User talk:Balancer

Thanks

Hey, thanks for your improvements on the Andamanese page! Would you be able to do the same thing for the Andamanese languages page? It's mainly the 1st paragraph that needs copyediting. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 03:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know my efforts were appreciated, and you're welcome! It didn't read as awkwardly as the Andamanese page, but I gave a try at making it as easy a read as possible without losing any content.Balancer 23:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good job! Thanks again. --Khoikhoi 03:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Many in the pro-Wars camp were critical of his article, arguing that Brin had no idea what he was talking about."

I've edited this back to "Many in the pro-Wars camp were critical of his article, in particular, it was pointed out several of his arguments were founded on misconceptions or addressed within the Star Wars Expanded Universe."

The main reason for this is the other wording implies that all criticism of Brin was founded on nothing more than personal attacks, and because three major errors in Brin's reasoning can be demonstrated in an entirely NPOV fashion: namely:

That the EU novels establish that a democratic society follows the downfall of the Empire, the New Republic [something Brin is either unaware of or is ignoring for some reason], whereas Brin seems to believe that Leia or Luke will establish some kind of monarchy.

That Brin misquotes Yoda's line in Episode 1: he quotes it as "Fear makes you angry and anger makes you evil" when the actual line is "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." [1] This seriously affects his later points that getting angry can be justified and that SW says anger makes you instantly become evil.

He misses exchanges like the one in TESB between Yoda and Obi-Wan: "Much anger in him... like his father" "Was I any different when you taught me?" [2] and the later one in RotJ in which the Emperor says "Good, I can feel your anger. I am unarmed. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete" [3] which is even clearer on the matter; anger is not enough, because Jedi can be angry and remain good; the Emperor knows he must get Luke to use the Force out of hatred to bring him to the Dark Side. This means Brin is absolutely wrong: SW says clearly and repeatedly that anger alone does not make you evil. That alone means the inclusion of the 'based on misconceptions' comment is justified.

Brin apparently doesn't remember Return of the Jedi very well, since he claims Vader's sins were 'forgiven' at the end, when in fact Vader's funeral with Luke standing alone in front of the pyre is one of the most memorable scenes in the movie, and indeed the whole series. His allegations against Vader are almost all based on misconceptions about A New Hope; Vader had nothing to do with the operation of the first Death Star, and yet Brin constantly accuses him of "murder[ing] the population of Earth many times over;" apparently confusing Vader's role with that of Grand Moff Tarkin in the first film.

There are others, but those are the clearest. It's correct that we don't need a link to Mike Wong's diatribe as a 'counterpoint,' but there were some very valid points raised about Brin's essay and it should at least be implied what the content of the major points was. Hrimfaxi 03:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more than the content of the major points regarding the ICS etc. Those aren't NPOV points. Number one is a question of interpretation - not just of the EU, which (as the section makes clear) he wasn't reviewing, but of interpreting the EU itself. Within the EU Leia is sometimes criticized - by other characters - as a monarch-like figure. Luke and Leia remain, through much of the EU, towering Campbellian figures intimately involved in the running of society, even during periods when they don't hold office. The "misquote" is something known as a "paraphrase." Brin interprets the quote as fear being the beginning of the path to the dark side, the next two stops being anger and hate. His condensation of it (Fear>anger>hate>dark side to anger>dark side, snipping out a couple steps on the way) is considered reasonably accurate by many. Your third point doesn't ring universally either. He interprets the funeral as Vader being forgiven; his labelling Vader as responsible for the destruction of Alderaan is also hardly universally ungrounded.

While you can make your case for Vader not being responsible, others can make the case that he is responsible. To say that his essay was "based on misconceptions" is to establish a clear POV. It may well be worth noting that most of the criticism of Brin comes out of the clarifications of the EU (the EU being notably absent in his review), but to say that his review was based on "misconceptions" pointed out by pro-Wars debaters is not. Balancer 05:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New Republic is a democracy, and is called such dozens of times in the EU: Brin doesn't even mention this in his allegations, so it is entirely NPOV to state that his essay doesn't address points made in the EU, even without a 'people point this out' qualifier. It doesn't.

His 'paraphrasing' is dubious given he later paraphrases again as "If you get angry -- even at injustice and murder -- it will automatically and immediately transform you into an unalloyedly evil person!" and again as "In other words, getting angry at Adolf Hitler will cause you to rush right out and join the Nazi Party?" This doesn't fit with the facts [or your assertation of what he means]; Obi-Wan stated he himself was 'full of anger' and the Emperor knowing Luke was angry long before he turned to the Dark Side. As said, the contradictions between what the film says and what Brin says are clear and commonly stated regarding this. People say his points are based on misconceptions, and as long as it's clear in the article that people say it rather than it is true it qualifies as NPOV.

