User talk:Scandum

Welcome on my talk page, leave a message after the beep.

*beep*

For improvements to MUD

		The VG Barnstar
		For unprompted, high-quality, substantive, and extensive imrpovements to the MUD article. Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Scandum (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on the DRV

(1) I reverted spam, COI issues and inappropriate external links, per Wikipedia policy, from the Threshold article - that's not controversial. If had been involved in editing content prior to an admin action then you'd be correct.

(2) My blocks were reverted because I looked into it further and unblocked them myself, it's called assuming good faith, perhaps you should try it. As it turns out, the user subject to one of the unblocks has already attacked other editors and had an RFC/U filed against them.

(3) The other sock puppets operated by User:Cambios are still blocked, and will stay that way.

(4) I did not vote myself in the AfD at all. I removed a comment by blocked checkuser confirmed sock-puppet User:Greg Douglas, noted the existence of the MUD forum, and replied to someone else that a link was dead.

Feel free to refactor your personal attack on me at any point. Black Kite 22:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you were involved in a content dispute by labeling Cambios' edits "spam", thanks for clearing that up. --Scandum (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold article

Moving some of the discussion here. There's contention on a lot of sources, and I think a lot of it has to do with how they're used and that they do require interpretation with regard to their validity. A large number of them fall into the gray area or exceptions portion of the traditional policies (from my understanding). My suggestion is to move all the sources to ones that fall clearly within the guidelines and policies. Now, this doesn't mean that I don't think some of what is there isn't verifiable or usable, just that I believe all of the editors questioning them would be more receptive to the references if there are a significant number of unquestionable references. I agree that a number of the references have contention about them. With the way the current article is written, using an unquestionable reference over one with contention only leads to strengthening the article. If the reference was being used to establish the length of time the game had been running, then that would be a different issue. If the reference was being used to state that the game has ALWAYS been 18+, that would be a different issue as well.

I've been working on try to take an attitude of "Oh, that ones not good enough? Let me give you one that is...here you go" rather than arguing the validity of the first source. There's PLENTY of information out there. Ismarc (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the section on the usage of primary sources, I quoted it on the Threshold talkpage. If the article misrepresents the source the first step is to adjust the article, not remove the source. I think you've been led to falsely believe that Wikipedia works in a way that it does not. If you can somehow find 10 new sources it might make sense to do some pruning, but under the current circumstances giving in to edit warring will get the article deleted. --Scandum (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources (emphasis mine):

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."

In addition, from Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples: "Are Usenet postings reliable sources? Shortcut: WP:USENET

Posts on Usenet are rarely regarded as reliable sources, because they are easily forged or misrepresented, and many are anonymous or pseudonymous.

One exception is that some authorities on certain topics have written extensively on Usenet, and their writings there are vouched for by them or by other reliable sources. A canonical example is J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of the television series Babylon 5, who discussed the show at length on Usenet. His postings are archived and authenticated on his website, and may be an acceptable source on the topic of Babylon 5 under the self-publication provision of verifiability policy."

I am not being misled, unless it's the policy and guidelines that are misleading me. There are plenty of reasons why someone would contest the use of the Usenet posting. So why not use a different reference? Back and forth of "I'm right" and "No you're not" (no matter if there's no right or wrong, or who is right or wrong) is not beneficial to the article. I'm not saying strip out all references and just replace them. I'm saying that if a consensus on the verifiability and quality of a reference cannot quickly be reached, and there is another reference that exists that accomplishes the same thing...use the one everyone can agree accomplishes the task. Ismarc (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once the article passes AfD it's an option to reach consensus about the best references to use, but you're way ahead of where the article currently stands. Also, I checked the wayback machine and the June 1996 mention on the webpage isn't in it. --Scandum (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. Pick your battles. Back and forth about a source to show that the game is 18+ when other, undisputable sources are available is a waste of time. I would rather have the discussions be about sources that place notability for Threshold (which are happening). The article hasn't passed an AfD or the Deletion review, so it is imperitive that it be kept in a reasonable state at all times. I want the article to stay, but discussions over the tiny stuff when there are still major issues to resolve doesn't lend to that happening. (please pardon any brevity or typos, entered on my phone). Ismarc (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source issues

I'm unsure what to do about one of the sources cited for Threshold's artcile, but I'm wondering if it should be removed. Now that I have the CGW magazine article in front of me, it is NOT what the librarian said it was. I got to wondering how Threshold could have been on a list of free games in 2001 since it was not free at that time. Eternal City is actually the mud that is ranked on the free list with a sneaky mention of Threshold, which actually didn't qualify as a free game at the time and ended up in the list anyway. What to do about this source? Kallimina (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact text about Threshold in the magazine? --Scandum (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Eternal City - www.eternal-city.com

Perhaps the consummate multiuser dungeon (MUD), but don't tell that to all those Threshold fans (www.threshold-rpg.com)."

My apologies for any transcribing errors. The librarian who read it to me initially had confirmed that Threshold was the one that was listed. Now I have the article, and this is not what it says, which makes sense since Threshold WAS NOT free at the time it was written. Kallimina (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I already made a change to the Threshold article when I discovered this, but I'm bringing it to you to find out if you think it should be outright removed. Kallimina (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a brief mention by a third party with a link to the game's website by a notable magazine. Not interesting for a mainstream article, but I'd say it's notable for a MUD. This sentiment has been expressed in the AfD as well and should stand in a consensus discussion about this source. --Scandum (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can you take a look at the rewrite when you have time to make sure that I am not misrepresenting the article? Also, Threshold was mentioned in an hour long radio interview about the perceptions of MUDs as being non-Christian. Is this at all something that can be cited? I think there's an summary somewhere. I could track it down if you thought it was notable or usable. Kallimina (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would need a third party announcement / summary of the interview to avoid self-publishing issues. There needs to be reliable + verifiable proof that the interview took place. --Scandum (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would the radio station that did the interview be a third party? (Sorry for multiple edits. I'm not functioning too well today.) Kallimina (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if they mention it on their webpage you're good to go - possibly use it in a notability section like JediMUD does. If they offer a recording you could use it for more involved edits. --Scandum (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for the extraordinary guidance you've been able to give me and correcting my mistakes. Kallimina (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) --Scandum (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity killed the cat

Any idea why they blanked the original Threshold AfD discussion? I went back to check on who actually started that thing out of curiosity, and it's gone despite tags asking people not to change it! Weird, weird, weird! Kallimina (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone on that page mentioned the city a certain wikipedia editor lives in, and I guess he used that as an 'outing' claim to have the entire page blanked. --Scandum (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I wonder why they didn't just blank that part out and leave the rest of it. Kallimina (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mob (computer gaming)

Better now? Thank you for adding the better citation of the book. I added several sections to the talk page.sinneed (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Multi-User Dungeons

A quote of your own?

"Any society that values morality above reason will end up with unreasonable morals." - is excellent. Is it yours? And if not do you have any attribution for it? Thanks in advance.- Sinneed 04:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is mine, and thanks. :) --Scandum (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Nice edit on Tank (gaming). —chaos5023 (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scandum, huh ?

Are you the same Scandum that wrote Tintin++ ? @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@

If you are the same Scandum - are there not concerns of Conflict of Interest even though it is not a financial one for the MUD client related articles - I've recently discovered I may also have the same issue? It seems I should activate the following - I hope this is the right button to press:

Hello, Scandum. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of MXP (computing)

The article MXP (computing) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks significant coverage; no more than trivial mentions in books or reliable online sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. czar 18:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]