Category talk:Guardian Hegemony

(baleted?)

"Well, if you're going to create categories for things without talking to the writers whose things end up in that category... where's the "common decency" there? " -- Matt

If you hadn't noticed, Adam has made an enormous contribution to the wiki by going all the hell over the place, adding stub notices, grouping shit into categories... 90% of the categories my stuff is organized into were made by him. If everyone threw a hissy every time he put new category tags at the end of their stuff: 1) everyone would be PMSing all the time and 2) 90% of the articles wouldn't be categorized. If you don't want him categorizing your shit, fine, say so. But I think it's a pretty great thing he's doing, trying to help organize the wiki. --JD 20:40, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

Just so we're clear: I didn't throw a "hissy." I wiped a category, and then Adam left a snarky passive-aggressive comment when he marked the page to be deleted. I should also make it clear that nobody's saying Adam isn't doing a good job keeping the Wiki organized, but he's going to have to live with the fact that there are other Kupopolis writers who use the wiki, and sometimes they might disagree with the way their articles are organized and, yes, they may change/wipe out categories that Adam makes. And sometimes, they might even do it without explaining why, and honestly I don't think they have to explain why. It's their stuff, and if they want to alter the way it's presented or categorized, they should be free and welcome to. I should also note that it wasn't just my stuff that had been put under the category in question -- I don't particularly think Nick wanted to have Medina categorized in Guardian Hegemony. Scen 22:47, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

I tried to hint to you that leaving a note when you delete a page, category or otherwise, is a standard courtesy in the wiki world. What I actually wanted to say was, "Hey fuckhead, how about providing a reason instead of being a dick?" I don't understand why you can't comprehend that I don't care if you delete or completely change my category system as long as you provide a reason. I don't fucking own this shit, duh, but deleting something that you think reflects poorly on you without saying "hey, I don't agree with this terminology/classification" is the very definition of throwing a hissy. When you say, "honestly I don't think they have to explain why," that is seriously fucked up. I can't even believe you think that seriously. Dear fucking lord, you can delete whatever the fuck you want, but just give a reason, even a six word reason. Is that so fucking much to ask? Xstryker 07:49, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

And since this got brought back up again after I thought it'd been put to bed:

(insert reason for deletion here)

This category was deleted because, frankly, it's a useless categorization. There never was a formal alliance called "Guardian Hegemony," and the only people in the story who actively used the term were Tasnicans during the Imperialist era when Guardia and Tasnica were rivals for influence in the Fringe. The term itself had a loaded and somewhat pejorative connotation. No nation, then or now, proudly declares itself part of a Guardian Hegemony. - Matt

Agree Xstryker 07:49, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

And this is part of the reason why I wish Adam had asked me or Nick before he created the category: either one of us would have told him not to use it. - Matt

And yet you didn't. Xstryker 07:49, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

I also wish a stink hadn't been made over the fact that I wiped the category, for the reasons stated above, and I think that it applies to all of us (not just Adam, because while Adam has been doing the lionshare of the organizing and categorizing of the Wiki, there are a couple other people who've created new categories/portals as well): if you're going to help out with the organization end of this thing, you're going to have to accept that the writers retain discretionary editing power over the categories where it comes to individual writers' assets. - Matt

No one's saying you can't delete stuff Xstryker 07:49, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

If somebody categorizes something I made in a way that I feel is either inappropriate, or incorrect, or otherwise misrepresents my stuff, I'm going to change it -- and it's my prerogative to change it. If I give a reason for it, fine.

Agree Xstryker 07:49, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

If I don't, oh well. - Matt

STRONGLY DISAGREE Xstryker 07:49, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

(and just so we're clear: this isn't a prerogative I'm claiming just for myself. my use of first-person pronouns was just for the sake of being concise. if our positions were reverse and I categorized Ticonderans under Kupopolis Drug Addicts, and he didn't approve and changed it, that's his right) - Matt

I'd at least say so in my edit summary for the page. Xstryker 07:49, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

But anyway. This is the last time I'm going to say anything on the matter, even if a similar situation crops up down the road. Scen 23:11, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

