User talk:A Man In Black/Archive19

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

Wrestling[edit]

Do you know of any Admins who freqeunt pages related to World Wrestling Entertainment? I could use one's support on an issue. Please reply to this one on my own talk page. Drake Clawfang 00:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So, um...do you know anyone? If not, could you support me? The issue in question involves D-Generation X and the peripheral members sections I've removed: it's really just OR and up for interpretation. Look at the talk page and the section itself and see what I mean. Thanks. Drake Clawfang 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
D'oh, missed this. I really don't know anything about wrestling, but I'll take a look. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Commander[edit]

I noticed that you removed my recently article about the Armored Command Unit citing that it failed the WP:ATT. This is however not original research but rather information taken from the game manual. I realise that the fault is mine for not citing my sources and apologise.

However you also deleted the article on the UEF faction within the game witch in my opinion is completely without cause. Not only do the other two factions of the game have seperate articles of theyr own but almost every game faction or race have similar articles on wikipedia. It may only be relevant within the game world but as the first point on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and thus there should not be a limit as to how many subjects it should be able to cover. Thus the fact that the article bears relevance to the game would be eanough to justify its existance.

If it's taken from the game manual, it's attributed to a primary source, does not claim notability, and is inappropriate game guide, so my reasoning stands. Likewise for the UEF. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Seing as it is lore related information to the game world it would not fall under gameguide. As for the UEF article i still hold that the fact wikipedia alows several hundred if not thousand similar game faction articles, among wich two of them concern the remaining factions in the exact same game, speaks quite heavily in its defense. --Taurmin 07:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Game lore = primary source. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no reason to ignore WP:N, WP:ATT, and WP:WAF. Please don't spill your soda just because the janitors haven't mopped the entire floor yet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Variant Magic: The Gathering formats[edit]

