User talk:A Man In Black/Archive2

iPod criticism

I've been away recently and have just now had a chance to review your revision of the iPod article. I still don't like it--I believe criticism sections are an important part of any article about subjects that attract controversy--but it's a lot better than it was before, and while the article is still absurdly pro-IPod, at least it's not a total whitewash anymore. I appreciate the effort you've taken to alleviate my concerns, and I'm not going to start an edit war about this.

(I trust you'll be doing the same regarding the criticism sections in the articles about McDonald's, Wal-Mart, and Nike now, too. Looking forward to it.) --PHenry 05:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May I ask why it is so important to you that this article, alone among all the thousands of articles on Wikipedia, not have a criticism section? It's becoming increasingly difficult for me to assume you're acting in good faith here. You told me that you'd "rather see ugly Criticism sections gone whereever possible," yet as far as I can tell you've never tried to eliminate or integrate criticism sections on any page anywhere except this one, where you've deleted it at least four times after at least two people have tried to start it. As every editor except you seems to support--or at least tolerate--the existence of this section, I'm restoring it again. If you intend to continue pursuing this particular white whale, I suggest taking the matter directly to RFC. --PHenry 22:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't I moved onto other articles? If you must know, I got sidetracked onto a Wikiproject, where the only relevant criticism section cannot be logically integrated into the text of the article is a less awkward way. I fiddled with some drafts of Wal-Mart and McDonald's, but I decided not to take on another contentious issue when I was in the middle of arguing for a major merge project.

Two people? I haven't noticed anyone but you start a criticism section, save for someone who started a section about the supposed non-randomness of the random shuffle feature of the iPod. I wasn't even the one to revert that.

Right now, I don't feel like fighting the status quo on dozens of heavily-trafficked articles while I'm busy fighting the status quo elsewhere.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to eliminate criticism of the iPod. I don't own one. I don't wish I owned one. I don't have any love (or hate, for that matter) for the iPod. What I don't like is having any negative POV sequestered into one little corner of the article, and I also don't like vague, unsourced "criticism."

If you want to know why I'm still watching this article, it's because this is a clearcut example of an article where a Criticism header is inappropriate. All of the criticism is criticism of topics dealt with elsewhere in the article.

You still haven't answered the specific point about the iPod article; why not criticize the battery life and non-replaceable battery in the context of the battery? Why not note the lack of support for certain formats in the same place as the mention of what formats it does suppport? Why not talk about the vertical monopoly in the context of the ITMS (as the grand majority of iPod users use un-encumbered AAC or mp3 files, which don't enter into a monopoly of any kind)? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on Ruby and Sapphire

I like the improvements made to the Ruby and Sapphire article. And the improvements to the Legacy section that I added. Hbdragon88 20:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would like your input on some AFDs

Hey, Man in Black, you may have noticed that I've been nominating various webcomics for deletion. Most of them are going through the process as normal, but 2 have had various sock puppets. You seem to know your webcomics better than I do, and have voted both ways in the nominations. If you have the time, I'd like you to take a look at these two.

Thanks - Hahnchen 23:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this heads-up, and I'd appreciate if you could keep me in the loop on any future nominations you make. Most of these webcomics aren't very significant, but some of them are and just have bad articles. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I only asked for your input on the ones which had sockpuppeteering going on. I do value your input to the discussions, but am wary of setting up a list as such, in case:

I am accused of electioneering
It turns into a hitlist for extreme inclusionists (see Schoolwatch)

But if you just check the latest Afd page, and scroll down, you'll see numerous webcomics listed. I will be going to university soon, and my wikipedia time will probably fall along due to lack of internet access for the first few weeks, so there might not be any in the next few weeks. - Hahnchen 15:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning, there, and I'll keep watching AFD, then. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon G/S/C?

