User talk:QuentinGeorge/Archive5

 See Archive1|Archive2|Archive3 =Messages=

Talk pages
Sorry about the talk page deletion. I didn't consider archival purposes and just saw that the section was completely out of date; I'll be more careful next time, so thanks about the head's-up. Jwebb13 00:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

QuentinGeorge

 * BTW...
 * It's said that Vergere was a Sith. Right there in her bio. All you need to know. MTFBWY! Adas Xendor 06:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between Sith apprentice and Dark Lord of the Sith. Do you understand? QuentinGeorge 06:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Kevin J. Anderson "criticism" section
This is regarding the removal of that section. One of the reasons you cited was that "no other author page has one." Maybe you've never bothered to have a look at Wikipedia, but many Wikipedia entries on famous people have "criticism" sections. Those sections include references to times the person has been publicly criticized for his or her actions. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton --HanShotFirst 22:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read our manual of style. We are not Wikipedia. What is done there has no baring on what is done here. Here, we don't add "criticism" sections to our author pages. QuentinGeorge 06:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if you had read that article you would also note something else important: Uncited criticism is to be removed. Nothing that you added to that page was attributed to any source, and hence was little more than POV pushing by someone with an agenda. QuentinGeorge 06:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Agenda"? What an odd word to use. Do you think I'm some kind of radical or something? I simply take exception when I put a good deal of work into something, post it, and then find it gone without any explanation besides personal attacks. Have you got some kind of grudge against me or something?
 * You are mistaken if you think this is personal. My reference to an "agenda" was merely pointing out that your "criticism" section seemed to be chiefly your own criticism of said author - it was attributed to nobody, except in a general sense. That is not what we want here. QuentinGeorge 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, since you saw fit to call my contribution "poorly written", I should point out that you spelled "bearing" wrong. The spelling you used is typically reserved for descriptions of things with fangs, people getting naked (bare), and so forth.
 * Thank you for pointing out my spelling error, but I'm not sure of the relevance. There's a difference between a typo on a talk page, and errors in an addition to an actual article page. QuentinGeorge 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally, are you actually telling me that you think Wookieepedia is better than Wikipedia?--HanShotFirst 16:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether it is better or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia's rules and policies don't apply here. We have our own, as StarNeptune has pointed out. Secondly, our articles are probably higher quality than Wikipedia's Star Wars articles simply because we have more dedicated Star Wars contributors. QuentinGeorge 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And are you implying that the Wikipedia model is some sort of god that we should all bow down before? We are not Wikipedia, and we have our own way of doing things. Because of issues that have arisen in the past, we don't allow "Criticism" sections on author pages.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 18:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Summing up, criticism should be reserved for the pages of characters or the published works they appear in. If you can cite the criticism, then go ahead and add them there. Keep them away from the author pages. QuentinGeorge 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Thank you for pointing out my spelling error, but I'm not sure of the relevance. There's a difference between a typo on a talk page, and errors in an addition to an actual article page."


 * Quentin, are you aware that when you delete something and cite "poorly written" as one of the reasons, the contributor is going to take it as an insult? Really, how can you expect me NOT to be angry about it? I don't think it was poorly written at all. It wasn't incoherent, there were no spelling or punctuation errors...as far as I can determine, the only thing wrong with it was that you didn't think it belonged there. There were no "errors", no factual errors anyway.


 * Let's go over what I stated. I said that Anderson had taken criticism from fans. In order for this statement to be false, it would have to be established that there was only a single Star Wars fan (if that) who had ever said anything negative about Anderson. We both know that Anderson has more than one detractor. So, that statement is the truth.


 * I mentioned that one of the reasons for Anderson being criticized was his tendency to use incompetent villains. If you visit the discussion page for Admiral Daala, you will see at least one user stating that she was incompetent. Another user says the same thing on the Kevin J. Anderson discussion page. Plus, she thought she could take down the New Republic with a force of FOUR Star Destroyers, and she lost three of them...do I really need to say more?


 * I wrote that some of the villains in question prove to be worthier adversaries when they appear in stories written by other authors. This is true; just compare Durga in Darksaber with Durga in the Han Solo Trilogy.


 * Three statements, all of which are true. And yet, you deleted them, citing "POV pushing" and "poor writing." It seems to me that my motivation for adding content shouldn't be relevent; the only relevent thing should be whether it's true or not.


 * This is just like what happened with the article on Obi-Wan, back before I registered with the site. At that time, I thought that the article didn't go into enough detail about Mustafar, so I added a part about how Obi-Wan allowed Anakin to catch on fire without doing anything to try and save him. Then somebody, Nebulax I think, was like "how dare he say anything bad about Obi-Wan!", and deleted it. I put it back in, phrasing it differently, hoping that people would find the new version more acceptable. It was deleted again. The message was clear: "We will not compromise with you, we don't want you writing anything negative about Obi-Wan. STFU."


 * Did Obi-Wan allow Anakin to burn alive? Yes. Did he make any effort to pull him to safety? No. That's the truth, that's how it happened. But people don't want that to be in the article. Now, once again, I'm writing something that is true, and, once again, I'm being told to STFU. I'm also being told by MyNz that if I don't STFU, I'm going to be banned. So forgive me if that grates on my nerves just a little bit.--HanShotFirst 05:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted pages
Why did you delete my page? ~ Lord Nihilus
 * While reverting vandalism, I think we moved it to the wrong place. It should be as User:Lord Nihilus now. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)