You've added a couple of tags to this page, and while I do agree the page is barely above a stub right now, I'm not sure that the tags you are using are appropriate. This article is in no way a game guide (as I said, there's no information on how to construct a deck for any of these variants, not even examples of decks on it, hence, not a guide to the game). And I don't think notability is the same as what you were going for, which might be unreferenced, but it has references for several of the variants (though it does need some more, I don't consider being from Wizards.com a problem, it's an odd case of being a reliable source from the primary make of the product, it's still not a primary source). Still, maybe you could bring this up on the talk page instead of the tags? That might help explainN what you're concerned about better? Templates are nice, I use them myself when I'm hitting random articles I see need a problem, but in this case, I think further discussion might be worthwhile. FrozenPurpleCube 14:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a guide to playing the game well; if all it does is tells you how to play that variant, it's a game guide.
Additionally, it fails WP:N completely. You don't just make a gut call saying "Well, I think this is important, so it's notable"; you add non-trivial references in reliable sources.
Frankly, I'm not entirely sure there's a great deal of encyclopedic value in a list of variants of MTG. Most of them are house rules, a number of them seem to be some guy adding his personal variant, and even the "notable" ones are side games in organized play.
Is there an article about tournaments or organized play to put the 2HG mention in? We could probably just ditch the rest, since I highly doubt there are going to be any sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that you are mistaken about what a game guide is. The article on chess tells you how to play the game. So do the articles on chess variants. (and I see over 50 of them with articles of their own! Yowza! ) Providing this information is essential for explaining the subject of the article. Game Guides are instructions on how to play the game better, strategic ideas, which this article simply does not contain. Really, I cannot see how anything in this article could be construed as a game guide at all. If you could perhaps go to the talk page and point out something, maybe I'd see where you are coming from, but right now I can't.
And yes, I do agree that various minor house rules or individual variants don't belong on the page. I've removed several, and I'm debating pruning some others if I can't source them. I've tried to keep this page limited to only those variants of substance, such as the multi-player ones, the vanguard (and don't tell me that product isn't also keepable content), or even peasant magic.
Sure, more real-world content would be nice, some magazine articles or mentions of tournaments (GenCon, for example, has unsanctioned peasant and 5-color tournaments, information about which could be included here). And yes, Scrye, Beckett, and Inquest have mentioned these variants in articles, I just don't have the issues, so I haven't added them as sources. I have added the Wizards ones, as they are a reliable source, as mention on their website is something I'm comfortable saying is a good sign that it's not just a minor individual thing. They aren't just a primary vanity source, they are providing content of interest to the players who read their site. Are they completely independent? Nope, but it's not a case where they're just publishing press releases either. Their authors produce actual content. Thus I can't see any objection to them as establishing notability through coverage.
Anyway, I do think this article could be improved, but there's no question in my mind that it is appropriate for Wikipedia. Magic the Gathering is notable, unquestionable there. The two major variants have official standing, either in the rules, or with official products. The others do need some clean-up, but I've been holding off on that for a while. But at least some of them are played by lots of people. FrozenPurpleCube 20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
PS, if you've got any suggestions about the page, let's go to Talk:Variant Magic: The Gathering formats. As I said, the page does need work. The subject, however, is fine. FrozenPurpleCube 20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The article on chess tells you how to play the game as necessary context for the history of chess and for chess's place in history. Additionally, there are a variety of non-trivial works about chess (many of which are cited in chess), so there's no notability issues. Variant Magic: The Gathering formats, on the other hand, only tells you how to play these variants. I think much of this can be scrapped (I don't think most of the variant ways of playing Magic multiplayer have had any real commentary in independent, reliable sources), but there is an article here.
I totally spaced on Vanguard, but, again, I think it's been crammed, ill-fitting, into this article.
I'm still curious about the article about tournament play. Is there an article on one? I think one article on Type-2-turned-"Limited" (a concept that is now pervasive among collectable games), the various type 1 variants, block play, Vanguard, multiplayer variants; I think there's an article in there, and there will be much more to say than just how you play these variants. (Type 2 alone could possibly merit its own article, between the circumstances that led to its creation, the controversy around same, and its impact on other games. This is pending sources, of course.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