His third point is very problematic: he implies through his comparison to the Allies "throwing a parade for Hitler" that everyone in the entire Rebel Alliance forgives Vader. That simply does not happen. Luke is the only person at Vader's funeral, no other character is seen to forgive him unless you count the ghosts of Yoda and Obi-Wan, and even then that's just three people in the entire galaxy.

Again, we should have a mention of the strong arguments against his point [as per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]; we need not say they are true, link to a rebuttal or go into excessive detail, merely what they are; misconceptions and the EU. 'Seemed to be founded on misconceptions' is probably a better wording, however. Hrimfaxi 05:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent EU edits

I'm curious- was your recent edits to Expanded Universe (Star Wars) a merge of EU with another article, or your own work? If the latter, I'm fairly impressed. --maru (talk) contribs 04:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about with impressed, I pretty much accidentally blanked the aricle, and then RV'd in a hurry when I realized what had happened. Balancer 04:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? Guess I didn't set the diffs back far enough! Well, what work I've seen was good, so... right result, wrong process? --maru (talk) contribs 05:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomic articles and notability

Dear NetOracle,

I understand that, in the several days since you have registered this account, you have introduced a large number of AFDs, particularly in regards to webcomics and webcomic-related articles. It would appear that you are simply putting up webcomic articles for deletion on the basis that you don't think they are notable when you, in fact, do not know whether or not they are notable. I would like to quote something Zaron commented in one such recent AFD:

Putting an article up for AfD is no replacement for a source tag, especially with a subject that meets notability standards as easily as this one.

In the future, I would appreciate it if you made a reasonable effort to determine notability before putting an AFD up on the basis of notability, or, where appropriate, simply tagged the article to indicate that the article itself does not establish notability where it should. Balancer 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not putting up articles for deletion on my personal feelings. Rather, I have taken a close look at articles which are either complete fancruft (as evidenced by the complete lack of notablility), or are the greater portion fancruft (as evidenced by their grossly disproportionate size and detail). I base my determination on existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards. This is by no means an attack against webcomics as a form of art and entertainment. My actions are motivated merely out of a desire to keep Wikipedia from becoming a directory of anything liked and recognized by at least a few dozen people. We are not DMOZ. NetOracle 21:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether your personal feelings are involved, you are putting AFDs up without making any serious attempt to verify notability or possessing the sort of familiarity with the field in which the articles fall that would allow you to make such a judgement independent of the article. Thus, you are inappropriately introducing AFDs when it would be appropriate instead to tag the article for improvement or clarification.

However, the fact that you seem to view any webcomic article, no matter how well or poorly written, as "fancruft," indicates you have a bias against webcomics in general. Balancer 01:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say with such certainty that I have not seriously tried to verify notability? I have. How do you think I determined that most of these articles are mentioned solely on a small number of blogs, forums, chatrooms, and other user-driven social pages? When an article lacks sources which meet principles includingverifiability, reliability, and encyclopedic standards, AND standard searching fails to uncover any such sources, it can be concluded that the subject is not notable. Any person should have little to no difficulty in finding solid sources on any notable subject.

Again, I have attempted to verify the notability. When I did not uncover sources to establish notability, I was forced to conclude that the article fit a pattern of rampant fancruft which has become a part of most collaborative encyclopediae. No specific subculture can own a set of articles, and the establishment of walled gardens on Wikipedia is inappropriate. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that every article should have meaning to those not familiar with its subject. Just because I don't find entertainment in webcomics, and am not familiar with the genre/subculture, does not disqualify me as having the skills and knowledge needed to judge their notability. If a person such as myself, as an outsider, can read literally dozens of articles, and fail to see proper establishment of notability through proper sources in those articles, then the articles need to be deleted. One should not have to be already familiar with the subject in order to put faith in an article's profession of notability; the profession of notability should stand on its own. NetOracle 03:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCCA DRV

You KNEW that this was coming. Having expressed your dismay about this, would you mind stepping in and sharing your views? (In particular, I had to do this late at night, and I'm worried about the holes that might've left in my argument, and the things that I didn't cover.) --Kizor 01:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shroud 13:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)== Invite ==[reply]

