User talk:A Man In Black/Archive25

Charizard[edit]

You did a great job checking Bulbasaur and find its problems. But I have some kinda feelings that Charizard is having similar problems, mind checking it out? TheBlazikenMaster 14:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation[edit]

I have filed a request for mediation over the Gundam edit warring at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam‎. Please sign your acceptance or rejection over this issue. hbdragon88 05:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted[edit]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Admin assistance needed[edit]

Since you're a proponent of limited fair use images, I have to ask for your help in Superman-Prime. User:CmdrClow, who uploads images without regard to actual fair use, refuses to give my argument credibility, as I am not an admin, therefore my argument is "opinion". The dispute is over this image, which is redundant with the image already used in the article.' 23:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pesky Pokes[edit]

Thanks for your feedback on the current issues on the Bulbasaur article. Initially I threaded responses to your points on the talk page, but have now unthreaded them (diff here). I took the liberty of labelling your points with A, B, C, etc. instead of bullet points to help editors relate comments about what has (and hasn't - we seem to have got to S so far) been done about it. I hope that is acceptable. Thanks again for your feedback there.--Barnyard animals 08:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion for something with regards to the Zeong article that I think you and I can actually agree on[edit]

Regardless of our content dispute, I would like to ask that the article be semi-protected from these IP addresses. They're all the same person and they're messing with the article because of my recent AfD nom of the White Privilege article. Jtrainor 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link me to the diff of a destructive or vandalistic edit? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, I guess Jtrainor couldn't, because that would be impossible from your perspective - his edits all remove content from the article, and apparently that's a good thing nowadays.

At any rate, how is it not obvious that that user is engaging in a POINT campaign, which is against policy no matter what the criteria of the edits in question? Just look at the contributions of the four accounts he usually posts on, all of them attempted to influence the AfD referenced in the Zeong's talk page, and from there he's branched out to every Gundam article I've edited and consistently screwed with it. Nevermind using a sockpuppet to votestack, he's also been trying to evade 3RR violations with them (and somehow managed to break the rule on most of them regardless). I just did a sweeping cleanup of the Mk. II's article the other day, and within a day he's there. POINT is not even a realistically contestable accusation at this juncture; does this mean you're going to endorse his actions just because it sticks in our craws? MalikCarr 11:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't disrupting Wikipedia by editing articles for style or tagging in-universe sections as such, so WP:POINT doesn't apply. He isn't making an clearly destructive edits, so WP:VAND doesn't apply. It looks like you have a content dispute with this user, so, no, I'm not going to semi-protect articles to exclude someone from disagreeing with you.

If you could link me an example of a destructive edit, I would reconsider. The usual "deletionist" rhetoric isn't going to fly here; hbdragon and Stephen c couldn't find any destructive edits either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear self[edit]

Don't forget to finish this at some point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Mobile Suit[edit]

Template:Mobile Suit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Conrad T. Pino 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Mobile Suit[edit]

Please help me understand, as one of the contributors, recent Template:Infobox Mobile Suit activity by expanding Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit#Ahem and thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 18:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic updated – Conrad T. Pino 01:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic updated – Conrad T. Pino 03:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic updated – Conrad T. Pino 10:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the effort, I do have the page watchlisted, and will keep up with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam[edit]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party is now active, and your input is requested. Further information is available at the Mediation location, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 23:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destructoid[edit]

I just want to ask why the Destructoid page was deleted again. As you probably know, the page has been deleted before and it has been improved greatly since then. What could have possibly been wrong with the newest entry that you honestly thought it needed to be deleted? There are a handful of other video game websites that have entries similar to destructoid's, some with less information on them. I just don't understand why the destructoid page is under constant scrutiny and has been deleted with every chance possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NamelessTed (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also confused as to why the Destructoid article was deleted so soon after it was put up. Wardrox and I, among others, put a lot of work into it, and I had planned to put in much more time and effort in order to make it the best article it could be. I’ve been on Wikipedia for a while (see my contributions), but at the very least, you could have notified the article’s creator (wardrox) or myself (I made significant contributions to the article), in order to follow Wikipedia’s “BITE” policy. You simply marked the article for speedy deletion, instead of listing it as an AfD, which precluded any sort of deletion review where its contributors could defend keeping the article on Wikipedia. I understand that you would like more outside sources for the Destructoid article, and that is fine. That is, of course, necessary to assert notability. In any case, I am requesting that the article be undeleted so that we can have back what was originally there before you deleted it — the article may have still been a stub, but it was getting to become a decent article, and now that state of the Destructoid article is lost to all but the admins. If you undelete the article, its contributors will be able to improve it — in content and sourcing — in order to put it on the road to becoming a valid article that can stay on Wikipedia, instead of one that has been deleted six times. I am watching this page; you can respond here. Hope you are enjoying your Wikibreak! —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 23:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll toss it up on a subpage for you so you can work on it without fear of deletion. I honestly don't think it's notable, but I'd always be delighted to be proven wrong by you writing a well-sourced article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? Just because you don't think it's notable doesn't mean it does not deserve an article. Kotaku and Joystiq have articles, and they're very similar to Destructoid. Yet, no one questions them being up, and they haven't been deleted NINE TIMES. Destructoid is, if anything, more notable especially since Microsoft released Destructoid branded downloadable content for Bomberman.Lucashoal 02:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact that the community as a whole doen't feel Destructoid is notable (as shown in the second AFD) is notable is why it doesn't have an article. Deserving doesn't enter into it; either there are reliable third-party sources that have seen fit to comment on the subject and we have an article, or there aren't and we don't. The article I deleted lacked that sourcing.

Saying "Well, such-and-such blog has an article and it's very similar" doesn't really matter, because the quality that determines whether or not we have an article is the presence or absence of proper sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, A Man In Black! I didn’t mean to sound as indignant as Lucashoal above me, and I hope my post didn’t come off that way. I simply felt that the article should not have been listed for speedy deletion, and I think that with a consistent input of time and effort, the Destructoid article can be made into a legitimate and valid Wikipedia article. However, I have to agree with Lucashoal in one respect: it has always seemed as if Wikipedia admins were on the warpath with regards to a Destructoid article, if you catch my drift. It has been deleted over and over again, while — as far as I know — the articles for Kotaku and Joystiq, which are Destructoid’s closest analogs on the web, have not been relentlessly removed from Wikipedia. I understand that perhaps the article should not cite posts from the blog itself, in order to prevent any COI allegations, but sometimes, posts from Destructoid are the best source for information on a particular topic (for example, Destructoid’s mission statement can obviously be found only on the site itself). But certainly, in order to prove notability, the article should incorporate as many citations from outside sources as possible. I will get to work on this — you can keep tabs on it, if you’d like — and I’m going to enlist the help of some fellow Destructoid readers who happen to be well-versed in the ways of Wikipedia as well. Ideally, we’ll be able to uphold the standards of Wikipedia to everyone’s liking. I won’t attempt to actually create the article until I feel that there’s something worth putting up (though you must admit that hundreds, if not thousands, of Wikipedia articles exist with much less content, and without any hint of sourcing to boot). Once again, I’d like to thank you sincerely for your cooperation; this gesture is very much appreciated, and I will make the most of it. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 04:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of WP:40k[edit]

Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future Sight#Notable Cards[edit]

I have re-added most of section as a comment. If suitable sources cannot be found within about a week, I will go and cut any information that is still commented out, as well as infomation that is added without being properly sourced. You have brought up many good points about these sections in the past, but I still feel that they add to an article that they appear in--assuming that they are properly sourced. Thank you for your vigilance. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for 72 hours for engaging in edit wars with User:Jtrainor, User:GundamsRus, and User:MalikCarr on multiple articles for an extended period of time. Mr.Z-man 03:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam update[edit]

Further to your queries, I'd like to inform you that the above RfM is now active. Anthøny 19:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:Second-generation Pokémon[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Second-generation Pokémon, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Second-generation Pokémon has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Second-generation Pokémon, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makoto (Street Fighter)[edit]

I recently recreated the Makoto (Street Fighter) article, and you reverted it, saying: "(No sources, no content, why was this recreated)". I didn't add any sources because I used the ones that were already listed, and I added as much content as I could think of. I listed my reasons for recreating on the talk page, but you apparently didn't read it if you asked "why was this recreated". I'll see if there's anything else I can add, though I severely doubt it, and I'll restore it again unless you can convince me that Twelve (Street Fighter) is somehow more worthy of an article than Makoto. I don't understand the thought process of seeing my edit summary of "see talk page", not going there or going there and not reading it, then reverting it to a redirect. MonopolyMan (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Twelve article is equally awful, and probably should also be merged and redirected for the same reason. The sources in the Makoto article are primary sources, making the article largely a verbatim copy of copyrighted Capcom fan guides. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Street Fighter: The Later Years. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BackLash 17:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Could you undelete the revisions on 21 July 2007 from User:A Man In Black/Yeah? (specifically, about the lists of things you hate.) I'd like to use them on my userpage but I need to attribute it to you, and while I could just undelete it myself, it is your user page. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That page is dev/null for old revisions of my scratch pages and user page, but here's the list.

