Part One

Could you give me feedback on my response here? Talk:University of Miami 2006 custodial workers' strike#Censorship

Thanks. Lsi john 18:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I have my writing hat on today, so extensive comments are yours:

Comments

Format

The format in the way RfC does it like "Comments by Involved editors in favour", "Comments by Involved editors opposed" and "Comments by uninvolved editors" is generally note done in Third Opinions, and I would advise against using it except in cases where editors relentlessly personally attack each other, worse than anything ever seen on the LGAT talk page. That is because:

• Third Opinion allows low-profile and simple disputes to be listed easily. Requiring sections to be made increases formality.
• Third Opinion is for two editors only. Sometimes more are allowed, if it is clear two editors are the main involved parties. A section for each position is redundant, and increases formality.
• A third opinion usually is one opinion only, and not multiple, and most of the cases are 'solved' after the third opinion is given. A section for further uninvolved editors is redundant, and increases formality.
• Increased formality is a bad thing™, because it increases the threshold for editors to list a dispute for 3O. They will instead not list it at all, and the dispute will remain unsolved. Editors looking for a formal solution are better off with RfC anyway.

Meta-opinion

• What to do with horrible discussions and unstructured arguments? I agree with you that it is very difficult to read some discussions. I have found a good solution in telling the involved users that their formatting did not aid their points, presenting a good example with the third opinion itself. See for example my 3O at Talk:Gender_studies#criticism_section, and notice how the previously horribly structured editor writes a neat list of arguments below. If there is no structure in a discussion, introduce it yourself in your third opinion, by summarizing and listing the other's arguments.
• State explicitly what your answer to the question is, if it is a different answer than what might be expected. Your explicitly stated on the talk page that you "are not qualified to 'pick' the better/more accurate/less biased version", but this was exactly what was asked, and I usually stick to the question. Note that I think your answer was good in this case, but I'll get to that later. Your answer to the question "keep the unsourced material or not?" was "keep it, but add fact tags". Place the answer as such in the text - add it at the beginning (I usually add a summary at the beginning) and/or at the end (.. with these arguments, I arrive at the conclusion that: ..).
• People usually need something to work with when an article is listed for Third Opinion. Place all proposals and suggestions at the end, especially unrelated ones. ("find sources for unrelated section Y" is a popular one in third opinions I write) In your example, the "place fact tags" suggestion could have been written right after the main body, and the "label the references" suggestion, as a relatively unrelated proposal, could have gone after that.

Arguments

• Do not weaken your own statements on purpose. You do this on numerous places, and it generally does not aid your point. This is not a good habit to have. Examples, with alternative, positive statements in italics behind them, with comments behind that.

• "I, for one, am not qualified to 'pick' [...]" - "No one can pick ..." - unnecessary, simply.
• "For my convenience" - "For article readability ..." - are the editors involved likely to care about your convenience? No, they care about the article, as shown by their dispute over what they believe to be the best way to write it. Even if it is for your own convenience, it might be better to just state that it is for the good of the article, or just write that you have done so per policy. Policies and good articles are better reasons for doing things than convenience.
• "Technically I should not have done this without a consensus, and anyone is welcome to revert those edits." - "I have been WP:BOLD and ... " - if anyone disagrees, they can read the bold page (or know it already) and revert per the guidelines on that page. Stating that you are being bold is better than stating that you are not following the guidelines, and that you invite others to undo your own edits.
• "I'm not familiar with locating archived copies of news reports, but the Herald links need to be corrected." - "The Herald links need to be corrected." - the least important in this list, but still, for the sake of pointing out the habit, I listed it. Why you should state that you are not familiar with that process? An involved editor might do that as an excuse for not making the edit himself, but in a third opinion, it is not necessary.
• "Though it is allowed ..." - Remove. WP:IAR technically allows anything, so this is no news.
• "The opinions expressed are solely my own." - Remove. Do not do general disclaimer-like statements like this. Be the argument - either stand for it, or do not write it. There is no legal reason, too. Wikipedia has a general disclaimer for that.

• The structure is quite clear, though could be improved, as outlined in the previous section.

1. The question - RS vs OR.
2. I have changed the sources ...
3. Improvement over deletion -> tag it.
4. Archived newspaper articles ...
5. Deletion is not polite.

• A better structure would be:

1. The question - RS vs OR.
2. Improvement over deletion.
3. Deletion is not polite.
4. Improvement can be stimulated by tagging.
5. References changes & newspaper archives.