And since its necessary for Chess to tell you how to play the game for context, or a variant is set up, it's neccessary for this article to tell you how a deck is constructed in order to play the variant. Thus you see why I don't see your objection that this page is a game guide has merit. It'd be one thing if the sections mentioned land mix ratios, or strategies in building emperor decks, or casting costs, but it doesn't. No deck lists, no descriptions at all. It provides no strategic value whatsoever. Thus I would say it's clearly not a game guide.
And yes, Chess does have a bit more of a scholarly body of work than Magic, but there are magazines that cover Magic and other TCGs, so it's quite possible that these variants are covered in articles there. I recall reading about many of them, but not having the magazine, I can't quite cite them as references myself. I do, however, feel comfortable in asserting they exist. And as I said, coverage on Wizards.com is enough for me to be satisfied that there's content there.
Now as to your questions about organization, well, I'd agree the sections Vanguard could be expanded, but even if a page on it was made, it would still belong here. So, if you want to expand it, go right ahead. Unlike when it was part of Magic: The Gathering, there is plenty of room to grow here. In fact, tournament play is still mostly there, with a few bits on Duelists' Convocation International, Pro Tour (Magic: The Gathering). FrozenPurpleCube 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Would an article that told you how to play Magic be a game guide? After all, it's not giving you advice on how to do it well. Raw rules are how-to, and that's okay when it's context for more content, but this article doesn't do anything but tell you how to play these variants.
I think an entirely different article, covering some of the same topics, may be appropriate, possibly with merges from the DCI and Pro Tour articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but there's just a fundamental disconnect here. This article does not in any substantial way tell anybody how to play these variants, not as is meant by a game guide, but merely describe the game in the same raw sense as you say is appropriate for the describing the context of the content. I'm removing your tags again, they're just not appropriate, unless you can give me some real examples of what you're talking about. I do think the page needs improvement, but the tags you've chosen do not apply as far as I can tell. Maybe you should expand more on the article's talk page as to what you do want. I will leave {{expand}} though, since I do agree with it. FrozenPurpleCube 19:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd also not object to a generic {{cleanup}} if you want to add it. Beyond that though, put something specific on Talk:Variant Magic: The Gathering formats so I can understand what you think needs changing. FrozenPurpleCube 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't remove {{notability}} or {{originalresearch}}; there aren't any references for most of these, and none of them establish notability. As for the game guide content, we can discuss this more on the talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't see the notability problem, nor an original research one. Sorry, but these templates are just not used for what you think. I can concur with unreferenced, but original research requires some theory or speculation, which is not something this article contains. Or if it does, those sections should be edited or removed. And notability? Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it. What would you think would establish notability anyway? FrozenPurpleCube 04:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's say whoever published Uno publishes a handful of house rules for Uno. Should we make Variant Uno formats? We need references showing that these variants are the subject of commentary independent of the company promoting them.
Original research because many of these are some variant someone made up. Original research is a fancy way of "I'm publishing my new idea here," and these are new ideas. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, yes, if the publisher of Uno, Mattel, were to publish a list of Uno Variants, it would be appropriate to cover them in that article. I don't know that a sub-article covering the subject would be needed, Uno is relatively simpler to cover compared to Magic, but if anything, having a source from Mattel would vastly improve the article on Uno, which currently has a large section covering variants with not a single source to be seen. It's been tagged for at least 3 months too. No clean-up to be seen. Pity that.
And yes, I do agree that variants somebody just made up should not be added to the page. Being added to the page should wait till the variant has some real content to it. That is why I prefer being noticed by somebody of repute in the Magic field, such as Wizards, Scyre, Inquest, or Pojo. Possibly others, I don't feel my list is definitive. And it's why I've added {{Fact}} to several entries. But there is little reason to object to Wizards.com as an establisher of notability within the already existing notable subject of Magic. They are a professionally-produced site, with an incentive to present only material of substance, not every bit of rumor or nonsense. So, I accept their value as observers within this field, even though I do respect the concern that they might be biased. FrozenPurpleCube 03:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:F-Zero series[edit]