As I am a Wikipedia administrator, I am required to inform you that I hate these things:

Sunshine
Kittens
Puppies
Lava lamps, apparently
Happiness
Free speech
Lists of Jews
Your articles
Opposition to the Cabal
Dissent
Oranges
Wikipedia

- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record[edit]

I don't like you very much, and I doubt we will agree or get along on many topics, but at least you are no Durova, and I commend you for that. Jtrainor (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O____________O! You didn't hear!? It's all over the Internet!

Google wikipedia durova, and also, check out this stuff, I think you'll find it an interesting read. The email itself is still out there too, though not on Wikipedia (lol redacted).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive330
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Durova
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova

I would give a short version, but, uh... there isn't one, really. Email me if you want a link to the email itself; it's redacted from Wikipedia and thus I can't post it, though I did find a place where it had been mirrored. Jtrainor (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up on Wikipedia drama a long time ago. I don't really care any more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sup[edit]

I want the people harassing me to go away. Do you particularly care if I have that little list on my user page? I assume you do since I've stated in various places that if you or AMIB complains, your names will be removed, but I feel that a straight yes/no answer will be the quickest way to get them to vanish one way or the other. Jtrainor (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more direct question he's asking is do you want to be on a list called "List of people whom I think should not be able to use the edit button" on his userpage? — Save_Us_229 21:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no longer there, so I don't see any reason to argue about it, or bother JT about it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shall take that as a yes. Jtrainor (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you contact me on AIM?[edit]

I believe you have my AIM SN. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I lost my AIM friends list a while ago. Can you refresh my memory? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is in the history of this page now, please delete that when you get it (I tried doing selective deletion myself but am having connection issues and have always been not competent at selective restoration so I'll leave it to you). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge admins[edit]

I have nominated Category:Rouge admins for deletion. Please express your views on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care, but please don't remove the cat from my page if it is deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sigh[edit]

sigh--Doc^g 15:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

x2, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18#Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 12:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Hokutomaru[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hokutomaru, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hokutomaru. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Solid FAR[edit]

Metal Gear Solid has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

TfD nomination of Template:Pokeinfoboxexplained[edit]

Template:Pokeinfoboxexplained has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — bd2412 T 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A short note[edit]

I do not understand your recent hostilities towards video games or anything concerning them. I seems like you are not working with the users, or the information in articles that you blantantly delete, but you simply ignore both and go along with your deletes, such as the one where you deleted a certain article off of a series of articles about technology present in video game Half Life 2. It completely screwed the whole series of articles and created a large hole in the information. Why you do this is beyond me. -- Black Mercy (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context please? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's presumably talking about Combine (Half-Life 2), but I believe he may have confused you with MarphyBlack (talk · contribs) as he has edited the article while you haven't (at least, I checked back to Dec. 06 and found no edits). hbdragon88 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Magnemite2.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Magnemite2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chris Redfield[edit]

An editor has nominated Chris Redfield, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Redfield and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained[edit]

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:47Z

World War Z[edit]

the WWZ article is getting overly long and fanwanked again i think it requires your delicate touch once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.101.29 (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this page really needs your attention the problem is increasing expontionally see for your self [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.102.165 (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Metal Gear (disambiguation)[edit]

An editor has nominated Metal Gear (disambiguation), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal Gear (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt (redirect only) on DRV[edit]

I know you're not very active these days, but if you happen to see this message in time, your views at the 5th Daniel Brandt DRV (over the redirect, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 24) would be appreciated. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon[edit]

The list of participants of the Pokémon WikiProject is quite sizable, however, there is no way to determine which of whom are active contributors to that project. All participants in the list have been moved to Inactive. If you consider yourself to be an active member of the Pokémon WikiProject, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants and move your username to the Active section. Thank you. Useight (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MG2SSCodec.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:MG2SSCodec.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Stoneskin gargoyle cape[edit]

Welcome back[edit]

Hey, AMIB. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sonic character[edit]

Hello, A Man In Black. A user from a project that I work very closely with, Wikiproject Sega, has decided to contest your deletion of certain statistics from the aforementioned template. I happen to agree with this user, whose name is Fairfieldfencer, but I don't exactly approve of the way he's going about it, getting himself involved in an edit war on the template. Instead, I would like it if the three of us (and maybe Kung Fu Man, who reverted Fairfieldfencer's changes before he reverted them back), could have a discussion on the matter and come to a collective decision instead of edit warring. We can talk about this at Wikiproject Sega, since this certainly is a concern that involves some of the project's highest-importance articles (Sonic himself is Top-Importance, others are high or mid). I do realize there is a talk page on the template, but I believe a discussion at Wikiproject Sega is the better move in this case. Thank you for listening, and you can reply on my talk page if you choose to opt-out of this invitation. I will be informing Fairfieldfencer of this discussion as well. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not participate in edit warring yourself, as you did with this edit [2]. Cigraphix (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black, this is why I suggested we discuss this. Edit warring is going to lead everyone nowhere. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, huh. Didn't even see this.

Well, it's unencyclopedic crap, of a level of detail we don't even do for real people. Not much else to say. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo galleries in TV station articles[edit]

It is the belief of myself and other concerned editors that you are abusing your administrative powers with regards to the inclusion of fair-use images in television station articles (i.e. logos). As those of us who contribute to the affected articles have stated, the images are included for historical and informational purposes, and are many of them are discussed within the article, therefore satisfying current Wikipedia guidelines. They aren't just there for decoration. However, you have continued to unilaterally delete the images in question without engaging in discussion, just as you did last year.

Wikipedia policy may say what it does, but it is NOT the LAW OF THE LAND. Another concerned editor recently discovered some relevant information on this topic, and I'd like to share that with you. From the Television Stations Wikiproject:

“

Prior to January 1 1978, copyrights were in effect for a 28-year period. During the final year of the copyright, it could be renewed for another 28 years, but the onus was on the copyright holder to do so. Depending on renewal, copyrights expired after 28 or 56 years, and could not be renewed for a third period. In 1976, Congress passed copyright reform, effective in 1978, in which, for our purposes, i.e., works created for hire, the copyright is in effect for 100 years from the date the work was created, or 75 years from the date that the work was published, whichever occurs sooner. There is only one copyright period, and the copyright cannot be renewed.

Congress also passed a series of laws that in effect, extended those new copyright protections back to 1964 by means of an automatic renewal, but only if the work had a copyright notice. Per the non-free content guideline, for works created before 1978, if there is no copyright notice, there is no copyright, and the work is in the public domain.

Here's what it means to us: nearly all logos created 56 years ago or earlier are now in the public domain. Therefore, use of any such logo in Wikipedia no longer falls under the non-free standard, and should not be deleted, as it is not a non-free image. The exception are those logos still in use, such as the CBS Eye, which almost certainly are still protected under trademark laws. What's more, any logo created before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain.

