User talk:A Man In Black/Archive12

New Super Mario Bros.

I wasn't using my POV for the game. Many critics found it too short. Unless these sources are very unreliable. Frankyboy5 04:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your references are a grab-bag of minor game sites, cherrypicked from Gamerankings to find reviews that agree with your POV (except for the G4 review, where you cited the ONE SINGLE NEGATIVE COMMENT from an overwhelmingly positive review). You've decided how you feel and have gone looking for sources, however iffy, that support your POV. That's not how things should be done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these reviewers may be saying that the game was too short for hardcore gamers. According to Nintendo Power issue#202, Takashi Tezuka intentionally made the game easier than others to encourage non-gamerS to play the game. Frankyboy5 03:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are pushing a POV, that it's too short and too easy for ill-defined "hardcore" gamers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

FN P90 image

I'm not sure why you're so insistent on removing the image atop FN P90; when another copyrighted image is right below; and other similar articles are rife with them. At least replace it with the free image on the article. It is of much worse quality but it's better than having nothing atop the page. I understand the frustrations with pop culture but that doesn't mean you need to hold that article to a higher standard than others in terms of fair-use of images.--Mmx1 22:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't realize the second image was fair-use as well.

I was consciously leaving the top blank to encourage someone to get a new, free image, but if you think using the PS90 image at the top is best, we can do that.

As for a "higher standard," this is the standard; enforcement is just lax. We need not to use fair-use images in cases where free images can be made or found. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If your going to remove a picture that doesn't violate the rules (fairuse images most definately do NOT), then you are responsible for posting a replacement. Expend just a little extra effort if you find this issue that important. Alyeska 04:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUC #1 and #3 are not negotiable, to the point where it's better to have no image than one that violates them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Cruft Cleanup

Hey there. I was looking at your Poke-cruft pages at User:A Man In Black/Poketasks and User:A Man In Black/Poketasks/Merge and saw a lot of things that were taken care of, but they were pretty jumbled linkwise with the unfinished parts. So I crossed out all completed items and restructured these pages for you for better organization, complete with comments about how each completed item was completed, so now you should have an easier time prioritizing your Poketasks. Hope this helps. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 17:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't touched those pages in months, if not a year. If you want to whip them into shape, more power to you; good that someone's getting some use out of them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Image discussion

You have been asked to participate in a mediation relating to the use images in articles detailing episodes of the Pokémon anime. If you wish to input into discussion, you can do so here, all help is welcomed towards a positive resolution. Cheers, Highway ^Daytrippers 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess. I've been pointing people to WT:PCP this entire time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Legendary Pokémon

Can you look this page over? It looks pretty bad and speculative. Interrobamf 01:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that hurts. That's gonna need a total rewrite. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, the Legendary Pokemon page looked fine to me, it's kinda ****ed now... Would you please revert it back?

See Talk:Legendary Pokémon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Question on adminship

Hey AMIB,

Question for you: You seem to be an admin who spends the majority of his time working on articles (rather than on purely administrative maintenance tasks), and I recall this comment preferring the former rather than the latter. I've thought intermittently about adminship as a way to help out with maintenance chores from time to time (WP:AIV, CAT:CSD, and WP:RM can become backlogged), but I'm wondering how easy it is for you to keep a balance. Thanks! — TKD::Talk 11:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. As for balancing editorial and janitorial tasks, I balance it without worrying about balance. I'm here for intellectual stimulation while making something useful, so when I'm burned out or not really up to doing any real writing, I do the inane clicking buttons taks, but when I feel like getting something done, I work on articles.

That said, I don't think admins who concentrate on administrative tasks over just being editors with extra buttons are somehow losing focus or balance; that stuff just wouldn't get done if all of the admins had the same attitude towards admin tasks that I do.

There's been a lot of worry, lately, about losing focus on the encyclopedia, but I don't think it's there. Hauling the garbage (RC patrol, closing AFDs, dealing with AIV, the backlog) is important work to help the encyclopedia run, and while it doesn't directly make the encyclopedia more useful, it makes the work of writing harder if it's not done. If you become an admin and spend every minute of your time on Wikipedia speedying crap, then more power to you.

The real risk in losing focus is becoming the kind of user who does nothing but fight with other users. AFD, policy writing, sometimes even FAC or some of the less-article-releated Wikiprojects, that's the real risk, and it's not limited to admins. It's all too easy to get wrapped up in the latest retarded drama (schools, userboxes, the godawful road naming fight) to the point where not only have you lost focus on accomplishing anything but also lost any desire to have anything to do with Wikipedia. Fighting over the content can be useful (although less than ideal), but fighting over policy or other meta issues is the real risk.

In conclusion, I hope this aimless ramble helped. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it makes a lot of sense. I didn't mean to imply that admins who focus on backlogs are out of balance in any way, as long as that's what they want to do (when it's not, then there's the risk of burnout); what I think I was attempting to getting at was whether you ever found yourself not having time to work on articles that you wanted to. But, as you pointed that out, there's a risk of that regardless of admin backlogs. I think that your approach makes sense (and would make sense for me as well, since I'm not always in the mindset needed to churn out new content or copyedit). Thanks again. — TKD::Talk 13:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing myself. I think it's time for me to seek adminship. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. As for backlogs, they need occupy no more time than you feel like spending on them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sartorius (Yu-Gi-Oh! GX)

Since your an admin and all, I was wondering if you would help me deal with a little problem occuring on this page since Wikipedia:AIV won't take the issue into consideration. 71.168.58.119 continually adds false information to the page, most frequently by posting supposed "dub names" for the tarot cards. Since Sartorius' debut episode already aired in the English version, it is already known that "The Fool"'s name was kept the same (though this user is keeps editing it to "The Jester"). By refusing to cooperate following multiple warnings, it is clear that this user has no intention of stopping. So I ask of you to please deal with him/her so the factual integrity of the article can be preserved. Thank you. --Benten 00:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a third idea. Why are we listing every single card, instead of summarizing the contents of his deck in prose? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm very sorry about all that images crap I made you go through all last week http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20061003020148&limit=50&target=Bobabobabo . May you help with the episode summaries on the episode lists? Bobabobabo (15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