Thanks for the invite to the deletion/tagging page. I've already put up a minor edit on style/language/aesthetics grounds and will try to think of more substantive issues. Where is this page going? Is it going to end up being some sort of formal rule? TMLutas 19:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my hope for this to end up as a guideline article, or advisory essay - see Wikipedia:No angry mastodons for an example of a fairly prominent advisory essay - linked to in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion or Wikipedia:Deletion policy, as this is an area that apparently requires some additional elucidation and emphasis. Balancer 22:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will fully support your ideas on the deletion/tagging page, and truly hope to see it become official policy. - Zaron 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the invite. I have placed a potential addition on the relevant discussion page.--BoatThing 05:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for informing me of the page. Perhaps it could be redirected to after a deletion suggestion is submitted.The Shroud 13:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Thank you for the information. I am unclear on one thing in the process though, the page says

"This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. "

Where is the appropriate place for me to place my input should I have any? --zandperl 14:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also have the exact same question. I have commentary to add, but I can not see an appropriate place for me to do so. Basically what I would add is my opinion and interpretation of the closings in question, plus a staement of grave concern over NHN's statement " Administrators are administrators for a reason. I do not chose to ignore comments by any editor. I have to reject them when they do not conform with policies.", which to me, comes aoff as an eletist statement, and implies that common editors can not speak out against the interpreted application of a policy in a specific case, in effect it is a "it's my way or the highway" cavalier attitude toward the process of concensus. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 14:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume that you'd write a statement labeled "statement by (name)" below the section "Statement by Balancer" and "Statement by Spartaz". Balancer 14:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I have made a statement on the NHN request for arbitration, and I thank you for the thoughtful and well balanced presentation of the facts. Some of this is driving me nuts with frustration, but I hang in there because I believe that there are editors out there deleting notable webcomic articles because simply being a webcomic is "fancruft" by their personal definition. Timmccloud 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said in the RfA, I think this particular issue is much larger than webcomics. It does, of course, make it in some ways easier to delete articles. Balancer 23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we go from here? Jerry lavoie 02:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I think the proper procedure is (as I jumped the gun on RfA) to go to RfC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC)) and see if a consensus can be generated on the issues raised. Balancer 23:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I was just about to ask you: Wikipedia:Requests for comment is in fact the next step in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes rather than the RfA - are you interested in pursuing the matter there? You probably shouldn't repost comments made at RfA at RfC unless the poster endorsed the copying explicitly --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it seemed appropriate to be bold and go ahead and port the existing commentary. Although some of it is not relevant to RfC (e.g., the comments to move to RfC), so you may have a point there. Balancer 23:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent out messages to everybody who hadn't gotten word sent to them yet except the one admin whose talk page said "Don't message me about anything I say on a RFAR!" Balancer 23:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm onboard. Timmccloud 01:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Balancer. I've done my best to convert Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC) into the right format for an RfC. You might want to fill out the section at the top under Statement of the dispute to include the Desired outcome for you of this RfC. WjBscribe 01:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Balancer 01:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the RfC, as asked. I hope we can resolve this whole mess, because it really is causing a great deal of tension and ill-will. NetOracle 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Balancer 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the noob

Unbelievable. The comic that earned a #1 ranking on topwebcomics.com (it's currently #4) had it's DRV upheld and is now permanently deleted. And the page is protected, so that it can't ever be re-created. I am shocked, appalled, and I have lost a lot of faith in wikipedia because of this. Timmccloud 13:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is all quite irregular. Even though most of my contributions as an editor have been to pages not likely to be deleted, I do find it a very discouraging sign that shows something on Wikipedia is broken. Balancer 14:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, by the way, that I don't think this whole flap is hurting webcomics. Sure, it's apparently making a number of "webcomics people" miffed, but The noob - for example - isn't going to start losing ground among its readers simply because it's no longer on Wikipedia. What's being hurt here are Wikipedia's principles; some of the five pillars are being quietly sunk into the mud. Wikipedia's reputation may also be suffering some, but I don't consider Wikipedia's reputation as important as its utility and integrity. Balancer 16:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got to politely disagree with you here. Wikipedia already has an uphill battle for it's reputation[4], because of the open nature of a wiki to vandalism and inacuracy. So any further damage to what reputation Wikipeda has by editors and administrators showing bias makes this problem much worse. Losing that reputation means that people stop coming to Wikipedia to read, which leads to less people interested in editing, and that begins a downhill spiral I don't want to see happen. Timmccloud 23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STvsSW

Thanks for the heads up. Alyeska 04:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. For anybody else coming in regarding the DRV: It is my personal considered opinion that, in the long run, around 50% the current form of the article is probably WP:OR in the strictest sense, although the presence of an article on the topic is clearly justified by the various sources under WP:Notability, and that most of the current content would be probably best off on Wookieepedia's rather less-well-contributed-to page on the topic. I am quite willing to consider and discuss this opinion at length in a relisted AfD in order to help achieve a consensus on the topic. Balancer 05:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]