I've improved Pokémon Gold and Silver significantly, but am unsure of just how good it is - is it good enough to remove the cleanup tag? I knwo that release dates and Team Rocket involvement need to be added, but even with those, it seems incomplete. -- Hbdragon88 03:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it up to you if/when you want to pull the cleanup tag. It was just rather a mess when I tagged it. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name

What led you to take A Man In Black as your nickname? --Maru (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was, for the longest time, a volunteer evangelist for Steve Jackson Games, who called the vulunteer reps Men In Black. I've also been a fan of crackpot conspiracy theory for a long time. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pope J.P.Kiddiefiddler

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --131.111.8.103 12:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heeheeheeheehee. I'm not worried anyone will block me for deleting "Pope John Paul Kiddiefiddler", but I appreciate the laugh. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thus I, 131.111.8.103, do hereby award you this Erect Remis, for actually having a sense of humour. (A rarity here on Wikipedia)

Really, I don't want a picture of a dick on my talk page, thanks, but I did get a kick out of the US gov't-public domain tag on the picture of the guy jacking off. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Really, I don't want a picture of a dick on my talk page, thanks" - Why on earth not?--131.111.8.103 12:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, if you insist. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A favor...

OK, I had made several edits at once without the preview button. The wikicities thing was removed because the star wars wiki contains the exact same information as the ESB article does here. The Wookieepedian 12:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. I trusted that you were acting in good faith, but I was just curious what was going on, especially in an article that has had a few ongoing conflicts. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ban

Hi please don't ban me from editing Wikipedia again, it's very annoying. If you wish to expreiment with your blocks, please use CryptoDerk as he has an arse for a face. Thanks.--131.111.8.98 13:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know perfectly well how blocking users works, and I won't block you when you stop vandalising pages. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy again

Well a plot summary has been added with the comment (conjecture based on...). I mean wtf? Marskell 09:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Yeah, I know. This article is going to be a pain. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

OK. But, technically, I did correct the spelling, but... Yeah, I know. I'll leave it alone until anyone is willing to discuss it. The Wookieepedian 22:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Fox characters

I have a slight problem with you merging the pages. Although I do agree ones like Panther Caroso, Aparoid Queen, and some others are ok, I do not agree that Krystal and the Aparoids shoudl br relegated to the page. Krystal was a major character in Adventures, and the aparoids are the major enemy in Assault. Thunderbrand 00:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal is borderline; she isn't unto herself an encyclopedic topic, but that list may not be the place to merge her. As for the Aparoids, if you'd rather, you could just delete them from that page and redirect Aparoid to Star Fox: Assault, while adding any plot info that isn't already in that article.

I was pondering a "List of main characters in Star Fox" or somesuch, or lists by affiliation, which would solve the Krystal problem (as well as my ambivalence about the lesser members of the Star Fox team, Wolf, Gen. Pepper, etc.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hell. I was iffy on merging Krystal there, and even though I think she should be merged somewhere, there's an objection, so I've self-reverted. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay now. I'll leave the aparoid info. on the page. I might move it to the Assault page, but i'll think about it later. Thunderbrand 01:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bold

Thank you! Trollderella 17:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, are you referring to the Ashida Kim closing, or something else? In any case, you're welcome! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

If there was a "Voice of Reason" Barnstar, you'd have three. Your comments esp. on AfD are always well reasoned, if only more people conducted themselves as you do.--inks ^T 01:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haha... I appreciate it. I've been trying to ameliorate the acrimonious tone on AFD; there's really no reason for people to be screaming back and forth about...well, anything. Even if the specific debate this month, schools, isn't an issue that can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, the anger doesn't serve anyone. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comixpedia transwiki

I'm around if you want to transwiki those webcomic related entries. RJFJR 01:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (The links go blue when you restore them so I can tell to precede). RJFJR 01:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

someone already did the next three. RJFJR 01:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're already transwikied? Well, okay. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 of them were. Take a look at my talk page and I've moved those to a separate section and checked the rest. The others entries aren't over there yet. RJFJR 01:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the list already. There were just the 4 that are already done. RJFJR 01:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

done. RJFJR 02:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

done. One block left to do. (I had my Internet connection drop out briefly there, dang cable company). RJFJR 02:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thank you! Maybe we can work together again sometime. Let me know if you need a hand with any projects. RJFJR 02:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. Glad I could help you out, and I'd be happy to help you, too, anytime I can. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listcruft

~~I propose we expand this list, preferably by maiming some English TV stars.~~ Naughty of you! But funny!!! Dlyons493 Talk 11:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Near Vertical Incidence Skywave

Hey, I cleaned-up the Near Vertical Incidence Skywave page to make it appropriate for Wikiepdia. I removed the Wifi stuff, and added a simple explanation of what NVIS really is.

basically, NVIS is a radio propogation mode that is especially useful in communicating over the horizon in circumstances where VHF isn't useful. Sometimes you want to communicate with a station on shortwave thats too far for groundwave and too far for traditional skywave. This is called the skip zone. So, basically, NVIS allows you to communicate into the skip zone. This is useful for emergency or mmilitary applications.