Any logo from 1951 or before can have its licensing changed from copyrighted to public domain, and the fair use rationales can be deleted. Any logo from 1977 and earlier can also be changed to public domain, provided it is not still in use, and provided it does not have a copyright notice. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

”

I think that it will be in your best interest to contact the talk page at WikiProject Television Stations, re-state your reasons for "enforcing" Wikipedia policy, and dialogue with us. Until that time arises, I am reverting your changes to KNBC and WGN-TV and restoring the logos. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, these are tagged as non-free images. Until you can make a case to tag them as free (and I don't think your case is very good), they need to be treated as non-free images, with all the requisite bullshit. This hasn't changed since the last time we went round this merry-go-round.

Besides...

Wikipedia policy may say what it does, but it is NOT the LAW OF THE LAND.

It is the law of Wikipedia, though. If you don't disagree that Wikipedia policy prohibits these images, then I don't think we have any dispute here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a deletionist, contributing nothing useful to wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I'll manage to live with myself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will. Deletionists live to delete. Thank you for your part in helping to reduce the quality of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely agree with Baseball Bugs, MIB truly knows how to show off his arrogance... I don't mean to offend anyone, but I just have to get it out!!! He is a real threat not only to nostalgia, but also to the preservation of old television logos for the public to see. It is obvious that he is against public interest. This has gone far enough. We cannot allow our work to be deleted, work of which put alot of time and effort!!! We need to make Wikipedia stronger and more popular, not make it weak and crappy!!! Bottom line: Deletionists are an abomination to any website trying to grow in success and popularity!!! WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) MON APR 28 2008 11:00 PM EDT | TUE APR 29 2008 3:00 AM UTC

Perhaps all of us are here to improve the encyclopedia? It's why I'm here, and what I strive to assume that everyone is here to do.

I am unhappy that my view of what the encyclopedia could best be is not wholly shared by others, but I realize that the chief difference is method, not intent.

Until you can demonstrate a similar understanding that those who disagree with you are not horrible ogres out to ruin the project, I'm not sure any discussion here can be productive. Even so, Wikipedia policy stands; I would prefer to help you best avoid the various potholes while getting as close to what you'd like as possible, but a consensus of wishful thinking does not override WP:FUC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionists serve no useful purpose here. And kindly keep your obscenities to yourself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. Affix label, discard labeled. Let me know when you're ready to conduct adult conversation; I'll be around. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use laws center on not harming the author of the item in question. Tell me how the logos on the WGN page harm WGN. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's fair use rules exist to protect Wikipedia's free redistribution. Aggregating copyrighted material incrementally harms that, for a variety of reasons. I would rather have a freer encyclopedia that does not serve as a logo museum than the reverse, and as WP's fair use rules are pretty much handed down by the WMF, so would they. Policy has been pretty stable on this matter.

I would encourage (and do my best on WP to aid) the creation of a project that is a museum of old promotional material for television stations, but it's important to realize that Wikipedia is not - and barring a change in copyright policy cannot be - that project. Attempts to graft such a project onto Wikipedia are going to be successful only insofar as they go unnoticed.

This isn't deletionism (although I'm exclusionist in other ways, particularly pertaining to fiction, but that's neither here nor there); it's a genuine desire to see an encyclopedia that can be given away freely or changed freely or redistributed freely, in both senses of the word "free". There are lots of things that it would be nice to have that we cannot have without compromising the freeness of this encyclopedia.

I get that you want these logos. I get why. I even sympathize; it sucks that Wikipedia policy requires that good-faith efforts to make this project more useful are needfully frustrated. But there are hoops you need to jump through, both procedural (source, rationale) and practical (how we can and cannot use non-free images) for Every Single Image, and sometimes there's just no saving an image. Jumping through procedural hoops doesn't mean you're done with the practical ones.

Now. You can keep calling me a deletionist and I can ignore your wholly empty rhetoric, or we can talk about alternatives that are not "Delete pretty much the lot as blatant violations of WP:FUC". You'll need to understand that having exhaustive galleries of every single logo, regardless of copyright status or incremental difference, just isn't going to be one of those alternatives.

Lemme know where we go from here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to tell me, in one sentence, rather than this incomprehensible megillah, how the presence of several old WGN logos harms WGN in any way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It harms Wikipedia because aggregating non-free material makes Wikipedia less free. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If WGN is not harmed (which you imply), then how can wikipedia be harmed? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because WGN doesn't need to establish harm to demand that Wikipedia either remove their copyrighted material from the project (and thus all derivatives of the project that use that copyrighted material) or cease publication entirely. That's not a big deal for WMF's version of Wikipedia; they delete the images, the world goes on. Where it's a big deal is for derivatives that are not so easily modified, such as print versions. It's not out of the realm of possibility that an article on WGN or WNBC would find its way into a print version of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's fair use rules are more restrictive than "What can we do without being sued?" or "What is accepted as fair use in general?" because there's the responsibility to people downstream. A different project that didn't have that responsibility could relax its copyright rules. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That theoretical, "what if" argument could apply to any fair use item on wikipedia. Why is some of it OK and some not? Your argument should kill all of it, not just some of it selectively, because the risk is the same. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because some of it meets a high fair-use standard that protects Wikipedia's freedom (basically, the cases where WMF can say, "Okay. Sue us. See how far it gets you") and some of it doesn't. The risk isn't all the same. A logo gallery for the sake of a logo gallery is aggregating copyrighted material; a logo illustrating a discussion of the rebranding of a station is illustrating points made in the text. The former is "Well, we're collecting your copyrighted material for the sake of displaying it", the latter is "we're republishing your copyrighted material in a limited capacity to illustrate relevant points." Former not okay, latter okay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, give me a quick rundown of the top 10 copyright violation injunctions that have been placed against wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. See the explanations of the reasoning behind the policy above. You don't need to stick your hand into the fire once (let alone ten times) to figure out that it's hot and it will burn you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, I doubt wikipedia has ever been sued for copyright, nor is it ever likely to be. However, I'm beginning to understand the reasoning for the rules, even if I think they are based on total paranoia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sued? Nah. WMF gets formal and informal takedown notices all the time and is pretty wimpy about them (and rightly so). Stuff goes into the complaint ticket system and quietly gets deleted. The Lava Lamp article disappeared for a while because of a misunderstanding related to this. I used to remember what the complaint system was called, but if you asked on WP:AN, you could probably get more info about how it works and the volume and treatment of complaints.

As for paranoid, well. It depends on your standard of comparison. For websites in general, sure. But compared to some other free projects...well, even within WMF's projects, many Wikipedias (particularly the German one) eschew fair use material entirely; en.WP's rules are pretty moderate in comparison. (Note that de:Micky Maus doesn't even have a picture of Mickey Mouse.) Abusing en.WP's relatively lax rules for fair use only lends credence to the arguments to abolish FU on en.WP entirely. I don't want that.

Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia; it's a FREE encyclopedia, and that limits what you can do. Like I said, a logo museum is fine and good, but Wikipedia can't be that and free. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a news flash: As long as wikipedia continues its policy of "any idiot can edit", it will never have credibility. Given that foundation, the other issues really don't matter. I stick with it because of the hope of making it better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, okay? So, uh. WP's non-free media policy doesn't matter because Chewbacca is a Wookiee? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's paranoia about non-free content is in total contradiction to its "anyone can edit" policy. Until wikipedia decides that it cares about credibility, none of the other stuff matters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) And the idea of using non-free content contradicts the Wikimedia policy of being a completely free encyclopedia. Your point? Most other Wikimedia projects don't even allow a single drop of fair use. They've disabled local uploading and you must upload everything from the Commons, which is free. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's where wikipedia's schizoid approach to things comes to the fore. They want free content, but if all they could have was free content, they would have to drop thousands of illustrations. So they set up this "fair use" warzone, where every non-free image gets banged around. If they had any integrity, they would either have free content only, or open it up... because just as wikipedia is "not censored", despite being read in high schools and junior high schools and so on, their disclaimer would be that "anyone can edit" and therefore they are not responsible for what the content happens to be at any given moment... and they could use the same argument if challenged on copyright issues. They end up straddling between two boats that are veering in different directions. It doesn't work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't schizoid; it's a compromise. Disavowing all responsibility would make the project much less free, as nobody could rely on it to not be copyright contaminated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing two fundamentally different things. We want information to be free, so we don't censor pictures or content. I don't think any judge will see "anyone can edit it" as a defense if someone does decide to sue Wikipedia for copyright infringement, especially when the use doesn't have a lot of commentary attached to it. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its being a "compromise" is the reason why it's a constant battleground... and is no assurance against being sued eventually anyway, that's just "whistling in the graveyard" on the part of those who defend the compromise, as presumably it's a theory that's never been tested. If you do totally free content, then that problem goes away... but then you're left with a considerably less useful and less attractive product. It's straddling the fence... an electric fence, at that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It leads to a lot of deleting stuff people uploaded in good faith. It's a good compromise, but I wish compromises didn't have to be so compromising. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if the issue was explained clearly, as you did earlier in this thread, there would be less hostility. They shouldn't have to wade through page after page, and they shouldn't have to get their Irish up because of the Nazi-like approach that these bot programs take. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that the rules themselves are stated over and over, but the reasoning behind them is not. Believe it or not, not everyone is in tune with what the real issues are. If that could be summarized in a simple explanation by these bot programs, maybe that would reduce the warfare. They go out of their way to post a paragraph to obvious vandals gently explaining why they shouldn't vandalize. Would that they would treat "good faith" editors the same way rather than bringing the hammer down on them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my fault. I have a tendency to ascribe the attributes of the first person to speak up on a subject (Rollo, in this case) to everyone who has the same stated view. I apologize. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not you in particular. It's every "deletionist" on here! They assume that the reader should somehow already know the reasoning behind it, or they send the reader to some megillah that makes no sense. You explained the issue in a paragraph. Why can't they do that, as a standard practice, and avoid a lot of these battles? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Rollo should know the reasoning behind it because we had this whole row before, where I did explain the reasoning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary issue[edit]

I'm trying to figure out how much is enough commentary that a logo gallery would be appropriate fair use. Figure it should outline some of the history behind it in a concise manner. Blueboy 96 22:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I don't know. I was fairly sure where the line was before, and have been quite clearly shown my error in that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT[edit]

I would be grateful if you would join in the discussion about the preamble to the Fiction guideline at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Proposed_changes_to_the_preamble, as I agree with the change you are proposing.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment on the arbcom case thing[edit]

Ever since I've started editing at Allegations of state terrorism against the US, my Wikipedia experience has become more and more wierd. I never expected to find myself on the same side of such editors as JzG and MONGO (about who I had only heard bad things, but now actually like), and I never expected to find myself dealing with people so disconnected from reality that I can't find a common point of reference at all to discuss things with them.

I appreciate your comment. When I mentioned it to MalikCarr, he insisted that Wikipedia is becoming Bizzaro Wikipedia. Jtrainor (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two kinds of people on Wikipedia: people who divide everyone into two irreconcilable camps, and those who don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UberHeadbanger[edit]

Hello, my name is UberHeadbanger, I was reported by a user named Anger22 for using a sock puppet. I do not use any different account or IP adress and I would just like to clarify that. I do not know where Anger22 came up with this. Long story short, he was changing some of the information I had written on the Heavy metal page, so I asked him to stop, but he continued, so I rewrote to him, telling him once again to stop. He afterwards sent me a message telling me I used many accounts (which I do not) and other violations that were false, and this is how I basically got suspected of using a sock puppet. It happens that I sometimes write messages when I am not on logged in, but not using a different IP address. Anyways, the whole point of him reporting me as having many accounts was due to me accusing him of vandalising my work (which I admit I was to accuse him of such) but, I did not report him. I'd like to have more clarifications about this second account I would be possessing. Thank you very much. UberHeadbanger 20:18, 29 May 2008 (EST)

I would not be the best one to consult for advice on this subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Babel move[edit]

I was kinda pondering on doing the same thing as well, considering we have articles on Castlevania (Nintendo 64) and Mega Man V (Game Boy), and not on Akumajo Dracula Mokushiroku and Rockman World V. The only objection I had that prevented me from doing that is that Metal Gear: Ghost Babel is easier to disambiguate than Metal Gear Solid (Game Boy). Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of had a feeling it wouldn't be controversial. I plan to update links as I find them or feel like it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

i made an edit to the lead of Adnan Oktar but the subsection following it become somewhat skewed and is now part of the lead or something. just wondering if you know what in the wikicodes might have caused this? thnx. ephix (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not the best one to ask about this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MGS4 Spoilers[edit]

The game has broken its release date and there's already lots of spoilers in the internet? Should we allow spoilers now or wait until the game's release in four days? Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion either way. The article isn't going to be of much use either way for a couple weeks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leeroy Jenkins[edit]

I dont see your problem. The webcomic - admittedly one Ive never heard of, but one notable enough to have a Wikipedia page - makes a (cultural) reference to Leeroy. The page the comic is on states that the comic is a (cultural) reference to Leeroy. The Wiki page references (perhaps Ill use the term "cites" to avoid overloading terms) the page the comic on, containing the statement that the comic is a reference to Leeroy. How can you justify calling this an invalid cite? Or are you calling it an invalid cultural reference? Im a little confused. Metao (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's useless. It's an observation sourced to the object being observed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnt make it an invalid or uncited cultural reference. Metao (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yeah it does. Valid is cited to a reliable third-party source. Cited is cited to a third party source. "I noticed this" cited to "this" isn't either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical note[edit]

By the way, per Book burning, it's not a reference to "Nazis" per se (not intentional leap at least), although some have actually made that allegation, but I am referring to a long historical precedent across many cultures and for many reasons rather than to any one particular moment or motivation in history. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention Nazis? Pretty sure I didn't. Bringing up Nazis never helps. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either you or Randomran did (I wasn't sure which, so I erred on the side of just making the same note to both to clarify). Anyway, the main concern I have is that in the effort to remove stuff, we are not doing enough to expand and reference other stuff. We are not putting an equally sufficient time into bringing articles to good or featured status. I don't really care what we all cover, so long as it isn't nonsense or totally useless and for that stuff I have and will continue to nominate and argue to delete as I have done dozens of times now, but what frustrates me is that many of those accounts who are overly critical of myself and certain others actually argue to keep far less articles than I argue to delete. I suppose for some it is much easier to just go through AfDs with "per nom" and "non-notable" votes as many do in fact do, than to say as I do simultaneously attempt to improve the article under discussion and argue in the discussion as well, which I have to do, because I have found from past experience that I or others can do a dramatic rewrite of the article during the AfD only to have neither the nominator or the "per noms" and "non-notables" return to the AfD or look at the article in question, which means that I wind up having to also go back and forth with editors in the AfDs who many times really do not make any effort to improve the article in question or look for sources. Not too long ago, I saw one editor who outright said he would "never argue to keep" and another who said he does not care about the article under discussion and so would not even bother looking for sources or even consider attempting to improve it. If that's what we have in AfDs, then AfD is seriously flawed. The other problem is that I and others who do argue to keep certain articles that some are bent on deleting wind up getting targetted by malicious editors. I have had my userspace pages moved by vandals and have dealt with both on wiki and in emails sent to me challenges from what turned out to be sock accounts (in one strange instance a sock farm started out as aggressively inclusionist and harassed and insulted deletionists, but then became aggresively deletionist and then went after the inclusionists, as I indicated here!). Plus, with AfDs being a discussion, it seems that many really want it to be a vote in which they can just leave a "per nom" or "non-notable" and go down the list of AfDs doing so and are outraged if someone actually tries to challenge their "vote." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me set this straight. "We" is not a hivemind. "We" isn't even a collective. "We" are random users editing a collaborative encyclopedia according to individual whims. "We" are deleting bad articles and deleting good articles and writing great articles and writing awful articles and vandalizing articles and cleaning up vandalism and writing articles about neglected literary figures and writing articles about webcomic authors and writing articles about our cat and writing articles about our cat's breed and uploading featured pictures and uploading copyrighted pictures of dicks and every single person doing each of those things has their own reason for doing so.

