User talk:A Man In Black/Archive16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


You have a great eye for detecting what is necessary and what isn't (aka cruft), so I was wondering if you could review the Speedrun article. It's at a staggering 77KB and I know it could be trimmed down a lot. Hbdragon88 19:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaur FAR/Discussion[edit]

Well, it seems as though there's more approval of having a mere discussion topic on Talk:Bulbasaur in regards to your recent comments on WP:PCP than actually bringing Bulbasaur to a second FAR. I suggest, then, you bring the topic to Bulbasaur's talk page and have brainstorming sessions and discussions with everyone else on how to improve the Pokemon FAs and GAs. It may be overkill to put Bulbasaur through FAR right away. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 03:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, WT:PCP might be the best place to do this. I dunno, I need to better articulate my gut problems. I think it may be put off temporarily; I just got another job, and Wiki stuff always comes after real-world stuff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to wish you luck with the new job. That's a definite reason for a wikibreak. — TKD::Talk 04:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

i'm gonna bother you[edit]

no not really, at least i hope not :D neways, i was wondering if you'd weigh in on my proposal at WT:PCP#Species uniformity, while i have a sinking feeling typical of my dealings with you, i would like some more input, and the subject has stagnated. I'm sure by now u've realized i like people to be as comprehensive as possible in their opinions - particularly if they're going to disagree with me ;) and i suppose the questions i'd really like you to answer are how easy is it to implement? do you feel it makes useful improvements to the page? why/why not? what is the potential for negative server effects intrinsic to templates? are the {{PokePage}} instructions comprehensive? what should be the balance between less-pretty editing and coming closer to a real encyclopedia? what is the real potential for vandalism? is it any greater than other templates? i know you prolly will, but please look at the Eevee evolutions and their histories for a sample of how this may work. i (mostly) copied this from my request at Raven's Apprentice's talk page, but he's said he wants to see your reaction first (sighs). i'm only bothering you with this because it seems you're back... if the realworld is still preoccupying you, a friendly note on my talk page that u don't have the time is all i ask. thnx! -Zappernapper 06:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will ponder this and reply after some thought. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

i'm responding here b/c the PCP talk page has become very lengthy and i'd like to discuss one on one your concerns. I know i stated that i'm done with this, but i really feel it would be good for the encyclopedia as a whole. We agree on boilerplate prose (will remove it from {{PokePage}}), we agree on serverloads. You seem take issue with using small amounts of text in articles for consistency and professionalism. What are your thoughts, I wonder, about the widespread common use of {{main}}, {{details}}, {{seealso}}, and others, like those found on DAB pages and such? I've been accused of going against a norm, but in fact I'm expanding on a practice already encouraged in other areas. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

List of MegaMan Battle Network viruses[edit]

Hey MB, I was wondering if you could please check out the List of MegaMan Battle Network viruses and see whether or not it's applicable for deletion in your eyes, and if it is, to delete it. I once put a proposed deletion notice on it for various reasons, but the creator of the article removed it for (legitimate) reasons, however, I really don't see how this page can get better if it continues down the road it's been going. The page is almost nothing but a bunch of headings, and where there is information, it isn't encyclopaedic (it's like a game guide), and there are users around who constantly add more headings, but no information (and even one in particular who continuously adds headings which are inapplicable to the prescribed title; ie. things that aren't viruses or things that are already listed on another page, and a heading for a completely different series). Thanks a lot. --Benten 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yowza. I sent that nonsense to AFD. That's not worth saving even if it were complete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again MB. Got a little problem with two other pages that needs to be dealt with. Both involve moving articles. In regards to Mega Man Battle Network (video game) and Mega Man Network Transmission, both need to be moved so that their titles follow the format of all the Battle Network pages on Wikipedia ("MegaMan" as one word, as opposed to "Mega Man"). For the former, I had originally already moved it, but another user has since moved it back. I've tried moving the pages (the first one for the second time), but I keep getting an error message that says that pages by those titles already exist (I suspect some sort of redirect problem). Could you please move the pages to the proper titles? As they currently stand, they're causing lots of unnecessary link redirects throughout the Battle Network pages, which could otherwise be avoided if these two pages are in-line with the rest of the titles on Wikipedia. Thanks a lot. --Benten 02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved. Turns out MMNT was a cut and paste move from way back, so I did a history merge, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
MB, upon looking at the edit history of the user who moved the page, it turns out that he/she has moved all the other Battle Network pages as well (See: I think something needs to be done about this to prevent it from happening again; the user's causing a lot of redirect problems by doing this. I'll leave it up to you to move the other pages back to their proper places, as I'm in a hurry right now. --Benten 02:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit: It turns out the user was changing the other template specifically for the MegaMan Battle Network series. In any case, I've reverted it to its earlier version, but if you could get this user to stop moving things that would be great. --Benten 03:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit 2: Yeah, I just went over to the Mega Man Battle Network series page to revert the edits of the user who's been doing this sort of thing, and I am again unable to move the page back to its original place. Because of the template move, there are also redirects where the templates should be on all the pages... --Benten 03:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Augh. I'd suggest you take this up with him. I'll clean up the mess once the discussion leads to a consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've left a message with him (and opened up a heading just for purposes of resolving this issue on my talk page). But if initial discussions do not turn out well, would you please drop by my talk page as well to enter into the discussion too (I could really use your help if worst comes to worst)? Thanks. --Benten 03:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmkay, but do bear in mind that I don't have a strong opinion, due to the fact that I'm not sure that one or the other is actually right. I'm sittting out because I'm waiting to see the arguments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay then. I wouldn't mind so much if the moves/changes were causing so many formatting/redirect problems, but since they are, it's a real problem; we do have to take into account the fact that we're not only dealing with the game pages here (there are individual character pages, etc. as well, so there are massive repercussions). I do also believe there has to be a certain consistency among all the articles, given that it seems very awkward given that both the anime/manga spell it as "MegaMan" (which would look very strange side by side with game pages as "Mega Man"). In the end, if we do settle on "MegaMan", I also think we need to rename the "Mega Man Battle Network characters" category as "MegaMan Battle Network characters" to correspond to the "MegaMan Battle Network" category (currently the former is the only Battle Network category that is not consistent, but I've never been able to change it since I'm not familiar with the process to rename a category) --Benten 03:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We've reached a quick consensus. The titles will be spelt as "Mega Man" for the game titles, but the anime pages (NT Warrior and its corresponding media and release pg) will remain the same. Since I still cannot move the pages due to that error, I'll leave it up to you to put the pages into their proper spots (if they're not already), while I start going through the individual character pages to fix up the wordings and links. --Benten 22:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Okay, here's how it stands. I've went through the individual character articles/anime page/character list and fixed all references to the game. I successfully moved both the character list and the first game to the new titles, but the rest of the games that are still spelt as one word I got the same error as before. I also edited both the Mega Man game template and the Battle Network template to reflect the changes, but the individual templates on all the game pages may be redirect links now, and need to be replaced. --Benten 23:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit 2: Oh, the category "MegaMan Battle Network" also needs to be renamed "Mega Man Battle Network". (Is there a way we can do this without having to go through all the individual articles and changing the category after it's been renamed? Once it's been renamed, do all pages under the former title get noted under the new category title, or do we have to change the category name on each page manually afterwards? --Benten 23:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Give me a list of articles to move, and I'll get to it.
As for the cat, take it to WP:CFD. That should be uncontroversial, and they'll get it by bot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay: Battle Network 2-5, and Battle Chip Challenge need moving. --Benten 16:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got two hot articles for you:[edit]

Legendary pokemon and Base Stats
Effort value points

Neither of them are notable, but I wanted to get a second opinion. I don't regularly edit Pokemon articles, so I didn't know who else to notify about these. Sorry, but could you have a look? You Can't See Me! 05:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait, it appears that someone slapped a deletion tag on it after I posted the above message. Sorry for bothering you. You Can't See Me! 19:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Your name in lights: User talk:JzG#A Matter for Discussion. I am guessing we probably agree on the subject in question. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


new pokemon list?[edit]

should we add another article: List of Pokémon by Ranger No. ? source: Ragnaroknike 16:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

could you delete some pages for me?[edit]

i've added prod to Pay Day (Pokémon) and Thunderbolt Pokémon Attack mostly because they don't fall under SPEEDY. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm wondering that any page like this that pops up should be made to a redirect; that may be quicker and more practical. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Donate) 20:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

you mean we can't just bop these people over the head and hope that sense will dislodged? of fine... i don't care :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW... FUC images....[edit]