I have no idea where the fellow was going when he wrote it, but you may want to take another look at it and see what I did.

Roodog2k (Hello there!) 16:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of the principle, but I didn't know that was the actual (as opposed to an advertising or patent) name for it. I was actually looking at that article, and planned to revise my vote. Thanks for the heads-up, though! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Roodog2k (Hello there!) 21:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template:pokeinfobox

Sorry - I just copied the link from the address bar! I apologise. --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 17:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I figured it was something like that. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my close of the AfD for Mr Sellers. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just make sure to put {{at}} above the header next time. 23:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

IPod guy

Uh...he was already only blocked for 24 hours. The shortest block takes precedence. BUt yes, indefinite was too long. -Splash^talk 01:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? I guess I was wrong on two points, then; I thought the longest block took precedence, and that the shortest one was 48 hours. A lesson learned, I suppose; sorry about that. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Wikipedia is really slow for me, so the image never loaded. I just saw the image name and assumed that's what it was. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ESB protection

I think that was a little hasty, but for what it's worth, Wookieepedian has agreed at User talk:A Link to the Past to stop reverting the issue. — Phil Welch 05:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to give everyone a little time to cool off, as well as discourage Copperchair from making further reverts. I don't think anyone was planning a productive rewrite of the ESB article any time soon, and, if they were, a day off will do no harm. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Changes

I've already bugged everyone on the AfD page about this, but I wonder what you think about the new revision of the Earth changes article since I rewrote it? I think that most of the reasons for deletion that were initially raised and commented on in the consensus-gathering (particularly regarding original research and attempts to soapbox a personal theory) have been pretty well eliminated. --Clay Collier 08:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually read the article, and keep meaning to change my vote but get distracted by other things. I'll change my vote now, though, so I don't forget. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT

I think you're taking this too far - or not far enough, perhaps?
Maybe both. Going so far on a guideline that few follow (and thusly, this should be a blockable offense, yes?).
And not going far enough because you succumb to a group of users (Final Fantasy) who want to keep their character articles.
And, of course, you're going light. I hope you're going to go after the Pokémon articles, or one may feel that you're biased. --A Link to the Past (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I started with the Pokémon articles. (List of Johto Gym Leaders, List of Hoenn Gym Leaders, and List of Orange Islands Gym Leaders were all merged by me, and I've got a proposal to knock out the majority of the nn people, places, and things on the Pokémon world into lists or the source works pending.) Right now, I'm picking off one-sentence stubs and other easy merge candidates, while working on some really tough cases (the Metal Gear list, for example) to cut my teeth on doing major merges like this.

The only reason I haven't taken on the FF articles is because I'm not knowledgeable about several of the games, and because, well, it's going to be a metric fuckton of work because there are a bajillion FF stubs, and the FF Wikiproject seems to be doing a fairly decent job of cleaning them up on their own without me butting in.

Were I to butt in, I'd have to establish that I knew what I was talking about (no mean feat, because I don't, as far as most of the FF series minutiae goes) and then have this same argument with anyone who wanted to defend this or that article on a minor subject. Then I'd have to go through the rigamarole on who does or does not transcend the source work (no question that Cloud and Aeris do, but does Tifa? Does Squall? Does whoeverthefucktheprotagonistofFFXisIcan'tremember?) I know this is true because it's exactly what happened with the Pokémon projects.

Right now, my only major bias is my comfort level with the subject matter. It's just your bad luck that I can converse intelligently on Nintendo-related fancruft, rather than Gundam or Harry Potter. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or Star Wars!

