Talk:Rubbaduck

Please don't write anything about Rubbaduck

Trinket conflict

Matt121493's addition of the show/hide box to contain the starfish trinkets was not a deletion of content but instead an attempt to make the article comply with policy. The intention of the policy is to reduce load times on the main body of an article while sub-pages load in the background. Prior to the use of show/hide boxes articles with dozens of trinkets could take over a minute to load on a high-speed connection. The line for what to allow in the main article and what to put on a sub-page had to be drawn somewhere and it was drawn at a dozen pets and trinkets total. There are three ways to make this article comply with policy. 1) Delete seventeen pets or trinkets, leaving a total of twelve in the article. 2) Delete the entire starfish section. 3) Use a show/hide box on the starfish section, allowing it to load in the background while letting a user read the rest of the article. Deleting the article is not a valid choice. --Fiddler 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Article deletion

There is no conflict. It's just not fun anymore to maintain this article and I object to anything beeing published on the subject of Rubbaduck. Please delete the article

--Rubbaduck

I object deletion of this page. I may object because it is under the creative commons licence and we thus have the right to archive and distribute this page. This page is about a pirate, who won a familiar and has been around for quite a while and played multiple oceans and thus the information should remain in place. I do not like the way the initial statement is written tho, due to the language. The page should contain information about the pirate ingame and not about the wiki editor, who is "too lazy to edit properly". iirc trophies should not be on the page either. A pity that you don't want to improve the page anymore, because you don't want to follow the rules here :/ -- Kamuflaro 18:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly!

The page is poor and it won't be updated any more. At least not by me. And since I am the subject of the page I think I should at least have something to say. After all, I'm the only one who have "contributed" to the page.

-Rubbaduck, disillusioned

Unlucky mate, I'll edit it probably, if the lock is going to be liftend after things have cooled down. :) (Sorry for the too quick edit) -- Kamuflaro 19:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh....why can't you just let me have it deleted? It's not like it's of general interest to anybody.

-Rubbaduck

If it wasn't of any interest noone would have bothered editing it for you and I wouldn't try to convince you to accept one of the suggested compromises. You've won a familiar, that makes many players of this game look up to you and that is why I personally want this page to stay. Not to mention, that you are captain of a 4 years old crew on Midnight... This is the internet and the page content is cc licensed, better give up trying to control it :D P.S. you can add that nice signature with ~~~~ -- Kamuflaro 20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is only one way to resolve this. Delete the article and be done with it!

There is no way it can be unlocked for further editing anyway.

~~Rubbaduck

It's only locked until you calm down and stop trying to delete it like a petulant five-year old destroying his own sandcastle when someone tries to help him with it. --Belthazar451 21:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Belthazar451's statements do not reflect the views of all (or even any) of the other wiki administrators. That being said, the wiki is a collaborative effort. To that end, we do have certain rules to help maintain the style and content of various pages. I'm sorry you've run afoul of one the rules. However, I'm sure you understand that the rule was meant to be applied even-handedly to all editors and pages. I hope you'll take a moment to consider this in a larger context. Thank you. --Barrister 22:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand and that is precisely why I don't want to be a part of this form-before-contents-and-creativity community any longer. Feel free to type whatever you like about the pirate Rubbaduck, but please delete what I have contributed with since I no longer feel I can abide the absurdly strict rules of this wiki. After all, this is only a game for our amusement...

Besides, I put quite a lot of effort into making the article exactly as I wanted it, including empty slots for missing starfish and it was ruined by a "helpfull" admin. Having had a look at the articles concerning those who have written comments about my article I can only say: I am not impressed. Those article do not say much about the pirates they are supposed to be about. Rather they are some sort of shortcuts for bugfixing.

Is this how it should be? That the articles can be about anything as long as they follow the format rules?

Just look at http://yppedia.puzzlepirates.com/User_talk:Belthazar451 and http://yppedia.puzzlepirates.com/User_talk:Barrister

Aren't the discussion pages supposed to be discussion about the contents of the article?