If you assign common intent or conduct to a group of disparate users, the only thing you're likely to do is unite them in saying you're wrong and also crazy.

Characterizing deletion (or ANYTHING) as "book-burning" is going to get you a big eye-roll from...well, pretty much everyone. Everyone agrees that we need to exercise a certain level of editorial control. On one hand, we have AMIB's cat, an article that every non-lunatic agrees we don't need. On the other hand, we have cat, which every non-lunatic agrees we need. Between those, we have gobs and gobs of articles, on which differing numbers of people can agree we need. Alarmist rhetoric (and rambling walls of text full of begged questions and calls for negative proof) only serve to obscure that.

I assume you want to accomplish your goals, instead of get your posts skimmed and ignored. Reasonable people can be convinced to change their minds. But. Big rhetoric covering for small arguments doesn't do a good job of doing that. Pick your fights and remember that your biggest argument for keep is not "This might be interesting to someone!" or "This might have sources!" but instead is "Here's your sources, suck on that." Accusing people of deletionism in lieu of doing the research is hollow coming from someone arguing for inclusionism without doing the research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's bothersome, though, is when I and others do find the sources and those arguing to delete still argue to delete anyway (I encountered some who have outright said they will "never" argue to keep, so there is no persuading them; I have multiple times now actually changed my stance in an AfD and RfAs based on the disucssion). And again, I increasingly come across accounts that in some cases have never even once argued to keep any article. And I have seen plenty of others who literally do nothing other than rapidly post repetitive delete "votes" in AfDs (sometimes multiple ones in order a minute) in some instances with no actual article writing contributions. I have at least nominated multiple articles for deletion. As far as calling it "electronic book burning," sometimes one has to call something for what it is, whether people want to hear it or not, because even if those doing it think what they are doing is right, it still is stifling our coverage, taking an elitist stance, and as such turns away if not insults many of our readers and contributors. I can't think of a euphemistic spin on such behavior, regardless of how well-intentioned, that would accurately characterize it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If those sources don't suck, then the people who are still arguing to delete will get shouted down. If the sources do suck, they won't. What "suck" means, in this context, is another subject of lengthy debate. Consider the possibility that those who disagree with you have given equal (or greater!) consideration to their position as you have yours.

Sometimes, an article you think could obviously be saved will get deleted. The correct response to that is not "OMG DELETIONISTS AT WORK AGAIN" but instead "Hm, I disagree with this decision, but should consider the fact that my stance is not shared by others. You can either use this realization to inform your own postion ("Perhaps I should reconsider my own stance, as this seems to be the accepted standard") or consider how you can convince others ("I differ from this position, and propose that we change it, and this is why"). If you don't consider why the position you disagree with is held by those who hold it, you're never going to convince anyone of anything.

Calm. Collegial. Polite. Articulate but concise. This sort of Wikiquette makes it much easier to take arguments seriously, however extreme. If you really want to push the standard of sourcing to be more inclusive of direct observation of fictional works, the first step is to attend to your own stance and posture. (And bear in mind that other, equally reasonable, people are going to be pushing back.)

If a deletion really was a travesty, we have "Haha, here's your sources, suck it!" methods that can overcome even a deletion at AFD upheld at DRV; userfy it (any admin, such as me, would be happy to do so if it wasn't illegal or blatantly false) and get cracking. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you convince editors who outright have said they will "never argue to keep" or that it is their "mission" and "goal" to delete articles? I put those in quotation marks, because those are direct quotes from current editors even. If someone thinks it's his mission, then what differences does finding sources even accomplish and some of the same accounts that hover over AfD with the "per nom" and rapid fire "non-notable" votes also hover over Deletion review doing the same thing. How many AfDs were tainted by now banned sock farm members like this guy and here's another of his several checkuser identified alternate accounts, among so many others? How can a five day discussion in which a handful of editors participate actually reflect the consensus concerning an article worked on for months or maybe even years? It simply cannot legitimate do so. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't obsess about them, don't radicalize yourself, and speak to those who are listening even if they disagree. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you do when they obsess about you in a radical fashion? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't obsess about them, don't radicalize yourself, and speak to those who are listening even if they disagree. If they come off as obsessed with you and you come off as indifferent to them, who comes out looking better? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's frustrating is that some take speaking to those with whom I disagree as some kind of affront, i.e. "how dare someone challenge me in an AfD". I think a lot of people miss that it is supposed to be a discussion and resort to ad hominen attacks against those who try to make it a discussion. I actually don't mind when people reply to me, because by replying to each other, the weak aspects of both sides arguments are challenged and then ideally in the end we are left with a clearer indication of which argument actually was stronger. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a bad habit of harassing everyone who comments "per nom," I'd suggest knocking that off. I think that's the main source of the hostility you're describing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing: trying to get editors to actually argue is not harassing and when people label it as such, they just derail the discussion. My concern with "per nom" is that I see a large number of accounts that make rapid-fire "per noms" across multiple AfDs sometimes a few in under a minute, i.e. where there is no humanly possible way they could have read the articles and read all the comments in all the AfDs in question so quickly. So, my hope is to discourage that and to keep the discussion as a disucssion rather than a vote. If anyone actually thinks that such efforts is "harassment", then they do not know what actual harassment is. A reasonable response to someone commenting in such a fashion would be to say what they found compelling about the nominator's rationale and maybe offer something new to the discussion. To get offended or launch attacks is not reasonable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You come off as harassing people, when the real productive use of your time is to confront the argument people are agreeing with. "Per nom" means "I find the nominator's argument convincing." Your job is to attack that argument, not attack the people who agree with it.

You can rail against the injustice of people seeing your actions as harassment, or you can change your own actions and focus on productive things you can do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is productive if it does get some at least to reconsider their approaching AfD as a vote, which is essentially what a per nom is. By attacking the "per nom" stance (not the person), I am not attacking the person, but the (lack of) argument they made, i.e. that it doesn't really add anything to a discussion. A discussion should flow for one thing. So, if someone posts a keep rationale that challenges the "nom" the next delete should challenge the keep, not just ignore the keep altogether and say "per nom," which just brings us back to where we started in the discussion. Could you imagine having a round table discussion as: Nominator, "I don't think this article is suitable for Wikipedia, because it is not notable." Keeper1, "I disagree, I have been able to find a number of sources that do demonstrate notability." Deleter1, "Per nom." What kind of discussion is that? The deleter should say something about the sources the keeper found if anything. If we do not challenge the per noms, then we're left with a poll rather than a discourse. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in a hypothetical universe where it did get people to not see AFD as a vote, sure. But I'm telling you that right now people are just seeing it as sort of pathetic harassment of people who disagree with you.

Again, you can wish that weren't so, or you can focus on productive things you can do. Your choice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but at the same time I see "per noms" as a sort of unconstructive way of participating. It would be nice if we could find a middle ground, i.e. people stop approaching AfDs as a vote and then I see no reason to encourage them otherwise. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be direct. Attacking everyone who comments "per nom" makes you come off as pathetic and ineffectual and I recommend for your sake that you not do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just going down a list of AfDs writing "per nom" as so many do who it is clear just do not like article and don't want to say anything new is not "pathetic and ineffectual"? Yes, some say "per nom" in good faith, but it is clear that others just do so to be disruptive. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Well, they're doing something unproductive and unhelpful that reflects poorly on them, so I'll do the same!"

No. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how can we encourage people to actually discuss the articles in question that would meet your standards? If we do not engage each other, it isn't a discussion. Should we add a header on all AfDs that say something like, "Please remember that AfD is a discussion and not a vote. You should discuss with each other the article's value to Wikipedia and not just make a list of 'deletes' and 'keeps' with one or two word 'rationales'." followed by a link to the Arguments to Avoid Essay? If we did something like that, then it would look all the worse for anyone who posted there that didn't supply an actual reason and that goes for a "keep per nom" as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only tell you what doesn't work, in this case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about proposing something like that on the AfD project talk page? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dammitall now I want to watch The Producers again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! Eusebeus (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, I have not seen that... Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a thank you[edit]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Thank you for your very wise comments in the section above and elsewhere on Wikipedia. dorftrottel (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Boss article[edit]

Any suggestion to bring Big Boss (Metal Gear) to GA-status? I managed to reduce most of the plot summary [3] so that the article is a bit more readable and talk about Big Boss's design here and there, but I don't think its enough. Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm. Solid Snake is just skating by on GA status; I'm not sure the sources exist to bring BB up there. Maybe we can wait for the wave of postmortem MGS4 interviews? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Isaeli apartheid[edit]

Hey there. In your closing comments for the Allegations of Isaeli apartheid AfD you commented that "I suggest pursuing a rename and a rewrite". Your comment is being used to support a rewrite tag on the article on the talk page. Could you please comment on the talk page about what sort of rewrite you were thinking of, and whether you think the article has writing style issues? Cheers, Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only meant that if people think this is broken and want to fix it, they're going to have to do it with editing, because it's not going to happen with deletion.

Personally, I think the article is disgraceful, but I also think that fiddling with it without the perspective of history is a waste of everyone's time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You might want to say "edit as usual" rather than "rewrite" in future closings of this sort, people have a weird attitude towards perceived admin "authority" such that some take admin comments as an imperitive. There is also a tag called rewrite that is specifically about writing style, so the use of the word rewrite may cause confusion, as it has in this case. In terms of your opinion of the article, can you be more specific? Clearly a notable subject such as this debate should have an article, and it should follow reliable sources especially closely to avoid OR. Specifically how do you think this article can be improved with the "perspective of history"? Do you mean that sources should be used that improve the historical context given in the article? Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do this sort of closing on about a biannual basis, and I can always rest assured that I'll need to explain it further anyway.

This article can be improved with the perspective of history by waiting a decade or two or several. Right now, it's too immediate. It's like trying to write Allegations of anti-Hungarian propaganda in Serbia in 1914. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your jaded crypticism is funny, but I don't think it's helpful. That talk page is going to have the word "disgraceful" repeated endlessly on it... "an admin said this page is disgraceful, so [insert weird interpretation here]" ad nauseum, joining the "an admin said this should be rewritten, so it should have a rewrite tag" misuderstanding. Perhaps you should leave closing future AfDs on contraversial subjects to admins who are happy to explain themselves clearly? Although now that you've stirred the hornets in this case, some constructive input would be useful. Yours disgruntledly, Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a magical universe where I was the god-king of Wikipedia, "no hope of becoming neutral through Wikipedia's editing processes" would be a deletion criterion. This article is near and dear to too many hearts, is a honeypot for cranks of all creeds, and seems to have no hope of becoming a useful or neutral or decent article until we can say "This is what happened" instead of "This is what's happening." Maybe I'll be proven wrong, and we'll get a stable, neutral, informative article zealously policed by people who genuinely believe in the greater good of informing people neutrally, but I don't have a lot of hope.

When I say the article is disgraceful, I mean that it is a seeping, infected, open wound on Wikipedia. It says by example that NPOV doesn't matter one whit, that civility means fuckall, and that Wikipedia is yet another venue for battles which are hurting real people. It's damaging to Wikipedia's credibility, it's damaging to Wikipedia's culture, and it's damaging to Wikipedia's processes.

Since I'm not the magical god-king of Wikipedia, I do what I can. I don't argue about it, I don't edit it, and I do my best to limit the damage such articles can cause to the project. Limiting a clearly no-consensus AFD to 70K when it could easily top 500 is the best I can do.

Take any comments I make about the article as outside comments from someone unwilling to edit the article, not as some sort of Wikipedia authority. I'm a janitor, not the boss. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is clearer. I respect the reasons behind your position, but I think your preferred approach wouldn't help Wikipedia in the big picture. Wikipedia is too young to say whether a way can be found to handle editing of contraversial subjects well. "Deletion for contraversy" would open a whole new hornets nest where perceived contraversy would be deliberately manipulated to argue for deletion of many topical, informative articles. As for this article: there is edit warring happening, but the mainspace content is pretty decent, which I find is typical of many contraversial articles. The process may be ugly as sin underneath, but the product is alright. As for admins, the best are handy with a mop and the worst are mopping with mud. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... You're not the God-King of Wikipedia? Damn, all those goats I sacrificed. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even tho you didn't actually merge anything...[edit]

...I think redirecting List of shapeshifters in myth and fiction to Shapeshifting was the right decision. The content in the first was duplicated mostly in the second, and the prose examination of the topic was done much better in the actual Shapeshifting article. I will perhaps go through the redirected article and see if there is any extra content that should be merged, but somehow I doubt it. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I intended to merge all the encyclopedic, referenced info. Then I couldn't find any. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yeah, I see that a lot with IPC articles, believe me. Like I said tho, most of the content is either already in the shapeshifting article, or it's in the relevant bluelinks, so it's not like the information is lost forever. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

petition crap again; stop advertising here[edit]

That is the only reference about the fans' reaction. I looked again and was unable to find another (except forums, which are even worse). That is the reason I included it there, not for 'advertising'. You're invited to look for a reference too BTW. diego_pmc (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure it's the kind of forum-only fan kerfluffle that doesn't make a ripple in reliable publications. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be removed. But then the only criticism that would be in the article would be the one that praises the book, and so someone else might come and say the article doesn't have an NPOV... diego_pmc (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV isn't Fox News fair-and-balanced pro-and-con two-sides-yelling-at-each-other. NPOV is reflecting all of the published viewpoints with due weight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Valkyrie Profile characters[edit]

Well, I just got home, and I'll be leaving again in about 30 hours. Can I get it back for today? Thanks. -- Prod (Talk) 05:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just tag it for speedy when you're done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing :). -- Prod (Talk) 06:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Acorn[edit]

You will stop editing that article until this has been discussed.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, giving me orders is going to get you a big old eyeroll and not a lot else.

Second, WT:CVG#Sonic the Hedgehog Cruft, particularly WT:CVG#fgsfds. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the orders thing, but this burn with fire thing hasn't been settled yet so until the discussion is over, please don't continue your edits.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and WP:N are settled. These edits have long been discussed; it's time for them to happen. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They will happen, but by Dylanlip. A member of the Sonic Task Force who is planning to make the article better, but is still tracking down refs.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read the edits you're reverting, BTW. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I have a bit of a quick temper, and when I saw how much had gone when it appeared on my watchlist I couldn't believe it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Training[edit]

In looking at the article after being moved, there didn't seem to be any conflict created by it being at Brain Training. I don't see any reason to move back, besides people having preference to Brain Age. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dates in Star Wars[edit]

Regarding your removal of my contribution: what I meant was that the date given for the Big Bang in the article must be wrong. I've added the clarification and asked for a specific citation. Opera hat (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Nice to hear some support. :) Protonk (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon GA Sweeps Review: On Hold[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Pokémon and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and several related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Down the rabbit hole with warhammer 40,000[edit]

Ok, I thought the star wars articles had issues but I've never seen such large articles - what worse is that many of the articles are themselves cut and pastes of other large articles (which breaks the GFDL to boot). --Allemandtando (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they're HORRIBLE. I tried to get started on the 40K articles, and I couldn't even imagine where to begin. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read them, the more I'm convinced that many of them are cut and paste jobs. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a distinct possibility. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused[edit]

How could "Sonic starred in a Saturday morning animated adventure from 1993 to 1995" not support the sentence that reads "Sonic the Hedgehog is a fictional character appearing in the American saturday morning cartoon Sonic the Hedgehog from 1993 to 1995"? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the TV Guide ref, not that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the TV guide ref does indicate who voiced the character and thus is relevant to where it is located as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I was just looking at the wrong ref. Don't be obtuse. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, but be sure to be careful when looking at these things. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP!!!!!!!!!![edit]

You will stop your edits. Please revert them or I will. I might not have any Wikipedia policy to back me up, but I'm sure that what your doing to the Sonic articles is unconstructive. So please stop and revert your edits. You've gone in all guns blazing and have ruined the articles. You have done nothing to help them, have done nothing to disaprove the sources, (wich I know are right), in fact there's a really good point. You have not said why the sources you've gotten rid of are in fact not good sources. So tell me, what was wrong with them?Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect, and have formed no argument beyond bland assertions. Generally, when I've removed a reference, in the edit summary I've mentioned why. Almost always, it's because the reference doesn't back the claim made, or the claim made is speculative interpretation of the primary-source reference.