• The last could also be at the very top, depending on your style.
• Both arguments (improve, don't delete; deletion is not polite) are solid.
• You did miss, however, a point: WP:POINT, no pun intended. This was mentioned in the discussion between the editors involved just above your Third Opinion. As this was the only good point user Stephan Schultz had (his citation of WP:BLP was invalid, another thing you could have mentioned), it would have balanced the 3O a bit. A good argument here would have been, "However, if information is trying to lead the reader to a desired conclusion, deletion may be preferable over placing fact tags, because the text does not only violate RS then, but also NPOV."

Conclusion

Well written, but room for improvement. It is good to see that I can help others by sharing my experience with debating techniques.

Do not take the above too literal, and do not edit your opinion afterwards, that is bad form. I look forward to seeing more third opinions by your hand.

--User:Krator (t c) 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.. for all of the above.

I assume by "don't edit your opinion afterwards", you mean don't run back and fix it based on your suggestions here, but move forward and improve next time. As opposed to fixing a spelling mistake or something? Or do you mean.. do it once, and if you mess it up... too bad - should have used spell check. ?

The disclaimer at the bottom, wasn't intended to be lawyeresque, it was more that someone else could come along and give an entirely different set of suggestions and that I wasn't representing any official 3O group. I'm new to giving 3O and didn't want to be presumptions. I assume I'm welcome to give 3O, but I'm not sure if there is an official group or if just anyone can pop in and answer one.

Maybe its just the group I've been editing around.... I'm gun-shy after being smacked down so many times by some editors.

thanks again. Peace in God. Lsi john 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing spelling is all right, but I meant don't implement my suggestions indeed.

You can pop in and answer one :) - more is better. It is what I did, at least. Do not worry about being presumptuous.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about removing those unused 'overly formatted' sections? :) Lsi john 23:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would be a good exception then. --User:Krator (t c) 23:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. I've snagged a copy of this for later review. thanks again. Lsi john 23:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-

Part Two

How did I do with this one? Lsi john 17:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well written in general, and a textbook example on how to solve (simple) disputes like this. Nitpicking gives me the following. Note that these are really small things, and could be due to my personal preferences in written text. This is a good 3O.

• As above, you sometimes weaken your own statement (twice here). See above for why this is bad. It does not aid your point, and it does not make a point seem "nicer" either. For example, "If I understand correctly" could be removed, or replaced with something akin to "From what I read here ...". The latter is attributes eventual inconsistencies in the topic to the information present. The former is doubting your own analytical qualities.
• Formatting could do with some paragraphs. A new paragraph at "That being said.." would make the most sense.
• More on formatting, some more Wikilinking could do. The fact template using t1, spam linked to the spam policy, etc.

--User:Krator (t c) 18:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again :) It is through feedback that we grow.

I had considered other things, like mentioning that if there are no other verifiable sources, the entire article was in jeopardy of being non-Notable. But decided that my firm stance on needing reliable sources would resolve the other issues.

ps. There is a new paragraph at 'That being said...', so I'm confused about what you're suggesting.

Lsi john 18:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the paragraphs, I meant that the only paragraph break (sh/c)ould be at "That being said". Right now there's a break at every other sentence. It's just nitpicking, really. --User:Krator (t c) 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I nitpick. So your nitpicking is welcomed. There is no point in striving to be average. Tkx. Peace in God. Lsi john 19:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the 3O, they have reverted to a company written article. *sigh*. I posted a followup and did some editing. Lsi john 03:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now they're wanting to revert to yet another 'unsourced' version. I've posted a rather stern response here and I left a note on an admin's page to look at the article for possible speedy. Lsi john 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part Three

Stop me whenever you get tired of responding. Otherwise, I gave another 3O here, for which I would like feedback.