/me fears the day that the reckoning for the Star Wars articles will come due. --Maru (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here you go - Kefka Palazzo only appeared in... Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy Anthology (collection including FFVI) and the Final Fantasy VI port on the GBA. I suggest you get to merging that, and all FFVI articles as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, go for it. I don't feel comfortable merging when my memory of FFVI is this hazy, and I've got enough contentious disputes on my plate for the time being. I'm already up to my neck in stuff I started and need to finish, and I've got some more clear-cut cases (like the Advance Wars COs, the characters of Breath of Fire 2, and most of the minor SFA/2/3 characters, not to mention a shitload of Pokémon stuff) I want to do before I start taking on stuff from a series I'm not entirely comfortable with. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not GOING to go for it, because I'm not a mergist. You're comfortable with editing Pokémon articles - merge them then. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been; I just haven't been merging any lately because people haven't yet weighed in on my large-scale merge proposal over at WP:PCP/T, and as it's a LOT of work affecting a bunch of articles, I'd rather have the fights before I do all the work to merge, rather than after.

Implied in your comments is "...and leave the stuff I'm working on alone!" With all due respect, no. I'll get to other things in due time, but I'm going to continue to make reasonable efforts to appropriately deal with articles on subjects that I feel are not encyclopedic subjects unto themselves. I'm not singling out things you're working on, as this isn't some sort of personal vendetta, but it's not really fair to chase me away from them, either. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that you're gonna merge some of the Pokémon articles? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

con't

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! Here's some examples of me doing so:

I plan on merging the rest of the minor characters, and, depending on consensus, merging the places. No, I haven't merged everything I'd like to yet, because a number of my proposals are still awaiting input from other editors, but this is a collaborative project and all, so I don't much mind waiting.

I don't get it. Are you trying to accuse me of hypocracy here? I'm mostly picking on things I like, rather than going out of my way to nail other fandoms as "unimportant and non-notable." There's more cruft than I can take on all at once, so I'm covering things as I come to them.

In fact, what is your point? Usually I know what's going on by this point in the conversation, and right now I'm just lost. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if you'll ever merge Dunsparce. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I haven't the faintest idea where I'd merge it, consensus among those knowledgeable about the subject (if not general consensus) is overwhelmingly against it, and I don't have the mental fortitude to fight the Poképrosal fight all over again, especially since I'd have to deal with no only those who disagree with me, but also the inevitable "Didn't we already decide this?" arguments. From a dealing-with-the-shitstorm viewpoint, I'd rather take on both the Gundam and Star Wars stubs at the same time.

If you want to be first in front of the firing squad, I'll be the second, but until then that's one Pandora's Box that's staying closed. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:FICT should be enforced, it should be enforced everywhere. But it should not. There is no such thing as enforcement of a guideline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we disagree. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of opinion. WP:FICT is a suggestion for users. If guidelines were enforcable, they wouldn't BE guidelines, they'd be policies. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel WP:FICT should be implemented in general for a handful of (to me) compelling reasons, not just because it's a guideline. If you'd like, I could repeat those reasons, but I fear that this line of conversation is unlikely to lead to productive exchange of information otherwise. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then propose it. But until it becomes policy (which is unlikely, because an article like Lakitu, while it is big in the Mario games, is not known outside of them, would be effected), you cannot enforce it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

con't

I have no intention of merging Lakitu any time soon. I am not going to respond to any more strawman arguments.

If you have a problem with any of these merges, let me know:

Advance Wars COs
Breath of Fire 2 cast
Metal Gear characters
Pokémon people, places, or things
the King of All Cosmos
Anything I've already merged or tagged with {{merge}}

If you're curious why I haven't merged some other article, the answer is probably one of:

I wasn't aware of it
I feel it transcends the original source
Merging it without first spending a lot of time explaining my reasoning to a Wikiproject is going to start a massive shitstorm
There's no clear merge target

I am merging these articles because articles about characters who haven't transcended their source material are inevitably lists of trivia, substantive duplication of the article on the source material (the John Galt/Atlas Shrugged argument), or unexpandable stubs. None of these things are encyclopedic material, per WP:NOT, general consensus on duplication, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Occasionally there are exceptions, granted, but they are few and far between.