Hey, don't sweat it. If it wasn't you unhappy with that change, it just would have been someone else. As for working on the lists, god yes. We've got at least half the work to get these up to featured lists done already; we need to source everything, write three-sentence plot summaries, and briefly summarize each season in the lead. I think if we set our minds to get one of these season articles up to featured list status, we could do it, as long as it wasn't Battle Frontier or Diamond/Pearl (ongoing series aren't really stable). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In relation to referencing, would it be better to cite all the facts one by one, or just add the DVD sets as general refs at the bottom? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 15:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of using List of Lost episodes as a template. If we end up using individual episode summary pages somewhere for something (like each of Serebii's ep pages), though, we could always add an inline cite to each page. That'd lead to a LOT of refs, but that's not a bad thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean like transcribing them? </stupid> Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 15:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Eek, no. Using them as a reference. They're not very good references, but if someone writes a plot summary looking at Serebii instead of the episode itself, that editor should probably cite the Serebii page out of fairness. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

AHhhhhh. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

MGS2

Why did you edit all my changes? Metal gear ninty 15:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You added an unsourced bit of trivia about "pacifist mode." You changed "Localization" to "Localisation" for a game first released in the US. You added an obviously opinionated description of the story, based on a ref that was largely positive about the game as a whole. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your first two criticisms are reasonable however, in a heading titled "critical response" no criticisms were displayed. The point I made(eventhough I personally disagree with it) was what the majority of people think, I can show you various different references if neccesary. Also, my referance was completely relevant; it did not promote MGS2's story and praised MGS3's more simplistic story.Metal gear ninty 15:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's critical response in that it's response from critics and not response that is critical. The IGN review praised the game as near-perfect; in fact, despite whatever you or I might think, the initial critical response in large publications was nearly universally positive, and the "critical response" section needs to reflect that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The keyword is "initial" eventhough initial response was very positive; how the game has been regarded has deteoreated over the years. My referance was from a MGS3 review, and that reflected my point: "...with it's incessant codec conversations" "it was far from fun to watch a game eat itself" Here is Another example from a gamespy metal gear solid 3 review: "while there are good plot twists, kojima wisely reigns in the high-minded metababble that tarnished MGS2" I'm more then willing to show you more quotes.Metal gear ninty 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but you'll need to find something more than an offhand reference in a review of a different game. Maybe you could scrounge up a retrospective on MGS2 that isn't as glowing as the initial reviews? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A retrospective from G4

Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty raised the bar even higher for the tactical espionage action genre. The visuals were massively upgraded, and Snake had all kinds of fun new abilities. Yeah, Raiden was kind of hard to get used to and the story got a little wonky at times (i.e. "The La-li-lu-le-lo!"), but you could skip the cutscenes, and we've learned to love that blonde girly man.

Metal gear ninty 18:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds gushingly positive to me. Hrm. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am taliking specifically about the storyline, please be patient and i'll find something better. Metal gear ninty 18:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cherrypicking the one slightly negative comment out of the context of a gushingly positive review isn't really kosher, though. I'm not unsympathetic, but you really need a negative retrospective in a reasonably high-profile published source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I did find this from wikipedia's metal gear solid 3 article:Fans, as well as some critics, who also found MGS2's lengthy dialogues and multitude of plot twists detrimental to the game experience[51] found MGS3's storyline a pleasing throwback to the original Metal Gear Solid, with less of the "philosophical babble"[8] present in Sons of Liberty.Besides I don't see why I can't use referances from other rewiews; what's the difference between that and a retrospective? It's still reflecting the reviewers opinion.Metal gear ninty 19:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are comparisons being made in MGS3 reviews, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

But you can't expect me to find a retrospective of a game that isn't even retro. Like I said, I don't know why references from other reviews are inadequete. Anyway, If it was good enough for an article that you yourself edited then why isn't it good enough for this one.Metal gear ninty 19:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We can't build a description by cherry-picking single lines from reviews when we have reviews that blatantly disagree. We can use someone else's review of MGS3 that compares it to MGS2 to describe MGS3 because the article we're using as a source is about MGS3. Now, we want to talk about MGS2, so we need an article about MGS2. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So do you want me to get quotes from actual MGS2 reviews now? Metal gear ninty 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as they're quotes that reflect the tone of the review, and the review is from a major publication. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The best I can give you is a reveiw from computerandvideogames.com:

The soap opera of a story can geta bit confusing – and tedious

It's unbeleivable how fickle the media are, they didn't dare to criticise the plot just because of all the hype it was getting. Apart from that I pretty much give up,anyway, thanks for baring with me, i'm off.Metal gear ninty 20:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

What would you do with this article? -- Steel 20:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Refer it to WP:WPFF; they probably have a good redirect target. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mario puffery

I just wanna tell ya that if you can seriously please leave the one at. Mario. Super Mario Bros. And( The history of computer and video games. I BEG YOU PLEASE LEAVE THEM. I have true proove about those anyway. Just leave them. Milos the man. ( begs for the changes to stay)

The entirety of your contributions seems to be adding unsourced claims that Mario is the most popular video game character of all time to a number of articles, often in completely irrelevant places. I don't mean to be mean, but that isn't helpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's me again Milos the man.

Man look it IS helpful and like I have no other places to store them I serioulsy do beg you if you can just LEAVE them and move on. And how isn't that helpful now. If people wanted to know what the worlds most popular character is they can see it at Mario when they type it. Man it's the only way to make people see his most popular.

Man please leave them. If you want I won't even make more summaries anymore just leave those okay. PLEEEEEEEEASE. If you are atLEAST leave the Super Mario Bros one. Just god damn it leave it c'mon. I trying to make wikipedia better. If that was not gonna be good at the first place I never would of joined. Man please.

According to whom is Mario the most popular video game character or the Mario games the best video games ever? You're just posting your personal opinion, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

] Err dude that's all the truth I not posting up any opinion I don't even like Super Mario Bros or Mario much Im more of a sports fan and I like Kirby the best. It ain't opinions it's just I have real clear proof that I have in my favoutites.

Now dude just...LEAVE them.