Only for main namespace article, whereas User_talk: pages are messages for that particular user. This discussion page is about the article Rubbaduck but if I wanted to leave a message for you I'd add a message to User_talk:Rubbaduck. --Fiddler 23:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fiddler doesn't exactly follow the rules about third person either http://yppedia.puzzlepirates.com/User:Fiddler

As I mentioned on your talk page, User pages aren't held to all of the same standards as pirate articles. In many cases a user will use their User: page to talk about themselves, the player behind the pirate. --Fiddler 23:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rubbaduck

. --Fiddler 23:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps there's some confusion. Yes, User:Barrister (and its talk page) is a bit of a mess, but that's my user page; my pirate page is Barrister. Similarly, you should look at Orsino, not User:Fiddler. User pages are allowed to contain nearly any content in any format. Pirate pages, however, must conform to a few specific rules. (There really aren't that many rules.) It's worth mentioning that User:Kamuflaro and User:Matt121493 are not administrators, simply other players, just like you. Their comments and edits do, however, appear intended only to have your page comply with the same rules that apply to other pirate pages, and are not intended to be a personal comment on your style or taste. --Barrister 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're free, incidentally, to re-create your pirate article in your user namespace however you see fit, so long as it doesn't violate the over-arching Three Rings policies like no profanity, et al. --Belthazar451 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I surrender

Please delete http://yppedia.puzzlepirates.com/Rubbaduck and I'll see what I can do with http://yppedia.puzzlepirates.com/user:Rubbaduck if that makes everyone happy. This discussion can't possibly end well anyway.

Rubbaduck

I personally still disagree with deleting this article as it is about a pirate who chose to create that article. As for the show/hide box, I personally think that if it is left as it was previously using the instructions I left in the user's talk page, I feel that it wouldn't cause any issues as long as the user continued to use that format and not revert those edits.--Matt121493 01:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Page resolution

Will this issue ever be resolved or the page deleted? By the way, who locked it and who will decide when it's resolved? Rubbaduck

If you look at the page history you will see that Fiddler was responsible for locking this page. As for deletion of it, I doubt that will ever happen.

As for its resolution it is quite simple; if you wish for the trinkets to all remain on the page then they must remain in show/hide boxes as per policy. If you wish for all but a total of 12 pets and trinkets to be deleted, then the show/hide boxes can be removed. What it comes down to is quite simple, make sure the page stays within the confines of the policies and you will receive less intervention from the administrators. As was mentioned above, if you want you can create a different version of this page in your user namespace and it can be formatted however you would like. There are very few rules for a user's own page.

As it currently stands, I do not believe the administrators have any more changes that they require of this page before it can be unlocked again. If there are any changes that anyone else feels need to be made to this page, please make your comments known now. -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 16:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is insane! It's worse than a bleedin Kafka novel! Aren't I allowed to edit the material I have written about myself?? Are some silly rules more important than the contents? I've been playing PP for almost 5 years but I'm seriously considering leaving. I really regret ever trying to contribute to this Wiki. Trust me, I'll never do it again.

Rubbaduck

I realise it's been a while since this got posted, but here's a reply. Are some silly rules more important than the contents? Simply put, yes. Because these so-called "silly rules" govern (at a rough count) over ten thousand pirate articles, another two thousand crew articles, and eight hundred flag articles. Not to mention three hundred island articles and three and a half thousand building articles. When the wiki started, articles were getting completely snowed under by lists of trinkets and lists of pets and lists of ships and lists of portraits and lists of trophies, et cetera. At that time, it was decided that pirates could display a reasonable amount of stuff directly on their page, after which it either had to be hidden or removed. The YPPedia policies were introduced to define in clear black-and-white exactly what is a "reasonable amount" - in the case of pets and trinkets, it's twelve.

Basically, the policies are not about you or your article. It's about the YPPedia, and making sure it's useful and encyclopedic, and not simply endless lists of Pirate Robinson's umpteen sloops and sixty-one flavours of pie. If I made a pirate article, I would be bound by exactly the same rules. If Cedarwings makes a pirate article, it's bound by exactly the same rules. If Almighty Cleaver, Praised Be He, makes a pirate article, it's still bound by exactly the same rules. And if you make a pirate article, then yes, it's bound by exactly the same rules.

So, are some silly rules more important than the contents of sixty-three thousand, one hundred and four articles? Yes. Very yes. --Belthazar451 12:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am unlocking this page as I feel it currently falls within all of the policies and guidelines of the Yppedia. If for some reason we end up back in the same place again, this page may get locked permanently upon which time changes will only be made by administrators. -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 17:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Supporting Signatures

All who support Rubbaduck in this matter, please write a line here:

I think that if its a page about you you should be able to delete if u want its wrong for ya'll not to let any one of us delete u should b able to make your page the way you want it to be or even delete it its not right one bit ((User:sexysmiley)) 22:28, 7 may 2009 :::

Adminship

I see you nominated yourself for admin... the whole reason I picked up for it was the article you wanted deleting, you say you want to edit it? Or use your new power to delete it? If you wait awhile and let things cool down, you can edit it. The admins have only locked it temporarily. P.S you didnt completly fill in the RfA. --Lcawte 15:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)