If you'd like to discuss things with me, I'd suggest being calm and specific. What edits don't you like, and why does Wikipedia better serve its stated goals to undo them? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters your edits to E-123 Omega, granted you kept some of them but then TTN came along and got rid of them. All of the relationship sections were sourced, you took them down, the personality section was sourced, you took it down. Other Wikipedia articles may not have this info, but what's to say everything is supposed to the same? And as for the dialogue being called OR, if it was made by SEGA, and implied by SEGA, that would make it a prime source. And your edits to Sally Acorn, both Dylanlip and I are against them, meaning you've gone against Wikipedia:Consensus. As for why these sources improve Wikipedia is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And people use encyclopedias so they can find out all the facts.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not listening.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

implied by SEGA

This is the problem. You're reading implications in. You aren't supposed to do that.

As for you and Dylanlip, I broke the edits down part by part with explained rationales for each one at Talk:Princess Sally Acorn, and have yet to get a reply that isn't "STOP TOUCHING MY ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not listening to the fact the you are going against Wikipedia:Consensus. And have engaged on edit wars before the actual discussion about what to do is over. You don't deserve to be an admin, what you are doing here is not helping articles, it's destroying them!!!!!!!!!!!!Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud.

You two are blindly reverting to preferred versions without any respect for even the uncontroversial edits. TWO PEOPLE EDIT WARRING TOGETHER IS NOT A CONSENSUS.

You need to enter into a discussion of the facts, something you have as of yet failed to do, to establish some sort of consensus.

Now use a talk page instead of undo and address the concerns being raised. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you are also undoing are good edits to your prefered versions. And you will stop these major edits withtout a proper discussion, and have some remarkable bloody cheek. I have urged you to stop your edits and wait until this has been talked over, but you keep going ahead with your edits. So, STOP THIS NOW!!!!!!!!!! And let us have a proper conversation.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "my preferred version," it's the last version that isn't you reverting to preferred. I'm actually ambivalent about TTN's edits, but reverting them wholesale, rewrites and typos and formatting and all, is useless and obstructive.

I'm not going to consider stopping anything unless you present an argument based in Wikipedia policy to justify...some claim. All I've gotten from you is "YOU'RE DESTROYING OUR ARTICLES!" without a why or a how or any response to my reasons.

So. I'm waiting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we are not just two people engaged in edit wars. We are two people who are unhappy with your work, and I'm sure plenty of others are too. And now I would like to discuss the recent edits to E-123 Omega, there's already a section there so you don't have to bother making another one. I'm busy at the moment so I won't be able to reply right away.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The job of a Wikipedia editor is not to make people happy. It's to make an encyclopedia that adheres to core values of verifiability, neutral point of view, and freedom. When you edit in such a way that violates the first or the third, I'll undo it. Having no care for what you revert (reverting people instead of edits) is also obnoxious, albeit secondary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I'm reverting your edits is so I can source what you've deleted. I just haven't done it yet because I was working on another article. I can fix the articles up. And are you keeping track of my edits? Because that is just an invasion of prviacy!Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read what you're reverting more carefully. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I plan to source is the articles before you edited them. I had plans to source them, but because of your edits I can no longer do that.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I doubt telling you this will make much difference. After all, Dylanlip was working on the Sally article, and doing quite well, and was willing to source all those things, yet you still went against his edits.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "go against" his edits, I cleaned a ton of junk out of the article. If he can source something, he can put it in when he can source it. It's easy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be easier if we didn't have to undo your edits while we're at it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always search up in history and look up the stuff that was in there. You can source it, bring up the edit page, and place it back in there. And AMIB, I know you're cleaning up cruft, that's good, but the whole "cleansing with fire" crap sounds like terrorism or something, so cut it out and get back to your business. ZeroGiga (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its frigging Wikipedia. Don't take it too personally. Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO! *swings 2x4* Okay, who wants to revert my article again?! Come on! Let's have at it! hbdragon88 (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait until I'm finished. Now can you revert your last edit as I don't fancy being blocked.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished and am intrested in what you think.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask if you approve of these sources? Because I'm intrested to know if I actually did well this time.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're starting to act like Wikipedia is your personal plaything. Stop it now or I will see to it that you're stripped of your rank as admin and that you're blocked.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog)[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ZeroGiga (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore[edit]

Please restore this. Deletion of someone else's comments is generally not a good idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Video_games&diff=222986155&oldid=222983996 Hobit (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is when it's a disruptive offtopic argument. We've been round this bend three times now, it's time for it to stop. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed the first 2 times, but I still believe that what I wrote was on-topic and not disruptive. I've restored it. Hobit (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chainsaw[edit]

File:Resident evil 4 chainsaw controller.jpg

Resident Evil 4 chainsaw controller compatible with the PlayStation 2.

Regarding [4] and [5], I happen to have a chainsaw for video game purposes... Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video games[edit]

Hello! Just in case if you were curious what games, consoles, guides, etc. I have and therefore are most familiar with, please see User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Thanks.. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Hayter's perception of Solid Snake.[edit]

Hey! Here's an interesting article from 1up.com that might be useful for the Solid Snake article, although I don't know whether it should be under "Metal Gear Solid series" sub-section or deserves its own sub-section. Any suggestions? Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. We'll have to fiddle. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heather (Silent Hill)[edit]

I'm not really that concerned about the existence of the article, but why didn't you simply delete the speculation instead of completely blanking the page and making a redirect? --Thaddius (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because once the speculation was gone, it was just a bunch of duplicate plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A rewrite would have been a neat option then. There's also the fact that details on Heather's last name had been put up the day before your redirect, which I had hoped would quell the edit war going on on the Silent Hill main page. Are you applying this same logic to all the character pages? Or just this one? --Thaddius (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A rewrite to do what? It was just a recap of part of the plot of SH3. How many articles do we need recapping the plot of one game? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A rewrite to make it a little less of a plot recap I would have thought. You're clearly not interested in salvaging though, so no worries. I just find it odd that you deleted the page on the protagonist of the game to avoid plot recap, but left the articles on secondary and tertiary characters from the very same game intact. I note that you didn't do the same to the character pages for any of the other characters from the other games either. Looks like you have a bit of work ahead of you. Ah well. Have a good day! :) --Thaddius (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to have that on my watchlist from an infobox revamp. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House of Acorn[edit]

