in crime and terrorism the possibility always exists for destructive creativity in terms of both weapons and operations. This may include a new generation of destructive devices, etc.. A global assessment of terrorism. White Paper. September 11, 2006. [2]

Real-life software engineers, economists, criminalists, lawyers, doctors and other people, mamas and papas, are still dealing with destructive creativity every day. The definition of destructive creativity for software engineers: braking, falsifying, and being nasty, is similar to professional instructions for law enforcement and forensic psychiatrists who are dealing with destructive behavior in society. Even if deleted from Wikipedia, it still exists in big real world, works in human minds, and causes destruction and losses. Thanks for efforts of tolerance to my funny English. This experience is highly interesting. Helping people see pieces of the elephant. Sincerely, Steveshelokhonov 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tibet

• For the point of view of Tibet Movement Activists, Tibet is occupied by China, but Tibet is definitely historical part of China.
• I edit Hawaii and Texas as Military occupation, but reverted by Western viewpoint editor! To Chinese, we can say Hawaii and Texas are occupied by USA.
• Don't show your Western double standard. Here is not Western Wiki.

203.218.22.200 12:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Emanuel Querido

On 27 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Emanuel Querido, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 18:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)