So, where's the proof? Who said this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-Notability

Why does rejected fit better than {{essay}} or no tag? What is the benefit in making the assumption that the page was formally proposed and formally rejected and then putting {{rejected}} down? Ansell 12:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So Fresheneez will let his silly crusade die, and so that nobody will mistake it for the common definition of the term "notability." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the common definition by the way? Wikipedia:Notability only seems to go through it really using sets of arbitrary examples? User:Uncle G\On notability does it slightly better, but I am still querying people on the exact level of "objectiveness" that is contained there.

Also calling it one persons "silly crusade" is uncivil and could be taken as a personal attack. They are not the only one supporting the concept, so don't try to portray it that way. Ansell 12:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that there isn't a commonly-accepted definition, and we shouldn't leave a proposal to change current practice (using the nebulously defined term "notability" to deal with issues of importance and noteworthiness) in a place where it will be mistaken for a description of current practice.

Fresh's silly crusade is an effort to write new rules that will let him shoehorn his articles about personal mass transit into Wikipedia. Labelling hopelessly doomed policy efforts to that effect as such will, at the very least, contain him to talk pages nobody cares about, which are unlikely to affect the encyclopedia negatively. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so it is perceived that his articles cannot be entered with current practice about "notability" as there are people who object to the content, however, for the NN page to exist in its current form, using only policies to argue its points, kind of suggests that you can't delete the articles without refering to notability because it actually fulfils the other policies. Am I wrong? I had no idea that the user was doing this for personal benefit. I saw the page as a legitimate advance for Wikipedia, which is why I am supporting it. If their pages really do violate WP:NPOV then you should be able to argue from that angle. What is the detriment to the encyclopedia if NPOV particularly is able to be held on the pages that will be created by the user. Ansell 12:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so it is perceived that his articles cannot be entered with current practice about "notability" as there are people who object to the content, however, for the NN page to exist in its current form, using only policies to argue its points, kind of suggests that you can't delete the articles without refering to notability because it actually fulfils the other policies.

That doesn't make sense.

The problem is that this is a proposal to change current practice that doesn't even have majority support and is unlikely to ever have majority support, because the idea that we shouldn't ever worry about importance isn't very popular. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Kind of ironic that wikipedia is actually just for "popular topics". The consensus model can only go so far. Its a shame that the world doesn't know what really happens under the bonnet. Ansell 22:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It has all sorts of unpopular subjects. Like the correct usage of the word "irony". ¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Irony is a literary or rhetorical device in which there is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says, and what is understood" Apparently there is no difference between what is said about Wikipedia in the real world and what you just stated it to be. I was infact using the word in the correct context. That said, you contradicted yourself by suddenly saying that wikipedia does actually have "unpopular subjects'.

What are a few of the unpopular subjects that exist in Wikipedia BTW? Ansell 02:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request

I made a request you may be interested in. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Um. I've never heard of that user in my life. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hee. The infobox-for-every-incarnation-of-every-character-ever guy was a banned user's sock? I didn't know that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one that caused loads of problems. Oh, and have you seen him begging to create templates for WikiProjects? Or even to create WikiProjects themselves? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How silly. Playing with templates is fun in a hackish kind of way, but templates qua templates is a waste, and ugly to boot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hikari, Pochama, Pika-chan <_>

Hello, I'm asking you a question. Their are alot of Yu-Gi-OH/GX images that I/Mitsusama uploaded which are on one page, so should I make seperete pages for the iamges based on their seasons? Bobabobabo (19:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

I dunno. I don't know enough about Yu-Gi-Oh to comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

I really appreciate your words on my RFA. I've learned a bit from watching you work, and it's nice to read something like that coming from you. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I've been pondering nominating you for RFA for a while, but RFA is such a viper-pit that I haven't been nominating anyone. I figured I'd co-nom when the die was already cast, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

COWARD!!! Just kidding. This is an interesting experience. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Amendment To Be Redirect

Hi, I wanted to clarify my position in regard to the "Amendment To Be" page. I believe it is worthy of its own page, and not simply a redirect, because more information can be given about it than would otherwise be possible. If the same amount of info were added to the "Day The Violence Died", it would take up too much space. Gabeb83 14:37 October 9, 2006.

It's a two-minute joke. It doesn't need a scene-by-scene description, nor a line-by-line script, or any original research analysis. There's no reason you can't cover it in The Day the Violence Died. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit to Mega Man X like vandalism?

It's actually True that he can transform either arm. I don't see why you reverted it.Ollie the Magic Skater

It was unsourced and trivial. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in

Since you requested deletion for the One Peice attacks, I thought you could help out here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Hydromasta231 04:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a case on the AFD, but I think that one's going under because of the bad nom and the fanboy flood. I'm willing to fight the good fight, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I could use your help - Dark Throne AFD

This is the link. Sorry to bother you MIB but I'm struggling to reconcile myself with the result of this particular AFD.

In particular: no solid secondary links were found by anyone during the AFD (including me, I was looking for them in the hope of adding another article to my list to tinker with) and almost all if not all keep votes were from contributors who have contributed to that page (sockpuppet/SPA or established Wikipedian alike). Also, the closing comment mentioned an approx. 50/50 split - but isn't that the point of discussing the issue?

I don't want to be munching sour grapes, to start bandying the AFD around the admin-discussion thingmy if I'm wrong in the first place or to relist an AFD in the 'pitch-till-you-win' style, but I'm really struggling to see where the effort went to argue the point when it came down to a 50/50 vote and zero evidence was produced.

I think I'm guilty of introducing a straw-man myself towards the tail-end of the discussion (about charities), but by that point I was extremely concerned about the nature of DT, the way it appeared to be a Lazarus-sanctioned advert (one of the posts on the talk page is signed by a DT forum uber-mod or somesuch nonsense) and the fact that nothing had any cites at all. My skin was crawling.