I never added the information back but should the non-games be moved to its own template? Like what Zelda has (Template:Zelda)? or should it just be removed? FMF|contact 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the places have their own articles at all. They're not even important in the context of F-Zero. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men[edit]

I can appreciate how you think that simply reverting the sentence in question serves the good of the article, but the editor I requested to weigh in was defined as neutral. You have sided with Viriditas on at least two prior occasions, which kinda negates the whole neutrality thing. There were four different, established editors weighing, feeling that the statement should belong, and 70% of the traffic (read: edit-warring) came from Viriditas, who clearly has WP:OWN issues in regards to the article. He does not listen to concensus, and is disruptive, uncivil and tendentious. All of that aside, the statemetn is about an observable part of the movie and part of the plot. It is not part of the soundtrack, nor a subjective, thematic component. Thematic implies to something which is not open to objective analysis but instead subjective interpretation. The laughter of children at the end isn't open to interpretation. It occurs.Arcayne 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded to your question on the CoM:Talk page.Arcayne 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no cabal, dude. Unsourced junk is unsourced junk. Come up with a non-primary source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You are not a neutral party in the matter. You have acted on his behalf at least twice before. When I asked for neutral opinion, that is actually what I wanted. I would like to ask you to recuse yourself from the matter and allow another admin or editor to weigh in, who doesn't have connections to either side ofthe dispute.Arcayne 01:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about, acting on his behalf? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really need me to point out the two separate disptures wherein you sided with Viriditas in that specific article?Arcayne 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What's a dispture?
I've only ever heard of Viriditas from you, and a passing look at your talk page and contributions seems to show that you're fond of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a proxy of Viriditas. I don't know what your beef with that user is, but you need to find a more productive way of settling it than accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being part of a conspiracy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
To begin with, perhaps you might want to look at my talk page a bit more carefully. I haven't accused anyone of being a proxy of Viriditas. Maybe you are confusing me with Viriditas, who was awfully fond of accusing folk of being meatpuppets of me. I can see how 'pretending' to mix things like that up works, but please, credit all of us with a bit more intelligence.
Dude, I don't think you're a part of a conspiracy. Lots of people disagree with me. It's just that whenever you seem to weigh in, it always seems to be in favor of Viriditas. I notice how yo9u never seem to find any faulkt with him, and frankly, it's a hell of a lot more telling than you riding to the rescue every time he's about to get overruled.
You know, I could point out the instances (there were actually three, not two), but what's the point? You'll suggest it is all a big coincidence. The point is,i asked for a neutral admin to weigh in on the article. Neutral would mean that you care neither one way or the other. And - to be perfectly candid, I would prefer an admin who hadn't just got off a block for tendentious 3RR blocking. I am sure you can understand why you simply aren't a good candidate as far as neutral admins go. I think what I need to do is just stay away from the two of you - you and Viriditas are chock-full of those issues that will allow you to self-destruct on your own. have fun with that.Arcayne 06:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
When I noticed that this lame, lame, lame-o dispute was being advertised, I actually investigated what it was about, and realized how simple it was, and you got your impartial mediator. I'm sorry you don't like what you hear, but the fact remains that we use attributions to reliable sources to support disputed claims here on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. The thing you deliberately keep avoiding is that you aren't impartial to the dispute. Plus, you just came off a 3RR block because you couldn't control your own revert tendencies (sound like someone else?) We asked for someone not related to the article to weigh in on the subject. You've made edits and sided with one of the two parties in the dispute on three pior occasions.Please, do tell how someone cannot help but perceive you as biased in the matter? If someone who wwas actually impartial inthe matter had weighed in against me, I would have been done with it, shrugged off the article as yet another piece of trash that would have to be revisited once a solid review came in controverting everything there. However, it wasn't someone unconnected tot he article, was it.
No, I don't like what you have to say, because we don't have to cite parts of the observable plot. If we do, please point to that specific guideline that says that a retelling of the plot requires citation. Four different,independent editors thougth it should belong, as it was observable. Since no citation exists for the laughter, what are we to do, pretend it isn't in the article at all? Please, don't insult us all by suggesting you were impartial in this matter. You clearly aren't. Arcayne 07:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You do need to cite disputed factual or evaluative claims. We allow citation of a fictional work for simple observation since there's really no better way to do it. When a factual or evaluative claim comes under dispute, you need reliable sources, because it's not clear that it's a simple fact observable by any observer. If there are no other sources, we err on the side of exclusion. If there's no citation for the laughter, we exclude it for the same reason we exclude Theo bashing Syd's brains out with a car battery; it wasn't important enough to be mentioned in any sources, so it's not important enough to be mentioned in the article.
This is the last time I'm going to speak about the rest of this nonsense: I've made maybe three edits to that article before this weekend. I've never spoken to Viriditas; I wasn't aware he existed before you brought him up on my talk page. If you're going to impuign my partiality, you're going to have to come up with something other than empty accusations or stop filling my talk page with garbage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Turning Battle Frontier into disambig page[edit]

For the anime, Pokémon Battle Frontier and the event in Pokémon Emerald. What do you think? I think it's a good idea, because people will want to look up either the anime or the event. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested this in the past, so I think it's a good idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I made it. Also, just curious, how much do you like the Pokémon series? Like, separately, how well do you like the anime, and how well do you like the games, TCG, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I keep my hand in. I don't much follow the anime any more, but I keep up. Why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Just curious. I see a lot of people who don't do much editing on certain series of video game articles, but not usually on content. You seem to do a lot of content disputes and work on quality more so than expanding on the facts of the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I usually adopt a neglected article and spend time on it when I'm feeling productive; I just don't shout it from the rooftops. I rewrote Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire at one point, most of Mega Man Battle Network 5 is me, I wrote 80%-ish of Solid Snake, and I used to do a bunch of personal electronics articles early on. I just need to be in the mood. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Rose (Street Fighter)[edit]

Sorry I'm kinda new to the editing game, but I wanted to know why you decided to erase my trivia of Rose whose appearance is similar to that of Anita from Darkstalker's, I found it a bit interesting and wondered why it needed to be erase.

