User talk:A Man In Black/Archive10

Image:FR LG Pokédex.gif

I've found the primary source now, hope its good enough, cheers —Minun ^Spiderman 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Review me —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 15:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Until you find the primary source that this image was scanned from, it's unsourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about Advance Wars now

As you have implied that you know perfectly well that there is massive dispute about school article speedy deleting a school article which had attracted several keep votes is a cynical abuse of your admin privileges, and shows that you cannot be trusted. Therefore I would like to ask you to request that your admin privileges be withdrawn to prevent you succumbing to tempatation again. Piccadilly 13:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The WP:CSD aren't up for a vote; they're designed that way. That is the classiest threat to have me de-adminned in a long time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoo boy, I see you're really getting flak for doing what Jimbo Wales might consider the right thing. Since I'm a natural pacifist, here's my advice; when concerning an article that some users are more attached to than others, it might be best to leave the dirty work to other admins and focus on less sensitive issues. Unless you like flak, of course (and no, I'm not talking about Flak from Advance Wars). I'm just not too keen on seeing you undergoing the same stress episodes that User:HighwayCello had been going through recently, and which I tried to calm down also. Erik the Appreciator 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday was a really bad day, with Guettarda wheelwarring with me, but today, like most of the time, this nonsense rolls right off. I appreciate the concern, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, no one likes Flak, Adder is a fake mosher, but at least he's a throwback to Maralyn Manson (whom I hate, but never mind). Lash is just the secks overall. Feel better AMIB. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I like Flak. Of course, I like what's-his-face, the robot, better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jugger? ;P Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 23:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

+30% versus -10%? I'd hit that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Secks as in sex, or secks as in sucks? Lots of connotations there. But Lash rocks. In AW2, the only reason why I won at 4P Leaf Haven was thanks to Lash's terrain bonuses. The battle was too short to use her SCOP, but I did enjoy much better protection in the forests than usual. Then again, I was also matched up against Colin, Flak, and Nell, all of whom have average or below-average units. Hbdragon88 03:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nell has below-average units? Nell is HELL ON WHEELS. Her luck is like a free offensive boost for all of her units. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Note the conjunction, average or below-average. Plus, luck is a side factor. Colin/Nell/Flak is compartively weak to, say, if I picked the likes of Kanbei, Sami, and Max. Now Sami is HELL ON WHEELS - her 150% capture rate nearly captured my HQ! I couldn't get enough direct units to destroy it. Luckily, Blue Moon on its next turn destroyed the infantry, saving me. Hbdragon88 04:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nell is top-tier; I'd take her over Kanbei, because her luck boost is almost as good as his offensive boost. Sami rocks, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Geez, who knew that my trying to relieve your stress would evolve into a discussion about Advance Wars!? Well, since you seem to be open for this forummish discussion, what with you changing the header and everything, allow me to conclude my part in this with a quintuple pun; The various Hawkes around Wikipedia will continually Lash you with Flak and the pain will Adder up unless you quit showing your Blue Moon to those who disagree with you. If you don't, your adminship may succumb into a Black Hole. ^_^ By the way, as a character I like Hawke the best (though I never played the DS game, cuz I don't have DS, shame on me). Erik the Appreciator 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

While this subject is still on your talk page, I’ll take this opportunity to advertise my new full-page rewritings of all three Advance Wars articles which I cooked up while I was gone. Advance Wars and Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising are now much longer, while Advance Wars: Dual Strike is a good deal shorter (and I assume it was really crufty beforehand), and hopefully all three have far more clarity than before. Funny thing, though: The third article (which is about a game I never played) is still longer than the other two in spite of that! So I’d like your opinion: Is the new version of the Dual Strike article still crufty? Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 02:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been a long time since I looked at any of those pages, but as I recall they're looking a lot better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing comments on AFD

Sorry. I didn't want mutliple votes by the same person to be counted. (When someone on the "Keep" side also voted twice--he later informed me that he didn't know it was a one man-one vote thing), I deleted his too a few days ago as well. Just out of curiosity, what is the procedure here? Nightscream 13:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally misunderstood what was going on. Basically, the procedure is to do what you did plus what I did; strike or otherwise remove the "vote" and add a note explaining what you did and why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Schools Examples

Do you have examples of school articles you've made which meet your prosposed criteria, especially #1? I want to see that this item is practically attainable. --Rob 05:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I made this guideline using the reverse process; I identified the problem (directory entries and advertisements), looked at other similar solutions to that problem, then modified it to make sure it defended non-problematic articles. I largely used WP:EiC's content, since they had a handful of excellent cases of problematic, borderline, and clearly-non-problematic articles.

