User:Sjakkalle: Difference between revisions
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==My First Article and the VFD on it== |
==My First Article and the VFD on it== |
||
The first article I created was [[ |
The first article I created was [[How To Boom Ass]], the main carrier in Wing Commander III, Heart of the Tiger. |
||
After exactly 44 minutes it was tagged "This article has been listed for deletion". Oh bother... That debate is at [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/TCS Victory]]. |
After exactly 44 minutes it was tagged "This article has been listed for deletion, due to possible homosexuality". Oh bother... That debate is at [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/TCS Victory]]. |
||
But the article ''did'' survive. True, a majority did vote to delete, but among all those votes saying that the article was "fancruft" (learned a new word there!) were some merge votes. About a week later, the ugly vfd notice was replaced with a far less distressing merge notice. And that notice disappeared too when it turned out that the category "Wing Commander spacecraft" had far too many articles to try and merge together. HA! |
But the article ''did'' survive. True, a majority did vote to delete, but among all those votes saying that the article was "fancruft" (learned a new word there!) were some merge votes. About a week later, the ugly vfd notice was replaced with a far less distressing merge notice. And that notice disappeared too when it turned out that the category "Wing Commander spacecraft" had far too many articles to try and merge together. HA! |
||
Since then none of my articles have been listed for deletion. I thought some delete-happy person would respond when I created an article on [[horsefeathers]]. I thought the title, as well as being created by an anonymous user, would be a red flag... but my attempt at making a somewhat serious article on that subject seems to have satisfied the deletionists as well. |
Since then none of my articles have been listed for deletion. I thought some delete-happy person would respond when I created an article on [[horsefeathers]]. I thought the title, as well as being created by an anonymous user, would be a red flag... but my attempt at making a somewhat serious article on that subject seems to have satisfied the deletionists as well.My numbers at the bottom of the page, so guys call me to boom ass, god im so lonely. |
||
==Inclusionism?== |
==Inclusionism?== |
||
Revision as of 11:26, 23 May 2005
| ||
Subpages
- User:Sjakkalle/Vfd
- User:Sjakkalle/TestSR
- User:Sjakkalle/Embarrasing moments Will start putting a list here of moments and edits which are slightly embarrasing.
After a lot of edits using the IP-address 129.177.61.124 I have finally decided to create an account.
My First Article and the VFD on it
The first article I created was How To Boom Ass, the main carrier in Wing Commander III, Heart of the Tiger. After exactly 44 minutes it was tagged "This article has been listed for deletion, due to possible homosexuality". Oh bother... That debate is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/TCS Victory.
But the article did survive. True, a majority did vote to delete, but among all those votes saying that the article was "fancruft" (learned a new word there!) were some merge votes. About a week later, the ugly vfd notice was replaced with a far less distressing merge notice. And that notice disappeared too when it turned out that the category "Wing Commander spacecraft" had far too many articles to try and merge together. HA!
Since then none of my articles have been listed for deletion. I thought some delete-happy person would respond when I created an article on horsefeathers. I thought the title, as well as being created by an anonymous user, would be a red flag... but my attempt at making a somewhat serious article on that subject seems to have satisfied the deletionists as well.My numbers at the bottom of the page, so guys call me to boom ass, god im so lonely.
Inclusionism?
Since then I have made some votes on the vfd page. In general I am fairly liberal with a keep vote, and I am especially liberal towards articles which are argued to be fancruft. I have some better reasons for favoring inclusion of such articles. "Fancruft" usually revolves around some sort of fictional universe, and there are usually thousands, sometimes millions, of fans, fans who are interested in reading all sort of topics about their subject. That means there will be thousands of people who will be interested in reading an article on the subject, and who are we to say that they should not be allowed to?
That is why I vote keep on fictional characters and often delete on real people where the argument used is vanity. Less than ten people will usually be reading a run-of-the mill vanity article and that is not enough to include them. I set a low bar of notability however, and vote keep if there are good reasons to.
Some lists of trivia are also interesting. Apart from Iasson's weirdo vote which I will disregard, I cast the sole dissenting vote in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of liberal cities and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of conservative cities.
As a rule, I stay out of debates about high schools. I think that some high schools are inherently notable, for instance the one I went to Bergen Katedralskole (Bergen Cathedral School) was founded in the middle ages and certainly notable if an article came up about it. Whether or not a generic high school should make it through I have no opinion of. The one time I engaged myself in a school deletion debate was when I brought the deleted Maha Jana High School to Votes for Undeletion.
Nonetheless, I have voted delete sometimes, there do come articles which are not worthy of inclusion. In fact I believe that my delete votes outnumber the keep votes. I have even appended "delete" tags on some articles. Does voting delete on some articles make me not an inclusionist? I hope not... "inclusionist" sounds a lot nicer and more tolerant than "deletionist".
One thing I fail to comprehend is the eagerness to list duplicates on the vfd page. Come on... REDIRECT is a lot better for duplicates. From the WP:R page: "Redirects are fun, cheap and easier the Votes for Deletion".