Because it's entirely speculative. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Revmoval of sourced material[edit]

Your removal of sourced material from Leeroy Jenkins is considered vandalism. --Oakshade 09:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Read what you're reverting. MXC is sourced to nothing, the game text of the card is inane, and MTV is the publisher of Real World (and not an independent source to establish importance). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD: Electric Universe[edit]

  • Of course I brought the case [1] to WP:DRV because I wanted to overturn the result, (clarified here [2]) because my evidence showed there was abuse of the AfD process. Three of the Administrators made no comment on my alleged violations of policy.
  • I agreed that the consensus who voted wanted the article removed (the evidence shows that), but I think the result would have been different if my comments had not been removed, and the AfD advertised on an WP:SCI. --Iantresman 11:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ian, my past experience is that your input tends to increase the determination of those supporting the mainstream to remove your preferred content. And nothing you said was deleted, as far as I can tell, it was just moved to the Talk page, which is unusual but not unprecedented when argumentation gets out of hand. Actually if I'd been aware of that AfD and your behaviour on it I'd have banned you from it or blocked you to prevent further disruption, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. This deletion was sound, and for the same reason as we deleted Aetherometry: there are no reliable independent sources of critical analysis of the subject. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • At best, the removal of my comments was not in the spirit of the policy. If I had of removed other editors comments, or your comments, and complained that it was not "unprecedented", I'd be banned by now.
  • On the AfD,[3] no argument had gotten out of hand. One editor made a statement, and I replied to each point.[4] Please show me where I had made any inappropriate comment, policy infringement, or guideline infringement, before my comments were removed. Please provide some evidence for you accusations. --Iantresman 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Argue elsewhere, guys. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Broken link?[edit]

Red link? I remember moving that from Talk:Missingno. for archival interest. I don't know of any speedy criteria which apply to it, but as it was originally from an article with a related AFD debate resulting in a "Merge" decision, I might have missed something. Posting a DRV request here. --Stratadrake 19:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No WP:DRV needed; I'll undelete any talk page deleted for any reason besides privacy/libel/etc. concerns on request. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 6#Electric universe (concept)[edit]

I don't think your editorializing is helpful here. The deletion was unanimously endorsed by the community and should be closed as such. Your additional comment only creates the imprssion that you have an axe to grind, especially since you're not a regular DRV closer. ~ trialsanderrors 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I felt it necessary to emphasize that this was an inappropriate use of WP:DRV. Maybe linking WP:POINT was a tad too far, but I'm not worried about people thinking I have some axe to grind, given that I don't know any of the parties, have never interacted with Iantresman, and gave him a fairly mild comment on his talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no evidence whatsoever for WP:POINT, other that the arguments failed to make an impression on the other editors. On the idea that Iantresman doesn't want the decision overturned, I don't know where this comes from. He seems to be doing nothing but campaigning for the restoration of the article. On acting as a closer at DRV, I recommend you read Xoloz's excellent exposé at WT:DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Noted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing, when you close DRV's you don't have to sign the closing statement. The template automatically adds the signature. ~ trialsanderrors 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A note of appreciation[edit]

I see you are temporarily unavailable due to a series of unfortunate events, but I want to let you know that your critical perspective on Children of Men is extremely helpful and constructive and only serves to improve the article. You do a lot of good work here, and I'm looking forward to your return. —Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm?[edit]