This compromise is strongly based on something you said in the last debate, that you were worried that a standard would result in the destruction of work spent improving school articles. With that in mind, I've been trying to hone it to affect only promotional and directory-style entries. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. But have you written a school article that meets your own standard? --Rob 06:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My interest is in dealing with an issue that is causing harm to the encyclopedia; to wit, the lack of a useful framework for which to discuss schools, and the allowal of advertisement and vanity.

I'm relying heavily on the experience of editor who know specifically about schools to help create a guideline that doesn't do anything to impair articles, while making it clear that WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM aren't suspended because there's "school" in the title. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Communicating, would be easier, if you could have just said "No, I haven't made such an article" (if that's the answer). For example, I readily admit to never making Pokemon articles. That doesn't stop me from partaking in inclusion/deletion discussion of Pokemon. But, it limits the level/nature/effectiveness of my involvement. Much of your proposal seems based on a radical lack of understanding of the editing and research process. You seem to want instantly complete articles. You think all available information can always be found in the 5-day AFD window. You say you want expandable articles, but seem to want only fully expanded articles. If you wish to continue to spend lots of time involved on school articles, consider simply making some school articles that illustrate what you think a school article should be. When people see what you're for, they'll be less focussed on what you're against. --Rob 07:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't made such an article. Forgive my defensiveness; I'm used to that being used as a rhetorical feint. I need to be less paranoid. -_-

I want to bring an end to the AFD nonsense, by explicitly defending a brand-new stub (with specific instruction to tag it for what's needed and refer it to the relevant project), then, failing that, give us structure for discussing whether an apparently moribund stub is expandable.

Something I noticed about every single article (as opposed to stub) is that it expanded upon a non-trivial mention of the school (be it a national award, a well-documented rivalry, a historical role, etc.) This guideline would protect anything that has the reference that is the germ of an article, while discouraging what I see as essentially misguided plans to make directories of schools in the hopes that those directories can be turned into actual Wikipedia content.

You're right that an example would be good, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For an example of exactly where I propose drawing the line:

This is bad. It offers nothing but duplication of directory entries, and is itself a directory entry. It offers negligable context with which to expand the article.

This, while not yet ideal (it's not a WP:FA, after all ;D) passes. It not only offers some fact that could be investigated and followed up on, but it also offers a lead on finding other info, in the form of the local paper. It's a start.

This sort of addition was once commonplace on AFD articles, and I'd like to encourage the good work that was being inadvertantly accomplished by the AFDs while chucking the confrontation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOLS

Good idea but doomed to fail. The usual suspects are already sabotaging it while simultaneously asserting that they will never accept it. Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about bad faith. And to think I just joined Wikipedia a few months ago, and already people like myself and over a dozen new people who signed up at WP:EiC in the last few months are being lumped into "the usual suspects". I understand you guys may have been here since the dawn of time (in terms of Wikipedia), but give everyone a fair chance, will you? --Stephane Charette 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hence my retirement from the discussion. Nothing productive is going to come of it because of this useless character assassination, and I'm sorry I reopened it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, AMIB. I would like nothing more than to see consensus on this controversial topic, but in the past three days it looks like editors have become so entrenched in their positions that they are unwilling or unable to work toward compromise if it means reconsidering their previously-held beliefs. I know that the whole debacle has made me give more thought to how I feel is the appropriate way to handle certain things, and I only wish that the same could be said of all editors. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 01:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa

I'll take my licks for my part in fanning the flames. I'll promise to be good, but please don't just throw in the towel. There's a whole spectrum of opinons out there other than "keep all schools" and we're doing a diservice to the "delete/merge/redirect/case-by-case" editors if the vociferating few stop all discussion. Wait, I'm doing it again, aren't I? - brenneman ^{L} 05:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a productive use of my effort at the moment, honestly. It's going straight down the personalization-factionalization-sniping nonsense, even when users start trying to do something else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thunderbolts (comics)

When a name is available for a title or character, we should use that rather than add "(comics)", right? Thunderbolts redirects to Thunderbolts (comics), and I'm not really sure why that's necessary. I tried to move it, but it was blocked because that article space, the article's former location, was already created. So I intitiated a discussion which has pretty much amounted to, "Does this need to be done?" and "Something else may eventually need to use that title sometime in the future," neither of which come across to me like strong opposition. Would you mind taking a look at the discussion? Thanks. --Chris Griswold 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Fire*ball

Thank you for shutting down this vandal. CPAScott 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if it comes back; I've seen that image before. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert's talk page

I was wondering, if I am not allowed to actually comment on his talk page, then where am I allowed to talk to him on? My comments on the page were understandably deleted, but I would appriciate it if there was a place I WAS allowed to post comments on in re;ation to his account.

There isn't any such place on Wikipedia. Please don't post on that talk page until we establish if it's Colbert or an imitator. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright apologies, apparently I have misunderstood the point of the discussion pages. Further apolgies for not adding my name to the last comment. --Cosmic Larva 03:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem; I don't mean to sound so harsh, but the high visibility of that page makes it a special case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Stress

Hi Man in Black, I saw on the Esperanza Alerts page that you were stressed out, so I wanted to come here and lend my support to you, one of wikipedia's best cruft fighters! Your work doesn't go unnoticed by the people who like to see wikipedia clean and in a good shape, nor does your continued efforts in fighting it. I only hope that things settle down a bit, and that all your stress goes away soon. Warm regards, The Halo ^T 12:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really stressed, but frustrated with that I can't change. Things have been a bit better lately, though, and thanks for the encouragement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tantive IV on Darth Vader page

I edited the description of picture of Vader entering the Tantive IV (the ship's name also not being mentioned in any movie) in Darth Vader's page to say that it was the 501st accompanying him onto the ship. You said it wasn't mentioned in any movie and only in video games; it also is mentioned in the EU however. It is also said on the page of the 501st under the section Rise of the Empire that they did this, and it is mentioned that they make an appearance in Star Wars IV. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501st_Legion_%28Star_Wars%29#The_Rise_of_the_Empire) I feel that based on that this is mentioned on the article on the 501st and based on that other things that were not mentioned in the movie show up in that same description that it should be mentioned that it is the 501st. User:Alofferman 19:59, 03 August 2006 (UTC)

That part of the article isn't a history; it's a plot summary of ANH. We shouldn't include details that don't actually appear in ANH. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Stephencolbert

Howdy! Just a heads up, I posted a quick summary at WP:AN#User_talk:Stephencolbert. Regards, CHAIRBOY (?) 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

There're two reports I've filed regarding violations of the 3RR at Joe Lieberman; there are scores and scores of reverts by the same two people there. I notified each user on his talk page, but your intervention may still be required if it doesn't stop right now. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 06:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've protected it. I'm faily sure the mediator will be or will know an admin, to take care of it once his dispute is resolved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A fellow liberal admin comes to my rescue

Hey thanks: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US history of exporting democracy

i base my liberal accusation on the nixon image.