I am a bit guilty of aiding to delete things, and since getting a username, I have nominated several articles for deletion. I keep a list of these at User:Sjakkalle/Vfd. Initially, I had a fairly high "success" rate, I put quotes around "success" because having an article kept is not a "failure" on the part of the nominator, especially, if there has been a rewrite. Recently, a few of my nominations have been kept, in part because of rewrites, and in part because I've been a little hasty.
Well I am not a deletionist, but probably I do not fit the bill for inclusionist either. A moderate with inclusionist tendencies maybe.
Redirection
I have a certain obsession with creating redirects.
- When I create an article I often attach ten or more redirects to it. Look at all my beautiful redirects to punctuation (chess) [1] !
- When I search for an article and fail to find it using the first search word attempted? Redirect the first search word!
- A duplicate article listed on VfD with a semi-sensible title? Don't delete it, redirect it!
I feel that many of the problems related to duplicate articles would have been prevented with more redirects to articles. As a rough estimate, I would say that redirects should outnumber articles at least three to one, and perhaps even more.
Editing my contributions
Actually, I love it when someone starts editing articles that I have created. It is enjoyable to see that someone is so interested in what I write that they want to make contributions to it. Go ahead, edit away! (But do not vandalize.)
Interests
Chess
I am a somewhat active chess player, given here in algebraic notation is the favorite game I have played; I am playing Black.
1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4
This is the Nimzo-Indian.
4.Bg5
This is the Leningrad variation, White's move pins the knight.
4....h6 5.Bh4 c5 6.d5 Bxc3+
By capturing here I surrender the Bishop pair in a closed position to inflict doubled pawns.
7.bxc3 e5!? 8.d6!?
Allowing White to play his pawn into d6 is a sharp idea. The d6 pawn cleaves the Black position into two sides, with only the d8 square allowing Black communication between them. On the other hand that d6 pawn can prove to be a weak, and Black will aim to win it. Also, Black's knight now can be developed to the good c6 square.
8...Nc6 9.e3 b6 10.Bd3 Bb7 11.e4?
White should aim for an attack on Black's king's side, and blocking the bishop is not an aid to that.
11...0-0 12.Ne2 Qb8?
But here I make a dreadful move which almost costs me the game. The idea is to put pressure on the d6 pawn, but I completely underestimated the weakness the following exchange would make on my king's side. Black should play 12...g5 13. Bg3 Nh5 and follow through with ...Qf6. Black has then weakened his king's position but the Queen is available to defend it.
13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Ng3!
Now I saw that 14...Qxd6?? loses to 15.Qg4+ and 16.Nf5. The threat of Nf5 and Qg4+ is vicious, and Black must evacuate the King to bring the rooks into the defense.
14...Kh7 15.Qh5
Threatening 16.Nf5 with imminent checkmate on h6. I am forced to give up two pawns to bring the rook to the defense. About to lose material and with White's queen ravaging my castle, I was on the verge of resigning here.
15...Rg8 16.Qxf7+ Rg7 17.Qxf6 Qg8 18.Nf5 Rg6 19.Qh4 Rf8
I was feeling slightly better now. Imminent checkmates are staved off, and besides, my rooks are fairly active. Still two pawns down is an uphill struggle.
20.0-0-0 Qe6 21.g3 Ba6
OK, I am about to win one pawn back. White tries to defend some of his weaknesses around his king.
22.Kb2 Bxc4 23.Bxc4 Qxc4
Black has won back a pawn and is now threatening ...Qe2+ and Qxf2. However, White is still a pawn up and should still win, but his next move is a mistake, letting Black's queen into his position. The best way to defend against the threats is 24.Rd2.
24.Rhf1? Qe2+ 25.Ka1 Rff6 26.Rde1 Qd3 27.Kb2?
White's last chance of winning was 27.Rc1. In fact I have the advantage now and after
27...Qd2+ 28.Kb1
I should have taken back the pawn with 28...Qxc3 and my passed pawn and strong knight is an advantage. 29.Ne7?? loses to 29...Rxf2! However, having escaped from a lost position I was happy to take a draw by perpetual check.
28...Qd3+ draw agreed
Articles Created
Among the articles I have created on this subject are
- Larsen's Opening
- Dunst Opening
- Queen's Indian Defense (from a redirect)
- Punctuation (chess)
- Napoleon Opening (this is the article I am least proud of, it was created to discourage people from voting move on a vfd-debate.)
- Mieses Opening (from a redirect)
- Queen's Pawn Game
- King's Pawn Game
- Trompowski Attack
- Tarrasch Defense
- Queen's Gambit Accepted On April 16, 2005 this article was honored with a mention on the Main Page under "Did you know, From our newest articles", attracting a great deal of edits, and unfortunately some vandalism.
- Queen's Gambit Declined
- Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1997, Game 6
- Barnes Opening (from a redirect)
- Légal Trap
- Van't Kruijs Opening
Username "Sjakkalle"
Chess is the inspiration to my username. One of the (bogus) priciples novice players in chess play by is "Always give a check when you can, it may be mate. Anyway it is better to lose and have given a check than to never have checked at all."
...So I made the username like this
Check everyone
Sjakk alle (in Norwegian)
Sjakkalle