I am not sure what you meant that you understood, MiB. Drop me a line of explanation?Arcayne 15:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

changes to Template:PokeImageNR[edit]

thanks for your alterations to the template, i agree that images w/out rationales need to deleted as they potentially sit there as copyright infringements and lazy uploaders need to be reminded that their work will be in vain if they don't follow through with wikipedia's policies. you know there's some issue i have though, b/c otherwise i wouldn't have taken the time to write you, the reason i didn't put enforcement on the template was because it would also be wrong to set images for deletion w/out notifying the orginal uploaders, so i figured that tagging them to categorize them would be enough (for now) until i got through all the images and then could go through the category more quickly (i had started organizing the easiest/highest priority images first). Of course if you're going to notify the uploaders, then i warmly thank you as you're lifting a great burden off my back :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 04:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Yonkers[edit]

I don't particularly care about this article, certainly not enough to even consider some kind of edit war behaviour. But there are procedures for merging into other articles and I think that's something you should discuss on the talk page before basically ideleting a page. What's the harm with laying out your case why you think it shouldn't exist and letting people trying to argue whether it should or not? [Added: BTW, I'm not accusing you of violating merge policy just wondering why it's essential for the article to be destroyed right now] Makgraf 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a trap for even more in-universe, overly-detailed plot summary, which is not only not part of this project's remit but also a copyright violation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Zapdos, Articuno, Ho-Oh, Suicune, Raikou, and others[edit]

Hi, I'm just wondering why my additions have all been reverted. I admit I'm newish to Wikipedia, but I didn't interfere with any material previously posted, I simply expanded on what others wrote. I realize that not everything I've written is objective, and I'm working on changing it, but I was hoping something would have been said instead of an hour of writing simply coming undone. - Alecsandyr 16:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you wrote a bunch of how-to guides on how to best play SSBM. That's not part of what we do here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry. Revert away, I guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alecsandyr (talkcontribs) 21:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Re: Cut and paste moves[edit]

Sorry about that, didn't think it was that big a deal. Thanks for the heads up. -- Grandpafootsoldier 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

For decisive action[edit]

You are hereby awarded the The General Alexander Haig Medal of Honor. - Crockspot 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. Thanks. For what? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That one-week block you handed out on AN/I. It was well deserved, and long coming. My faith in Wikipedia is restored. - Crockspot 01:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocking F.A.A.F.A. (he really had it coming.) --BenBurch 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Look what the cat dragged in. I'm glad you didn't get sucked down the hole with him. - Crockspot 01:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did anyone put up with his bullshit for so long? Criminey. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ever hear that story about how you can boil a frog alive? Like that. --BenBurch 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Need aid[edit]

An anon is placing "Leafeon" as Leafia's official. I can't do any more without violating WP:3RR. Lend a hand here? -Jeske (v^_^v) 02:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Marvel: Ultimate Alliance[edit]

Next time, you should see the big red text that says "This article is protected so sysops can only edit it" above the edit field. It causes other edit warriors to complain on my talk page. But you self reverted, so I'm not on you about it. --wL<speak·check> 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If I hit edit before you protect, and save after you protect, I get no warning. Try it on a scratch page sometime. It should probably go in Bugzilla. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It does it because you're an admin. There should be a warning tho. Isn't there a MediaWiki feature request page at meta? --wL<speak·check> 02:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, stuff tends to actually get done when it's in Bugzilla, heh. Try it, though. Make a scratch page, open an edit section, protect the page, then save the edit section. You don't get any warning at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Final Fantasy VIII[edit]

Hi. Take a look; I think it might set that precedent that we need to get rid of characterlistcruft. — Deckiller 02:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How so? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It has sections for cast creation and influences, merchandise, all but the 2 main protagonists merged in, and reception/criticism related to the characters. In other words, it has a full out of universe perspective. — Deckiller 04:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I get it. I thought you were saying it was an example of what needed to be fixed, and I couldn't figure out why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just noticed that it came out wrong. I meant to say that it would set a precedent of turning characterlistcruft into encyclopedia articles. — Deckiller 04:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's looking good. It's good to know that progress is being made somewhere; some days it feels like I'm running as fast as I can just to stay in place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think we'll try and push it to FA status and see what happens. Right now, it's at GAC. — Deckiller 04:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:NBGPWS[edit]