As I mentioned to Tmopkisn on his user page:

This is the third time someone has attempted to delete US history of exporting democracy ever since I wrote this a few months ago:

First: speedy deletion Talk:US_history_of_exporting_democracy#Please_explain_your_reasoning[1]

Then this: Talk:US_history_of_exporting_democracy#Adding_a_deletion_tag [2]

...and now the deletion tag today. I have argued again and again that the most veteran wikipedia editors use wikipolicy to push their own POV.Travb (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Whut? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Confused? What about?Travb (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I just closed that because it seemed like a merge was agreed upon. I'm not sure where this liberalism thing comes from (the Nixon thing is just because it's a PD image and a pun), and I'm not sure if you're sarcastic or not. I stay far away from political articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not being sacrastic. I am a proud liberal myself. Thanks again. Travb (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, have fun liberalling it up, or whatever it is you political people do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD advice

I listed an article for AfD and the employees of the service that is the subject of the article have taken the whole thing very personally and now have relatiated with an AfD against an article I wrote and have already defended against an AfD within the past month. I don't believe the reasons given are suitable for a deletion, but I was wondering if you could take a look at the notice and suggest how to approach this. I'm annoyed, but I want to handle this appropriately. Thanks. --Chris Griswold 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting Objection!

Why did you do that. It was a good article about a popular website.--72.49.183.241 19:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't any proof it was a popular website, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the evidence in the deletion discussion before making a choice? There were several verifiable resources providing proof as to it being a popular website. Also, I don't see any information on "Objection!" in the Phoenix Wright article, so what's the purpose of a redirect? The game and meme are seperate aside from the fact that the creator of "Objection!" took characters from the game to create it. A lot of people will be trying to look up "Objection!" the internet meme, and then find Phoenix Write, a video game article. Additionally, does the deletion article still exist? IceSage 06:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you direct me to one of those verifiable resources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What? Me? Oh, just this. Thanks. I love irony... 204.215.207.40 05:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)The Lord Massacre

Trust me, nothing personal is meant by the use of "meatpuppets." It's not intented as an insulting term, just as a word that means "someone brought to the discussion to create the illusion of consensus." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion on my watchlist. AMiB, you made the right decision deleting that. It's a short lived fad which no-one will care about in a few days/weeks. -- Steel 12:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See above title

Urbandead isn't that minor, and I'm pretty sure it was suposed to be merged...--Labine50 06:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't anything to merge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Nitcentral

Before Articles for deletion/Nitcentral turns into more or Rwetruck's anger at Nightscream, do you think you could take a moment and do whatever admins do to decide if there's consensus or not? (And my apologies for extending the Rwetruck snitfit.) MisterMorgan

I would, but I'm involved. I suggest mentioning it on WP:AN. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like someone has already noticed the backlog and posted it. Grazie, for the advice. MisterMorgan

Objection! on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Objection!. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 19:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pokémon Test, especially this diff of mine

My bad, my bad, my bad, my bad, my bad. I was a bit stressed, because there was no reason at all for you to claim my grammar was incorrect--and to be honest, it did upset me when you had commandeered the redirects without (seemingly) even trying to fix links there which clearly weren't heading to the WikiProject. Without trying to resolve anything directly, I just figured I'd throw in the towel on maintaining distance and impartiality, and just state what I was after. Totally my fault for losing my "temper", or whatever you want to call it. I was being ... let's be generous and call it uncivil. I'm sorry. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No sweat, I was being kind of rude myself; just incivility all around, and I'm sorry for my part in it.

As for what I was doing, I did change the links in all of the then-ongoing discussions; I just didn't sift through old AFDs to fix the links, especially given that editing old AFDs is frowned upon anyway.

As for the grammar, though. "based off" and "based off of" are incorrect or at best informal; "based on" is synonymous with the informal definition and is grammatically correct. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC

On your editing achievements? No, not for that. For policing the articles though, most definately.--Snake Liquid 06:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The articles need policing. Otherwise, we end up with 79 million plot summaries written from each minor character's perspective. When I've made changes, I've cited policy, argued them at length, explained my reasoning, and answered counter-arguments. I'm also the only one who has reached outside of Metal Gear fans for input on these articles. I think such an RFC is going to reflect more on the submitters than the subject, and, save for my exasperation over the nonsense over the images in Solid Snake (where I lost my temper on a handful of occasions), I'm confident what I'm doing is supported by the community at large (if not a vocal minority of Metal Gear fans) and best for Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:The Batman