I know a happy little campaign was fought to remove fair-use images from the pokemon episode lists. I made one little comment and left it at that. However, even though I know you have your own opinions about how things should be done... i was wondering if you had actually ever read this? One of the image-wanters had provided it, and I thought it odd you never voiced a response. Now, admittedly I care less about this than whether we merge Weedle with Weavile or use boilerplate text for boilerplate information... but what about consensus? isn't that what wikipedia is about? If the consensus was to start allowing censorship then you would just have to suck it up. So why don't you on this? There are a lot of people who did a lot of work finding all those stupid little pictures, and to say they can't have them, when wikipedia says they can isn't very sensical. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a far-too-broad, far-too-vague version of a solution which is more-simply implemented in individual cases among the members of the related Wikiproject. Plus, enforcement of WP:FUC is never particularly popular; I don't need a poll to remind me of that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Broad? I don't know... it seems to be specifically referring to free-use images in lists. What other applications does it purport to affect? And since when are factions simpler for interpretation of global policies than consensus? Wikipedia is built upon consenus. And that was not a "poll" about the popularity of enforcing WP:FUC, it was just one of several discussions that presented both interpretations of #3's use of "adequately" and #8's use of "significantly". Rather than whether FUC is popular, it shows your interpretation of FUC is in the minority - therefore the people who agree with you need to seek to argue more effectively, rather than force your opinions through your edits. (I think this was the least verbose arguement I've ever made, go me!) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

All different sorts of lists, in all sorts of contexts. It was a debate that would affect hundreds of articles on Wikipedia. I'm not sure how a hopelessly broad no consensus discussion really abrogates a narrowly-constructed discussion at WP:PCP.
This is a rather pointless process discussion. How many images do you want, what images do you want, in what form, and why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I really have no goal. I'm only asking you to reflect upon your stance regarding FUC images, seeing as how your interpretation has affected several aticles within the PCP while the precedents would consider your interpretation erroneous. You said that their was no consensus at this this dicussion? Perhaps you were referring to the No consensus heading added to Amendment 2. In which case if you reviewed the arguments themselves you would see that a "No consensus" conclusion was premature at best, and glaringly inaccurate at worst. On the other hand, if you were saying the initial discussion i linked to you had no consensus, perhaps you missed the move to dismiss section. And there is no way I'll ever agre that the narrowly-constructed discussion at WP:PCP ever got the discussion it deserved. Five days is severely inadequate. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Read past the bolded oppose. There was a consensus: everyone pretty much agreed that proposal sucked. If you read past the opposes, there were a variety of different reasons to oppose, for lack of stridency, too much stridency, personal interest, and all sorts of other reasons. There was a consensus to reject, but not consensus on what to do other than that.
The only consensus I'm wielding like a club regarding lists of episodes is the Pokémon consensus, in the Pokémon episode list articles. If you want to overturn that, start by declaring what you want to change and why. (We might not even disagree!) Until then, nobody's said what status quo they want to change, so nothing useful can actually happen. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

i know there was a consensus, you're the one who said there wasn't:

"...a hopelessly broad no consensus discussion really abrogates a narrowly-constructed discussion..."

and the proposal that sucked was the one trying to remove image from epilists. And if you aren't the one who was going against it should i instead take this up with Ryulong? I came to you because it seemed you supported his decision (performing reverts for him that would have put him past 3RR). And i DID voice my opinion about the edit warring at Talk:List of Pokémon episodes (season 1), no one really responded. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"I'm not sure how a hopelessly broad no consensus discussion really abrogates a narrowly-constructed discussion at WP:PCP."
PROTIP: I don't think a hopelessly broad no consensus discussion abrogates a narrowly-constructed discussion at WP:PCP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to have an actual discussion with some give and take, but the only thing I've gotten is frustrated. I tell you that I challenged the status quo and ask you some questions and get this mockery in response? good day. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 01:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for getting overly annoyed at the selective quoting.
That said, I don't know what you want. I know what you don't want, although I'm not sure why. I don't have anything here to agree or disagree or discuss or anything. You've failed to communicate to me your desires or reasons. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to know why you seemingly went against a consensus that agreed epiguides could have pictures (or rather, the lack of consensus that WP:FUC could forbid them). And the quoting above wasn't an attempt to be selective. You said there was no consensus, i said there was, you then somehow disagreed saying there was consensus, i rebutted with an example saying you were the one saying there was no consensus - not me (the "I'm not sure how..." wasn't exactly relevant to the point i was making, that's what ellipses are for), you then apparently get annoyed with how i quoted you, i get annoyed thinking you're being condescending..... sigh.... ok starting over... read the first sentence of this paragraph again, and then also look at Talk:List of Pokémon episodes (season 1). if you agree and it's Ryulong who really wanted the images out of the lists then i only wonder why it seems you supported him b/c looking at the history it seemed you reverted an edit so he wouldn't have violated 3RR by removing the images over and over. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Where was it established that episode guides could have pictures?
I went against what you linked because it's not a consensus but just a lack of consensus for a proposal, I didn't know about it, and most importantly, that this is a series with hundreds upon hundreds of episodes but a consistent appearance episode to episode, and the important visual info is already in other image-laden articles.
Inherent in the fair-use policy is that all uses of fair-use content have to be justified individually. Where's the individual justification, or even the blanket justification? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

ok... ignorance i can understand :) i think the discussion on the original link i gave you clearly had a consensus to oppose the proposition (the two people to support it didn't even leave rationale). also there is a short sweet summary of the justification for using pictures in epiguides. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 07:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is why voting sucks.
Read past the bolded opposes. Half the people oppose because they want their images (no matter whether or not WP:FUC applies), half the people oppose because the proposal wouldn't have gone far enough to curb image abuse.
Lack of consensus for a proposal does not constitute endorsement of the opposite of that proposal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

i'm going to assume good faith in that the people opposing the proposal aren't doing so just becuase they want their images, but because they genuinely feel that the images in lists contribute significantly (which is what FUC is about), just like i'm assuming good faith that those who support the proposal think that removing the images is in the best interest of wikipedia, and not just power-hungry admins. Cburnett, Angr, Quadell, Y|yukichigai, and Jkelly are the 5 of the 14 who oppose the prop for "not written right" reasons. (Peregrinefisher agrees with both the "Oppose section" and Cburnett which is illogical) The rest cite the above opposal section (except H2P reasoned very poorly), and at least provide explanations, which is more than the two people in "Support" say. In your favor, the best vote would be 7-7, but this is a third discussion and it has consistently ended with people feeling that images in lists contribute significantly enough to the articles to pass WP:FUC. if you read the talk page at the epiguide i linked above you'd see that i have a stipulation, the scene must show something significant from the episode (for example The Totodile Dual should prolly show Ash and misty battling with the Lure Ball in the background - as opposed to just a pic of the Totodile, or Ash, Misty, and Brock fishing) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 08:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I see half those opposes saying, "Well, we should change WP:FUC because of ( my uninformed legal opinion | some reason that doesn't take into account the informed legal opinion behind it )." There's no reason that they shouldn't want their images; it's a good-faith desire to make this a better encyclopedia.
Okay, enough arguing in the abstract. I'm tired of policy writing.
What do you want and why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted your take on the discussion there becuase of our past diasgreements about FUC. I think the editors who really wanted images in the pokemon epiguides were done a gross injustice because those removing the images were going agianst wiki consensus, and the discussion at PCP only lasted five days with relatively few poeple weighing in on such a controversial decision. Like i said, I don't care if there are images there or not, but it doesn't seem like you and Ryulong had the right to remove the images since there were obvisously people who did care and their interpreatation of WP:FUC numers 3, 5, and 8 are in the clear majority. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 09:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My take is that dozens and dozens of images isn't going to be okay pretty much ever, given the tacit length limits on articles. (There's no way any article could have sufficient commentary on every image.) It would take some inspired and case-specific arguing to move me from that point. Whenever I get involved in any similar discussion, that's going to be my stance, but it's usually a big mess and I don't really like fiddling with episode lists unless they're utterly dire.
At this point, there is one clear consensus: WP:PCP pretty much as a whole doesn't feel that the Pokémon episode lists benefit substantially from having an image for each episode, or even images for exceptional episdoes (especially given the lack of a clear definition for exceptional). There's no other clear proposal that has gained consensus, and I haven't removed any images from any other episode lists. (I even helped the Yu-Gi-Oh guys get their images working, since I'm going to end up butting heads with them over more important issues.)
Other than that, picking apart the hows and whys and what got us to the current status quo doesn't do anything to benefit the encyclopedia. I don't want this to be dismissive of you, but I don't really want to spend my time working on this volunteer project further justifying status quos that nobody wants to change. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

no offense taken, sorry if this was bothersome for you, i was really more just curious. however, i think it wrong to say that PCP as a whole felt that way since only six ppl participated in the actual discussion. I looked through the archives and couldn't find the opinions of some of the more vocal mmbers like Brandon, Raven, or CP. Have a Happy New Year! -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 10:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not offended; I think we're just going in circles to realize we don't really disagree on anything important. Cel doesn't care, Raven doesn't do episode stuff, and Brandon was absent. If someone wants to revisit this, it's not a closed issue (no non-WP:OFFICE ruling really ever is), we can always do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas and Happy New year Prodego i wish you great wealth and fun time in the coming year! --The Dwarf_King 14:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, but I'm not Prodego, man. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A heads up[edit]

