Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Book of Dio"

Revision as of 11:36, 17 September 2009 (view source) Chris Stanwick (Talk | contribs) (→‎Offensive Content) Newer edit →

(No difference)

---

Revision as of 11:36, 17 September 2009

Don't remove what I added

Don't remove what I added, if it's historical accurate then bring up all the evidence and proof of everything about me you wrote in there. If you continue removing it I will take it to the admins. --Aryamehr 19:59, 24 June 2008 (BST)

You are refusing to discuss Siclo, all you are doing is using this wiki trying to make dio look good. Enjoy, contacted admins. --Aryamehr 20:13, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Part of the problem is how you are phrasing it. If this article has an intro it should be a proper one detailing when it was written, the authorship, etc, rather than just "hurrrr /v/akistan likes to make things up." I think I'll start writing that now, as a matter of fact. --Parsley Magnet 20:31, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Thank you for acting mature instead of just vandalizing, Parsley Magnet. --Siclo 20:35, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Parsley Magnet, this is a wiki. You add something, I add something, we discuss, we change. I started by adding something, later people can work on it. Since there is no evidence/proof that verifies that the book is historically corrcet, it's better to write it so new people or old players don't get confused. --Aryamehr 20:49, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Perhaps a better solution would be a template applied at the bottom of a page that says something to the extent of "This page is heavy in user-generated content. Take care to distinguish historical facts from fluff." It can be used on all pages where some fiction is written to coincide with actual events, just to add flavor to them or for fun. Though I think it really isn't necessary myself, anyone who can operate a computer well enoguh to direct their browser to Erepublik should be able to tell the difference themselves. --Parsley Magnet 21:01, 24 June 2008 (BST)

You're right, but Parsley Magnet's also right. If he adds the entire book to the article for reference, it doesn't matter if it's historically correct. It's not encyclopedic to argue the historical accuracy of a religious text. If you want to challenge the book, leave it to this discussion page, not the article page. AgentChieftain 15px 23:35, 24 June 2008 (BST)

And now the Admin has reviewed it, only improving on the format. I'm removing the template, and then going through with my own revisions. AgentChieftain 15px 02:49, 25 June 2008 (BST)

We have just arranged it. We have not finished reviewing it. We will remove the template when a final decision about this text is taken. We kindly ask you to discuss the changes before making them. Admin

Chapters

On another note, I think we should create separate subpages for each chapter of the book, for posterity and neatness of the article. It will end up rather long if we do otherwise. AgentChieftain 15px 23:34, 24 June 2008 (BST)

I went ahead and made the changes, and I like the results. The page is well under the recommended file size, and the organization is very neat and encyclopedic. AgentChieftain 15px 04:21, 25 June 2008 (BST)

Navigation template

I've written a navigation template, and edited all the pages, comment please. --MiniBill 22:32, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Aww, now the chapters and the thumbnail don't line up. Oh well.

Is there any way for you to fix that? Like, remove a stray page break or something? AgentChieftain 15px 00:43, 27 June 2008 (BST)

Better? --MiniBill 08:39, 27 June 2008 (BST)

Yes, thank you. You're a magician. AgentChieftain 15px 09:00, 27 June 2008 (BST)

No, it's just I worked a little on wikipedia :) --MiniBill 14:43, 27 June 2008 (BST)

About bias

This book is clearly and voluntarily biased, it is a religious book. Saying it shouldn't be there because it's biased it's like saying wikipedia shouldn't talk about the Holy Bible... I think the best thing to do is to add a notice, explaining that it is a religious book, so the Truth is clear only for those who have Faith (or something similar, something that people will understand as "don't take this as history") --MiniBill 08:42, 27 June 2008 (BST)

I agree. It should be fairly obvious to anyone who is aware of Pakistan. And for people new to the game, we can add something like Wikipedia's templates "globalize" or "overcoverage" to the bottom, or we can make a template unique for the page, as you mentioned. I would rather not have the quality of the article compromised for people who don't care enough about the game to read the news or forums. AgentChieftain 15px 08:59, 27 June 2008 (BST)

"we can make a template unique for the page, as you mentioned." -- who can make a template so we can discuss on it? And after we all agree on it, we can propose it to Admin and see what it has to say about it.--Belea2008 14:39, 27 June 2008 (BST)

MiniBill is capable, and I think he is willing to help. We need to settle on the contents of the template first, though.

Proposals for bias template

I'm thinking "The perspective in this article might have an extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific countries.", based off of Wikipedia's overcoverage. What do you think? AgentChieftain 15px 15:07, 27 June 2008 (BST)

We all know it consists of a lot of biased information so we don't need to use may, or might or anything like that. Straight forward and the truth should be said. I agree with what Minibill suggested first.

