Talk:Glassmonkey

For Admins: Removing the earlier talk about this page being CSD underneath. Reason to delete this page: no content, as I have initially created the page as well did remove all the content, wishing this page as well this Talk to be deleted. --Kostitar

(Hoping for closure for this at some point, this has already taken it's toll [unfortunately, and not blaming admins/wiki in general for it] on me. --Kostitar)

---

Please leave this page in the state of waiting for deletion. It is meant to be that way - if you look at the history, you'll see it is mostly edited by me anyway. Thank you.

Yes but all pages on this wiki are under a copywrite that means we have to right to collect any piratey info on the wiki. If this page was full with your personal (real life) details, then you have the right to have this removed. I think that is correct anyone want to clarify? --Lcawte 14:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mate, first of all, if you did read the history, you did see that it was me who initially created this page,aye - and it's me who is now suggesting it for the speedy deletion for a reason there's no content (which I also removed). Secondly, care to explain to me why would you in general (at the moment you alone) want to keep this page anyway, considering that the creator (me) has suggested it to be deleted? (Add: Edited the page "Shooting Stars of Sage" that linked to this page [no links here anymore], wondering if you are opposing the speedy deletion of this page, shouldn't you be doing that on the proper page instead of just recovering the content to this page?)

It doesnt matter if it is the same person who made and suggests the page for deletion, as I said, There is a copyright thing attached to all articles, plus look at the bottom of the edit screen, a little quote you never obviously read "Please note that all contributions to YPPedia are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Licence (see YPPedia:Copyrights for details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." Plus sign your comments

--~~~~

. --Lcawte 17:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What is this your sudden attack against me? If it's something personal, do that privately with me, not here. Again, would you like to explain why would you want to see this page go forth and back (read=all the content being removed by me, and then recovered by you) - and I do believe we certainly don't want to keep pages that has no content whatsoever. Another thing, I NEVER set in a doubt the copyrights, did I? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not see you answering any of my questions considering the sensibility of not deleting this page, but going on about the copyrights. I will continue on the proper talk place about it. -kostitar, since you insist me signing my comments.

Signing your comments lets other people that look back on this page who wrote what. I dont know you personally (I dont think so anyway) but why remove content from a prefectly good and encyclopidic article? I was just restoring the content mate. You would best to put a normal delete and then a reason here... The copywrite I am refering to is "Please note that all contributions to YPPedia are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Licence, this situation reminds me of a similar one: Talk:Rubbaduck#Article_deletion on the Rubbaduck article, view the CC liscence... Y!PPedia has the right to distrubute anything to do with Puzzle Pirates. In which is mentioned on the second message of that section. So this article, due to the fact that it is an older article, was fulled out within the rules etc, personally I dont think it will get deleted. --Lcawte 19:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why do you still go on about the copyrights, since I never questioned them, neither did I refer to them at all. I am coming back to what I said before - I initially created this page, I am the one that's been mostly editing it, and now also the one that first put the deletion request on it, speedy since it fit the qualifications - and in it's current form, is no longer an article that is in anyway useful for users. I've got absolutely no idea why this page should be kept as you wish, but probably never will understand your logic on it. Also, notice: "If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why at Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion" - you could have put your marks there in the first place? Just because you wish so, I have removed this as SCD and will leave it to wait for slower deletion (teases users with no content?) -kostitar (yes, still not signing as you wanted me to do)

Copyrights aside, we like to leave pages intact so that links (be they current or future) leading to it don't suddenly break. It's nothing personal, it's for the smooth running of the wiki. You're free to trim it back to a stub if you must, but we'd like to hang onto the page, for posterity's sake. --Belthazar451 21:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Page content restored

For starters, I have restored the Glassmonkey page and placed the proposed deletion tag on it while this is being discussed. I have also restored the removal of links from Shooting Stars of Sage as it was done just to remove any links to this page.

Any further blanking of this page will result in an edit war protection. -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 22:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As per Cedarwings' warning, I've protected the page following another blanking.