I wanted to alert you to a user who is messing with the redirect for Krystal (Star Fox) (here). He said he did it to "keep the community happy", which I guess he means himself. Thunderbrand 15:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

...Delete request?[edit]

Pokemon Gold and Silver Remake...not only is it a poor article, but it's pure fan speculation (often incorrect as well), and non-notable. I'd say it belongs on Bulbapedia, not here. I'd request it for deletion through normal Wikipedia policy, but... I have no idea how to do that. .__. EllipsesBent 06:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to redirect it. If you want to delete an article in the future, just use {{subst:prod|Here's my reason to delete this article.}} - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The guy restored the article. I put in the prod template, but he deleted that. Now what? EllipsesBent 04:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm the logged out User:The Hybrid. I messed up my skin trying to get a new anti-vandal tool, and now whenever I try to log in or fix it logged out my computer freezes. Could you blank User:The Hybrid/monobook.js please. I'll return the favor however you want. Please tell me on my IP talk page if you do this. Cheers, 08:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it has been taken care of. Cheers, -- THL 09:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ace Combat conformity[edit]

If you're not busy, would you mind having a look at the scope of Ace Combat related articles? These frequently attract attrention of fans and whatnot and I could use another pair of eyes. Thanks Combination 13:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a mess. I don't know enough about Ace to separate the wheat from the chaff, but I can add my somewhat devalued-from-repetition two cents if you run into trouble trying to clean it up, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Ganon[edit]

There has been a bit of a dispute at the talk page of this article, and we have reached an impasse. On behalf of all of the editors involved in said dispute, and at the general consensus of those involved, I request that you, as an admin, serve as a neutral mediator. I've already put up a request for comment, and while not many (read: none) of the editors involved have responded, that's largely my fault for having forgotten to add the appropriate subsection. I've already asked Kimchi to resolve this, but he referred me to the CVG WikiProject to find a moderator with more expertise in the field of CVGs. Hopefully you'll be able to help. Thanks in advance, Digital Watches! 20:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This one should be no sweat. Solomon's wisdom seems best on this one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandal watch[edit]

DavyJonesGSB (talk contribs) This user has been flying under the radar of people for too long. I don't know why people haven't warned him yet, but after reviewing his edits, he mostly uses wikipedia to add his own specualtion to band pages or to vandalize. I went ahead and gave him a blatant vandal tag, is that enough? or am i really supposed to warn him nicely 2 more times? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Alyssa Ashcroft[edit]

Why did you remove so much stuff from Alyssa's page? It was all correct from what I could see. I do not agree with your deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenHerb (talkcontribs)

Because it was speculative or game-guide material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


I just noticed a bunch of colored numbers next to my watchlist updates. What are they? There seems to be no pattern that I can see. Drake Clawfang 06:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Filesize changes. +1 means one byte was added, -500 means 500 bytes were removed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I see it now. Thanks. Drake Clawfang 06:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why not delete everything else from every Resident Evil page as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

What are you talking about? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


User:Cmputer I believe messed up the sandbox. Please have a look.--Eukesh 15:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Pokémon Ranger and the Temple of the Sea[edit]

I know you work with the Pokémon articles and such, and I figured you could help on this bit since you are an admin.

There's someone who's been constantly putting that movie in the listing of films to be put out by Universal Pictures and Lions Gate Entertainment, as well as putting those companies in the movie's infobox. The only only confirmed company that's involved I know of is Viz Media, according to

Can't you semi-protect it or something? It's going to be annoying to remove those companies over and over again. 02:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Blue-Eyes White Dragon[edit]

I demand to know why you removed so much information. You gave no good reason, no time for us to perhaps, find sources for the info presented, and you had no right to delete more than half the page without discussing it with other Yu-Gi-Oh! editors. I demand an explanation now. Drake Clawfang 08:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it was someone's observations of the game and anime/manga themselves, written in fansite style and incorporating many links to an external, unaffiliated site of zero reliability. It failed WP:V, WP:WAF, WP:FICT, WP:NOT, and the basic principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Oooooooooh, okay. I see. Reliable sources and no observation and that. In that case, do me a favor and delete the following pages.

Most of the card lists can go, as the website only lists a few. I thought Zane used more than just two monsters, I saw all his episodes and could have sworn it, but I guess since it isn't on the official site I must be wrong. Oh, and Atticus Rhodes isn't on the 4Kids site, so I guess he must not exist. And Aster, Sartorius, Amon Garam, Johan, oh, the Minor Characters page, 4Kids doesn't have them, so how can we source that page? We could say, watch the anime, but I forgot that isn'y allowed.

If you're going to be like that then all those pages should rightfully be deleted. I've tried to explain to you before, but you didn't listen: the official Yu-Gi-Oh! site gives little to no information. see for yourself how much info you can find on the show, hm? It's all games and card tips, nothing helpful really. Please try to have an open mind about this. The official sites for Yugioh are useless for the show. Fansites and direct observation are the only reliable sources we have because the official ones are not reliable. They call Zane's card "Cyberend Dragon" and Jaden's "Elemental Hero Blade Edge".

My point? We can't use the official site because it is not accurate nor reliable. Can you please try to understand that? Drake Clawfang 17:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have no reliable sources whatsoever. Why is there an article at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

We do have sources, we have the episodes. I frankly don't care what Wikipedia's policies are on direct observation, that's all that works for Yugioh. If you want, I know of a site that can give you links where you can watch every episode on-line. As far as I'm concerned, that's all you need, and in this case it's all we have. And as far as fansites go, I'd trust Janime or Yu-Jyo over 4Kids' site any day of the week, because they have proven far more reliable. I don't see why this is so hard for you to accept. If we only go by the official site, then we might as well delete all the Yugioh Gx pages now because there'll be little to nothing left. This is the situation here, direct observation is all that works for this show, and if you won't accept that I'll find someone else who will. Hell, if I have to I'll take this to Jimbo Wales' talk page myself and plead my case. Drake Clawfang 06:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't write articles based on direct observation of the anime because direct observation is colored by your perception, which will inherently have certain biases. For one, you'll tend to assume that things that are important in the anime are actually important in the real world. Additionally, there will be no content save plot summary (which we ideally don't do on Wikipedia except to support other content) or personal interpretation/analysis (which is original research).
I think you need to reassess your priorities. Set aside the primary sources for a moment and go see what you can find in the way of reliable secondary sources. Write articles based on those sources. The Yu-Gi-Oh project could use a few good featured articles under its belt. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The only other official sites are TV Guide and YTV, neither of which gives more than episode summaries. One way or the other it seems you aren't listen to a word I'm saying, so I'll go talk to someone that will. Drake Clawfang 07:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm listening to what you're saying; you just don't like the conclusions. If there are no sources other than personal observation, the articles should be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Results of the discussion can be found here ([1]) Episodes can be used as primary sources, provided a Neutral POV is used, and we have secondary sources to enforce the information provided. Drake Clawfang 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Also, looking back, I agree the Red-Eyes/Dark Magician stuff isn't really that important, and as it is, you'd have to watch several episodes to get that. However, could we add back in the card list (minus the history of each card)? Drake Clawfang 18:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have nothing but the primary source, you haven't established notability/importance, though. It also doesn't establish the importance or relevance of supposedly related cards. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Going to clean up the Resident Evil pages, I need suggestions.[edit]

Hey. I've been working on cleaning up the Resident Evil articles. So far I'm working removing needless trivia and trying to reduce the fancruft/biography/plot summary on the most of the characters pages. I'm doing this in order to merge them, since many supporting characters in the series don't really warrant stand-alone characters. Admitedly I've created most of these articles a year or two ago, even though my original intentions was to cover only recurring main characters like Leon, Jill and the Redfield siblings.

Anyway, here's what I've done so far. I rewrote List of minor STARS members in Resident Evil from a real world perspective, covering most of the events of the game in real world order and mentioning retcons when they occur (especially whole Edward/Kevin thing). Here's a comparison to how it was before. [2]

I'm going to the same for subsequent Resident Evil games and create the following articles.