Sorry to ask this of you, but could you cast an eye over the AFD and give me your opinion of whether or not I'm right to think it isn't a satisfactory result? I have tried to just get on with it and look at it as another article to fix, but exactly the same concerns arise as when I first stumbled across the AFD. If you're busy then tell me to pee-off and I'll look at the admin-consultation AFD-naughty thing (yet another thing to get my head around). Cheers. QuagmireDog 12:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like you have a difference of opinion about the close. I'd try DRV, but it seems like the best bet would be to wait a few months then try again, with a nom that hammers home that nothing here is verifiable. If you don't bring up any points but verifiability (or hammer home WP:V then bring up aggravating factors) you're probably better off. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serebii.net and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serebii.net (2nd nomination). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, and for the comparison (good point well made). I needed an opinion before starting to waste peoples' time with the DRV process etc., if it isn't clear-cut then I'm satisfied and will keep an eye on the article instead. QuagmireDog 21:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Help

This User: Interrobamf is continuing vandalizing the Hikari page by removing the Image:PokeDP02.jpg. This image has Pochama (Hikari's first pokemon) in it, which it has some siginifcence in the article. I asked him to stop. He editted the page four times already [1]. Bobabobabo (19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

That's not vandalism; it's an unnecessary fair-use image. We already have images at Pochama and Pikachu (both of which are linked) to see what those Pokémon look like, and we only need one image of Hikari to know what she looks like. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A Japanese poster of a movie is not a pointless image (Bobabobabo 20:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

It's not necessary, as it's largely similar to the US DVD Cover. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So. It is a Poster, it should be on the image, the english one is a DVD cover (Bobabobabo 20:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

It's just not necessary. We don't need to largely-similar copyrighted images when one suffices. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User: Interrobamf is trolling around my Images that I uploaded (delete template) that will be added on the Inuyasha episode pages that I and Ladida where working on. I haven't had time. May you tell him to stop. (Bobabobabo 20:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

Then remove the orphan tags when you actually put the images in articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Bobabobabo/works has fair use images again. Interrobamf 12:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Clearly not a screenshot...

I can't exactly reply on that imnage page...

Anyways a quick google image search shows it's not on that, but it is definitely a promotional image for the game. It may have been taken using a digital camera on an instruction booklet or magazine, which could explain the "screenshot" titling... Logical2u 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously it's a scan of something. It'd be nice to know of what. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Saiou page

Does this image 230px and this image thumb|Sartorius freed from the Light of Ruin|150px does Saiou look the same are their difference? I'm asking this because User: Interrobamf is removing this image claiming its similarities. Are you a Yu-Gi-Oh fan? I am and I can see the difference (Bobabobabo 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

Nearly identical, and while I'm not a Yu-Gi-Oh fan, I've seen the episode. You don't need two images for a change of expression. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

HeartattaCk

Awesome, awesome work. Your edits have allowed for expansion of the topic, and I think that's in the spirit of Wikipedia. My heartfelt thanks, especially in the light of our most recent, difficult communications. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind, I'm ready to delete that speedily if the claims aren't referenced. It's very easy to make unsubstantiated claims, and some of them sound a tad dubious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A Small Question

Now I admit you and I have had our disagreements in the past, and in recent hours too. My personal feelings aside, there's a thought in the back of my mind that I'd like to bring to your attention. You have said on several occasions you don't watch Yugioh. Do you feel, despite this, that you can make reliable edits to Yugioh related pages with little to no knowledge of the topics? In my own personal opinion, if you don't have at least an average knowledge of the page's topics, your edits will have questionable integrity. Drake

I'm not a Yu-Gi-Oh fan, but I'm familiar with the CCG in passing (and have been playing CCGs since before the term "CCG" was coined) and have consumed enough of the anime to recognize all major and many minor characters, although moreso the original (yeah, technically second, whatever) anime than GX. Plus, everything I've been doing with Yu-Gi-Oh articles is style stuff; too many images, lists of trivia, other junk.

To use the case of the Sartorius images, I don't have to have seen the episodes (although I have) to tell you that you have two images that are supposedly illustrating a difference that don't illustrate any difference. Forget everything you know about Yu-Gi-Oh, go back to the old versions of that article, and look at those two images. They didn't show any difference but a difference of expression. There may have been a difference in the episode, but the images chosen failed to convey it.

Lastly, if these articles require that someone be more steeped in Yu-Gi-Oh fandom than I am (and I am far outside the average, despite my lack of great love for the franchise) to understand them, they are bad articles. Wikipedia's target audience is a lay audience, and our goal is to provide encyclopedic overview and context, not make orantely detailed fanpages about every single object, card, person, place, event, and thing in fictional worlds. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Age

What is your age?? (Bobabobabo 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

Old as my tongue, slightly older than my teeth. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL!! What do you think I am a BAKA? (Bobabobabo 22:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

I don't use select words from Japanese; I think it's an annoying habit, and I don't speak Japanese anyway. I have been known to use select words from German, but not so much as my fluency in German is long-decayed from disuse. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well! Since you seem to be interested in this user's dark (read:black) secrets, allow me to point you to [this biographical information. I'm certain you'll treasure it dearly. ^_^ Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahahahaha I forgot all about that. I left that on my user page for a month, as I recall. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon Fan?

Are you a Pokemon fan? If you are you would be aware of the Pokemon Sunday and Pokemon Hoso. Should we include the live action episodes of Pokemon? Pokemon Research (Pokemon Sunday) and Pokemon Rating (Pokemon Hoso) episodes?

Examples: 週刊ポケモン放送局

• ポケモン珍プレー 「痛い～！」／▼ランキング 「スポーツ選手として才能をはっきしそうなポケモンたち」／▼ロケット団・豪華衣装スペシャル／▼リクエスト「カスミ＆トゲピー特集」／▼ 「ポケモンｄｅイングリッシュ」他

ポケモン☆サンデー

• ポケモンリサーチ！（１） 「本当の“中華まん”を知りたい！」 (Bobabobabo 22:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

Peripherally aware. I don't know enough about them to comment, and I can't read Japanese script. I'd ask over at WP:PCP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You never heard of Pokemon Sunday? http://www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/anime/pokemon_sunday/ I was talking about adding the episode titles of Pokemon Sunday (Bobabobabo 22:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

Yeah. I've heard of Pokémon Sunday, but I don't know enough about it to make a comment. I'd ask at WP:PCP, since there are several fans who are a bit more savvy on that sort of thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Perry Satullo

What is your problem? If you read the rules, you will see that fair use pics are OK until they can be replaced by free pics. Please stop vandalizing the page. TJ Spyke 22:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUC #1 is clear; don't use fair-use images for subject which can be illustrated with a free image. Go to a wrestling event and photograph the wrestler, or ask a fan club or the promoter for a free image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a TNA promo pic, and TNA allows for their pictures to be used freely on Wikipedia. Either that is acceptable or you are abusing your powers. TJ Spyke 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