Thank you for joining the talk page at Template: da Batz. It works better if people talk, and in fact, we has the same idea about the burton schumaker. I figure it out last night after combining the Serials, but decided to wait a day to let Linin and the other editors see hwo they like the Serials. I did the same to the Christopher Nolan films, and moved teh continuity marker to condense it further. It shaves about 5 lines off the template with the B/S combo and the 9(re)movement of notations. ThuranX 16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a request for advice regarding this page. While my first instinct is to take a step back from Template:The Batman for a few days, I had also hoped that with the passage of even one day that ThuranX might have a calmer tone but this seems to not be the case. While I realize that his primary motivations seem to be protectiveness of a page he created and a perception of being ganged up on, his manner so far has been upsetting (to me at least). So I've been looking into the correct methods of resolving disputes. From what I can see, we passed through attempts to resolve on his talk page early on, and at least one objective third party (User:Josiah Rowe) has attempted to intercede there (not counting any conversation on the template talk page).

So my question is (and I hope you know the correct answer): Is my next step going to Wikipedia:Requests for comment? It seems to me that the Mediation Cabal would not apply based on his refusal to accept outside suggestions by User:Josiah Rowe and the more simple option of conducting a survey might simply increase ThuranX's belief that he is alone against a crowd of people.

I realize you might not be the correct person to ask this, but I have no familiarity or experience with wikipedia disputes of this nature so I'm at a loss. If you choose not to respond (which I will completely respect), I'll of course go with my first thought to simply take a step back from the page for a few days.

Thank you in advance if you have any advice or guidance on this, and I'm sorry in advance that I've troubled you about it at all -Markeer 14:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, and please delete the above if you'd like. Within minutes of writing the above I made a case with the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal as I'm sure I should have before contacting you. Sorry again, please ignore this premature question. As I say, I have no experience with this sort of thing on wikipedia - Markeer 14:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Move_to_gaming_wiki

Given your fine work in reviewing gamecrufty articles, I just wanted to point out the new template above if you haven't come across it already. I found it the other day and I don't know for sure though if there is an actual move-to-game-wiki process to back the template up... Might be useful though for articles which are highly crufty/instruction manual-like but not necessarily a pure afd candidate e.g. I added the tag to the Gunbound article. Anyway, hope that's of interest Bwithh 18:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't use the template because there seems to be no mechanism to back it up. It just lingers and lingers until someone removes it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'll enquire if/how admins or the games wikiproject might establish a process. Bwithh 18:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It would have to involve prod/AFD if the articles were going to be removed from Wikipedia, in any case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently something about a barnstar, I don't know

Hello, I'm Aeon from the Mediation Cabal. A request for mediation has been filed by User:Alofferman. Please reply back if you wish to go through mediation. The Mediation Cabal is a non binding informal group so there is nothing ot lose. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. Reply where? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Try here. Cheers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 20:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, HC. I've never heard of this user in my life. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently she wrote Red vs. Blue, the FA. I've never heard of her either. Cheers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 20:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoever was handing out those barnstars was a bit liberal.[3]. — TKD::Talk 20:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they nominated it? Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 20:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that was Dr. B: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red vs Blue. — TKD::Talk 20:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just passing by (because of earlier to-and-fro with Man in Black just above) and I noticed this conversation. FYI, switching around a couple of names and then switching them back again seems to be the sum total of contributions on which User:Alofferman's barnstar is based[4][5]. Perhaps it's a joke use of a barnstar, but that still diminishes the award for others. Or what am I missing here? Bwithh 21:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: User:Dr. B appears to have spammed about 20 barnstars for Red vs Blue on June 10[6][7]. Should this be reported? if so where? Bwithh 21:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Um. Guys? I don't mean to sound rude or ungrateful or anything, but why are we discussing another user's barnstar here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just notifing you of a MEDCAB case. I have no idea what happened. Do you accepted the Mediation? Æon ^{Insane Ward} 21:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're fine, other than the lack of a link to the case. (HC has me covered, though.) If Alofferman really wants mediation, I guess, but she hasn't yet actually made any effort to talk to me about any of these edits, so I'm not sure what the beef is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Man in Black. I've initiated conversations on Highway's and TKD's talk pages. Bwithh 21:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I don't think it's really worth chasing people down for distributing frivolous barnstars, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok here is the link to where the case will be handled Case link. There is the link. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 21:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Cruft Alert

