Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:07, 1 July 2008

Point continues to not be found. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Further: The continued attack on fiction is troubling and needs to be curtailed. The fact that administrators ignore, canvass, coordinate off-wiki to bring back indefinitely blocked users to man the trenches is troubling. Misplaced Pages continues to become less useful, less complete and much less interesting of a place to hang out at... maybe I just need to join the internet phenomena of World of Warcraft cause this MMORPG sucks. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I urge you not to join WoW, otherwise known as crack. People I talk to say that it's really addictive.

Thankfully, I never really got too deep into the debate over fiction, instead preferring to edit the articles of which fictional characters orginate (such as the Pokemon video game articles instead of the speices themselves). hbdragon88 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually playing Mabinogi_(game). Ten year old death machine I am! :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Picard Discussion

Thanks for the suggestion about mediation. I think a reality check is in order for me, but I'm not sure mediation is necessary as long as I step back from this mess and stop responding to Filll. Perhaps stop responding entirely is the best solution. Thanks and Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right again of course. As I get lured into these non-discussions I too start discussing something other than the entry which is the worst part. I true break from the Picard fiasco is in order for me. Again, gracias.PelleSmith (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Begging for apologies.

It has come to my attention that a number of editors follow a tactic of mock indignation. They cry "oh god! You insulted me! Take that back! TAKE THAT BACK!" when all you've done is point out that tendentious editing is tendentious editing. I mean seriously, if you really want to not be told "hey POV-pusher, try not to be so obvious about it", don't push your POV... don't try to insert the most recent smear campaign by your leftist special interest, don't try to bulldoze your way into an article by ignoring consensus. This is wikipedia. If you want to smear people, take it to mccainpedia, I hear they enjoy that sort of crappy editing over there. When your BLP violating edits are discovered, challenged and removed at least make an effort to improve your desired content before blindly reverting it back in. I'm glad to see that you really want to add content to the encyclopedia, just... seriously, try to follow the rules for a change. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On incivility.

The subject of civility or incivility has become popular in the WikiWars of late. It has been used by those involved in conflicts to try to squash opposition, quell discussion and game the system. Forcing people to pretend to be polite is like watching Japanese porn, yes the message may be there but its hidden behind the mosaic of fake flowery text. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Chuckle. --Izno (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You know the funny part is I actually agreed with your comment. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Deleting" it was a funny way of showing your agreement. I have little time for those who remove talk page comments of others on project pages. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The way you put it was rude and would only inflame the situation. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The way I put it was accurate. There is no consensus to be found there only more of the same shitslinging from both sides. It is NOT a mature or polite discussion in any universe. Removing my accurate characterization of that talk page, having called it a cesspool, in the manner you did was inflammatory as you probably realize now. I do not take being censored lightly. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that removing it completely like that wasn't good either. I should have just asked you to reword the comment before doing that, and even if you didn't, just left the situation alone. My apologies. -- Ned Scott 07:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Izno (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was mistaken.

Once upon a time, I came across a wonderful experiment. An encyclopedia anyone could edit, encompassing the breadth of human knowledge. Do you want to read about a golden rocket frog? Here's an article. Would you like to know more about the werewolf in Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Oz (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) is your wolf. The coverage was broader than those dusty tomes found at the library, a plethora of links led you from topic to topic, leading one down a path of knowledge limited only by the time you had to spend reading. Ever wonder what the scroll lock key was for? Misplaced Pages had your answer. But something changed. A number of editors arrived with an agenda that is troubling. "Remove the fancruft" is their cry. They forgot that Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content. They became enthralled with the rules, even using them as a club to beat away those who did not agree with them. It seemed like they wanted everything to be featured, or else it must be removed, restructured or trimmed into nothingness. They did not care about collecting information any more. They sacrificed content at the altar of instruction creep. They forgot that rules are made to be ignored when they harm the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages should be a collective endeavor to collect all human knowledge. The listification of topics threatens to turn Misplaced Pages into a directory which, I remind you, it is not. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, jeez, looks like I'll need to write an article on the golden rocket frog. Such a shame it doesn't have one already, the rain forests of Guyana should be written about more. :( Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% Too many articles have been deleted. Articles with great information which made Misplaced Pages actually useful. Soon enough they'll delete the main Naruto or One Piece page. Gune (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for signing my signbook. :) Where did you come across me at? And I like your username :). <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, Peter.

Just wanted to let you know I've been reading about the news over at TP and noticed your sig at AOD. *sigh* Good luck man. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —pfahlstrom (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

See . --87.230.88.138 (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Raul feels that GW related articles are HIS. I'm completely unsurprised by this. You're fighting a losing battle, friend. You have no power to combat the cabals here. Sorry. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The mosaic is in full force, baby.

Wouldn't it be better if we could just tell some people "DIAF". Seriously, you should do it. It makes everything better. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak go!

I'm out for a while. See ya. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)