They give Wikipedia permission, or they have released their images in such a way that it allows free reuse and modification with no demands more onerous than attributing the images to them? The former is insufficient, the latter is sufficient. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

They didn't say. They were asked if their pictures could be used on Wikipedia and the webmaster said yes. TJ Spyke 00:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ask them to release them under the GFDL or a compatible Creative Commons license (CC-Attribution or CC-Sharealike) and then it's okay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, anything under WP:ICT#Free licenses will be good. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Powerpuff Movie edit

I'm trying to gain a better understanding of fair use rational. To further that effort, can you expand on your reason for this[2] edit? CovenantD 01:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Those two images are nearly identical. There's almost never any need to have two nearly-identical fair-use images, per WP:FUC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused. You mean on Wikipedia in general? There was only one image in the article either way, and I'm honestly not seeing why a DVD cover is preferable to the movie poster, which is what caught my attention. It's a back and forth see-saw I've seen on some other articles and I figured that if anybody could give me a rational answer it might be you. CovenantD 01:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The DVD cover was moved down the article, so we ended up with two images. As for the DVD cover vs. the movie poster, it doesn't matter. Either is good, as long as we don't end up with both. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I missed that. Anyway you clarified the issue for me. Thanks for the info. CovenantD 01:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

KRIV-TV

Although I do not like 207.218.218.50's vandalism on the talk page, I do think the logo gallery for KRIV-TV should stay there. First, those images do have a purpose. They show the history of KRIV-TV. Second, every other major TV station has them. Just check some and you're bound to find some. As for the source info, they are obviously screenshots of a TV, probably taken with a computer hooked up to a VHS. Does the exact source really matter? I don't think so. -Some Person 03:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If other articles have them, then those need to be removed as well. It's perfectly possible to describe the history of KRIV with prose instead of cosmetic differences among logos that aren't even mentioned in the article. Those images flunk WP:FUC #3 and #8 miserably. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're the only admin doing anything about this stuff. I could probably list 50 articles about TV stations with logo galleries if I wanted to. Clearly the other admin's aren't interested. -Some Person 03:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's terribly unrewarding work, and usually I prefer to do more constructive work. It's still necessary to remove such images, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone prefers constructive work to unrewarding work. And I see no reason to remove that gallery. Sure, the uploaders didn't provide the exact place they got it from, but what's the difference? They did say that they were screenshots, which tells that they either took a picture or plugged their PC into a VHS. Does it matter which way they got the image? -Some Person 03:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. It's not that they're unsourced; it's that they're fair-use images that aren't needed for identification and aren't the subject of critical commentary. Any fair-use images like that don't belong in this free encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

They illustrate the changes in the station history. -Some Person 03:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they illustrate the changes in the logo, which is such a minor aspect of the channel it isn't even mentioned once in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but look at the other articles with logo galleries. I even had help from another admin (can't remember the name) in Wikipedia's IRC on putting a logo in another TV station's gallery. -Some Person 03:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rules have only recently been stringently enforced, largely due to some relevant comments made by the Wikimedia Board. Nonetheless, they do need to be strictly enforced, and such galleries are not acceptable in any article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but will you alone (you're the only one doing this crap) be able to remove it from 100s of TV stations with logo galleries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Some Person (talk • contribs)

I guess I'd better get started, then. I'll get ed g2s (talk · contribs)'s help. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't do it. It's not worth the trouble. And I personally like the image galleries. I don't see why you should smash them to pieces. It was the reason I joined Wikipedia in the first place. -Some Person 04:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's very much worth the trouble; it's just a lot of trouble, because people hate to see their pretty pictures disappear. If you really want these galleries, you need to get the copyright owners to release them under a free license. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

On this issue as a whole

Don't you think you should have alerted the Wikipedia television community of your intentions to remove the logo galleries from these articles, and see what the general feeling was among us BEFORE you went ahead and started removing them? Rollosmokes 22:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of that Wikiproject. I'll bring it up there, but the galleries need to stay gone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with you. These galleries represent an addendum to the history of the station, in terms of their on-air branding, ownership, network affiliation, etc. Of course, no image is allowed here without citing its source and identifying it as a logo of a television station, so I don't see the violation here. I'm for keeping them. Rollosmokes 22:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a vote. There's no commentary on these images, and indeed no possible commentary due to the lack of reliable sources. Now, if a historic logo is so iconic that there is the possibility of sourced commentary (the peacock for...shit, was it ABC? I forget) then yes, we should have an image, but galleries illustrating no prose need to go immediately. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

For you to unilaterally decide the fate of work that several of us (myself included) spent hours creating, correcting, and enhancing, is completely unfair to me, guidelines or not. I believe it should be discussed before action is taken. BTW, the peacock belongs to NBC. Rollosmokes 22:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is unfair. Frankly, it sucks. However, it's unavoidable; enforcement of the fair-use rules has long been lax, but word has come down from Jimbo and the board: the rules need to be enforced or even less pleasant alternatives may become necessary.

I'm happy to explain why these galleries need to go, and what options are open to you in lieu of them. Unfortunately, they need to be removed on sight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read WP:FUC, and I'll reiterate my original stance: I DISAGREE with the your opinion on this matter. I believe the images in the galleries completely fall under the guideline set in point no. 8, as they DO CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY to the main theme of the article(s) and do not exist for purely decorative purposes. Areas that can be considered shaky ground would be found in points 1 and 3, though as long as we continue to properly credit sources and keep redundancy to a minimum (i.e. the same logo appearing more than a few times with just background changes, etc.), that should be acceptable.

