User talk:Matt Brennen

Talk to me, don't be a stranger!

Welcome!

Hello, Matt Brennen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Taprobanus 22:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starships

If "got seven votes on a web site" is the best claim for this game's notability, then I'm afraid it doesn't belong in Wikipedia - I've added a "proposed deletion" tag to it, which gives you five days to dig out multiple non-trivial published works about the subject. (I've searched around myself, but can find hardly any mentions to this game online, let alone news coverage.) If you can't find the sources, then the article will be deleted - but feel free to recreate it if Starships ever becomes notable in the future. --McGeddon 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there seems to be a concerted campaign to wipe all of these games from WP, its been a real eye opener though, like most web related things, all it takes is people with a lot of time on their hands and you have a 'consensus'. There is little or no respect for minority interests such as browser based games or any understanding that third party sources are going to be hard to find. The chances of re-creation, even when something does become 'notable' or next to naught, as displayed by cybernations which, despite having decent sources, 40,000 players and both Swedish and Washington Post newspaper articles about it was 'Speedy Deleted' under cat '4' which... hohoho... is 're-creation of deleted material'. So once its gone its gone, unless of course, ten years down the line WP changes tact. Bjrobinson 16:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very very sad. Matt Brennen 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padahuthurai bombing

Thanks you very much for your kind comments, I hope you want mind me moving the relevant comments to the peer review section. After all you are a peer and you reviewed it. I tried to evluate yours. I am not good at it but at least a stab. I like to see WP:CITE used extensively and a balanced article including positive and negative information. Anyway keep up the good work Taprobanus 22:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If yoiu can point out the typos, I can fix them. Thanks Taprobanus 13:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another game

fyi, another game (not browser based) up for deletion .. Iter Vehemens ad Necem — Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iter Vehemens ad Necem. John Vandenberg 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starships! again

I think you might need clarification on a few things:

Stop adding links that having nothing to do with the game. Link the reviews, not their websites. You wouldn't add "www.google.com" to every article about a website, so why would you add every single review website? The only links should be official links, or reliable sources

This is a good point, the links should go directly to the articles and not just to the main pages, perhaps you could help with this, other wise it may be sometime before we can look them up.

You can't use the bibliography for two reasons

What are you referencing exactly? You don't specify anything- from what I can tell, the book isn't even related to the article in question
How have you read a book which has yet to be released?

Obviously I haven't. The books come from the main page of the actual Starships game-site.

Yahoo Groups, weblogs, and forums are not appropriate links. The only exceptions would be an official development blog or a blog hosted by a reliable source (such as the Washington Post or Guardian). --Wafulz 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's appropriate to mention fleet sites in the same way that other articles mention clan sites. At least three of the review sites are heavy hitters, the New York Times of MMORPG, so they can't exactly be ignored or brushed off as blogs. Matt Brennen 22:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you're not linking any reviews! You're just linking websites that review games in general! Unless you are linking directly to a page which is a review of Starships, do not add a link to a review website. Stop reinserting the links or I'll have to list you for breaking Wikipedia policy on the three revert rule. Other articles should not mention clan sites at all- those links should be removed. --Wafulz 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.) The three revert rule only applys to administrators 2.) I haven't done three reverts yet, I've done only ONE. 3.) please respect the discussion page before making edits. You have yet to make a single comment there. Matt Brennen 23:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone on Wikipedia is an editor. You've readded the links on multiple occasions. There is no discussion here- you are not listing reviews. You are listing websites. If you find a review, then link it- don't link the website's homepage instead. I don't know how to make this any clearer. I have also contributed and have read the discussion on the talk page and frankly it's frustrating how you seem to constantly ignore what we're trying to tell you. --Wafulz 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I've re-added the links as they are perfectly valid links. All I'm asking is that discussion take place before making changes, why is that so difficult? Matt Brennen 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gothador