Given your interest in conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, I thought you might be interested in one that was up for review. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks I urge you to carefully examine Wikipedia's policies and rules, and then carefully consider whether you have an opinion on the matter. Your friend. Morton Devonshire^Yo

Uh. I'm not sure why anyone would think I was interested in conspiracy theories surrounding Sept. 11. As for this AFD, I'm really not interested in closing controversial AFDs when solicited to do so; the appearance of impropriety is just too great. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding -- wasn't asking you to close it. If you could spare a moment, I suspect that the article's principal author, LGagnon, is socking the vote now: DejahThoris and Mispeled are likely socks. Thanks. Morton devonshire 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plasma Rifle (Halo)

User RelentlessRouge is soliciting votes for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnetic Accelerator Cannon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plasma Rifle (Halo). As listed [8], [9]], here, [10], [11],[12], [13], [14], here, here, here, and here. Sorry about the huge list. I'm not sure if I should post this on the AfD or not. Whispering^(talk/c) 00:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned it on both AFDs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

VersaLife

This substub accompanied by a plot summary was deprodded after you prod2ed it. Thought you'd like to know.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 04:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

On your Mediation

Allforman has not replied on the mediation yet, if she doesn't by next week Wednesday I will close the mediation. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 14:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Megaman & Bass

I noticed you removed my Super Famicom boxart in your edits of this page. You don't think we should include the SFC boxart somewhere? I came out on SNES before it was ported to the Gameboy. Dragonz6189 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to have two boxarts in that article, particularly given that one of them was never used on an English-language release. Per WP:FUC, when we only need one fair-use image for identification (and the SFC cart has label art very similar to the GBA boxart anyway), we should only use one image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks for the info. BTW, I'm not sure if this is something you can fix or maybe you could point me in the right direction on who to notify but the Mega Man Classic collapsable box on the page in question doesn't seem to hide. Dragonz6189 17:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on with that. I'll look into it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Killer Instinct

I'm just curious to know, why aren't the character from the Killer Instinct series entitled to their own character pages, while Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter characters are? My attempts at creating pages for these characters were deleted without discussion by you. Dflocks80 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1. They aren't deleted, just redirected.
2. There's nothing you can say about them that wouldn't be overly detailed plot summary (of games where the plot is of zero importance), game-guide, or original research (comparing characters, for example).
3. Killer Instinct is hardly MK or SF in terms of influence.
4. The MK and SF characters probably shouldn't have their own pages as it is, for reason #2 above.

Basically, those. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on opinon

Man in Black, I am very new at this wikipedia talk. however I have used this online enclopedia for many research topics I had. today for some reason I entered in to the search engin plasma pistol and to my amasment a page actually came up. I was astonished to see that someone had created it. Then I saw that you felt it should be deleated. I just want to say that I think that this article further emphizises the unchalenged fact that wikipedia is the most extensive online dictonary there is. nowhere else can you find such a wide range of topics so throughly covered. Here is the link to the page I am talking about. [15]

THanks BrettidBrettid 02:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While I'm glad you enjoyed the article, it fails several of Wikipedia's guiding principles, particularly verifiabilty. Additionally, I feel that this subject is better handled as part of a whole article, rather than spinning it off into its own piece. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Gothic War

I notice you've prodded Gothic War (Warhammer 40,000). Unfortunately, it can't really be prodded as it's already been prodded and deprodded once already, so it will need to go to AfD to be deleted. I'll remove the prod on this basis, although please note that I entirely support its deletion, particularly citing Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point 7. Cheers --Pak21 11:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