  • Characters in Resident Evil 2 - covers the Birkins (including William, whose primary role was in RE2 and was only a supporting character in RE0), Chief Irons, Ben Bertolucci, HUNK, Robert Kendo and Marvin Branagh.
  • Characters in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis - covers Carlos, Nicholai, Mikhail, Tyrell, Murphy and Dario. The Nemesis as well if he isn't covered in the Creatures page.
  • Characters in Resident Evil Code: Veronica - covers the Ashfords (especially Alexia and Alfred), Steve Burnside and Rodrigo.
  • Characters in Resident Evil 4 - covers Ashley, Luis, Hunnigan, Saddler, Krauser, Salazar and Mendez.

I don't know what to do with Resident Evil Zero, which only features three new characters (Billy Coen, James Marcus and Edward Dewey, whose already covered in the STARS list). Four if you're willing to stretch things and consider the Young Man in the White Robe as a seperate character from the older deceased Marcus. Nor do I know what to do with unseen characters like Ozwell E. Spencer that never appeared in a single game, but form part of the backstory. That could be resolve later. I'm intend to leave recurring characters' articles alone for now, working only to rewrite them from a real world perspective.

The Movies and Outbreak characters articles could all be merge into their respective list, perhaps leaving Alice as a stand alone article if enough critical commentary can be added about her character. The problem is that I don't know much about these incarnations of the franchise other that what I procured from secondhand sources. I have no intentions of seeing the Resident Evil films. But we'll solve that.

Anyway, I would appreciate any suggestion and input from you. Jonny2x4 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you're right on the right track.
Random thoughts:
  • Try and organize lists in real-world ways instead of in-universe ways, when you're reorganizing. Characters in RE0 is better than STARS members. (I realize why the latter's organized that way, granted.)
  • Think about trying to merge games' lists of characters into the game article. I tried that with MGS3, and it didn't work out, but RE tends to be a little slimmer in story.
  • See about dismantling the monsters list. Try moving the ones that are characters (Nemesis, Nosferatu) to the characters list, and just neglect "Zombie spider" and "Zombie elephant" and "Mutant plant." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you just gave me an idea. I won't even bother making a RE0 characters page since there's only two new characters (not counting Edward) and there's not much to say about them without reiterating the plot of the game. So I'm gonna have Billy Coen and James Marcus redirect to Resident Evil Zero. List of minor STARS members in Resident Evil could be transformed into STARS members in Resident Evil or Characters in the original Resident Evil and we could move Barry and Rebecca there, and possibly Spencer and the Trevors (if we go with the former route). Chris, Jill and Wesker would retain their stand-alone articles for the moment, along with Leon, Claire and Ada.
As for the creatures, I originally intended to segregate Nemesis and Nosferatu into the creatures list, since they're mostly considered enemy characters by the designers rather than standard human characters. However, I could see your argument for Nemesis, since he's prominent enough in the plot to consider him a full fledge character and Alexander is both, a human character and an enemy creature (Nosferatu), even if he doesn't appear as a human in the game. Besides, Resident Evil 4 blurs the line between humans and monsters with characters like Mendez, Krauser and even the Ganados themselves. I still think some of the more unique creature designs that aren't just overgrown zombified animals or insects like the Chimera, Hunters and Lickers deserve some sort of coverage at least.
The Japanese Biohazard websites (as well as Resident Evil Archives) do feature some commentary about characters and creatures in the game, especially the website about the REmake. They're mostly just commentaries about designs, but sometime they offer insight about the development of characters/creatures and we could use that as reference.
Anyway, I already done doing the rought draft of each list and I'm still open to your suggestions. Jonny2x4 05:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're going about this fundamentally the right way. I don't have any new advice, but you have my support. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I merge almost all the articles into lists and a did a job cleaning up Characters in Resident Evil 2. It still needs a bit of work. For example, I'm probably gonna to replace the hand-drawn conceptual artwork of Annette and Marvin with screenshots, since it doesn't reflect the CGI style that was used to officially promote the game.

Also, if the list doesn't get merge into one covering the series as a whole, then I will need to replace the Birkin and HUNK renders with screenshots as well to reflect their depictions in RE2 (rather than their depictions in later games). Most of these descriptions ended up being shorter than I've imagined when I trimmed them down and I think I can still improve on them. The out-of-universe perspective seems preferable for the RE games, since many of these games often contain alternate scenarios depicting the characters dealing with the same situations in different ways (well at least the first three PS1 installments did) and it's hard to describe these differences in scenario from an in-universe perspective.

Anyway. Leave me your feedback on Characters in Resident Evil 2 as I begin to work on the others. Jonny2x4 07:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wise words[edit]

I saw your wise words about guidelines and existing practice... could you please take a look at WP:DDV as well? It's a long story but people agree the current version accurately describes current practice (one editor objects to the tone) but these same people strongly object to either a guideline tag, or a tag that simply says "this describes current practice". Thanks. >Radiant< 09:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That one is a hopeless quagmire of flamewar pain. I think it describes current practice; I don't know what kind of tag it should have and I cannot make any useful case for either side. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Template:Mortal Kombat series[edit]

In response to your last edit, I'll say that my own concerns about the template and the "standard" you proposed are irrelevant, both in an edit summary and on your talk page. This is because neither involves discussion with other editors, in your project or mine.

At the moment, I have greater concerns about your conduct. You didn't contact our project when you started discussion of your proposal, so some of us were left unaware. We were told about it when someone had split the MK template in two.

Now, you are attempting to change the template yourself, and you seem to prefer causing an edit war, instead of discussing your proposal with us. All you've done is give your own point of view in justifying your changes, without giving guidelines for further alterations, and rejected anyone else's opinion completely. I didn't respond to the comments you've left at WP:MK, because you've said nothing to alter my opinion.

If you laid out your guidelines, in full, on the WP:MK talk page (it's hard to tell what the final guidelines are in the lengthy discussion at WP:CVG), and allowed us to discuss them, then I will have no problem with the consensus. Until you do, I will continue to revert any changes you make to this template. RobWill80 16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to inform anyone when I'm not aware of their existence. I let you guys know as soon as I realized that the project existed and was active; there are so many Wikiproject tags for more-or-less dead projects that I find myself ignoring them.
That said, the standard is here. (It's tagged proposed since there's some discussion about when/if to include upcoming games, and what color to make it of all things.) It lays out the hows and whys of the standard appearance.
Some of the decisions are arbitrary (centered text, blue color, spacing, bullets as separators), defined only to have a standard appearance in at least video game articles. Some of the things have reasoning behind them, which I hope is amply described there.
I'm curious, though, why you haven't voiced your objections at WT:MK. There's one single objection to the changes I made there, made by a different user. You say the style change hasn't gotten consensus at WP:MK: it hasn't gotten any response at WP:MK. I can't answer or even usefully respect unvoiced objections. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me if I try to be brief. It's very early in the morning here, and I haven't slept yet. It's understandable that you didn't know of any active projects connected to WP:CVG when you made your proposal - It's not as if any of us are being paid to be here, are we? Now that I know why we weren't told, I don't have a problem with that part.
I'll read over the current proposal sometime today. I didn't respond to your comments at WP:MK because the previous discussion of the MK template split (which I was involved in) raised issues brought up in your proposal (that's how we were told). I believe that the main concern we had was over the ease of navigation, so the changes were reverted. I still have the same concerns about your proposal. Other WP:MK members may still share this opinion, have other issues, or are not bothered. That's why I've asked you to discuss your plans for the MK template with (the rest of) us before you proceed.
Personally, I agree with the aesthetic changes you're proposing, but I disagree with the severe limit on links in the template. The characters article you linked to was a good start, but it does no harm to link to some more categories that are related to the series, if only to make navigation more convenient. That's all that I'm prepared to say while I'm half-asleep, but if you have any more questions for me personally, I'll respond when I'm able to. RobWill80 07:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
What links do you think should be in the template that weren't in the standard appearance version? Linking categories is usually problematic; it's a one-way link, since categories don't usually have navboxes.
As for every single character, I made the case about that on WT:MK. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll reply to your main question at WT:MK, because this is what we should be discussing with the project. I will say that linking to categories shouldn't be too much of a problem. I think that most of our categorised articles usually have navboxes. If that fails, there is always the "back" button in web browsers. RobWill80 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was referring to categories (as in Category:whatever), not categorized articles. Let's continue this at WT:MK, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew what you meant. I don't see a need for navboxes in the category namespace. Like I said, our categorised articles usually have navboxes.
I'll pick some article names at random, just to explain what I meant (so you don't need to repeat your arguments here). Say if I was reading the Mortal Kombat (series) article, but I wanted to go to the article on Liu Kang. I could use the navbox to go to the "characters" category. Once at the category page, I don’t need the navbox, because I know that I want a character article. If I clicked on the wrong category, I use the web browser's "back" button. Once at the Liu Kang article, the same navbox is on that page to ease navigation.
Again, this is straying into the actual project discussion, so I'll leave it at that. RobWill80 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are you wanting to go to Liu Kang from Mortal Kombat (series)?
If you already know the name, you need no link at all. There's the search box for you.
If you don't know the name but know a general description, you want the list of characters.
If you only remember that the character was in such-and-such game, you want a link to the game (which ideally will help you identify the character.)
If you don't know anything about the series, how the heck do you know about Liu Kang in the first place? If the series article mentioned him, he'll be linked inline; if it didn't you don't know about him anyway.
It's only a minor convenience thing for those knowledgeable about the topic, to the detriment of navigation for everyone else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let me repeat that first line for you: "I'll pick some article names at random, just to explain what I meant (so you don't need to repeat your arguments here)." In other words, don't read too much into the specific articles that I mentioned, because I wasn't assigning any value to them. I was explaining the process of selecting a category (or a list of articles, if you wish) in a navbox to get to another article. Fair enough? RobWill80 07:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. How do you know what member of the category you want? Either you know the name of the category member, or you need the context of a list or umbrella article. A bare list of category members isn't very helpful.