You may want to consider blocking this account as well until ArbCom blocks it in a few days. It was User:Fairness And Accuracy For Alls account before he became more civil in his edits (look at the block log and you'll understand). I put in a talk page protection request for his active talk page. --Tbeatty 03:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a great need to block it preemptively. It'll get blocked if it becomes a problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No worries. I'll post a notice on ANI if it becomes a problem. don't waste your time trying to keep up with him. If he pops up, there are enough people who would notice. thanks! --Tbeatty 03:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Montgomery ward[edit]

I put a comment on the talk page of Montgomery Ward re: your deletion of the images of the logs. I dont understand what you were saying about not having enough commentary to make the logos fair use. On every sort of corporate history entry, there are old logos. If there is something i am missing that you would like i would like to get it fixed to get them back up again. BrandlandUSA 03:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you need the article to be talking about the logos themselves, and you need proper attributions for those claims. This is because of Wikipedia's fair-use policy. One logo is okay because it identifies the subject of the article, but we only need one image to identify it.
Other article may have excess images; those need to be removed, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at[edit]

Honestly... nowadays, I find you annoying (I'm being honest with my feelings here, so take offense at your own risk). But I'm going to deal with you this one time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mina_Majikina.jpg

What do I do about this rational garbage you're spouting off about, dude?

What am I supposed to say? You're a big shot here... tell me, what do I do? I'm too simple minded to understand the rationale FAQ here, as none of it makes sense to me.

And answer me this time, because last time you were very rude. Don't ignore me like I'm some loser. I have rights to be responded to as much as any other wikipedian here. --Ralf Loire 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, we need to know where this image was first published. "Found off Sagubooru" isn't helpful.
Once we have that, just fill in {{Fair use rationale}} step by step. Describe the image briefly, fill in the source (which is where the image was first published), fill in the portion of the total work used (this is going to depend on what the original source is), describe the purpose of the image (to identify Mina Majikina), note if the resolution is reduced from the original (since it seems to be a magazine scan, just note that it's a scan at screen resolution), and point out that the image isn't replaceable because it's a fictional character for whom no art has been released under a free license. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
THANK you. See? Was it so hard to respond to me this time? :) Doesn't it pay oodles of satisfaction to know you've helped a highly irritable dork who doesn't like you but will deal with you again in their time of need? Your heart will be blessed by God himself~!
Again, I am too stupid and simple minded to understand the FAQ, as it all reads like Greek to me. Understand? Good. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND DO PLAY AGAIN, WE WILL BRING DONUTS!!!
Oh, and by the way, in response to what you posted on my page: No, I don't know better. :D -- Ralf Loire 09:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Um. Okay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Damn straight. --Ralf Loire 09:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Bear in mind, we still can't use the image if we don't know where it was originally published. Saying "Well, I found it on some website" isn't source enough. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you expect me to know? I don't spend my time browsing around on the internet at all the classy and well known gaming sites like you do. I have a life.
Doesn't matter now, I'm requesting it's deletion, because appearantly, I am too stupid to know where it originated. Plus I'm gettin' kinda tired of being heckled over it, so, eh... screw the darn thing all the way to heck. --Ralf Loire 09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to be heckling you, but we need to know where the image came from originally, and that applies to all images. As for "browsing all the classy and well-known gaming sites," if I knew where the image came from, I'd add the sources myself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Meh. Whatever pontoons float your boat, señor. :3 --Ralf Loire 10:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good advice, if apropos of nothing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, actually, Cmsjustin has a good point, even though this should be none of my business. You'll have to forgive me for my taking his side on that. --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

See WT:PCP#What a mess. -Jeske (v^_^v) 21:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)