User talk:Peer-LAN

HelloOOOOOO ! Please leave a message (if you are not a bot):

Leave a new message.

By way of response

It was nominated as substantially identical to the two previously deleted (via AfD) versions. I'll be glad to make a quick comparison to confirm or disprove that and toss it back up if not. One moment please. - Vianello (Talk) 10:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do That! Because deleting good articles for no reason is just absurd! I haven't even saw how the previous article looked like and I wrote it from scratch. FreeOrion confirmed with Wikipedia standards and was well written. Please undo your action and let me improve the article further. Peer-LAN (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't conform to standards, actually, because it doesn't list one single independent reliable source that establishes it as notable, but you're correct that it is distinct from the previously deleted version. It's been reinstated, but unless you can demonstrate notability, I wouldn't necessarily count on that being permanent. - Vianello (Talk) 10:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I should've taken a closer look. I don't mean this as offense or an insult, but I don't think the odds of this one making it are necessarily good, but maybe you'll buck the trend this subject's been stuck in. And if you can pull that off, hey, thumbs-up on that. Just get out there and grab yourself some good third party sources and give it a go! I'd suggest looking hard at WP:Notability and WP:Reliability for an idea of what you need to do to get a firm position going. - Vianello (Talk) 10:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just Googled and found See FreeOrion, FreeOrion (note the "visited by" figures), and similar pages. The big problem is that the text on all the pages I found is a quote from the project's own mission statement. I could find no independent comment except for blog and forum posts, which are not accepted as sources. The nearest I found to an independent review was "This is still in beta fase. It is supposed to become like Master of Orion, but there is still a long way to go. Still, a great innitiative" at Review for Freeorion by savage on Wakoopa. I'm no deletionist, in fact I thoroughly dislike that ideology and have said so quite bluntly; and I'm also a fan of Master of Orion and Master of Orion II. But FreeOrion seems to have made near-zero impact. --Philcha (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm so glad people like you exist on Wikipedia, I was losing hope. I'll try to join the development team this summer (when I'll be more free) to help speed up the game development so it will have a big impact as I have advance knowledge of C++ and Python. Cheers and I really needed this comment :). Peer-LAN (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I agree with you that we should keep the FreeOrion page, and said as much on the discussion page. Thanks for turning me on to it. Peyre (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I raise my glass for you, have a great day mate Peer-LAN (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know this was back up. I fear those who cannot see past guidelines will delete a worthy article, however, tis always good to fight the good fight. Thanks again for letting me know this was back at afd, again. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For next time

Please read WP:CANVASS. Quite aside from contacting nearly a dozen editors directly about the AfD (with edit summaries which don't indicate the purpose), posting comments externally to Wikipedia encouraging editors to weigh in on AfDs is not acceptable. For now I'm going to sit this one out - I don't feel strongly one way or the other regarding the content, but I agree broadly with the comments made so far in the third AfD.

... Oh, and for what it's worth, going out of your way to attack "wikipedia admins" on the FreeOrion forums while one of the project's lead developers is telling you that he doesn't believe the project is notable yet shows a serious lack of judgement on your behalf. It's likely to lead editors to treat any of your future contributions with caution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, it goes as a "Friendly notice" thank you, as the message was Neutral and scale was Limited posting and Open. I feel like I'm in twilight zone over here, why the hell do you even bother to tell me that, like I have to feel like a freaking criminal when I'm just writing on Wikipedia. Jesus... what's with all the Kabuki? Peer-LAN (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be far more tempted to see it as a neutral posting if your off-site comments hadn't included "I don't know what was wrong with those versions but please improve what you can before some crazy ass admin starts feeling important". Up until I saw that thread I was even inclined to help out and look for references. Half of the reason the article looks like getting deleted again is due to your attitude in defending it - remember that we're all human, and there's a diplomatic aspect to basically any work that goes on here. If I were you I'd consider working on this article in your userspace (any admin will move it for you) until it's better-referenced and then asking nicely - without the explicit condemnation of unspecified admins - to get it moved back out into articlespace. This is far more likely to result in the article being kept than getting irate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me that I didn't though the Gestapo will listen and read my private messages. I guess this is a good tutorial on how to behave in a police state, but hell I didn't expect this (and by that I mean it wasn't even directed at admins, the conversation about the deletion wasn’t even in place at that time). And when I wrote the comment I wasn't even expected this whole circus, I just meant that we should hurry so we get the article in a good condition (as I thought the article was deleted before for not being good enough, as the game is well enough known for an open source type). I’m just waiting to see when the audio file of the telephone call I had last night show up here, because I’m sure people here will find that relevant. Anyway, I’m glad to talk with you, I’m getting such queasiness feeling about Wikipedia lately that is nice to talk with someone for a change. Peer-LAN (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