Some of the same problems apply to linking to a category as to linking directly to the members of that category, but I was simply pointing out how those problems still apply to the specific case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you were clear, but you are still missing the point:
  • You misunderstood me when I was talking about linking to categories. At this point, you reset the page indent to comment. I wanted the discussion to move on to WT:MK, so my reply was addressing the misunderstanding only, by using the names of specific pages to clarify.
  • Your following comment was points that should be made at WT:MK. Then I tried telling you that I was just clarifying my previous comment. I was not discussing your proposal.
  • Finally, you reset the page indent again, and we are still here discussing your proposal.
Why do you insist on continuing this conversation on your talk page, when these are the points that you're trying to make to everyone else? RobWill80 09:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


You've come up in conversation. Well, conversation implies multiple parties, I suppose. You've come up in monologue, then. JDoorjam Talk 22:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


I have asked User:SimonP for a formal motion to ban him from WP:OC. His "mediation" comment is outright insulting. Circeus 15:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Recommendation: Get a heart![edit]

I think the latest additions to your talk page sum up how the community is viewing you. Stop being so obsessive on the rules (especially on anti-fancruft and fair use images, of which are countrvesal in their own regard) and start actually contributing to the community. Wikipedia doesn't want to be in the press for the wrong reasons again! --Dynamo_ace Talk, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I humbly disagree with Dynamo here. We need to be harder on fair use images than we are now, because if someone does sue us, we are going to be in the press again and for the wrong reasons. WP:FUC is not negiotable. Galleries are simply an inexcusable push of fair use. AMIB, keep up the good work, especiallky on fair use images. Hbdragon88 03:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I must decline the bulk of this advice.

I've noticed that there are a lot of people who disagree about both the issues of fair-use images and use of plot summary. (Let's discard terms like fancruft; the stigma on these terms means they are useless for civil discussion.) Some aren't ever going to be convinced; such is the nature of volunteer project politics.

I have, however, in the past been successful in convincing users that fair-use images need to be used with caution. (Ask The Bread (talk · contribs) or one of the WP:TVS users whose name I've forgotten). I have also been successful in convincing users that an out-of-universe perspective minimizing unneccessary plot summary (ask Deckiller (talk · contribs) and Jonny2x4 (talk · contribs)). While I'm still successfully convincing others, then I'm reasonably confident that my arguments have some validity.

As for the rest, I really do need to spend more time writing; it's easier to spend short sessions doing merges and cleanup than totally rewriting articles, so I've been doing more of the former than the latter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sonic Robo Blast 2[edit]

Hello again!

I just wanted to let you know that I've placed a Speedy Delete tag on Sonic Robo Blast 2, which has been recreated. Per the following AfD,Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonic_fangames you were the nominator, so I thought I'd let you know since you seem to be fairly active in working gaming and anime.

Cheers, Lankybugger 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Seems to have been deleted already. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate story arcs[edit]

Can you provide me with a link to the sections where delete was the consensus. I thought it was a keep. - Peregrinefisher 06:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's being redirected, not deleted. I would suggest asking at WT:CMC if you don't believe that this reflects the consensus of the Comics Wikiproject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Where at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics was a consensus reached to redirect this page? I don't see it. - Peregrinefisher 06:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is one example. There are others, with similar articles whose exact names I cannot remember offhand. If you feel that this discussion or my conclusions do not reflect the consensus of the project, I suggest you ask on the project's talk page in lieu of further reversion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Peregrine doesn't seem to have mentioned it, you've got a 3RR report with your name on it running right now. WP:AN/3RR#User:A Man In Black reported by User:Peregrinefisher (Result:). Saw it coincidentally while filing a report on another editor. --tjstrf talk 09:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Animal Crossing Series Template[edit]

In re the Animal Crossing Series Template and the template discussion page.

First off, reverting an edit that changes (name wise) Animal Forest to Dōbutsu no Mori when there is a discussion about that change going on is not a minor edit.

I said in my edit summary to see the Animal Forest talk page about that discussion. Or rather, I suppose the Dōbutsu no Mori talk page. Instead, you simply reverted the edits. If you wanted to undo the (GameCube) that was left back in, or fix it so that there was no redirect, that would be one thing. But you simply went and reverted the edit, and you marked it as a minor edit. It wasn't a minor edit. Minor edits on templates are fixing &nbsps, not changing anything that is a matter of contention--even if the other party is wrong. If there is a conflict about something and you are changing it, it isn't a minor edit.

It also appears that the "(GameCube)" issue hasn't been settled as I thought it was. I spent time trying to talk to you about the (GameCube) issue which you have been so intent on reverting. You stopped replying to the conversation, but were still active on Wikipedia and even made some edits on the template in question. I waited four days and then made the edit. You reverted it the same day. I've tried to discuss this issue with you, but you seem to not want to talk about it. You've made up your mind--you're right and I'm wrong. You don't seem to want to listen to me or respond to my questions, which makes it very hard to get anywhere. I've responded to what you said, but the discussion has stopped there really--you just rephrase what you've said before.

I'm really tired of this really minor thing which has been turned into an edit war. I don't get it. I agree with your position--there really is only one thing in the world called "Animal Crossing". You can find all of the points I've made on the talk page--I linked to it at the top like you wanted. Obviously, it's a difference of opinion that isn't going to be settled. I'm going to continue to believe that people can and will be confused for all of the reasons I mentioned, and you're going to believe that they won't be.

But I still don't understand why you've turned this into a revert war. If I'm right, and it's not there, users will be confused and can't find what they're looking for. That's bad. That's why I'm fighting for it. If you're right and it is there, then there is one extra word in the template. What is so bad about that? It's not worse than confused users.

I'd really like to see this dispute resolved, and I'm pretty sure that that involves discussion. TStein 08:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Holgen Pedersen[edit]

Dear WP Administrator, The above was a mere typographical mistake on my part - wanted to write Holger.

Please DELETE blank page. --Ludvikus 13:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Your "ninjas" Observation - Your Syle of Writing[edit]

"The most common form of the criticism of this user seems to be the fact that he does not accurately depict what actual ninjas were like". [My emphasis].

Why did you write like that on your Front Page? --Ludvikus 13:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


  • My editing of your English:
    • The most common criticism of this user apparently is: he depicts ninjas inaccurately. --Ludvikus 14:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's some bafflingly strange thing someone added to the Naruto article, and it was too silly not to share. Replace "user" with "anime" in the original, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]

Regarding reversions[3] made on December 30 2006 to Ultimate_Spider-Man_(story_arcs) [edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 3 hours.

Given that you are a sensible person, I'm a bit confused as to how you ended up breaking 3RR on this. If you have a good excuse, or you're prepared to promise to be good (ie leave the thing alone for a while) then I'm happy for you to unblock yourself.

William M. Connolley 20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rogue admin help[edit]

I removed most of the images on List of Mutants and Cyborgs in the Virtual Dungeon but someone restored them (I'm also guessing on other pages as well). Given that fair use is a legal issue, could you wield your rogue admin powers and orphan and delete all of these images? I don't want to go through the pain of IFD (orfud won't work as someone will just restore them). Hbdragon88 10:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Do me a favor and remove the images again, and link me the diff. I'll make sure they're taken care of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The images violate WP:FUC #8 (material must contribute significantly to the article), which is typical of these list of character articles. The text of the article also appears to be original research and I flagged the article as such. -- Jreferee 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No need to tell me that; half the messages on my talk page are me explaining that to people, heh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See [4]. Quickly now before someone reverts me... Hbdragon88 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Update about the Resident Evil characters page.[edit]

I've created four game-specific since I last talk to you. They are:

So far, they only contain the main human characters from each game and I haven't gotten around to adding the enemy creatures Nemesis and Nosferatu yet. I also merge all of the Outbreak-specific characters into the Outbreak list and all the useless movie characters into Characters in the Resident Evil films. I experimented with the idea of merging all four game-specific lists and (the STARS members list) into one article, but came out it around 36-38kb long. I'll trim down the two creatures list next.