Is there anything you want to know that isn't covered in the above? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:FICT is to be considered enforcable, it should be enforced on all articles that do not transcend their source material. If Lakitu can be an exception, and he doesn't transcend his source material, then that exception kills your idea that the idea of not transcending its source material is more important than quality and/or length. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am merging these articles because articles about characters who haven't transcended their source material are inevitably lists of trivia, substantive duplication of the article on the source material (the John Galt/Atlas Shrugged argument), or unexpandable stubs. None of these things are encyclopedic material, per WP:NOT, general consensus on duplication, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Occasionally there are exceptions, granted, but they are few and far between. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that because WP:FICT says they should not be generally given articles, that they become unencyclopediatic, and then apply to WP:NOT? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got it backwards. I'm saying that WP:FICT exists because the articles it applies to end up becoming lists of trivia (WP:NOT), substantive duplicates of the articles on the source (general consensus about duplicate content), or unexpandable stubs (deletion policy).

If WP:FICT counsels merging an article but that article is not one of three above, well, exceptions like that are why WP:FICT is a guideline. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you cannot enforce a guideline. You have zilch for an argument of why these articles should be merged. View this: Guideline | Policy. One side is enforcable, the other side is not. Those exceptions are exceptions because they reach a certain size and quality. Just like Lakitu did. If WP:FICT is enforcable, then that would make anyone going against it going against policy. Because there is no such thing as an enforcable guideline. Raul agrees with my objections to the transcending source material concept, and I never mentioned your intentions once. I only ever mentioned that you were trying to merge articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turn something into an exception and then split it from whereever it has been merged.

I'm using WP:FICT as a guideline to spot problematic articles. When I merge something or nominate something for deletion, I will point out that it is a substantive duplicate of the source's article (King of All Cosmos), a list of trivia (Olga Gurlukovich before I merged it), or an unexpandable stub (Falkner (Pokémon) before it was merged).

If WP:FICT bothers you that much, ignore any reference to it. Hachi is still a stub that can only be expanded with trivia or substantive duplication of material better-suited to the articles on the Advance Wars series and King of All Cosmos is still substantive duplication of Katamari Damacy and We Love Katamari, whether or not WP:FICT existed.

I'm quite aware of the difference between a guideline and a policy, and I don't much need you to badger me about it. I plan on (and have, as far as I can recall) citing policy where appropriate and necessary; WP:FICT is a handy rule of thumb on implementing related policy in this situation. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by Alink to look into the wp:fict criteria. I thought points #2, #3, and #4 were OK. I found #5 to flatly wrong - we don't set artificial limits on the sizes of our articles like that. In addition, #1 seems to proscribe a serial model for article writing which simply does not occur on Wikipedia. →Raul654 05:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on your feelings about point #1? That is salient to this debate.

#5 seems to be more an argument against splitting off plot summary subpages, something I haven't seen anyone do...well, pretty much ever. I don't see it as an argument for limiting the length of plot summaries in articles (I don't feel extensive, overdetailed plot summaries are appropriate, but this is neither here nor there. I don't plan on trimming down any plot summaries in the near future.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point #5 was created as a response to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. On the days (well, hours really..) following it's release people scrambled to get a wildly detailed chapter-by-chapter plot summary on the article. It was so detailed that it was split off to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary, which was about 60KB large and may as well have been a substitute for the book. I'm hazy on what happened next, but it's gone now. Coffee 17:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babbat

Hi there. You voted on the above AFD to "delete and redirect", which I'm not sure is actually possible. Did you mean delete the page and recreate it as a redirect? If so, I thought you may wish to clarify that. I've just commented on the AFD myself, and happen to think it should simply be deleted outright, for reasons stated. Thanks! Regards enceph alon 07:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of "delete and merge," which is incompatible with the GFDL unless a history merge is performed. "Delete and redirect" is a common vote, and implies "Delete and [replace with a] redirect." I don't really see any need to clarify; any admin closing an AFD is going to be familiar with the typical votes. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I certainly wasn't thinking of "merge and delete"; I specifically asked you if you meant "delete the page and recreate it as a redirect". From this note I gather that that is, indeed, what you meant. It is an unusual vote, correctly used only when the editor believes that the history of the article preceding the redirect should, for some reason, be destroyed. I have sometimes seen editors combine vote shorthands in uncommon ways that do not express what they actually meant, and a friendly note seeking clarification sometimes does help to clarify things. Finally, you may wish to note that there are three ways of satisfying the attribution requirements of GFDL when "merge and delete" is performed; a history merge is just one, and the most laborious, of the lot. Kind regards and happy editing enceph alon 17:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I see delete and redirect all the time, it seems. You've got a good point, and I'll clarify.

