Talk:Second Life Railroad

Page integrity

For some reason Jer Straaf feels it is needed to give the users only access to his point of view on these pages. I am removing the images and content I created for these pages, and do NO LONGER ALLOW ANYONE TO USE THEM on the Second Life Wiki. As of now 6 September 2010 the page integrity has been compromised and should been seen as grieving propaganda from Jer Straaf, Yevad_Doobie and DOUGIE_Flossberg.User:Stryker Jenkins 06:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement made here by Stryker is untrue. He has given no specific examples because there are none.
Unless my changes have been un-done again, this wiki article is now clear, concise and well organized. With the exception of the VRC advertisements, it is also objective.
Please look at this article and form your own opinion.
Jer Straaf 02:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


Erm, propaganda? You published tarnished approximations of 2 of my established brand names in SL on the wiki page without even consulting me, which I have since asked you to remove. If you had consulted me you would have received a flat refusal as I do not want my brands associated with this page for a number of reasons. Now I see a slanderous statement about me at the top of this page, which I am taking on its pathetic face value at this moment...Yevad Doobie 03:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Content editing and removal

"who are we to decide what goes and what stays"... As long as information is not out of date or proven to be wrong information should stay as it is and not be needlessly removed. This is for the benefit of all viewers of the SLRR main wiki page. --Stryker J 11:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If the information is about Linden Labs' SLRR, is objective and is factual, it stays. If it is off-topic, biased or self-serving, it goes. It's that easy, Stryker, everyone except you gets that.
Yevad Doobie has even filed a support ticket to have his entry removed from the "SLRR Stations" list.
Jer Straaf 23:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Removal of "SLRR Station" would be counter productive and self serving. Certainly not in the best interest of the SL users who want this information. --Stryker J 10:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  

This is a "straw man fallacy" Stryker, nobody is proposing that the section be removed. Most residents use classified ads and work hard to build popularity and traffic for better search results, etc. The rest of us are playing Second Life, what game are you playing? Jer Straaf 22:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have a working solution for the problems with this page, but there are a few open ends that i think should be fixed. The current page text says about the SLRR:

"Some residents feel it is completely unnecessary, some residents believe that it should remain free and open for use by all residents, others have tried to control and restrict usage of the SLRR. Some residents believe that the LDPW shows favoritism towards one particular SL railroading group."

This text is a left over of the past wiki war. I do not think is provides a very inviting introduction to the SLRR. For sure we must be able to do better on the front page. My suggestion is that we have a short dicussion here to find a format acceptable to all, that is a bit more positive. Any takers? Vaughn Deluca 11:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Linden word on the subject ;)

I'm the Linden responsible for community-facing stuff on this wiki, so I hope this clarifies:

Okay, first, Jer, it helps to not type in ALL CAPS. That looks like shouting and has the unfortunate effects of provoking anger.

Second, this isn't Wikipedia, we don't enforce NPOV like they do. Sometimes NPOV is useful, but many articles are expected to have subjective bias based on real experiences, which can turn a dry read into something more vivid and useful — especially when it comes to culture. (We're more like TVTropes that way.) However, we're always subject to the Second Life Terms of Service here, so inflammatory behavior that violates that isn't cool.

It's fine to list related pages towards the end of an article. This is not out of scope. Linden Lab encourages connecting related ideas. On help pages, you often see this as "See also" or "Related resources". (This is common on Wikipedia as well.) The point is to provide broader context without diluting the article's focus. Without those links, most Residents would be at a loss as to where to go next — in this case, to find out about other railroads. So, it's alright to list "Other Railway initiatives", and I see some of these initiatives already have their own pages. That's the right thing to do, and that's great!

Hopefully railroad factions who aren't yet included will be inspired to make the listing more comprehensive.

What would be beyond the scope of this article? As an example, if other railway initiative descriptions began to take up multiple paragraphs and dominate the article — then those should be moved to other pages too. Again, I emphasize: simple links are good.

Carry on, choo-choo!

- on 2010-09-01 @ 4:58 AM Pacific

• retracting comments from 11:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC) to Jer and Torley --Stryker J 17:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This text-brawl needs to end now for everyone involved. I've given Jer Straaf a warning due to unuseful, inflammatory rambling which doesn't constructively followup on my earlier comments. Remember that there are many external places where dissenting opinions can be raised. This wiki, however, is owned by Linden Lab. - on 2010-09-02 @ 9:19 AM Pacific