That's all fine and good, but deleting categories or articles without any explanation (even "I didn't like it") is still not playing nice. And "and it's my prerogative to change it. If I give a reason for it, fine. If I don't, oh well." is kind of infantile. If that's the way you want to be, fine. But it's not very adult. If you made a category "drug addicts" and put Ticondera in it I'd like to think Adam would delete it and then put something like, "Plz don't do that thnx don't like it." And if he didn't he'd be the one remiss. Also, you deleted both the category and the talk (???) What's the point. The talk is still there in the history. Why make comments and then hide them? I don't understand. --JD 02:54, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Firstly, there's a huge difference between deleting a category, and deleting a whole article. It's not like Adam spent five hours linking three articles to one category. It does take a bit of work to scan through the growing list of articles in the wiki and figure out which ones go where, I'll grant you. But the category I wiped was comparatively tiny, and dealing primarily with my story stuff. I didn't wipe anything belonging to anyone else -- if I had, then you might have a case, because that's a definite no no. Secondly, the wiping of the category was not infantile. How many edits/revisions have there been in this wiki so far that haven't had an explanation or a summary attached to them? How many lines inserted, or deleted, or changed, without an explanation? It's not infantile, nor is it "not playing nice." It's the norm. And if I may say so, is it any more adult, or any less "not playing nice" to be snarky and passive aggressive about consigning the wiped category to the delete page file? - Matt

Yep, it certainly is. Oscar Wilde told me so. Xstryker 07:49, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Thirdly, I deleted the talk because I decided only after I put my talk response up that I did not want to have the very argument you decided to go ahead and dredge up. Yes, it was still in the history (and yes, it was infantile -- hence the delete), but I thought maybe it would have been obvious (by, say, the fact that it had been deleted by the author) that this was probably not a topic worth pursuing. The effort put into digging it up out of the history and talking about it, I find... dare I say, infantile? Scen 03:49, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

He shoots, he misses. Next time provide a reason. If you didn't like the comments you made, replace them with better ones, don't wipe it completely and leave us to figure out what your deal is. Seriously, I don't care what the reason is as long as you give one. Xstryker 07:49, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Maybe I will, maybe I won't. I don't understand why, out of all the un-commented changes and deletions that have been made on the wiki since it went up, this is the one that bunched up your panties. I also don't understand why you didn't send me an email or an IM instead of airing your soiled nappies in public like this. But hey, I guess that's just how you roll. Scen 13:10, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

p.s. may I suggest a reading comprehension course at down at the learning annex? --Jerry

Don't need one; I understand perfectly well why you're trolling a deleted talk page looking for a good fight. Scen 13:10, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

When I quoted "and it's my prerogative to change it. If I give a reason for it, fine. If I don't, oh well." I'm pretty sure I was indicating that statement was infantile. "I can balete it if I want to and I don't have to tell you why nya nyah." --Jerry

Firstly, not exactly what I said, with the nya nyah. I said authors have prerogative to edit their own things, and don't owe explanations for doing it. Go ahead, scroll up and read the whole thing in context, like they taught you at that learning annex course you mentioned. That's not infantile. What's infantile is taking offense at it and, rather than tell me I'd done you wrong, being an ass about it on a public page.

Deleting a category, changing an article, whatever. That's not infantile. Scen 13:10, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Thank you. Argument over, I win. Scen 13:10, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Replacing a bullshit article I put up (i.e. "robots aren't as big as giant robo" with an article which makes sense isn't infantile. That's replacing nonsense with content, which is constructive as opposed to deleting a category which is deconstructive in absense of reason. --Jerry

Deleting, I guess, is deconstructive, if you want to look at it that way. Except for the fact that there was no actual content on the category page itself, so in the end nothing was lost. Oh, but look what we gained -- another Kupopolis argument! Scen 13:10, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Or deleting talk, which is nonsense for above reasons. Someone like me is obviously, since it happened, going to be confused and dredge it up. --JD 11:23, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

I contend it's not nonsense. What is nonsense is dredging up this argument when it was clear I was trying to avoid it -- and nice try hiding behind a shield of self-deprecation; you weren't confused about it, you were just itching to confront me on Adam's behalf. If you're going to give a reason at all, don't insult me (again) by giving me one made of bullshit. Scen 13:10, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Since this talk page is proving to not be constructive, I'm going to delete it in one hour's time. Anyone with anything to say to me should do so privately rather than continue to pollute the wiki with arguing. Scen 13:10, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Okay then. I'll take the central question, whether or not to give deletion reasons, to a more appropriate forum. Xstryker 13:17, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

... which you should have done in the first place? Scen 13:30, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Due to gross improper use of the indent function, I have no idea how to properly follow this conversation anymore. I am however quite impressed by your attribution of a possessive to an esoteric quantifier like "hour" which happens to be in view during this edit. So I guess that's all I have to say! --JD 13:23, 3 August 2006 (CDT)