We should be able to keep the galleries, and you should not be (what appears to be) imposing your will -- a way of possibly abusing your administrative powers -- upon us without FIRST giving us an opportunity to speak our opinion. Rollosmokes 08:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied at WP:TVS. I think centralizing this discussion would be best. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop breaking 3R

I can only assume that your intentions are ment well but like I have stated all over wikipedia these images are allowed under Fair use. They have been stated as such many times and you still keep on reverting back to a page that for one thing has an incorrect image added to it that I keep on having to remove. One can use images of items not currently avalable and of images that are not found publicly or easily. There is a place that one should go to help wikipedia to upload free images and that is {{Template:Fair use replace}}. Please also undelete the images mantioned earlier in the past conversation I want to be on the phone with the Bose rep and show them the images I am requesting for use. I have come back only 1 day to wikipedia I left a few months ago because of people bashing this particular page because they dont like Bose. Please dont Harass this page because this is the only reason I contribute to wikipedia. -- UKPhoenix79 05:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You've been saying that they're allowed. They're not. Many users have patiently explained this to you. If you reinsert one of these non-fair images again, you will be blocked. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the pictures of people dancing while wearing headphones, we wouldn't need those blatantly promotional images even if they were free. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

They are allowed please re-read the Fair use page. one can use it if there is "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." there is no "unfree material [that] can be transformed into free material" one cannot "redrawn [photographs] from original sources" and it is not avalable in the public domain for "a free photograph could be taken." these are listed as the rationals for fair use and since these images do apply for fair use then until a subsitute can be found they can be used. Everyone would prefere free images but when that is not the case you can use Fair use images in their sted.

Please stop reverting the pages you have already gone beyond 3R's and you have not been listing to anything I have said. Please work this out on the talk pages and not on the articles them selves. the images that you deleted are not speedy delete candidates so please undelete no matter what you think about them if you want to go by the letter of policy inside wikipedia then please respect them and dont cut corners.

Please talk dont constantly revert you are missing the forrest for the trees with these constant reverts.-- UKPhoenix79 05:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That is only even questionably true about unreleased models. Those unreleased models will shortly be released, at which point we can take free images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

FU still applies not only to images not avalable but to items not found to the general public I quote No free equivalent is available or could be created this allows these items to be used. All other fair use items currently found publicly have been removed. Thanks for not reverting the page back this time and actually talking. I always try to avoid giving people time outs :) -- UKPhoenix79 06:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

All of these images exist in the public; for the military ones PD-US-gov images can be found, for the released headphones the headphones can be found and photographed, for the unreleased ones we can wait until they're released. Unless a model is so rare that we cannot reasonably find a model to take a fair-use images (and bear in mind that that's an extraordinary claim to be making) THIS ARTICLE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY FAIR-USE IMAGES. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok why did you block me? If you check my history I have never been blocked and I have never done anything that would give me reason to be blocked. From my point of view you were reverting the page non stop breaking the 3R rule twice over and I did not block you when you did that. I was actually trying to talk to you to understand why you were doing this and all you said was there was no rational to use them. Since I constantly gave real and legit rationals for their inclusions your reverting without talking should have gotten you blocked. If you would have said that any disputed image(s) can't be shown that would have ended the conversation. Only brenneman said it and only after you blocked me. I always edit and communicate with others assuming good faith why did you not do the same with me? As for the Anon editor I did not tell him to revert the page so please dont blame me for others doings. Like I said I always assume good faith so I will assume that this was a misunderstanding and hopefully you will correct this error. -- UKPhoenix79

I blocked you because you got three different warnings to stop reinserting those fair-use images and you went ahead and did it anyway. I don't believe I was in error. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As I also gave you many warnings only to be ignored completely without any just reason given. The Anon user was not me but a friend that I told about this convo. I did not tell him to edit the page but he did it anyway since he also could not understand why you were ignoring everythng I said and aparently thought that I could use some backup on this. I was actually only given one warning while you were given several including the topic of this conversation Please stop breaking 3R. You were blindly reverting ignoring everything said even when I told you many times that there was an incorrect image included with your reverts you kept on reverting back to the wrong version. That only showed me that I was trying to communicate with someone that would not listen. I did EVERYTHING to get your attention and I even tried to talk camly to you. All you have to do is look at the history of the page and you will see what I am referring to. If I would have followed protocol I would have blocked you much sooner. But like I said I always try to work things out without resorting to such things. If you want to go on protocol then also undelete the images you speedily deleted since they were not candidates for such an action and no matter what you believe or your stance on their worth they have to go throught the same protocols as any other image does uploaded before May 4th 2006. I want to show Bose the complete page without any missing images as to get permission for their use. p.s. As you can still see I still have access to wikipedia and I can still edit here. but I have not reverted the pages back. If I was trying something sneeky wouldn't I be reverting the page back non stop with ip accounts or sock puppets like you seam to think I did? Just look at my record and you'll see thats not the kind of user I am. Please fix this misunderstanding before the 24hours are up. thanks. -- UKPhoenix79

Show Bose an old version of the page. Do not under any circumstances replace fair-use images on that page until you've managed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of users other than yourself that a reasonable fair-use rationale can be written. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please undelete those images you speedily undeleted since they are Still not valid candidates for such an action. I have got in contact with Bose and I have already sent them a link to the page before all the edits and those images are showen in that page. It seams that nothing I say will ever work since like I said some items are not in the public hands. If you look around you'll still see the Image:Shuffle101.jpg being used without ANYONE including yourself battering an eye on the subject and hundreds of other Fair use images that could be replaced that have been listed as such since earlier this year. Look at all the other products including cell phones Heck the Archos products that have been listed as such since June of this year as they should. Is there a reason that the Bose products are considered so different that they must be removed immediatly? The Fair Use rational for most of the products is a valid one even without Bose's blessing. But asside from all that your not going to apologize for incorrectly blocking me are you? Just please undelete the images you incorrectly speedily deleted. -- UKPhoenix79 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have my hands full dealing with other things, and I have no intention to undelete fair-use images that could not possibly be used for anything but decoration. If you're unhappy with some other fair-use images, feel free to remove them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So no apology then... Your missing the point I think that they have as much right as the Bose images do and Fair use is valid for all of them. Your showing discrimination between items of the same merrit for your opinions to hold any water either they all belong or none do. Also the matter of the speedy undelete it does not matter on your opinion since they did not go throught the proper channels to be deleted so please undelete. -- UKPhoenix79 23:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You reverted copyvio content into an article TEN TIMES over the course of a day and a half. No, I don't apologize for blocking you for that. I'm showing discrimination based only on the articles in front of me, and yes, that iPod Shuffle image should probably go, but I'm dealing with other stuff right now. I'll get it when I get it if nobody else gets it.