Incidentally, what are the other ways to make merge and delete work? I was only aware of the one. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the history merge certainly is the best known, probably because it is intuitively what you might expect has to be done. It's also a pretty crappy way of having to spend an evening though, I'd imagine! A second way is to do the following:

Decide on all the bits from Source Article (SA) that you want to merge in the Target Article (TA).
Go to the Talk page of TA, and create a subpage (much like you create an archive page). Title it something suitable, like "Article History of SA". Copy and paste the history of SA on that subpage.
Merge the stuff from SA to TA; in the edit summary, write that this edit is a Merge from SA, and the attribution history of SA may be found in [[Talk:TA/Article History of SA]]

You can do this because GFDL merely requires that attribution is preserved; it does not compel attribution to be preserved only in the history logs. It is arguable that a good edit summary as in 3 goes some way in preserving a record of sorts in the logs, anyway.

The third and IMHO best method manages to find a balance between the very correct but very laborious history merge method, and the acceptable but perhaps not fullproof Talk page copy-paste method. It is as follows:

Move the article from SA to some article R, R being a suitable title of the closer's choice. R should be a page that has not existed prior to the move, and which will serve as a useful redirect to TA.
Delete the now formed redirect page at SA.
Merge the content of R into TA in the usual manner (ie. such as when you do "merge and redirect"). Once you've finished the merge into TA, make R a redirect. In this way, you preserve attribution history and also leave a useful redirect at R. R's history has the advantage of being a real history page, such that one may look up the individual edits of any user who made contribs to SA—the inpossibility of which is the one weakness of method 2 above (copy-paste).

There is actually a fourth way—the simplest, but I'm not quite sure of its compatibility with GFDL yet. I'll tell you about it when I am :). Regards enceph alon 18:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't another alternative be to move the SA to a subpage, then merge the content into the TA? That leaves the history on the subpage. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like TA/Subpage? Sure, I guess; that's basically the same idea as SA→R→TA, except you'd have SA→TA/Subpage→TA. Only, I'm not sure it's fine per WP:MOS to have subpages in the mainspace like that, and the advantage of R being a redirect may be lost. enceph alon 18:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is assuming that there's no appropriate R, granted.

I don't see how a subpage of that sort would be a problem per MOS; it's not going to have any content, and it's similar to Talk page archive subpages. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Since I'm not an admin yet, could you please shed some light here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_the_Twelfth_%28A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events%29&action=history . I think that the IP involved has violated 3RR and am wondering what to do about it. --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 18:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egregiously so. Usually, you list these things on WP:AN/3RR, but I'll take care of this one. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

You can merge the articles into the List of AW COs now. Although, maybe we should focus on transwiking them? Also, can you help me AfD the FFVI articles? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I might as well just give up the AfD. Hachi is failing because he's not a character in a massively popular series, but the AW games have sold 1,000,000+ copies combined. Umaro is succeeding because he is an FF character. I might as well give it up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to merge those articles, then you need to go about it the right way. AFD has a polarizing effect, for better or worse, and really shouldn't be used unless you feel the current article isn't useful.

Now, for the time being, those AFDs aren't going anywhere. You need to talk to User:Seancdaug and the users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy, if you want to get anything done. I'll help insofar as I can, if you're willing to follow through on this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha (radio presenter)

Hi. "Natasha" is her radio name by which she is known on BBC Radio 6 Music. Following other precedents, I made "Natasha" disambiguate to the animal or "Natasha (radio presenter)" and then the full article there. I redirected the "Natasha Desborough" (which she is not known by, at least, on-air) to her known radio/stage name, "Natasha (radio presenter)".

Other precendents show that the main article is under the stage name, not the real name. See the singer, Pink, Madonna, Sting et al.

I would like to change it back, but am writing you first for your thoughts.

I would like to change it back to "Natasha" article disambiguating to "Natasha (radio presenter)" and put the main text there, and redirect "Natasha Desborough" to "Natasha (radio presenter)". That makes sense since her listeners know her by that name, "Natasha".

Let me know what you think given the precedents.

Cheers ! Wikiklrsc 17:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it's a bad idea to have parenthetical names if you can at all avoid it. It's one thing to use an obvious stage name when that's the only name the person goes by, even in their private life, but in this case she's just using her first name as an on-air name.