In the Gothador deletion debate you can see my entire justification for nominating all those articles. They had all been around for sometime. Few of them even made any claim to notability. The fact of the matter is that the browser MMO section of Wikipedia is poorly maintained. Most of the articles had no sources, or only provided message boards and such. Looking at the discussion pages showed that requests for sources had usually been made and frequently ignored, or inadequately answered. Some of the articles had previously been nominated for deletion and barely scraped through, and then no work had been done on the article. Those articles were not even tagged for a speedy delete, I followed normal routine and put it up for AfD, where they were subsequently deleted. My point is that all those articles had been around for a length of time and no-one was ever able to come up with adequate proof of notability, despite requests and warnings. Sooner or later a line has to be drawn under just how long an article that is allowed to exist in that site. You only assume good faith so long before you have to assume that the promised proof doesn't exist. DarkSaber2k 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I haven't had the time to go through all 40 of the deleted articles to see for myself. I've been busy battling two guys on Starships who keep removing perfectly legit sourcing. 40 articles in one night seems excessive to the point of being bad faith, however if what you say is true, the deletes would be understandable. I do appreciate you offering explanation, because the subject has been weighing heavily on my mind, and a vacuum of information always leads to people thinking the worse, so I appreciate you doing that. Matt Brennen 20:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm expecting a lot more SPAs to turn up at the Gothador review. It's been linked to from their forum. DarkSaber2k 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's...er...beautiful. Thanks for the head-up. Can't we get an admin to let this turkey die? Matt Brennen 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it will die. Admins don't usually fall for the meatpuppet crap. Just check contributions of any that reply and put a {{spa}} tag after their names in the debate if they have no other contributions. There's sufficent evidence to justify foregoing good faith now I think. I've done some searches, sources of notablity just don't exist for this game, and I don't think it can be put any plainer in the AfD. DarkSaber2k 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re salting -- the article was only recreated once (in April 2006 after having been deleted in March 2006), and then deleted again after the current AFD. We usually reserve page protection for articles that are being repeatedly reposted by different users in a short period of time. If that happens here, we'll take another look. Thanks, NawlinWiki 02:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hoofmaster"

Please do not remove the details of the degree based upon him not appearing on a list of alumni. I do not believe this can be said to indicate he doesn't have a degree. Instead, I suggest we go by what the newspaper article, a reliable source, says. Regards. Adambro 22:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The alumni list will not contain every single person who has ever been awarded a degree by the university. The university admits around 1000 students a year, so listing everyone would be ridiculous. --RFBailey 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually, the list they have on the website is a complete list, or so they claim. Matt Brennen 22:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility warning

You and darksaber are being warned for incivility, particularly on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starships!. I recommend neither of you post in that discussion for the next 24 hours. Go outside or something- just stay cool. I don't want to have to block anyone. --Wafulz 22:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove this warning either. --Wafulz 22:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I got the message. It's archived. If it's ok with you, I'd like to remove it off my talkpage now. Matt Brennen 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can archive it later. Should administrator attention be required, this will help the admin keep track of things. --Wafulz 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an administrator be required for anything? YOU'RE an administrator, are you not? If I ever got out of line you can simply block me, am I not correct? I have no problem with anything Darksabre has said, and he hasn't complained to me. I'm unaware of any "incivility" on anyone's part, but if you say so, then I got the message. If "An administrator's attention is required", I'm sure he or she can figure out how to use the history tab, lol. But hey, whatever, if it makes you feel good, I'll keep this nonsense on my talk page as long as you like. Heaven forbid I edit my own talk page, lol. Matt Brennen 02:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there was no incivility. We've both stated our feelings on the debate, and it was obvious to both of us that we had reached the state of ad infinitum with our discussion. I'm removing my warning. DarkSaber2k 08:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings are stale now anyway, but this and this are examples of incivility. --Wafulz 16:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to leave my warning up, so people can see how stupid this was. Matt Brennen 20:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{reset indent) Smart move calling an admin stupid. That's both incivilty and a personal attack. DarkSaber2k 22:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I get the distinct impression Matt was referring to the situation as a whole rather than making a personal attack upon Wofluz. Just to be clear, this is not harassment, Matt is on my watch list, for some reason. Bjrobinson 11:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack at all, it's just that the whole event was ridiculous. (and still is) Matt Brennen 20:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]