Thanks. Peace in God. Lsi john 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As with the previous two, you start with "As I understand it". This weakens your point.
• Your reasoning is flawless, however, you might want to note WP:UCS. In this page, it is explained not to follow the letter, but the spirit of the rule. The distinction you make between guidelines and policies is indeed valid, but is not in the spirit of the rule.
• A lot of highlights are present, as well as emphasis, both bold and italic. Avoid using too many ways of adding emphasis. Both bold and italic in the same sentence are confusing. Within the same paragraph, bold words attract the immediate attention as well. Because of this, add emphasis to key words in the logic of a sentence when needed (e.g. "not" and "significant"). Reserve bold for the key words in the arguments, for example "that viewpoint is not significant" (note that I removed the word "probably" which was unneeded) or "not every view gets equal weight." Sometimes changes in sentence structure are needed to make a bold part seem like a sentence to itself. This is partly due to the Wikipedia style used: bold in Wikipedia attracts a lot more attention than bold in a 12pt Times New Roman email to a relative. Use italics and bold sparsely.
• When naming/attacking a user specifically, always try to introduce at least one comment that is 'against' the other user. Here, a simple etiquette warning not to ignore other's questions and remarks would be appropriate - the other user simply ignored questions on sources sometimes. A WP:POINT pointer (pun intended) could do as well.
• Try to give some very concrete suggestions at the end. Something that could be done with an edit summary of "Per 3O" and not easy to dispute. In this case, when the actual article is a stub, a suggestion of a neutral addition (specifics of the bombs? media response?) just gives the editors some work to do.
• "Hopefully this has helped." - See previous. If this is your style of writing, I will stop bugging you with it.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If my style needs improvment, then you aren't bugging me, you're helping me. I'll continue to seek feedback, until you clip my tie. Note: Tie's are cut off, and hung on the wall, when a student pilot does his first 'solo' flight.

I had specifically chosen 'As i understand it', based on trying not to say 'if i understand./ etc', so as not to weaken my position when I restated what I saw the debate to be. Obviously, I'll have to look deeper into debate and presentation skills. :)

I'm still getting used to wiki highlight/italics. I was attempting to add the extra wiki-links you suggested and some highlighting to emphasize some of the important points/words. I don't particularly like wiki bold, but others object to CAPS, and I find italics to be less than noticable in some cases. I wasn't comfortable with the mixture that I used, but I also didn't want to be overly critical of myself, so I clicked Save.

I had actually looked for something critical to say about the other editor. I think that I'm so used (numb) to being reverted in the LGAT articles, that I didn't even think to point out that reverting as a first line of 'defense' is bad. What I tried to do, instead, was 'pseudo' agree that his judgment could be correct, but was improper.

The idea about media response is a good one and *noted*.

I don't know if you read the followup or not. And, I haven't been back to see if there was another.

All feedback helps. If you weren't being helpful, I wouldn't continue to ask for feedback.

It is appreciated. Lsi john 23:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was wondering if you could send me an e-mail, as I'd like to ask you something not related to wikipedia (not that much anyways :)). I notice you don't make your e-mail address public, so if you don't want to e-mail me because of privacy, I'm fine with that too. · AndonicO ^Talk 19:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an e-mail. --User:Krator (t c) 20:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thrilled. It's lovely. I hope it lasts. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope the same. For further discussions, please use the article talk page. (See above note) --User:Krator (t c) 00:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit to Lamer

I just fixed "Know" to "Known"

(

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and jump in. I feel like I'm flailing. -Amatulic 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what did I do to amsterdam? --64.233.74.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I, Smee, hereby award The Editor's Barnstar to Krator, for your copyediting and syntax help in articles I have contributed to and/or noticed your work on, as well as your polite demeanor during discussions. Thank you. Yours, Smee 11:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. I just saw the new template. Ironically, I was working on a related one, though on a tighter subject matter, and as a footer as opposed to a vertical scaler, but this looks really great. I am impressed, to say the least. Smee 11:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Whoa, a barnstar! Thanks! --User:Krator (t c) 12:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You deserved it. Smee 00:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • What do you think of the footer template format at Template:Navbox generic ?? Smee 00:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Template:LGAT proposed for deletion...

... about a day and a half after it was created. Your input/thoughts would be appreciated at the Template for Discussion page. Smee 01:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Krator,

I'm a bit puzzled by this edit. There is no mention of LGAT or Large Group Awareness Training in that article.

LGAT is a methodology used, which as you pointed out, does not have a clear or concise definition. It is being used as a way to generalize and clump organizations, in order to brand them.

The anti-cult activists who edit here, say it is a legitimate term, but that is not how they use it. It is not being used to describe a methodology. It is being used as a brand.

They claim it is used by academics and professionals. Ok, I'll accept that. And, in those academic and professional sources, the term 'cult' does not come up. Yet 'cult' repeatedly comes up in our articles.