Personally, I think about it this way; the real name preferable to the stage name with a parenthetical if a news story about something happening to her would use her real name instead of her stage name. If she were in a car accident, for example, a newspaper story about her would probably say, "Natasha Desborough, known to BBC Radio 6 listeners as 'Natasha,' was struck by a rabid emu..." or even just "Natasha Desborough, noted BBC Radio 6 presenter..."

That said, I'm not strongly invested in this argument. I'll leave it to your discretion; if you're not moved by this argument, I have no objections to a revert. You're clearly more knowledgeable about the woman in question to make a judgement call. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points. Thanks for your thoughts. I have seen a lot of articles with parentheses after a name or title to disambiguate. I agree that it's better without it, if possible. I'll not jump to change it without thinking it over in light of what you counseled. Sometimes, radio broadcasters do not broadcast their surnames and, to the public at large, the surname is unknown, at least in a first pass, for superficial privacy reasons. I'll work it out. Many thanks again. -- Wikiklrsc 23:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's a point I hadn't considered. Well, let me add another exception to my rule of thumb; if the presenter is not a public figure and is known to the public only by the radio persona. That's a variation of the news rule of thumb; if she weren't a public figure at all, it'd be reported "Noted BBC Radio 6 personality Natasha was devored by enraged raccoons today..."

Thanks for the reasoned discussion, by the way. Were that everyone on Wikipedia were as evenheaded and reasonable as you are! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, and, again, many thanks for your help! -- Wikiklrsc 03:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ESB

We have settled the issue with the templates, and I have agreed to stop reverting the article to my version. Can you unprotect the article now? The Wookieepedian 22:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected, as it seems like things have cooled off. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

My last few edits, as you've probably seen by now, were mostly rewording of the opening paragraphs in the SW film articles to give them a standard opening. The Wookieepedian 23:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's okay, but just make sure you use edit summaries in the future, okay? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The Wookieepedian 00:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celestianpower is an admin

I'm glad I think correctly and I hope to see some more of Pokemon soon. Thank you very much for your support - my bid (as you probably know) went swimmingly. I couldn't have asked for a better one. Thank you very much and I just hope I don't mess up! See you on IRC soon... --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 13:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA on Copperchair

Well, you seem to have beat me to it. I was going to wait a little while longer to see if the RfC got any results, but I'll throw my full support behind this now that it's been started. Thanks for getting the ball rolling, at any rate.--chris.lawson 04:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Body Slam

Hi,

You speedily deleted the Body Slam (movie) article, which I'm sure was a good idea, given that it probably had very bad content. There was, however, such a movie, (a favorite from my younger days), and I'll probably be inspired to write at least a movie stub so that it can have one later today. Just wanted to give you a heads-up, so you wouldn't think I was doing so stupidly. :) Xoloz 13:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, write away. I usually don't watchlist my speedies anyway, but I'm always glad to see gibberish replaced with useful info. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

could you check something

is Babajobu an admin or/and a beuricrat

Looking at Wikipedia:List of administrators, it doesn't seem he/she is. Why did you need to know? Maybe I can help you out. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinetite

I've removed the closing, go ahead and re-list it. Don't forget to replace the Afd tag and make a note the debate was re-opened on the article talk page. Cheers, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once I deal with this mess with a revert war, I'll do that. Thanks for letting me know quickly! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting personal attack.

I want a little confirmation that refering to something someone said as "drivel" (defined as a stupid or childish comment) is considered a personal attack? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; it's not entirely civil, but not really a personal attack. Why? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I responded to User:Ereinion why making baseless threats of blocking is worse than marking articles for AfD without discussion first, and he deleted it from his user talk page, calling it drivel in his edit summary. Basically, there's no reason for him to refer to the message as such other than to be insulting. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't get ruffled about it. You know the threats are baseless, and it's clear he got your message and isn't interested in discussing it. I'd say the discussion is closed, at that point; no sense pushing the issue. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copperchair and the Wookieepedian