Sign your comments.

Also, the wiki is supposed to imply neutrality, bias or not. That presents a clear negative bias. AgentChieftain 15px 15:16, 27 June 2008 (BST)

I think that it(your proposal) doesn't explain the central point, which is that, being it a religious test, it is not required to be true, nor neutral. --MiniBill 15:19, 27 June 2008 (BST)

How about:

"This article contains religious text from the country of Pakistan."

"Users outside of Pakistan may find this content (offensive, controversial, etc; something like that?)" AgentChieftain 15px 15:32, 27 June 2008 (BST)

+1 on that, saying "offensive, controversial, biased and/or inaccurate" --MiniBill 15:44, 27 June 2008 (BST)

There is one thing I do not understand, we all know this article has no historical accuracy at all, so why are we not being straight forward and putting up something like "This article does not represent the history of The New World, it's a religious book in Pakistan" blahblahlbah..--Aryamehr 16:11, 27 June 2008 (BST)

Good proposal --MiniBill chat with me 16:21, 27 June 2008 (BST)

Being straightforward doesn't mean you have to say it's wrong. I think my proposal is still straightforward without showing an opinion on the article. AgentChieftain 15px 16:25, 27 June 2008 (BST)

Aryamehr idea doesn't say that the book is wrong, it just says that is a book about Dio Brando, not a book about The Story or History. --MiniBill chat with me 16:29, 27 June 2008 (BST)

I agree with the proposal of "religion" template (let's put a text that clearly states that is not official "history" or "background" or something like that) --Belea2008 16:44, 27 June 2008 (BST)

This is good. It seems like we are the 3 people that wants the text on the top to be very straight and clear that this book has no provides no accurate history or background of Erepublik and it's a religious book. --Aryamehr 13:46, 28 June 2008 (BST)

• Proposal 1: I like the template... good work, AgentChieftain! But... I propose changing the text "Users outside of Pakistan may find this content offensive, controversial, or inaccurate." to "Some Citizens outside of Pakistan find content offensive, controversial or inaccurate." and make a subchapter in the Book of Dio named "Citizens that do not agree with the Book of Dio" and that Citizens can add their own names in that list. What do you think about this? --Belea2008 14:36, 28 June 2008 (BST)

I don't think that needs to be a subchapter of the book, but there can be a 'Controversy' section on The Book's page containing some of the arguments against it. Also, I think 'Dioist' and 'non-Dioist' categories would be more suitable than making a list that needs to be manually maintained. --AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star (TALK|HIST) 14:44, 28 June 2008 (BST)

• Proposal 2: With the same template, "This article contains religious text from the country of Pakistan. This article does not represent the history of The New World." --Belea2008 14:36, 28 June 2008 (BST)

+1 I like proposal two more. So 1 VOTE for (Proposal 2). :P --Belea2008 14:38, 28 June 2008 (BST)

I think that some Pakistani would disagree with this one. I've been trying to keep the rest of Pakistan in mind, and I think they would agree more with the previous proposal. --AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star (TALK|HIST) 14:44, 28 June 2008 (BST)

And Aryamehr has the Iran Citizens on his mind. This is not going nowhere..... why don't you two have a chat and reach some sort of agreement on the second line of text. :( I do not have any more ideas. --Belea2008 14:47, 28 June 2008 (BST)

I don't think Aryamehr represents the Iranian citizens anymore, but I want to leave that out of this discussion.

I don't want the template to say 'THIS IS WRONG', that's why I'm moving to have it say 'Citizens may find this inaccurate'. I'm trying to stick with a neutral point-of-view as much as I can for this template, although the article itself isn't neutral. --AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star (TALK|HIST) 14:56, 28 June 2008 (BST)

What about my idea? (sorry if I edited before looking at this page) --MiniBill chat with me 14:53, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Proposal 3: "This article contains religious text from the country of Pakistan." with a link to the template page saying that it is religion, not history --MiniBill chat with me 15:03, 28 June 2008 (BST)

I like your proposal too, because it doesn't disrupt the aesthetics of the template; but this might only move this dispute to the template's description. --AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star (TALK|HIST) 15:11, 28 June 2008 (BST)

So let's move there :) --MiniBill chat with me 15:12, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Template Prototype

I just whipped this up as an attempt at my first template:

I might move it to a better page (I was thinking Template:Pakistan/Religion), but we can fool around with this one as a working example. MiniBill, any chance there's a way to make the vertical bar on the left of the template this color? --Agent Chieftain 15px (TALK|EDITS) 13:35, 28 June 2008 (BST)

I couldn't, but see my test, and mess up with it, maybe you'll do something --MiniBill chat with me 13:46, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Got it! --AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star (TALK|HIST) 14:15, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Congratulations :) --MiniBill chat with me 14:24, 28 June 2008 (BST)

I moved the template to Template:Pakistan/Religious_Views, as it's a more accurate title. And since the final vote was 3 - 1, I'm going to add it to the pages that need it. --AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star (TALK|HIST) 16:22, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Don't forget to add that Controversy section. --Belea2008 16:25, 28 June 2008 (BST)

I just asked for the Admin's approval on his/her/their talk page. Once they approve of it, I'll add it.