The value I see in the page is primarily as a role similar to a disambiguation page or portal, i.e. as an outstanding means by which to navigate other articles and as such, just as a disambiguation page or portal is not itself overwhelmed with links and footnotes, lists to other internal links really do not need to be overly weighted down in such a fashion when they do link to other articles that are referenced. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer any reliable third-party references to write this article, or are you going to continue linking essays, making irrelevant links to Google searches and hit counts, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found anything in your own searches? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's such a ridiculously narrow subject that nobody has written anything about it in reliable sources; it's difficult to find sources covering the licensed comics and television series in any sort of detail at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you checked? I wonder if there's publications on comics and cartoons without online archives that could/should also be considered. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comics press is largely consumer press, and aims at an older audience. You find lots of buyers' guides and catalogs, but licensed comics and kids' comics are generally seen as a ghetto not worth commenting on. You'll find a fair amount of (usually semi-promotional) commentary on other comics, but generally those are comics aimed at an older audience (one more willing to read metacommentary). All you're left with are interviews with the creators or larger articles about the history of the publisher, which are great sources for writing about the comic but not at all useful for talking about the characters individually (especially when you're talking about minor characters). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, regarding my comment with the image above, perhaps more relevant to this comment... --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but I'd like to keep talking about how there aren't any sources for the over-specific crap we were discussing before. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said above, I see navigational value to the project in that particular article that really makes me feel inclined to an Wikipedia:Ignore all rules regarding sources although I am of course willing to keep an eye or even look at any likely publications should time permit. We obviously disagree and I'm not confident that we'll likely persaude each other on this one, but one thing I will say is that I thought for better or worse AfDs were supposed to go for 5 days. Now, I know it's a holiday weekend and all, but shouldn't it have been closed by now? It's not as if in this case only two or three people commented. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure much else is being accomplished in that particular discussion, which is why we should probably hope it closes and we can move on from there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mellow out[edit]

AMiB, WP should not be a source of such anger and stress as this [6]. Frustrating stonewalling is a part of WP and it's not worth raising your blood pressure or something. ...I sound like a hippie don't I? Cigraphix (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. This is venting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

One thing I am beginning to see as true is your suggestion about others from the opposite side of the inclusion spectrum ganging up then in AfDs I commented in. Notice how many of these edits, these edits, and these edits happen to follow me in AfDs... --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Being obnoxiously bad at arguing tends to attract fans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad they make such weak arguments to delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this: if your arguments to keep are so strong, why aren't they overcoming "weak" arguments to delete? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do when the need to: User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen it.

And yet, I've yet to see any of your arguments actually convince anyone to change their mind. You see it all over the place, both keep -> delete and delete -> keep, but never yours. Why is that, do you think? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech Racing Wheels compatibility, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Resident Evil 4, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean, etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You rewrote and sourced the article. That's good. Copy-paste keep "arguments", not so good. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to limit doing that to AfDs where I see copy and paste nominations or the deletes above mine were made in rapid fire "per nom" fashion across multiple AfDs. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Subject, not article"[edit]

On the Star Wars wiki, they let us talk about the article and the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.226.77 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the Star Wars wiki. Talk pages quickly get overwhelmed when they get off-topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceships of Eve Online[edit]

While I heartily endorse your bold redirect and agree that this article is a "Hard core game guide, little to no other content", I fear I didn't have much luck gaining consensus to that effect when I nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online (2nd nomination). --Stormie (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if anyone wants to save any content from it, they can merge it to Eve Online. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is odd[edit]

It feels more than a little hypocritical to say this when I was actually preparing a message about the way your temper has seemed to be shortening later, but I need your help. In Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Vote_stacking, Allemandtando stated in no uncertain terms that he now considers the squadron an inclusionist vote-stacking project that needs an organized opposition. He scares me. What I know of history, wikipedia and common cynicism suggest that a counter-force against something that isn't there can do a great deal of harm.

I have no chance of convincing him of anything. I'm not good with people, a member of the squadron though just peripherally involved, and a known (moderate) inclusionist. You, on the other hand, are a deletionist (though I don't know if you classify yourself as such) and !voted for keep on ARS's MFD the day before yesterday, explaining why its category is not an inclusionist tool, and apparently based your decision on the articles then tagged for rescue - the same ones that Allemantando based his decision on. Could you please try to talk to him about your reasoning before things go way wrong? --Kiz o r 12:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceships of Eve Online redirection[edit]

Hi, A Man In Black. You've replaced the Spaceships of Eve Online article with a redirect to the main Eve Online article. I've reverted that change. If you feel the need to redirect the article I suggest you do it the right way. You can...

... suggest to merge the article into the Eve Online article. Read WP:MERGE for instructions.
... suggest this article to be deleted. Read WP:AFD for instructions.
... discuss the matter on the Spaceships article's Talk page and seek a consensus with other editors.

There may be more ways to deal with the article. However, replacing its content with a redirect rule without gaining a consensus one way or the other is not the way to go. I consider it vandalism. I ask you to not do that again. I've left the same note on the Spaceships article's Talk page for users to discuss.
-- Aexus (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to find out what vandalism is.

So what content in that article do you consider not a game guide? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your change of the article. As for vandalism, I stand corrected since replacing an article's content with a redirect rule is apparently considered bold but not vandalizing. I was wrong accusing of of vandalism. I do consider it to be impolite to replace an article with a redirect rule without discussing the matter. Now personally, I agree that the Spaceships article can be changed. Maybe that means deleting parts of it and merging the rest into the main Eve Online article. Maybe not. What I'd like you to do is to place a merge template in the Spaceships article and have its discussion linked to the Eve Online Talk page. That way more editors will become aware of the issue than with deleting the Spaceships article.
-- Aexus (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You want to discuss it...but you haven't actually said anything about it. Specifically what content in that article do you consider not a game guide? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get me right here. I do consider the article in its current form largely a game guide. We should improve it, not delete all of its content. When Tom Edwards split the ships section off from the main article into the separate article in December 2005 this is what he extracted. The so-called Tech levels, the tiers, hull sizes and characteristics of the ships are an integral part of the game. Similar to races and character classes in other MMOs this it what players are represented with. I don't think there's a way to write an encyclopedic article about Eve Online without at least this basic information about its ships. That the article in its current form is not perfect doesn't mean I want all of its content to disappear into nothingness. Discussing the matter and seeking a consensus with other editors is the right way to go. Instead of focusing your efforts on the deletion please participate and suggest how to improve the article.
-- Aexus (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I thread about your recent redirects[edit]

see here --Allemandtando (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A moment of levity[edit]

File:Bandaged basset tail.jpg

Photograph of my basset hound whose tail is bandaged due to a tumor that burst and which will result in at least the badaged portion and possibly the whole tail being amputated in surgery on this coming Thursday due to another potentially cancerous tumor at the base of the tail as well.

As you can see from the image, I am just not feeling really happy at this moment, so I was trying to think of something humorous that we might all get a laugh at. Anyway, regarding the above comments about what happens when certain editors show up at AfDs, I started thinking about those Girls Gone Wild commercials that air late at night and that have been spoofed on Robot Chicken where the announcers says something about "when Snoop Dogg gets a hold of the camera", so I was just imagining a commercial about AfDs in which someone says, "And see what happens when Snoop Dogg gets involved in the discussion" or something to that effect. God, I hope you know what I am alluding to, because otherwise you might not see the humor. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the reference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! :) --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good night[edit]

Well, my dog’s tail amputation surgery is but hours away in the morning, so, good night for now. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matching Outfits[edit]

Hey MiB, Per your observation, this seems to be similar in spirit, if far superior in tone, to this. Anyway, I enjoyed your !vote. Eusebeus (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well. I never said I wasn't a hypocrite. ¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hypocrite lecteur, mon semblable, mon frere," as the poet puts it. Which is to say, I'm glad you're around. Eusebeus (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update regarding hound surgery earlier this morning[edit]

The vet took off several inches of tail where the ruptured tumor was and removed 8 other elsewhere on her body. She's apparently not taking it too well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimp (computer role-playing games)[edit]

I reverted your changing Gimp (computer role-playing games) to a redirect page. Yes the article is a near synonym but is is more than a dictdef. Had you edited Nerf (computer gaming) to include the differences and other information you deleted, then the redirect would make sense. But to simply blank the page and redirect it is wrong. Dbiel ^(Talk) 07:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The gaming use of the word is exactly the same as the casual use of the word, to weaken or a thing that is weak. The "article" has zero other info, so I just redirected a non-article rather than gumming things up with an AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your redirect is still wrong and misleading. the term "Gimp" is not even mentioned once in the article you are redirecting to. If you insist on redirecting it, please edit the other article to explain the redirect. How is a user who does not know what a Gimp going to understand why the link was redirect to nerf? Dbiel ^(Talk) 08:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]