And, when the term 'cult' comes up, the sources can always be linked back to the anti-cult community. And now we have the term 'cult' at the top of EVERY LGAT ARTICLE. Now, with our new template, we have successfully associated the word cult to every company that we can link to LGAT.

This confirms what I have been saying, LGAT is being used to call companies 'cults', without having to use the actual term, due to libel.

I am assuming that you are a victim to the propaganda, don't really understand what is going on here, or just don't understand the significant pejorative bias associated with the word cult in English and in the USA.

When enough of these tiny points are accumulated, there is sufficient undertone of suggestion. I have neither the time, nor the desire, to contest every single tiny point like this. You are an intelligent editor with good debate and presentation skills. Surely you can see how a twisted word here, and a suggestive phrase there, are being used to set a tone in these articles.

I can't continue to be party to a process that allows an incredibly pejorative term like cult to be associated with companies that aren't cults or cult-like in any way. That combined with editors who play fast and loose with facts, making every fact suspect. I've stopped editing these articles.

Lsi john 13:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

• The LGAT template contained one entry with the word cult, a book by Margaret Singer. I have removed it because it is not about LGAT in particular. I had considered most of the arguments you display above before adding it, but I thought it to be neutral enough. (i.e: not a classification but just an interesting book) This has now been solved, I hope.
• As {{LGAT}} reads, I added it to every entry in List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations. Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness is on that list, and has a source asserting that. If the article does not display anything about Large Group Awareness Training, that could be added.

--User:Krator (t c) 14:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anything be done in these articles to settle on whether LGAT is a noun or an adjective? Lsi john 12:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that it was your first to award, I'm doubly honored. I've seen them handed out, almost like party favors at times, and thats why I wanted you to know that the one I gave you was my first to hand out. You identified a problematic situation, outside of your field of expertise, and you stepped in and helped out, and in an language that isn't your native (even though you seem to have mastered it very well). In my book, that is the definition of a valuable editor. If you ever feel like chatting off-wiki, my email is always open. Peace in God. Thanks again for your efforts. Lsi john 01:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user helped promote Large Group Awareness Training to good article status.

Thank you for all of your help and hard work on this article (and series for that matter), as well as your polite demeanor on associated talk pages. Yours, Smee 03:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Krator, I award you the first Barnstar I've ever presented. It was due directly to your efforts that this article went from a POV quotefarm to a GA. Lsi john 15:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking an interest and for your cooperation in helping to guide the articles development in an NPOV manner. Lsi john 15:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The Barnstar Smee and you (Lsi john) now share is the first I have awarded as well. --User:Krator (t c) 16:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are welcome, you deserve it. Smee 23:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I note you have recently added the LGAT template to this article. Why? Are there any references that support the nation that the Hoffman institute is classified as an LGAT provider? Peter Campbell 12:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As {{LGAT}} reads, I added it to every entry on List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations. That list requires sources to list an item. For this specific case, a book has cited the "Hoffman Quadrinity Process" as being a form of Large Group Awareness Training:

Vahle, Neal (2002). The Unity Movement: Its Evolution and Spiritual Teachings. Templeton Foundation Press. pp. 399, 402, 403, 480. ISBN 1890151963. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This source is on the article Hoffman Institute as well.

--User:Krator (t c) 12:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend double checking the exact wording and context for the citation. Make sure that the source specifically identifies Hoffman as an organization that uses LGAT methods. I have found several mis-quoted citations in these articles where the source does not match the text in the article. In some instances cherry-picking words has completely reversed the intended meaning of a full-context quote. Lsi john 12:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not quite understand your RFC comment, what is your position on the use of the templates in the article? Smee 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I honestly do not care any longer. --User:Krator (t c) 22:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the template issue, or improving the article to FA status? Smee 23:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Well, if you don't feel like answering that one, what is your opinion on a potentially less objectionable version of the template, with the "organizations" and "individuals" removed? I placed a potential version at my Sandbox. Yours, Smee 07:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Headline a link to the Triforce games as you stated in pokémon batrio talk page as i provided it so you can learn what it is all about . Richardson j 01:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help creating the section for Creatures and races. Do you think you could help? Thanks in advance! Taric25 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just passed its GA nom! Congratulations. G1ggy! _{Review me!} 07:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --User:Krator (t c) 11:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay, I signed in. You can thank me with my name now. :) - Knossos (TNC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]