I need their permission first, because they haven't finished reviewing the entire book. --AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star (TALK|HIST) 16:30, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Navigation Template

I think we should keep the old one on this page, since it had the titles of the chapters, but Siclo's new one is much better for the individual chapters. --AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star (TALK|HIST) 05:05, 30 June 2008 (BST)

Organisation of The Book

Would I be out of line to organise each chapter of the book?
I mean rectify spelling mistakes, organise speech for better reading, etc?
Please let me know.
Thanks

Skinny Bones Jones Write me. 03:01, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Go right ahead, I don't mind at all. --AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star T / H / E 03:37, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Offensive Content

Due to admin decision, I am changing the part of the text in Chapter 2 and 3 that have been deemed as offensive. However I will not delete them for it'd alter the story. Instead I am changing it not to point at a specific person and I will change more if a complaint is filled about a specific person or group. The story will not change, please let me know if it fits. Don't change anything, I will do that since I wrote chapter 1 through 3. If it concerns another chapter, we will ask for William Walker to change it. ----Altnabla 14:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Please stop changing my name to insulting things. "He who is not named". I actually have a name. Change it to something else please. No hints that it's me --Aryamehr talk 14:36, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Hell, what do you propose, I made it so it doesn't point at you. Should I name "him" Bob? ----Altnabla 14:38, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Sure. --Aryamehr talk 14:39, 31 August 2008 (BST)

There, changed it. It says Bob once, therefore it's not you. Any other requets while I'm at it?----Altnabla 14:43, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Not really, just make sure it's Bob and not "Bob" anywhere. On all chapters too. Cheers, good work --Aryamehr talk 14:47, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Changing it to "Bob" seems rather random and pointless.

Why not remove the insults and stick with using Koroush's name? I think he can still be the villain of The Book without having to be called filthy and disgusting. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 14:53, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Eh, I changed it in Chapter 1 to 3 since I wrote them, for the rest, see with William Walker ----Altnabla 15:03, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Argument resolution, part two

So it seems tha that User:Aryamehr insists that all of the EREP:UBER are wrong, and that his opinions matter more than what everyone else has already agreed upon. He's going directly to Admin to try to have his changes made, even though his changes are against reason against consensus, and ultimately against the rules.

You can see his full complaint on Admin's talk page, but responding to it will send him into a hissy-fit, so you can reply to it here. Below, you can find my response, which is of course open to discussion.

---

Admin said to take any and all issues with The Book to me to have them fixed. Please do not try to bypass proper consensus building by taking your problem to them instead of resolving it with the person in charge of the project. If you disagree with me, you should try and come to a compromise, rather than push against consensus and have Admin enforce your opinions as law.

1. The same argument you are using for the preservation of The Church of the New World's page can be applied to the censorship of The Book of Dio. Since it contains our views, it cannot be changed by anyone else, right?

Wrong. We are censoring The Book, and making our views less explicit as well. Ergo, the Churchists should be informed to do the same.

2. The changes that I made to the Churchism article were mostly improvements on the formatting, spelling and grammar fixes, and the rewording of this particular sentence. I didn't "change their views" at all, and I kept this in mind as I made the changes. Also, note the lengthy discussion page where the consensus is in favor of my changes.

3. Truth of dio is not the same case as The Book of Dio. Whereas The Book is important to Pakistani society, Truth of dio is not. Also, Khashayar Pars refused to censor it, so it was removed. Restoring it in it's original form is in direct violation of Admin's ruling.

4. You were previously satisfied with Altnabla's changes, but now you're not? Anyways, if you wish to have it censored further, then you should tell Altnabla and User talk:William Walker: to continue their work with censoring The Book. They are the original authors, and as the original authors, they are the best candidates to make the changes so their original message is preserved.

On a further note, I find it a bit immature of you to go to Admin after consensus has been reached, only to try and go against the opinions of the other editors. Please refrain from misbehaving and using Admin as a tool to have things your way, especially when everyone else disagrees with you.

Ta,

AgentChieftain

21:52, 16 September 2008 (BST)