Please don't take this the wrong way - this isn't a case of "cackle, cackle, we have your information, now you can't have it back". It's not about you at all. This is simply in the interests of keeping the wiki nice and pretty and (more importantly) encyclopaedic. --Belthazar451 12:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For the love of puzzling, stop restoring the content since it is not accurate. Also, make up your mind - you first say it is okay to keep it stub, as it was, not blanked. Statement saying "yeah, but it is almost the same as blanking it" is not valid either. You are surely making this more out of the proportions it should had been.--Kostitar

Ah, sorry - I didn't notice you'd still left a bit. That wasn't quite what I meant, though - I had intended for the infobox to be left, and at least a modicum of an introducction. I don't honestly see the need to delete it, but surely you can at least agree to leaving the opening paragraph and biography section. --Belthazar451 14:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me, no I don't agree on leaving those - as well have seen that not all of the piratepages have this much information (makes me think why this page should then make an exception and if it just happens to be that this was on the wall and therefore paid attention to). Yet it's still protected, for not a valid reason. --Kostitar

Proposed deletion (1/5/0) - deletion opposed

Support

• Copyrights were never questioned, but the usefulness of the article was. Removing links was NOT done to make a reason for deletion but to prevent future linking from other pages to a page that wouldn't exist (=userfriendliness). No sense in an article about a pirate who will soon no longer exist. --Kostitar

Your only reason you feel this article should be deleted then is that it is "about a pirate who will soon no longer exist"? There are plenty of articles on the Yppedia about pirates who no longer exist. If that is your only reason I would say this is not worth the effort you are putting into this as you have clearly not gained anyone's support for your cause. If you present a valid reason for deletion, I, along with some others, may change our vote to support the cause. We are not ganging up to attack you, we are just trying to preserve the encyclopedic nature of the Yppedia. -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 15:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Aye that is right on both points. I myself have recently created pages for my deleted (awhile ago) alts. And the reason we are all against it was mentioned in Cedarwings reply "We are not ganging up to attack you, we are just trying to preserve the encyclopedic nature of the Yppedia." --Lcawte 16:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

One more time, I never stated that you are ganging up against me. And pointing out what I say in my reply beneath, what can I do - I have no powers to delete this page. Lcawte, what you do, and what you create, is your business and is not relevant to this case. Also, I'd like to see you not anymore keep stating to me the same things over and over again, since I feel you aren't doing it for the sake of the wiki but your own. Owning marks can be done other way. --Kostitar

Opposed

• As has been already stated, articles on the Yppedia do not belong to anyone. Removing links from other pages just so this can be an orphaned article is also not a reason to remove it from the Yppedia. I have yet to see a valid reason to delete this article. -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 22:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am yet to see a reason not to delete it. -- Kostitar

• Simply wanting a pirate page deleted "because the creator wanted it" is never a valid reason. And that's what I'm seeing here. --Thunderbird 02:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's how you see it. You don't see the sensibility, or in this case, the lack of it. -- Kostitar

It is sensible and the point is just because you made the page isnt a strong enough reason for it to be deleted. Check the criteria for deletion before you do anything. --Lcawte 14:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lcawte, you just seem to want to disagree and argue with me, and no it is not sensible. Again, please don't twist my words - did I say that the reason for deletion is because I initially created? No. -- Kostitar

Dude, I seem to disagree with you on this subject cause I oppose it... If I thought there was a valid reason to delete it then would I be with you? Yes. And its not just me that is against you... have a look 2 admins r with me here. If you want to continue this argument with me personally here is the place. --Lcawte 16:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude to yourself thank you very much - show some respect please. I asked you the same thing already at the beginning. You'll see.--Kostitar

Let me just throw in a little note here - us admins don't have any particular clout. We're just normal users who happen to have the power to protect or delete pages. When we vote on topics, we're just voting as normal users. And us normal users see more reason to retain the page than to delete it, despite the wishes of its creator. That's simply how it stands. --Belthazar451 12:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. And yes I'm aware of the powers, nature, "duty", responsibilities and advantages of being an administrator as well am well aware how it differs on an environment like this when comparing to e.g. gaming ones that Three Rings keep up. Can assure all of you that there's nothing personal against from me to any of you, except I'm beginning to feel I'll soon have some with Lcawte since his intentions seem to me be everything else but the wiki itself, and his personal reasons, neither do I see him being in the discussion for the reasons why someone should be, as well him dodging all of my replies and just throwing on the ones he already went through. This said, your opinion of keeping the page is more than obvious, and with the powers I have, what can I do. --Kostitar

Ok, here is somthing I will say; 1, I admit I have been a bit annoyed since reply 2 from you. 2, I have read all the replys here twice atleast. 3, Intentions everything but the wiki? Your the one that didnt sign comments (not helping the wiki users tell who u r), I was not the one that blanked the page or added {{d}} ^(Usage) which wasnt helping the wiki. I will say again if you want to say anything else bad about me please leave it on my talk page here or feel free to find me in game... --Lcawte 14:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Seems my reply went somewhere on the heaven of virtual words, the first one.) Don't remember word to word it now, but - I did ask you already in the beginning to take it to private discussion with me - and seems you seem to want to bash me out here, please do so only privately with me. I did not "say bad" about you, I expressed my feelings and thoughts related, as well didn't see the talk necessary at this page as well the talk going onwards to the subject neither replies on my comments from you. I'm hoping this will be the last time I will need to be mistreated by you because of this occasion here, or anywhere else. --Kostitar

Ok mate, firstly stop this conversation here!... secondly I cant find anywhere in your older stuff you saying take this to your talk page... It seems alot like you cant let this drop and keep trying to launch "attacks" at me. Quote from you "I'm hoping this will be the last time I will need to be mistreated by you because of this occasion here, or anywhere else." Well lets put it this way, if you keep a professional side to this and didn't become "emotionally attached" to this article, we wouldnt be arguing like this. Please leave a message on my talk page if you decide to launch another attack on me. --Lcawte ^(Talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeesh, for real and big sigh. You are attacking me, and for the last time, I did ask you, and please let it go, and please do not assume things about me, as well please don't order me around, I am not working for you. And this has turned personal apparently and doesn't belong here and quite frankly, I'm fed up for you coming so aggressively against me. --Kostitar

• Agreed. This article doesnt have a strong enough reason for deletion --Lcawte 14:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm also opposed to deletion of any content because of all of the above reasons. If the pirate character has been deleted or would soon be deleted, just add that info to the introduction of the article, as, to my knowledge, is always done in such a case. --Ikketje
• I'm opposed to this deletion as well. I agree with the reasons above for keeping the page, and characters that have been deleted remain part of the history of the game. Adrielle =) 13:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

--Lcawte 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Page Resolution

As voted by the Yppedia community, this page will not be deleted. It will be retained for it's historic and encyclopedic content. Also this page will remain locked, temporarily, to prevent any further edit wars. -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 02:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As I already way back there stated, the edit protection was set on false basis. Yet I even still see no effort to remove the protection, even the information is outdated - I wonder how does this AGAIN serve the Wiki community at all.--Kostitar

The information is outdated because the page is locked. If the page wasnt locked, it could be updated. It is locked to stop the edit wars. If you need a break down on this edit war, Look at the history of the page, or I will explain it if you leave a message on my talk page. --Lcawte 15:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mate, I am again politely asking you not to start this over. I did NOT ask WHY it is edit protected - I POINTED out that it was initially locked on false basis and no one is doing anything to make it possible to keep updated (read=removing the edit protection that has been set into it on false basis [mentioning this now for the 3rd time] in the first place) and therefore the page itself is not serving the Wiki community, neither is the unnecessary edit protection. I am personally more than capable to read and understand. --Kostitar

Locked to stop edit wars... That isnt a false basis. Stopping the edit wars helps the Wiki community to get on and update articles etc, insted of having to go back and keep cleaning up what is considered vandalism (blanking pages etc), which can cause more edit wars. Thats the last word from me, I have voted, the page is not being deleted, just leave it at that. I am going to go do some editing and be helpful, and I think you should to. (P.S: I think this page was going to be unlocked soon, but I think you bumping it may delay it a bit longer.) --Lcawte 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

{undent}Alright, both of you cut it out. I'm going to unlock the page for updating, not for deletion. If I see any sort of edit war, deletion, or even name-calling I'm going to lock it up again. Even if a pirate is deleted (which this one hasn't been yet) the wiki still keeps those articles for historical perspective. --Fiddler 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. But did I hear anyone admitting that the edit protection was set on false basis, and apologizing it? --Kostitar

Editing the page content

Amoyer, why do you need to restore the content (the one sentence I removed)? I don't see anywhere a requirement for a pirate page in Yppedia to have a certain amount of information and/or certain information. It is not required from any of the other pirate pages in Yppedia. --Kostitar