I'm planning on replacing the RE1.5 concept art of Marvin and Annette with in-game screenshots when I get the chance, as well as Dario's.

Any suggestions so far? Jonny2x4 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Heres some cruft on AFD[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal of Ultimate Vision didn't look notable so I placed an AFD on it, I need you to check as you know more about this stuff. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request - Template:Animal Crossing series[edit]

Man, TStein has requested informal mediation regarding the name used for Animal Crossing (GameCube) on the Animal Crossing series template. Are you willing to mediate?

The initial mediation request is here, and I've started mediation discussions on the template talk page, here.

Thanks! TheronJ 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Free Republic[edit]

AMIB, I must advise you that FAAFA is continuing to use an unreliable source in violation of WP:RS. He is opposed by a consensus, yet he keeps making these reverts to include material by Todd Brendan Fahey, a person who brags about the quantity and variety of illegal drugs and alcohol her has used. This is not a RS. Please make a ruling regarding the use of Fahey as a RS. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, it's a content dispute. I'm gonna have to stay away from that mess. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever read this[edit]

Just wondering if you ever got to read this. Snake Soup's not to happy with you are they? Quite funny though I'm glad I wasn't involved

†he Bread 3000 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it cute how all he's able to do is rant on his little site. -- Steel 02:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
He does make one good point, which is that game news sites of all sorts are horrid at getting the game plots right. But that's an argument for not sourcing plots to websites at all, and instead primary sourcing them to the games. Not for using fansites as sources. --tjstrf talk 02:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in an ideal world, I'd say it's a good reason to give only exceedingly brief story synopses, derived from reliable secondary sources, unless reliable secondary sources feel the need to go into great detail, but primary source beats fansite, yes.
Doesn't his rant miss the fact that Tiger had good reason to cook up anything to promote the late in its life? The problem is that we only have the primary source's word that such a game existed, and in a place that is far from independently reviewed (an alt.* Usenet group). Nobody's saying "This is not a reliable source in a scholarly sense" means "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE".~ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)

I'm not gonna take a side either way, but tjstrf is right in respect to how Gamespot and IGN can fuck up alot in regard to plot summary of games. Snake Soup and MGS:TUS get the plot down pat because they are MGS fanatics (same applys to all other game fansites) IGN and Gamespot get it wrong because they cover all games. It presents a problem, in regard to plot summary you know that MGS:TUS are right, but IGN is reliable. What to you go with? It's definately a good argument for using primary material to source plot summary unless WP:RS is changed in regard to plot summary †he Bread 3000 03:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the same argument could be used to say that there aren't any reliable sources for plot summary, if the only people moved to comment on the plot are devoted fans, that's all.
You're right that using Gamespot/IGN/etc. for plot summary sourcing would be silly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
One reason not many secondary sources will comment on the plot is that it's supposed to be a surprise. Also that the plots are often too complicated to cover in anything like a reasonable review column. --tjstrf talk 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Both of which seem like good reasons for WP to follow suit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Except that the plot is an important part of the game. I mean, unless it's Tetris or something. --tjstrf talk 00:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean like not tell people the plot? †he Bread 3000 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Wikipedia should cover the plot in only broad terms, unless the plot is itself a subject of commentary. It suffices, for example, to say that MGS3 has a complicated plot about the Cold War, the origin of Big Boss, and predecessor to Metal Gear, set in late 1960s, without explaining it point by point. (If you're familiar with Mega Man Battle Network 5, I've written the summary there to my preferred level of detail, since nobody else cares about that game.)

I don't think that this suggestion is practical, if only because of the significant opposition to it. I think the compromise set in WP:FICT, WP:WAF, and current practice with comprehensive summaries written with an eye to brevity is acceptable, and I generally try to work articles toward that standard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Copied and pasted from WP:PCP/T because someone complained that I should just ask you, here:
Er, there are still some admins in here, right? If not, someone please reply to this and let me know. Anyway...
Ugh, thanks for not telling me about the deletion of Template:pokerefs. I won’t bitch about it too much since there was apparently consensus, however compiling and listing those references took quite a bit of time, so could an admin please retrieve the text for me?( The edit text with markup, please, not just display text.) You can dump it to a subpage... I guess User:WikidSmaht/pokerefs will do. Oh, and the very thorough Mr. Titoxd deleted the talk page, too, so I would appreciate if you could dump that to User_talk:WikidSmaht/pokerefs since I listed some other useful things there that were not included in the actual template. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been kind of idle; I knew Pokenum went to TFD, but not Pokerefs. I'll restore it at User:WikidSmaht/Pokerefs, along with the talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks kindly. :-) Appreciate the help, even if someone is already trying to have it re-deleted. --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining, I was just saying that you'd get a faster response because an orange bar grabs attention much faster than a post on WT:PCP. Hbdragon88 01:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh! This was a repost. I didn't realize. Thanks for letting me know, Hdb! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Was that serious or sarcasm? I did say it was copy/pasted... --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh. I thought Hdb was the one who copy/pasted it here. Don't mind me... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Mutants and Cyborgs in the Virtual Dungeon[edit]

Your comments are requested here – WP:AN#Full page protection review. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


please stop removing non-violated info from the Blue-Eyes White Dragon page. i don't see anything wrong with the current formation. The Legendary Ranger 23:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Page Histories[edit]

Is there a way to clear out page histories? (My user page's for example.) Kornfan71 01:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Only to delete the page. Would you like me to delete your user page for you? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. I just got a note from another admin that went: "I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. Metros232 20:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)." No, I like my user page =D. Kornfan71 01:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Don't sweat it; it's a boilerplate message to remind you that you can use "Show preview" to see how a page will look with your changes, that's all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhh......I thought it was because I was making too many saves (which I am). I still do need to get back into the habit of previewing first. Kornfan71 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ping Pals[edit]

Do you think that Ping Pals would work? It is the lowest rated game on GR with 20 reviews, and it was listed somewhere on EGM's bottom five games ever. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ref calling it "worst ever"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to do some research to find it, since it's a magazine thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


If I could provide citations for the episodes in which the information is given, could I recreate the Cyber-Style page? Drake Clawfang 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the BEWD debate back in December concluded here [5], if I can provide a secondary print source to back up the episode info, that's alright. The site "" has very detailed episode guides that supply a great deal of info, surpisingly enough that only the Japanese-episode specific details would be the only stuff not directly stated (although Yugioh has a long history of removing important details in the dubbing). So could I use that as a source? Drake Clawfang 20:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC) is user-submitted. It's no more useful as a reliable source than the Yu-Gi-Oh wiki you were citing before. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I sadly do not read Japanese, but Benten has informed me that "TV Tokyo" has episode summaries (although he says they're aren't entirely detailed). If I provide TV Tokyo as a source and supplement this with citations, or even quotations from the episodes, would that work? Drake Clawfang 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Are these just summaries of the episode, or actual analysis and commentary? You need to have something in the article other than just recapping plot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyber-Style would not be a re-capping of the plot. It would be an explanation of the cards' relation to the concept of yin and yang, how they have affected Zane's character development, and the concept of the Cyber Dojo. The episode summaries could give the gist of that, and the citations from the episodes could go further into the details. Drake Clawfang 00:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're proposing original research. You want to do analysis, when nobody has ever written any analysis. That's what original research is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not, you're taking what I'm saying out of context. It says in the Japanese episode that the Cyber and Cyberdark monsters represent yin and yang, and Zane seeks the Cyberdark deck to match his new personality. It's not original research. Drake Clawfang 05:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. You have two problems, and you're switching back and forth between the two.
  1. You have no content that is interpretation, commentary, or analysis. You need a third-party source for this; otherwise you're just retelling the story. (This is the upshot of WP:WAF.)
  2. What content you do have isn't from reliable sources; they're all fansites or user-submitted databases. (This is the upshot of WP:V and WP:N.) If these sites did do any analysis, they'd need to be reliable sources. (This is the upshot of WP:RS and WP:NOR.)
You need to resolve both of these problems. Sites that do nothing more than recap the plot don't do this, especially when those sites aren't reliable sources. Direct observation of the episodes doesn't do this either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been told that Sites that provide episode summaries are acceptable, and episodes can be used as long as I'm careful to use a Neutal POV. Tokyo TV is NOT a fansite, it's an official site. It IS a third-party source. Your second argument is void.

As for the first...okay, personal interpretation is not allowed, my own imput isn't...but my data can't be accepted on the grounds it's not commentary or analysis? You're contradicting yourself. If I am to provide commentary or analysis of a subject in an article, I'm violating the Neutral POV rulings. Make up your mind.