As for the channels, those decorative fair-use images were going to get deleted. Better to clean up unnecessary fair-use sooner than later. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Umh thats an essay not an official policy. Please undelete images. Like I said I am seaking aproval too use these images directly from Bose as such I want to show them a correct page without missing images. And like I pointed out earlier you did block me atributing my actions to another user and I was trying to talk to you each time to get your attention with no real response other than there are not Fair Use. I felt like you were breaking 3R but I still did not block you I wanted to get your attention to talk and figure out how to work this out. So would you at least apolagise for blocking me for the wrong reason saying an anon found their way directly to that page and reverted it to your version using your argument. I think I'm insulted. believeing that anon user to be me. -- UKPhoenix79 23:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Show them an older version from the history. We wouldn't be using the dancing people images for anything anyway.

And, no, I'm not going to apologize for blocking you when you reverted nine times to readd copyvio images over objections on four different pages from three different users. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The other users had agreed that some of the images were rare enough to be used and it was agreed to use those images. You came and without replying to anything said even when errors in your reverting including an image of the wrong product were pointed out. You blindly reverted 6 times. Each time I tried to get a response other than copyvio content. They are not copyvio simply because you say they are! Images of Military headsets and items not avalable are allowed Category:Fair use image replacement request is there for images that are Fair Use to be used until a replacement image can be found. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If you check [3] page you'll see that it only has images of items not found in the public. There is no reason that this one cannot be used since they fall under Fair use rationals! The images should be tagged with {{fairusereplace}} so anyone with a free version of those images can upload them. Like I have pointed out there are images there that have not been touched since early this year.

So your still not going to apologize for blocking me mistakenly implying that I either got someone else to do my dirty work or that I logged out to do it myself? I feel that in the least I diserve that. I do not like people besmerching my name and feel like an apology is owed. My record proves that those are not tatics I use here! I have been a very honest user and stand up for things I believe in but I do not use chicanery to get my way. -- UKPhoenix79 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm not. Nine reverts to replace copyvio content are not appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And the false implications? Are you that stubborn you cannot admit when you are wrong and take responsability for that? -- UKPhoenix79 04:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mega Man (tool-assisted speedrun) afd

Please do not convey misinformation in a proposal for deletion. It's fine that you made the deletion proposal, but it's a blatant lie that the only sources are "the author's site and a speed-run archive he submitted it to". First off, "the author's site" is the largest and most notable tool-assisted speedrun site. It was submitted for inclusion via the normal means and was accepted with 69 yes votes to 2 no/indifference votes. Secondly, the author himself did not submit it to that "speedrun site" (which is really the Internet Archive); this was done by a member of the community, independently. I find it terrible that you are able to list something for deletion without even knowing the most basic of information about it. You also listed Image:Megaman1610 fireman.ogg for deletion before; you didn't even bother to download the file before doing so. Do not propose deletions without first getting your facts straight. This is related to your activities on Wikipedia as a whole, not just to my article which you listed for deletion. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 18:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I misread the links. Apparently the only links are the speedrun archive he sent it to, which has hundreds of speedruns in various categories. You're quibbling about a trivial point, while missing the main one; this speedrun article has no claims of notability; in fact, it says very little at all about the speedrun in question. It was sent to AFD where it was kept based on the promise that it would be expanded, and it's three months later and it's not expanded. If we're going to quibble about untruths, what happened to your promise to actually add some claims of notability to that article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that I stopped writing the article right after you proposed its first AfD. The article would have been much bigger, had that not happened. I didn't feel like continuing for along time due to the possibility of my work being deleted later on. In any case, it seems that the article is going to be deleted anyhow, because no matter how notable it is inside of the tool-assisted speedrunning scene, and no matter how great an example of the phenomenon it is, there don't seem to be any notability sources that will adhere to your criteria. Still, I'd much rather have a correct article that has something worthwhile to add, as context of the tool-assisted speedrun article, than some of the garbage that is currently on Wikipedia such as Mega Man weapons (apparently "Zidanet_129" is a reliable source?) A friend of mine who edited Wikipedia quit because all her articles are now like that. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 05:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Requiring an opinion

Since nobody else cares about pointless articles about characters in an obscure cartoon film, I have to ask for your opinion in Talk:Madame Medusa. Specifically, [4]. I have kept requsting for sources, but to no avail, and the user is under the impression that Wikipedia policy is on his side, that it's perfectly okay to list "possiblities". Mostly, I'm just tired of fighting a one-man war on this article. Interrobamf 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon Sunday

I have started the first 52 episodes of THe Pokemon Sunday. I hope you think its professional. Also how do be apart of the Pokémon Collaborative Project, because I want to be apart of that. Bobabobabo (00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_episodes#Pok.C3.A9mon_Sunday

I added one image(s) on the List of Pokémon episodes (season 1) and List of Pokémon: Advanced episodes the images are

• Image:Panima series01 logo.gif
• Image:PokemonAGlogo.gif

Is it O.K? Bobabobabo (14:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC))

Ideally, I'd like the English-localized title logos, but that's fine for now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

May we have both?? Because the English one is already on the main Pokémon page...

Also was it good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_episodes#Pok.C3.A9mon_Sunday??? Bobabobabo (20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)~)

The list looks fine. As for the images, we'll deal with that when the time comes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mega Man weapons

Decided to {{prod}} this, any objections? Combination 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. I dunno about this. On one hand, it is not and likely can't ever become encyclopedic, given the lack of relevant sources and exceedingly crufty subject. On the other hand, it's massive merge target and linked everywhere. I won't deprod, but I'm still too undecided to {{prod2}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

List of characters in the Star Fox series

Why do you keep deleting my entry on General Pepper being linked to Sgt Pepper?? I think it's a valid entry, considering there are pop culture links to other characters, like Independence Day. - Richiekim

Because it's completely unsourced and rather inane. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Logo Galleries