Due to your recent conduct the last couple days, especially your last few edits which were completely uncivil, I've posted your actions over at Wikiquette alerts. Thank you, MuZemike 13:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you considered userfication of the article so that you can still work on it in your userspace (even if the article gets deleted) so that your work isn't destroyed? You might want to consider that as a viable alternative. MuZemike 13:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me of your unfounded accusations, I appreciate that. I find your attention particularly flattering and adorable. Peer-LAN (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with MuZemike on this one ... the article as it stands now is poorly referenced, and does not fully establish notability - two of Wikipedia's key guidelines. Although I understand the concept behind keeping this one, it cannot stay the way it is, and dare I say will not stay. Posting rude replies to editors who are actually pointing out policy, and are indeed trying to help you will ensure your future arguments are not heard. Your personal attacks (Gestapo, etc) are building up to a point that you could be blocked. Your canvassing on and off Wiki will also get it salted and you blocked.

If I were you, I would take a look at WP:OWN ... you'll have to note that an article I started 3 years ago was AfD'd recently, and after 3 years of work, it disappeared for similar reasons. Notability and references are again key.

Take MuZemike's advice: ask for the article to be userfied- this will allow you work work on it in "private space" until you have all the ref's and notability fixed. If you continue your tirade in both AfD and elsewhere, you are likely to be blocked, and your article "salted" to prevent it being re-created, and then where will the article be? It will be gone, and so will you.

Please take some advice in this matter. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smart comment, I agree that userfing is an option but I honestly see that this game as deserving a place on Wikipedia straight away, especially considering it's much more popular (one thousand direct downloads on average daily, and it is present on multiple Linux repositories and third parties for download) than most game stubs or open source games that have a pages here (not that I support the removal of those, god forbid). Being open source it's not only a game, it's also a fun educational tool for programmers; I don't understand why it can't have the same standards as most software get on Wikipedia (and I can start pouring in with examples as I did before in my comments). They are not making any money of this project or anything else, I don't understand the whole opposition that built up to this. So I'll stick to my sane conviction about this article. Also I will lower my threshold level of my “directness” on wikipedia comments if that will make you feel okay. Peer-LAN (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Directness is fine. Personal insults aren't. Please do not confuse the two. Consider it more for your own sake at least. Also, if you equivocate "people taking umbrage to being personally insulted on Wikipedia" to "having your loved ones dragged off to concentration camps", there is a profound and immediate need for you to re-assess your priorities. - Vianello (Talk) 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you preferred a KGB comparison for secret police in a police state, fine! I can live with that (if you minds thinks of other sick discretely comparisons, I can’t help you much can I?). The idea was that it talked about comments made completely out of Wikipedia, irrelevant in time and space to the current situation and taken out of the context. Now, if that’s not a good comparison on how secret police works when it wants to incriminate someone, I don’t know what is. You know that even in trials you aren’t allowed to use 'probes' that were taken without a warrant? Just a fun fact; and I’m not excluding that just this question posed as a fun fact could be used as some kind of blatant insult of someone when subjectivity is running so loose and selective as it may be in some places. Peer-LAN (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, I'd prefer not comparing yourself to the actual victims of actual oppressive governments who have experienced actual suffering, loss, and/or death at their hands. If that's too much to ask, no big deal. Godwin's law will take its due pretty much no matter what anyone says or does. It's practically a force of nature. - Vianello (Talk) 23:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I don't see anywhere in my text comparing myself to the victims, god forbid. I was comparing the systems, mentality and rational. And please don't take everything in absolute or absurd; if I say you fly like an eagle I don't mean you are an actual bird or that you kill innocent defenseless little animals. Peer-LAN (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]