Honestly, it seems like you're just looking for excuses now. I have two sources, both of which I've been told are acceptable by the Help Desk, one of which is an official site, and even if it is now required, if I recreate the article I will be following Benten's example and citing episodes for specifics. Really, you have no stable grounds to refuse me. I have two reliable, acceptable sources and can provide citations. What more do you want? For me to call of Kazuki Takahashi himself and get a written statement? Drake Clawfang 06:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sites that provide episode summaries are acceptable, but only as supporting sources for bare plot summary. An article that is nothing other than plot summary isn't acceptable, no matter what the sources are.
Pointing to the Help Desk as an authority isn't particularly helpful. I can understand that there's a difference of opinion, but the Help Desk posters don't have any specific authority, while I've tried to make sure that everything I'm telling you is based in existing guidelines and policy.
You have two problems.
  1. It is not acceptable to write an article that is nothing more than plot summary. If you don't have any commentary or analysis, you don't have an article. We don't just recap stories; does that and it's not the business of an encyclopedia.
  2. It is not acceptable to write an article that is not based on reliable sources. You can't have commentary or analysis without reliable sources for that commentary.
You haven't solved either problem, simply asserted that you can ignore them. No. You can't. Sorry. These are the problems raised in the AFD, and you're not dealing with them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

First, it would not be a recap article, the information would simply be taken from episode summaries and the episodes and written in an encyclopedic manner. Second, I've explained before that the site is not a fansite, it is an official site. I'm not ignoring the problems, the problems are in your mind, the source IS an official one, the article would NOT be a recap, and I've been told my sources are acceptable, and excuse me if, given your track record, I'm inclined to trust the Help Desk, given the alternative. Once again I find myself asking "what is the problem?" Drake Clawfang 07:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Rearranging the plot details from the episodes isn't different from just recapping them. Writing in an encyclopedic style is different from writing in an encyclopedic manner. You need to summarize and analyze and to do that you need sources that summarize and analyze.
You want to base an article directly on things said in a fictional work, with no good (reliable and analytical) sources. Those are my problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense, then the article is being written from a non-Neutral POV, that of the sites. Once again you contradict yourself. Drake Clawfang 13:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, can we compromise? Give me a chance to re-create the article with my current sources with a Neutral POV, in an encyclopedic format. And if you find something wrong with the article...go ahead and delete it again. We both think we're right, and in all honesty, I don't think either of us wants to keep this dragging on. So, just one chance, all I ask, and do what you will, I'll let it drop. Drake Clawfang 18:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The compromise is what we're doing now. I don't go on a witch hunt and you work on sourcing what's not been deleted.
Worry less about Cyber Style and see if you can't come up with some real sources for Blue Eyes White Dragon. The BEWD article is in sorry shape even after all the game guide and awful styling is gone, and if that can't be hammered into shape, that's a death knell for anything else.
As for recreating anything, make your own new copy in userspace (at User:Drake Clawfang/whatever, see if the deleting admin thinks it solves the problem of the AFD, and go to WP:DRV if you disagree with the deleting admin. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, the Blue-Eyes page seeming like a game guide may be due in part to it being part of a game. As it is, there really aren't any official sources as we've all covered before. That's the main reason I want this to end, we've gone over Yugioh's lack of sources countless times and it's gotten us nowhere.

It's bad in particular for the original Yugioh, because now a lot of the Yugioh pages carry GX info and have ditched the old series, so finding reliable sources for any of the original articles will be a pretty lost cause. For example, tyoe "Blue-etc Dragon" into Google, it's mostly places you can buy the card.

As for your second sentence, from userspace to AFD, I didn't understand a word. I don't know what those terms mean. Drake Clawfang 06:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here. Forget Cyber Style. Go and do some research, to come up with some publications that have covered, or at least mentioned, Blue Eyes White Dragon. Not fansites, not random websites, not whatever you find on Google, but actual publications. Scrye would be a start, a real publication would be better.
If you're watching the episode to get the info or reading fansites, you're not doing the work of an encyclopedist, but instead the work of a fansite writer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there's any real books on BEWD besides the manga, but oh wel....

Now what about that...AFD, userspace stuff? Drake Clawfang 13:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, hold on. I may have something, although I don't know if you would consider it reliable. What about the Bekcett Yugioh/Anime collector magazines? Both are officially published sources that give information on Yugioh (although the one obviously gives more info than the other). Would that work? Drake Clawfang 18:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about official, and look outside of fan-oriented publications. I don't know the quality of the Beckett magazine, but see what info you can find that's about the real world, not the fictional one. These articles are sorely lacking in real-world info, and the sort of sources you want will probably be talking about the real world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again you make no sense. Real world? What real-world information, Yugioh isn't real world info. But, to be quite honest, I don't care anymore. I've explained to you time and time again Yugioh's lack of reliable, non-fan-based sources, but you don't seem to be listening. So...edit and delete whatever you want. I don't give a crap anymore. I've tried to find you reliable sources but you continue to find reasons to discredit them or just outright ignore my efforts, so...whatever. If you hate the Blue-Eyes page so much delete it like you have so many others.

As a final note, I notice at the top of your talk page you mention that people yelling at you is becoming common. I'm wondering if you've ever thought about why that it. To be honest, you're an Admin, good for you. But I remember all the trouble you've caused on the Yugioh pages for no good reason, and when I look at your contributions, I just see removal of content and justification of it on talk pages. Removing content on articles, sourced or not, does not improve them. So try something different one day, and instead of just blindly quoting some Wiki-policy to defend such removals, see if you yourself could find sources and improve articles yourself. Because in all honesty, it makes me a little sad that I look at an Admin's contributions and see a sea of removal and reverts.

But, if our history has taught me anything you've just shrugged off everything I just said. Now don't think I'm trying to have the last word, if you reply, I'll read it, but I don't plan to reply back. Simply put, you're like a Cop: You're just trying to solve the problem by avoiding it and ignoring the cause of the problem. Just as slapping people in jail doesn't stop crime, removing unsourced content isn't going to make sources magically appear. Consider that next time you delete content. Drake Clawfang 17:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoo hah, wow. This series of debates around a game card have become so drawn out that I feel like butting in and providing my input as both a supporter of the community and a former Yu-Gi-Oh casual fan. I'm gonna try to work out some logic for the parties involved as Erik the Mediator.
I'll get the not-so-relevant stuff out of the way first. The yelling detail at the top of the talk page was put there in September 2005 (I checked), so it was more or less a humorous note from a long time ago. As for Black's contibutions, I've always been under the general impression that that's what an admin does and is supposed to do. I'll explain; It seems to me that administrators, as users versed in Wikipedia's labrynthine (and too lengthily written IMO) policies, are given the power to revert and delete based on those policies, and they are meant to cite those policies in such edits. Other administrative activities include handling templates with esoteric syntax. Whereas standard users such as Drake Clawfang and myself are the ones who actually create the content of Wikipedia. Users create while Admins destroy; that might be a controversial way of putting it, but I think it's accurate. It's like two sides to the same coin, and both sides are necessary to create good articles. Can anyone honestly point me to an Administrator who creates content just as much as he removes it? I don't think so, because I don't think that would be an Administrator who does his duties.
I think A Man In Black has a reputation for replying rather curtly and to-the-point to those seeking input from him, and in my opinion he does not add enough explanatory text to back up the points of his reply, only bothering to do that when the discussion draws out and turns harsh. See how I reply to posts on my talk page to see how I think responses should be like. But he is extremely well-versed in those densely-written policy pages such as WP:V. Don't think I'm going out of my way to defend AMIB, though; there were several points in the past when I was legitimately irritated by the administrative things he does, such as speedily deleting several fourth-generation Pokemon articles when Diamond and Pearl were released months ago even though it was obvious those articles would be recreated shortly afterward, but those sentiments never last long because I would come to realize how it perfectly conforms to policy. So, I always think AMIB's edits are made in good faith; whether he views the efforts of users like Clawfang as good faith all the time is for him alone to address.
Okay, now for the actual relevant issues being debated here. I was somewhat startled and taken aback when I first saw separate pages on BEWD and Dark Magician on Wikipedia some time ago. Separate articles on game cards? I really don't think that could possibly work out, main reason being that a game card from a card game is most likely based on something that violates No Game Guide. Wikipedia, unfortunately, is the sort of environment where even a separate article on a Pokemon like Charizard is iffy. Charizard is one of the most famous Pokemon, and, I might add, had a trading card that was as notable then as the BEWD is nowadays. Charizard is a character who has made notable appearances in several, various media forms, such as video games, anime and movies, manga, merchandising, and the Pokemon card game, while BEWD is a playing card whose dragonic depiction is only also seen in the anime from time to time. So if Charizard is so hard to source and work with that it can't even be a Good Article, what chance do you think the Blue-Eyes White Dragon game card has for being a full encyclopedia article? All this is what I would use to defend my personal stance that game cards shouldn't have separate articles, and my stance wouldn't be any different if AMIB and his policy mongering weren't around. Drake, you can prove me wrong if you can provide a link to a trading game card article for any card game that has reached Good Article status.
If Drake Clawfang had come to me to discuss this subject instead of coming to AMIB, I would have advised him to merge all separate articles on YuGiOh cards into a single List of notable YuGiOh trading cards. The casual reader of Wikipedia would rather see that than separate pages on separate cards for a card game. Let's not forget; Wikipedia, as a general encyclopedia, should accomodate casual readers from the internet in general. For YuGiOh fans, it should be the YuGiOh wiki that has separate pages on separate cards.
It's a little saddening to see two good-faith users coming to blows over this subject simply because both have slight issues with assuming defects in each other's conduct (I say that as a neutral third party), so I came here to provide my input to see how well I can restore logic. I hope you two read all this carefully, as it took me a friggin' hour to type. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Donate) 22:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
AMIB, be sure to check the continued discussion on my talk page as well as on User:Benten's talk page before posting any comments; I'd hate to see you respond awkwardly because you weren't aware of what's been decided between the YuGiOh people. ^_^ Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Donate) 04:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh, as all fictional works, has two realities: the fictional reality, where Chazz and Yugi go on adventures, and the real reality, where they're entertainment works and such that children enjoy. What role do these subjects have in the latter world? The info about the fictional reality is only useful for this project insofar as it lends context for the info about the real reality.