Perhaps they didn't break 3RR, but look at the Star Wars pages' histories. It's all 'reverting edits by X' and they are both being extremely disruptive, and one or both of them seems to think they own the pages. It's rather annoying and disruptive, and they need to come to a consensus and stay there. Thus I don't think an appeal should happen. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Copperchair has been on a crusade to rid the articles of any references to the DVD editions of the Star Wars films. Basically, the edit history you saw was of me reverting his removal of information from the articles. He is impossible to reason with. In the past, even when he has promised to stop his reverts, he continues anyway. The Wookieepedian 11:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to Fuschia city above

You may have missed it - feel free to delete this message when you've read it. --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 08:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've spotted it; I was going to reply in full when I wasn't having trouble accessing Wikipedia (like I am right now). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm doing it properly

I've found that I have a talk page at my 207.62.238.1 temporary address today, so it's made me think that I should just log into my Erik the Appreciator address from here on, whenever I make an edit. Just thought to let you know. (Now delete this message to your heart's content.

Coolcool. I'll be keeping an eye out for your contributions; welcome to Wikipedia! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD on Suicide methods

Man I dunno. Honestly this is the first time I've gone against the grain in an AfD or anything on WP really. What's the need to speedy it? I hate to be a stick in the mud but it doesn't seem that reasonable that someone might agree with me during the discussion period? But I guess getting enough votes for it to matter is unrealistic... I still really object to this article being on Wikipedia. Speedy it if you must. --W.marsh 03:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have mixed feelings, I won't speedy keep it. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... one hour relatively late (for some) doesn't seem to be a fair ammount of time for all opinions to be heard. Obviously at least a few people do think the page should be deleted (on the Talk:Suicide methods). Perhaps they will come to the AFD when they realize it's there... I think that's only fair. --W.marsh 03:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's currently an ongoing dispute about the article, and even the nom felt the content issues were more important than deletion/not-deletion. Normally, if it was just the nom and a bunch of keep votes, I'd close it as a well-meaning nomination made for the wrong reason, but I wanted to check with you first. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, I just object to the content (how it reads like a how-to and could be dangerous)... I should be concentrating on that. I can see now that the article itself shouldn't be deleted... I don't object to you speedy keeping it now. Sorry for the drama. --W.marsh 03:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. If I wasn't interested in dealing with drama, I would have turned down my RFA. ;D - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR (Again)

I am not participating in a shouting match. I didn’t start it, but I will definitely put an end to it. Copperchair 05:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Large and problematic? I respectfully disagree. The problem is that nobody stops reverting. The conflict pages should be protected until a final decision is made. And my shoting responses are the exception, not the rule. Copperchair 14:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bot or bot mind?

I get both (a) alarmed that somebody's editing my comments and then (b) mildly offended by the suggestion that I edit other people's comments, plus indulge in personal attacks, when I was just editing my own comment? Bot or bot mind? Zocky 10:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, after thoroughly reading your second comment on my talk page, I'm thoroughly offended. It would do you well to tone down your language, even when speaking to users who have in fact commited a faux pas. It might also be a good idea to at least check the user's contributions and such before using that tone on them. And, crucially, when not satisfied with other people's behaviour, either (a) provide people with links to appropriate policy in a cool and friendly voice or (b) speak in your own name, not in the name of the community. Zocky 10:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke. I'm aware you were editing your own comment, and no, I'm not a bot nor overly literal. I just figured anyone commenting on an RFAr could do with a little bit of cheering up, but the joke fell flat. Sorry about that. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matter settled. Just don't try it on newbies. Zocky 01:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. The only reason I didn't use a standard template is because there isn't one. Usually I use a softer hand on newbies. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More on Mills malls AFD

Please see the group AFD for all the Mills Malls at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various "Mills". So far only mall enthusiasts have voted...

Thanks Blackcats 22:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

I notice from RC you're about. I'd like a second opinion on User:195.82.122.111 - linkspamming? Although the links initally look helpful, it's now getting to factory line editing - 195.82.122.111's conts, I'd appreciate a second opinion. Alf ^melmac 10:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's a linkspammer all right, but it seems to be a linkspammer adding useful links. I don't see any reason to revert or block, as this seems to be a UK version of Citysearch, a similar site based in the US that I use all the time. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note some have already been seen as linkspam by others and removed, so I'll leave it to the articles' watchers to decide, thanks. Alf ^melmac 10:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated template substitution

This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Tawker 18:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]