Might I ask what are you doing??? --WIKISCRIPPS 07 THU OCT 12 2006 10:08 PM EDT

Removing galleries of fair-use images that do not significantly contribute to the article and are not significant subjects of commentary in the article, per WP:FUC (#3 and #8 in particular). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense!!! We always had logo galleries in article with no problem!!! Other editors will tell you a similar opinion!!! --WIKISCRIPPS 07 THU OCT 12 2006 10:16 PM EDT

It's always been a problem. It's just that enforcing the rules is an unpleasant job that gets you yelled at, so nobody wants to do the dirty work. These galleries need to go, unfortunately. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

After Burner: Black Falcon

What's your problem with the article?
I think the way it's put it's pretty neutral, but I said you could reword if you don't like it.
Removing the entire piece of information is, sorry to say, bogus. JackSparrow Ninja 02:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not information, it's ad copy, and it's clearly copied and pasted from somewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What is ad copy? It comes from the official website, which was added as reference, and the text added to make it neutral. How is information on the number and sorts of airplanes ad copy? Don't be rediculous please. JackSparrow Ninja 02:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the whole mess as an advertisement. Encyclopedia articles do not use language such as "With an emphasis on speed and firepower, you will haul ass over deserts, mountain ranges, forests, and blast into high-altitude combat in a number of high-speed missions. Then invite your friends into co-op games to help you get better scores and earn more cash. Then buy engine and weapon upgrades, and customize your paint job to create your own personalized jet fighter." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I have said, reword it if you don't like it. This is blatant vandalism from your side. Please get your act together and don't go abusing your power please. JackSparrow Ninja 02:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles which are blatant ads should be deleted on sight; this was recently added to the criteria for speedy deletion. That was a blatant ad. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are turning away from the point. It was information, which if in your eyes it was an ad, could be reworded. Which I suggested. Please explain to me why you don't want to reply on you ignoring the request to reword it if you had a problem with it. JackSparrow Ninja 02:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to reword it because I'm not in the mood to help a blatant ad squeak by. Feel free to reword it yourself if you want the article on Wikipedia, but please don't replace content that doesn't even bother to pay lip service to Wikipedia's purpose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Futurama

Excuse me, but can you explain why you removed my edits? There seems to be no reason why. Chieftain Rosewater 03:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of them were wrong. Anchovies are extinct not sardines, you added some first-person pronouns (which you shouldn't do in an encyclopedia), and the Ron Popeil thing is a one-off joke in one single episode. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I disagree on the Ron Popeil part(it explains the heads), but otherwise, i'll change the rest back. I don't recall any first person pronouns though. Chieftain Rosewater 03:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Many problems that exist in our world are heavily parodied in the futuristic world of the show." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Zelda64DD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zelda64DD

Look at this user page is it appropriate??? Bobabobabo (03:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

Not at all. I've dealt with it; it's a sock reposting a copyvio image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Bobabobabo (03:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)~)

Note the user editted the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zelda64DD Bobabobabo (03:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)~)

Thank you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome...http://pokeani.com/cbbs/icon/i_pikacyuu_pikadaruma.gif

Heehee. That's cute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Becoming Tired

I am really starting to tire of those merger proposals. And I personally reckon there are many others. Exiledone 10:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To what are you referring? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Those merger proposals on Deus Ex. I know some of the articles are small but they do not merit what you are proposing Exiledone 10:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We have seventeen articles on one single game, all of those articles describing nothing more than snippets of plot from that game. Why do we need an article for every single fictional person, place, or thing? That rapidly becomes unworkable, especially when we can cover the plot of the game in one, central, useful place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on merging the Grey death and Ambrosia articles but not UNATCO and VersaLife. Exiledone 10:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there some content from the UNATCO or Versalife articles that isn't sourced to direct observation of the game itself? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Exiledone 10:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, WP:NOT and WP:FICT and WP:WAF all make it clear: plot summary material - material that is nothing more than describing the world or story or setting of a fictional work - is only appropriate when lending context to material about the real world, like critical reception of a work, controversy, the development process, stuff like that. Fictional "facts" that are nothing more than story details are empty calories. If an article is nothing but those empty calories, I try to merge it somewhere where there will be real-world content, so it can lend context to that real-world content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough AMIB, stop with these fiction purges, RIGHT NOW! Wikipedia is already taking damage from a flamer in another article -Dynamo_ace Talk

There's no "fiction purge". I'm trying to merge down redundant articles, as I have always done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dane Cook article

Could you please not revert the edits about material plagiarism or at least participate in the discussion about that section?--Trypsin 12:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's unsourced accuations about a living person. That violates WP:BLP blatantly. Get a reliable source and don't post it until you do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nixon image

You can't have a fair use image on your talk/user page.

It's public domain, thanks to the US gov't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My Userpage

Why are users vandalizing my user page?? Bobabobabo (16:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

No clue. It's being reverted, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Other sockpuppet

User:Bobabobabuckboba. Is there no way to simply block the IP address? Interrobamf 17:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

If having to delete that same image over and over again seems bothersome, why not salt it with {{deletedpage}}? 17:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't work with images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What's happening? What is this same image thats keep getting deleted?? What does it look like??? Bobabobabo (17:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

Bobabobabo and fair use images... again.

[5] Block the girl, already, as it's evident that she doesn't care for rules. Interrobamf 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

TV Station Articles

Hi AMIB,

First off, thanks for your recent efforts in trying to maintain Wikipedia's policies on the use of Fair Use images. No one ever wants to be the bearer of bad news, so thanks for assuming a difficult position. However, you recently also made this edit on Wikipedia's article on The CW. Removing large amounts of material from TV station articles when you're also removing tons of images will only warrant a poor reaction from the WikiProject TV Station editors. I have reverted this edit for now, because each of the major TV networks contains current national scheduling information, and in fact there are also entire articles devoted to historic TV schedules (1946 to present) which certainly have some historic precedent, which is why they have been retained on Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me for discussion of this issue, or you can of course leave a note on the talk page of the article or on WT:TVS. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood what it was, and didn't realize it was current practice. I've made a practice of WP:BRD, and in this case I learned from edit summaries that I was wrong. No big deal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your understanding. Happy editing! Firsfron of Ronchester 21:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Please note, I just delisted an entry for you on WP:AIV by User:Dynamo_ace, and left a note on their talk page. You may want to follow up personally. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I think the issue is resolving itself, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)