Merging the cards is a good start, but the ultimate goal is to add more info about the real reality, about what publications in the real world are saying about these anime and manga series and card games in the real world. This isn't the sort of thing you can learn from watching the episodes, and it's the info you're always going to be missing if your only sources are plot summaries or the episodes themselves and if your only content is plot summary.

I see that you're deciding which cards are important enough to mention on the "Notable Yu-Gi-Oh cards" list. How are you deciding this? How are you going to justify which cards are important or not without just imposing personal opinion? The answer, again, is reliable sources. Find the cards publications are writing about, then use those publications to write the article. Don't impose your own personal opinion; that's not NPOV but it is OR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The matter you raise of the two realities, then, gives birth to the problem that what's notable in the anime is not notable in the real game. Blue-Eyes and Dark Magician are very important in the anime, but real, pro players could care less. In real-life, the notable cards are Monarchs, Cyber Dragons, Searchers, etc. So in the real-life reality, I doubt there's a lot to go on with the written sources for that because no one who plays professionally cares about Blue-Eyes and DM. They're considered useless noob cards and the only people who have them are the ones who collect them for fun. Conversely, those cards that are important in real life often have very little relevance to the anime. If you ask a pro what a Searcher or a Monarch is, they can snap out an answer. As an anime fan, and they'll be be like "huh?" It's an odd paradox to be sure, but the cards that are important to the anime aren't to the real game and vice-versa, with the lone acception of Cyber Dragon, who is played in the real world because of his effect and not his connection to yin and yang and what-have-you.

I'm not offering this as an excuse, I agree entirely that there are two ways to designate a card as notable. The problem lies in those ways being radically different. The anime characters typically play cards to symbolize their character or because they're cool. Real duelists play cards that are powerful and win. Drake Clawfang 06:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And just as a further note, the [ official site advertises the Dinosaur Structure Deck and Cyberdark Impact Booster with "Tyranno's savage Dinosaurs are on the rampage!" and "Embrace Zane's new darkness with "Cyberdark Dragon." So there's the further problem of the real-game being marketted according to what's being done the anime.

You missed the third way, the only way that matters on this project: the card is important enough to have been the subject of comment in reliable publications. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, there is the Beckett Yugioh Collector Magazines that frequently give articles on deck-types and commonly played and sought-after cards. Again, there's the problem of distinction between what's important to which reality. Drake Clawfang 07:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If the game is more represented in publications, then it should be so in our articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um...I fail to see what that has to do with the sourcing issue.

Anyway, as a further note to your previous reply, sources aside for what is notable, just because a card is sourced does not, in turn, make it notable. The TCG site contains an entire page on "Archfiend" cards, but they're aren't important to either the anime or the real game. Drake Clawfang 07:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The TCG site is not an independent source. We should follow the lead of third-party, reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So would Beckett be an acceptable source then? Drake Clawfang 07:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Having not read it, I don't know. It would be a middling-quality one, at best. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


for your personal glorification: Image:UpsidedownBarnstar.png --popefauvexxiii 09:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, an ironic barnstar. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid 4[edit]

It exists, so it should be in the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Really? Have you played it? Has anyone? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Tekken template revert[edit]

The Template I made[6] wasn't abusive, or even wrong! It was more detailed than the current one, and also had seperate section for non-canon games. I know I could just revert it myself, but I'd much prefer to know why you think it needs a change. Thanks a lot Cardboardboxman 10:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Canon is not the most important attribute in identifying fighting games. Tekken 6 exists in hypothetical form only, with no final name, release date, or playable demo. You crammed a bunch of unimportant in-universe stuff into the template (Devil Gene? Mishima Karate?), which is what categories are for.
The version I reverted to is the standard appearance for game series navboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Can I tap you up for a favour. Can you have a look at [7] and [8] and perhaps drop a note at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Superman. I was hoping to split a lot of the in universe detail off and try and focus the article on Superman as an icon. Appreciate some outside input. Hiding Talk 21:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Pink Floyd reference[edit]

The Pink Floyd reference that you removed from the trivia section is substantiated in a number of places, and the Animals symbolism forms the foundation for much of the film. If it's sources you are after, simply add a fact tag, but as it stands, this piece of information is in the process of being moved into a section of its own. It's not anecdotal in any way but a key metaphor in the film. —Viriditas | Talk 07:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Source it and stick it somewhere relevant, then. I see people cramming personal interpretation into #Trivia all the time, and we don't really need to encourage that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, we're on the same page. See my comments on talk. It's just that a cite request works better in some situations. As for a new section, it could easily be put into a new homage section, but we are really dealing with thematic exposition, so I'm still trying to put these things together. If you remove anything else, could you comment it out and leave a msg on the talk page? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 07:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this is being discussed on talk? Feel free to revert it back in with a {{fact}} tag, then. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting some guidance here[edit]

It's kind of amazing that I can't find an admin when I need to, I have to go down lists of them... anyway, I have a rather peculiar situation I'd like your input on. Basically, this user contacted me, regarding some questionable admin actions and his blocking. He's still banned, and his appeal was shot down, also possibly under expedient circumstances. My questions are twofold- one, can you be blocked for the following action: calling a mod a 'blowfish' (I am not making this up) and then adding a page to your user space entitled 'black list' and put the admin's comments you disagreed with there? That was as far as I know the only infarction. Secondly, how would I go about bringing this up to the proper people? See, the caveat is that this all happened on the Hebrew wikipedia, and out of the blue this user found me and asked me to help (maybe he thinks that since my name is David I'm Jewish and know Hebrew?). He's got a substantial case, actually, from what I can make out, but I really have no idea how to proceed, as Arbitration/mediation on another language wiki seems rather absurd.

P.S. 101 KB talk page? Mayhaps you should archive it some time, just a thought.

Oh, and just thinking about what you said all that time ago on Wikiproject Halo- you were right. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment without more diffs and context, and I definitely can't help with stuff on (whatever Hebrew's 2LA is).wikipedia.
Somewhere there's an international noticeboard. Try asking on IRC about it, to find someone who speaks Hebrew and can help with this.
As for archiving, I've been lazy lately. I should really archive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Starter Pokemon[edit]

Could you help by moving Category:Starter Pokemon to Category:Starter Pokémon? An admin has to do it, right? --Brandon Dilbeck 17:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:CFD; they need to set a bot on fixing the links. It should be a possible speedy move. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


User:Niohe has been frequently and repeatedly engaged in deleting relevant and valuable historical images from various articles, depite numerous warnings.

Some of User:Niohe's acts of vandalism:

This user must be blocked indefinitely before he/she will do any more damage.

Highshines 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Come up with some proof that the images you're adding are historic, kthx. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Big Boss image[edit]

That press kit disk you've got, is the old Big boss image on that aswell? If it's not there are going to be some problems as the article is cleaned up

†he Bread 3000 00:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea where the press kit is. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Urrrrr. At present that image has no sources and may not be FU. I've uploaded a (crappy) alternative that's currently in action at the MPO page, but I think we need to do everything we can to keep the current image
†he Bread 3000 00:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)