Addyrielle, Glassmonkey has not achieved an ocean-wide ultimate standing on duty navigation. Rather not very important information anyway. --Kostitar

It was on the pirate's info page. I think it is important information, as it is the kind of information that people put on their pirate pages... I don't see why you removed it. Adrielle =) 10:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits rolled back and error corrected. Information on page is accurate as judged from pirate page - please do not remove. Thanks. --Lizzie 10:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

O woops - missed the ocean-wide bit... Sorry! Adrielle =) 10:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Glassmonkey must be important to someone since such (non-important) information is kept on the page. If you think an archipelago-wide ultimate standing is important, please answer my thoughts about it: you can pretty much get those standings without really being a good puzzler (e.g. on Malachite, set your home somewhere else than Lacerta or Komodo, logg off and back on and see what happens) - it is hardly an achievement to mention. As well, if this kind of achievement is to be mentioned on Glassmonkey's case, you should mention that on many of the other puzzles as well, although formed into something like "Glassmonkey has in the past achieved archipelago-wide Ultimate standing on...". What comes to the statement about "people putting this kind of information on their pirate page" - well, as it has been SO many times said here, these pages are open for anyone to edit and are NOT anyone's personal belongings and therefore in theory, anyone has the right to edit them. I ask what I said earlier - is there somewhere stated what information and how much of that particular information HAS TO BE in one's pirate page in Yppedia? It does not matter if "people usually" put some information on their and/or someone else's pirate page here - I haven't seen anyone saying that everyone has to have the same information on their page. You should ask Glassmonkey personally if something claimed she likes is actually truthful information. --Kostitar ADD: If you state on her pirate page here, that she "Participates" you are referring that she is presently doing it, but I'm sure you are lacking her personal confirmation if she does that right now or not. --Kostitar

Kostitar, I am simply saying that the information on the page is accurate now and therefore doesn't need to be deleted. Regardless of your own personal feelings on the subject, as my fellow admins have detailed in depth above, we like to retain all pirate pages for historical value. People have all kinds of information on their pirate page, including high ratings. I don't wish to get into any kind of argument; I just request that if you change this page it be to improve encyclopaedic content, not to make it less/worse of a page. --Lizzie 12:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lizzie, I am, as part of the wiki community and therefore rightful to do so, criticizing the actual information on this particular page. I will point out ONCE again, the information on this page is NOT accurate. You would have to ask Glassmonkey personally to be SURE that what has been in the history, what is currently and what might be in the future mentioned here to be something she likes to do, in order to be sure that information to be accurate. As well - as I said, using "Participates" refers to a statement that she is presently doing so, and I do know for a fact that no one has asked her if she participates any kind of sea monster hunts. Therefore, the content is not exactly right. Also, please do explain "People have all kinds of information on their pirate page" - this sounds like you're saying that anyone, who has a certain character in the game, is the one who can decide what information is represented on his/her pirate page in here - which is what has exactly been denied all along. What comes to making this pirate page less/worse of a page, is what has been done by others (starting by restoring content that wasn't accurate, followed by edit protection on false basis that was not removed in a sensible amount of time - and nobody, especially from admins, did anything for this, not to mention that anyone would have given any answers/replies when I asked for them), when I have personally been keeping it updated and accurate. --Kostitar

Nicksterv, the information you restored is not accurate. --Kostitar

Kostitar, that information was taken from the pirate's info page. I don't understand how you can say it is inaccurate. I know people's stats go up and down, but to say that someone has reached a certain level at one time, when they have, is not inaccurate. It is part of the history of that pirate. Adrielle =) 10:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that I need to repeat myself over and over again. Please read what I have said earlier. Finally someone ACTUALLY read and listened and changed it into past tense about the SMH participation. Why it is too much to ask to keep the information exact and accurate if you're willing to do any editing. And Addyrielle, read back if you want to know WHY it wasn't accurate. --Kostitar

I did read it, and I am still confused. Maybe because it is late and my brain is slightly asleep, lol. I understand the bit about sea monster hunting - I guess it is possible that Glassmonkey once liked to sea monster hunt, but doesn't anymore. What I don't understand is why you want to remove the information about this character once achieving ultimate puzzle standing. Adrielle =) 12:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)