|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I don't know why the image was deleted. I was granted written permission from the photographer, and this was clearly stated when the image was uploaded. Mr Pillows ( talk) 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
(Reason given is copied from the 'Talk:Black page, with a few edits. These are my words.)It's been nearly 3 years since I have contributed to BLACK. I am the original author of the Secondary Objectives (SOs) in the BLACK Wiki page. My SOs have been edited by registered and non-registered users alike, and many of my installments have been edited with here-say and conjecture, and very little fact. I have found that 3R1C edited most of my installments horribly (SETEC Astronomy is not a Russian KGB front!). Somehow, my SO additions have been removed altogether. I have found that there was a deletion discussion on this page, and the reasons were for the posting of infomation that had little or no fact. This was not the original intention of the BLACK Secondary Objectives. The original intent was to give factual and/or published info on intel collected while playing BLACK. BLACK SOs give us a history and contemporary lesson in Black-Ops. It is my intention to reopen the deletion discussion, and if allowed to repost the SOs, take the title offered by Hench and create a separate page, and link it to the BLACK page. As it has been previously requested, Please do not [expletive] with my wiki unless something is actually wrong, Please? If you were to glance through the history of diffs, you will find many rampant edits with little or no regard to fact. Any door ( talk) 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement that my use of (cf. please do not [expletive] with my wiki) was in terribly poor taste. This is, in fact, a quote from one of the poor editors of my BLACK additions. I would then like to formally apologise for quoting someone without permission, posting his/her words as "my words", and for using them, not only in this delete request, but also in the Talk discussion. I would also like to apologise for making a statement that would be interpreted as hostile towards other editors. I will return to the BLACK discussion page, and remove those words that do not belong to me, and are not a fair representation of what I am attempting to convey. However, to refer to one of the editors as "poor" is not to far from fair, since when I originally posted the BLACK Secondary Objectives (and as the discussion shows), I only posted 'verifiable' facts about the references. I even made it clear in the Talk discussion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Any_door) that I cannot use unverifiable additions to the article. Of course I would welcome edits, but shouldn't I remind anyone who chooses to edit what I have written my intent for the article, and also Wikipedia's rules about unsubstantiated additions? To phrase: "I cannot use" may be interpreted as calling myself the owner of the article. I would like to clarify the use of the phrase "Article Ownership". As the history of this article shows, I am the poster who first installed these BLACK Secondary Objectives. It is my belief that I can consider myself the author of what I wrote in the BLACK wikipedia page. I do not think 'Owner' is a proper term, since I did not purchase anything to post what I posted. Use of the word "my" would be interpreted as ownership. I will be removing this entire line from the Talk discussion. Thank you for fixing the header. I don't do enough HTML editing to know what I have done incorrectly. Any door ( talk) 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The article became speculative after the many poor edits that were performed. The original article written contained no unsubstantiated material. Most of the info originally entered can be found on reputable websites, including WikiPedia. I visited the OWN, NOR and ANNEX links provided. They make for informative reading. The information I presented is not game guide material. There is no mention in the BLACK Secondary Objectives reference as to where these hidden documents can be found in the game, nor any strategies on how to obtain them. These SO references give the player a bit of a lesson in the historical and current "Black Operations" that were and/or are conducted. They also point out the contemporary references to certain movies, and other IPs, which may be favorites of the developers at Criterion. For instance, I never knew what Extraordinary Rendition was until I played BLACK, and I looked it up on WikiPedia during gameplay. In contrast, where in the world can you go to buy a "Phase Plasma Rifle in the 40w Range"? Any door ( talk) 11:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, now that I look back at it, you're precisely right. There were quite a few "probably"s and "could-be"s. And, like you said, this is not encyclopedic. It is still my belief that playing BLACK is informative, as well as entertaining. I guess, since the originals are still in WikiPedia as deletions, I can simply repost them somewhere where people can still see them. The BLACK Gaming Wikia seems like a good place to keep them. I think I will take your advice and discontinue the deletion challenge. This experience has been very educational. Thank you to all contributors who helped me see the light on this issue. Any door ( talk) 16:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |