User talk:A Man In Black/Archive9

AfD: Halo 2 Skulls

Greetings. I noticed you wanted Halo 2 Skulls deleted. Being the page's creator and primary contributor, I felt obliged to defend it. Originally, I created it to contribute to the then strong WikiProject: Halo. However, that seems to be a lost cause, especially for list pages such as the aforementioned one.

What I'll probably eventually end up doing is just creating a section in Halo 2 and linking to the High Impact Halo archive. Perhaps you wouldn't mind doing it? It is you, if I'm not mistaken, who would do desire to see the end of pages like this. --Cryptic C62 22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking HIH in Halo 2 would probably be the best bet, along with one or two sentences about the skulls. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AMIB. — Deckill e r 22:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Relationships section of the Pokemon Anime article.

I noticed that you didn't touch them, considering I thought that section reeked as being fan-crufty like all of Cool Katt's Pokemon articles. 69.223.138.29 23:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yowch. I'll take care of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black/CVG

Hello A Man In Black. I noticed that in your draft User:A Man In Black/CVG and A Man In Black/CVG/Tool you have the categories still activated, so it's showing up in Category:Esoteric templates and in several others. Could I suggest that you deactivate the category links (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per WP:CG, "If you copy an article to your user namespace you should decategorize it".) Cheers! Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion: Talk:British Shorthair

Another user has added the NEDM/Happycat information into the British Shorthair "Famous British Shorthairs" subsection. In an effort to prevent another revert war over this, I have moved the debate into the Article's Talk Page.As you have made an impact on the issue at one point or another, your opinion and vote would be greatly appreciated. --Targetter 04:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility dispute

There've been some issues regarding User:Cshay which you've been involved in; I've raised the issue at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Just thought it would probably something that'd concern you. ----Emufarmers^(T/C) 07:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has not been in any dispute with me! What are you trying to achieve by saying things like this? Are you an AbsoluteDan sockpuppet? Cshay 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I meant to refer him to the Wikiquette alert I raised for User:Snake Liquid (I added both at similar times, and got them mixed up in this instance). However, please refrain from making baseless sockpuppet accusations, as they may be interpreted as attacks. ----Emufarmers^(T/C) 23:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More character boxes

Can you work your voodoo on this as well? {{Infobox Street Fighter character}}

I'll be getting to it. I've been working on the SNK infobox, but the SF box was next on my list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serious vandalism on the FHFIF main characters page.

There is a disgusting pic right at the top of List of main characters in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends at the moment. The vandalist may have attacked List of secondary characters in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends as well. (I haven't looked, because I'm just so shocked.) Please do something. The vandalist is most likely Drewdy, who has attacked the FHFIF pages before. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 18:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...that's vandalism? It just looks like mass edits to me. — Deckill e r 18:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YIKES! It may have simply been the pic at the top of the Main Characters page that was hit before. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Happycat

Allow the users to create it as an article, then take it to AFD, and if the result is Delete, then WP:SALT applies. Probably the best way forward with the British Shorthair article. In my opinion, YTMND fads qualify for WP:BJAODN. --TheM62Manchester 09:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that YTMND fads actually qualify for WP:Fuck off you bunch of trolling wankers, but I understand this is a controversial opinion... Just zis Guy you know? 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closure

You closed the debate prematurely, there was no consensus for deletion. Please be more careful in future. Guettarda 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - if you see something as a "massive policy violation" please deal with the bigger issue in an appropriate venue. Not like that. Guettarda 14:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll raise the broader issue for discussion later today or tomorrow. Presumably WP:NOT is the place for this, with notification at AN/I, VP, etc. Guettarda 15:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was an overt policy violation that nobody made any effort to mitigate. I'm not bound, as a closer, to count heads. I'm very annoyed that you just reverted my close instead of taking it to WP:DRV, if you felt it was inappropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm very annoyed that you just deleted the article without discussing it. Policy reflects what we do, so if policy is routinely ignored we need to figure out what the policy relaly is. There is one line in WP:NOT which may apply to this. Stop wikilawyering and try discussing things. Guettarda 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, change that longstanding policy and then the article can be restored, or take it to DRV. These are lists of definitions of words, and we even have a separate policy page explaining that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nobody even tried to argue that these weren't dictionary definitions, merely that these dictionary definitions should be an exception. I wasn't particularly moved that this page should be an exception to policy, and AFD closers are afforded enough discretion in closes to decide that a page violates policy even if the strict headcount isn't majority delete. Wikipedia still isn't a democracy, voting is still evil, and Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being an ass about this, and stop your WP:POINT nonsense. If you don't feel like adhering the process, why do you insist that others must follow process, and then go on to ignore process some more? This is ridiculous. Guettarda 21:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Guide to deletion:

“

The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached.

”

If you don't like my close, WP:DRV, not reversal and a one-sentence snipe on my talk page, is the recourse. WP:DRV was created to resolve such disputes about the reasonableness of an AFD close. I exercised my discretion, decided that the article violated both the word and spirit of WP:NOT, noted that nobody had argued that WP:NOT didn't apply, and closed the discussion.

Now, why the FUCK are you reversing a close on an AFD you're clearly involved with? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explained what I did, I explained the problem, and I informed you that, as soon as I got a chance, I would raise the underlying policy issue for discussion. But, to you that was a one-sentance snipe. You fetishise policy even as you ignore it. Stop being a hypocrite. As I mentioned above, I have raised this for discussion. I am reverting your nonsense. Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Lists_of_Words. Stop treating Wikipedia as your own private playground. I am disgusted with your bullshit. Guettarda 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay guys, here's a solution: let the AfD run its five day course, and then have a third party admin determine the result. Let's not escalate this into further uncharted territory. — Deckill e r 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It has run its five day course, and I am the third-party admin. I don't really feel strongly about the issue, but Guettarda felt the need to reverse an AFD he is clearly involved with. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay then, sounds like there's nothing at fault here on your side. Guettarda, I recommend taking it to deletion review if you dislike the result. — Deckill e r 22:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It had run 5 days, and attracted 3 opinions, 2 support. It was then relisted. But AMiB obviously believes that he is entitled to IAR, but fetishes process for everyone else. He seems to have no interest in solving the underlying problem - I raised the issue, but he called that a one-sentance snipe". His meltdown here is very telling. Anyone who challenges you gets a slew of obscenities in all caps. Interesting. Oh well, I should really be more understanding of things like that. Guettarda 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: User talk page copying

Someone has copied your user talk page. The page can be foundhere —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop mass speedy deleting schools out-of-process

Your actions are clearly out-of-process. I expect you to undelete these articles promptly, and not make us all waste time on DRV. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. Any admin, should feel free to promptly undo any of your out-of-process actions, such as this. A1 is very narrow in scope, and doesn't justify what you've been doing. You know that. --Rob 20:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expect all you want. "Foo Elementary School is a school in Foo, Bar.{{navbox}}" is a valid A1, per WP:CSD, which sets down the rules for out-of-process deletion. (And I freely admit that they were out-of-process; CSD is there to allow deletion of junk without recourse to lengthy process.) Feel free to make articles for those redlinks, just don't repost a restatement of the title. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the thanks you get for being an admin. Great isn't it? --mboverload @ 20:23, 30 July 2006 (

Yeah well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Undeletion policy states:

If the page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately

You said "I freely admit that they were out-of-process". Hence, you have conceded, any admin may undelete these articlees immmedately. --Rob 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then they'll be redeleted if they're still one sentence restating the title. Cut the wikilawyering crap; I don't think it's going to kill anyone to write two-sentence stubs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB, may I suggest you do nothing for 24 hours. You have a lot of support for removing this cruft, best to proceed with caution at this point while people think about it. Do not let the trolls provoke you into inadvisable excess. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is all fallout from stuff yesterday. Usually Thivierr is calmer than this, not usually flying into slapping {{test}} templates up for good-faith actions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW AMiB...what is the "A" in your signature supposed to be? All I see is a box... =( Christopher Parham (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A pawn. It's deliberately obscure, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's meant to indicate you live in a small box. The small box of Internet Explorer. --mboverload @ 21:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the small box of 7-bit ASCII, but whatever makes you happy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, they are valid A1s and thus not out of process, but as contested speedies now need to be undeleted and put on AfD. Anf for the record, I find AMiB's behavior imminently reasonable. JoshuaZ 20:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested speedies don't go to AFD; you're thinking of contested prods. If someone wants to go and make articles for those redlinks, feel free! They're all still linked from a navbox, and the content was nothing but a restatement of the title.

In the time spent yelling at me for deleting a bunch of valid A1s, stubs with sufficient context for expansion could have been made for at least half of these (and I could have gone back to cleaning up RE and MGS cruft, like I was working on.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I suggest that you leave the stubs alone, or list them at WP:EiC#Cleanup needed, and go back to cleaning up RE and MGS like you'd rather be doing. (I have no idea what RE and MGS means.) --Stephane Charette 21:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so it appears AMiB is even more correct than I thought. As A1s these are fine. I really don't see what the issue is. Furthermore, this is a good thing for people who want articles on schools- they now have a nice bunch of obvious redlinks rather than deceptive blue links. JoshuaZ 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree. A redlink might prompt someone to actually m ake a proper article, these were not even real stubs - and half of them were for elementary schools at that, there is not even an obdurate minority vetoing all attempts at consensus for elementary schools. I am more than ever convinced that we should have a separate project for schools so that we can go back to including in Wikpedia only those schools which are verifiably significant. Nobody has yet succeeded in explaining the essential difference between schools and hangouts in terms of significance within a community, the vast majority of school articles are functionally unverifiable to anyone outside the local area, after all. My suggested bar for inclusion is at least one alumnus who is, say, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, or Pope, or director of Four Weddings and a Funeral, or a composer of West End hits or some such. Maybe a minumum establishment of, say, 1,000 years? There may be a small amount of bias in the selections of these examples ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a topic issue. One sentence restating the title is not appropriate for an elementary school, a head of state, an internet meme, a million-selling novel, or anything. On this point, I'm not really interested in arguing about whether Foo Elementary School is a reasonable topic or not, just that "Foo Elementary School is a school in Foo, Bar" isn't even a stub. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Lets just stop. --mboverload @ 21:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be calm

It seems both you and Guettarda have gotten angry with one another, and both of you are violating WP:CIVIL, in your case with edits like this. Please try not to take the silly little disagreements inherent in wikipedia from getting to you. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree; AMIB made a decision, and now Guettarda has the right to put it on deletion review. I don't really see why this is being disputed on this talkpage. — Deckill e r 22:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hey, I would like to send you an email but your email isn't enabled. JoshuaZ 23:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much use e-mail for anything. If you need to talk to me off-wiki, I can give you my AIM name or see you on IRC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIM would probably be preferable. JoshuaZ 23:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:A Man In Black/Yeah. I'd rather not leave it laying around where I have to deal with...well, most Wikipedia business, really. Just delete it when you've seen it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, "most Wikipedia business" did not include whatever you wanted to talk to me about. I wouldn't have given my AIM name if I didn't want to talk about whatever you needed to talk to me about. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, since it is Wikipedia related, you may not want to here it over AIM. Would you prefer if I just said it here? JoshuaZ 00:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever works for you. I just really don't want to be getting IMs from trolls whose vandalism I've deleted, nonsense like that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops

I didn't see that notice earlier. Sorry for the confusion. --AaronS 02:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox

I recently re-wrote the Gray Fox article. I'm gonna need a second opinion on what i should do next and since you did Snake + Ocelot, I thought that you might know

(The Bread 04:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I replied there. It's looking a lot better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The outrage

How DARE you delete my home town just because it doesn't show up via satellite? Consider yourself objurgated.
brenneman ^{L} 06:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrrrgggghhhh... that's my home town too. Come on brenneman, let's undelete it, block A Man in Black indefinitely and get desysopped. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cabal made me do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a move

Since you're the only admin I've really interacted with lately, I thought I'd ask you if you could help me out. Over at Talk:Borg (fictional aliens)#Requested move, we're trying to move the article, but we can because of an existing redirect. Can you do it for us? Thanks. EVula 21:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take care of. Glad I could help! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. EVula 00:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Elementary School

You said on the AfD discussion that you speedily deleted it, yet the article is still there. What gives? --Phoenix Hacker 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion was nonbinding. I deleted it as a WP:CSD A1: insufficient context to expand. Now it has sufficient context, so it's no longer a CSD candidate. If you want to reopen the AFD, be my guest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hello: There is an RfC on Snake Liquid which you may wish to comment on. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 05:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I think I'm going to decline comment, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephencolbert

MIB, I notice you're blanking all the comments to User_talk:Stephencolbert so I thought I'd make my suggestion to you directly, rather than adding it myself. I notice that the blogosphere has picked up the "Stephencolbert blocked for encouraging Wikipedia vandalism" story-- but if I read the page correctly, we're actually doing no such thing.

Blocking someone to protect the real Colbert is one thing-- blocking someone for their speech on a TV Show is another. Given that we're not doing the latter, could we put up something in big letters explicitly saying point blank that "If this is really Stephen Colbert's account, it will be unblocked".

Probably overcautiousness, but man... I really don't want to wake up and see a story about Wikipedia censoring people who criticize/satarize it on their show. --Alecmconroy 10:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment there does the job just fine, and it was made as the result of a great deal of discussion on the admin IRC channel (admittedly not the most visible place, but a unified front is useful in this case). It makes it clear that this isn't a punitive block (as the digg story seems to imply), but instead a preventative one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to rein in Tawker then, since saying "I admit it, appear it was him - in either case we could have vandal blocked him - vandalism is a pain the ass you know" [1] makes it sound like punishment was a factor. 70.179.203.73 11:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I can handle is what people do on Wikipedia, unfortunately. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pur... Rouge Barnstar

Nah, Torchic blows until it gets fighting STAB. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then it turns into a woop ass machine! H ig hway ^{Return to Oz...} 16:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I recently noticed that regarding an article that the user Kappa deprodded (the Metal Gear Sneaking suit article), you asked him on his talk page if he was interested in improving the article, citing sources or otherwise contributing to the information there. I just wanted to let you know I have had some trouble with the behavior of this user before (primarily the same thing, in that he deprods articles constantly, probably 75% of which I object to). He does not appear to actually exhibit an interest in seeing the articles or the Wikipedia project itself improve, which I find objectionable. I once overstepped my bounds in criticising him in AFDs to articles he had deprodded, and soon learned my lesson. My question for you is, is there any way (other than toughing it out) to deal with the hours of work he takes racks up for other editors after he spends only a couple minutes removing prod tags from pages? If I recall correctly, the last time I brought this issue up an editor directed me to bring it up at PROD talk. If I had any confidence that would achieve anything, I would have done so. Any opinions you have on the matter would be appreciated. Happy editing. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a prime RFC candidate, although I'd caution against personalizing it against Kappa. I'd certify. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SHBs

You are among the editors who participated in the discussion of relevent fields at Template talk:Superherobox; please add some thoughts to the similar discussions at Template talk:Supersupportingbox and Template talk:Superteambox. More editors means a better actual concensus, and that will help us decide what to do about the fields in question. --Chris Griswold 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi. You've been reported at WP:AN/3RR, and it looks like a real violation. I strongly recommend self-reverting to avoid a block. Jkelly 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AN/I

I will express an opinion if i wish, it is not disallowed. Now please stop messaging me unless you can provide a policy stating i can not express an opinion. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 12:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have mentioned you in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton. You qualify as someone who can make the second endorsement. Jkelly 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silensor

Hello, AMIB. I just wanted to let you know that the user Silensor has taken a very dim view of your conduct as an administrator. I asked him about his complaining and accusations of abuse of administrative privileges on his talk page, to which he said that he did not think it was "time to report". If you have any opinion on the matter you might ask him as well. I felt it necessary to let you know the fact that you were being discussed there, as it would any other editor. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]