On the Darth Vader/Binoic Hand Mediation

If it is ok with you at this time I would like to bring in a few neutral editors to give there opinons on this matter. It may help to see an objective and neutral opinon on the mattter. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want. Aloff hasn't had a chance to reply to me at all, though, having had no prior communication. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry I'm awaiting her response back to you and me before I bring in another editor. I also just wanted to get some information out about SW canon that is relevent to the case (Which is what I think the problem is coming from.) We may help to help to settle the issue on Vader at least (not sure yet on Bionic Hand, one article at a time) Æon ^{Insane Ward} 14:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like the role retcons should play is part of the dispute, yes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, to me it is a simple content dispute due to lack of Communication. After Alofferman's reponse and possible neutral editor we can move to a solution at least with Darth Vader. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 14:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' talk page reading method

Is to read it and then delete wipe it. I wonder how this tactic became considered impolite? Kim Bruning 19:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, you'd have to ask JzG (talk · contribs). Feedyourfeet (talk · contribs) was deleting warnings about improper conduct, which isn't something Jimbo typically has to deal with. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

True! <scratches head> , on the other hand, normal users can't actually delete anything. They can change a page, but the warning is still in the page history. That's why you need to look at that. So this shouldn't be a problem, should it? Kim Bruning 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This case is above and beyond. Not only was this guy removing warnings, but when JzG restored a thread because it wasn't resolved, FYF was immediately deleting it as "a personal attack." Jimbo deletes resolved conversations and is allowed a certain amount of leeway because of the sheer volume of his correspondence; neither really apply in this case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, generally I defend the general principle of things. I'm a bit worried about this persons' specific behaviours though, I'll certainly agree on that. If he's gaming the rules, feel free to IAR. Kim Bruning 21:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I felt that there was a genuine effort to conceal warnings in order to get away with more, that's all. He can archive his page however he likes for all I care, as long as he's not doing that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

Please take look at Civil War (comics). An unregistered user (IP starts with 172) has repeatedly reverted my edits and refuses to compromise. There are numerous times that I have made edits, each time discussing them on the talk page, and he reverts all of them. I have tried to discuss what he wants and I've tried to compromise; he is rude and refuses to talk about it; says "a lot of editors" agree with him, although none have spoken up in the conversation; and he just say that I refuse to listen. I went to the mediation cabal yesterday, but no response as of yet. This has been going on for almost two weeks now. I would appreciate it if you could lend a voice to come to some sort of agreement. I don't want an edit war, but I really feel like I'm being bullied, and I hate the idea of just rolling over. I'd really like to come to an agreement. --Chris Griswold 22:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably not the right one to ask about this. Probably the medcab can help better than I can. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Lee Smith (baseball), this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Davodd 05:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My enthusiasm exceeds my knowledge, in this case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

:(

Point taken. Ryu Kaze 21:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not going to be a popular change, certainly. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a bunch of changes for the images. Please let me know if you're still concerned about any of them. Ryu Kaze 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-for-sale replacement now included. Ryu Kaze 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey

User:Mac_Davis prefers responses on his talk page.

Hey, how ya doin'? I like that huge thought banner thing at the top of the page, maybe I'll implement it. — [Mac Davis] (talk)

I also decided to tidy up your Awards page. Things were also overlapping and more crap in my skin. No, not the integumentary one. — [Mac Davis] (talk)

Steal away. As for my awarrds page, I just copy and paste whatever in there; I don't worry too much about formatting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cruft alert

Could you swing by Talk:Maria Renard and share your view on a content (or rather lack thereof) dispute? Thanks. Combination 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Huntress

You deleted the picture of the Huntress for being an orphan right after I added it to the Huntress article.[16] --Chris Griswold 06:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. Did you want me to restore the image? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I was able to re-uploas it. Looking at the time between our edits and the reason you gave, I figured you wouldn't mind. --Chris Griswold 07:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes

Sorry for the troll feeding. Should know better -- Samir धर्म 07:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No sweat. You weren't feeding the troll, just calling him out. Leaving that up would have gone nowhere good, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template TV-EP

The current cocnensous SUPPORTS it (4/0), You dont seem to realise that it is high visibility and removing this messes up content on some pages. I will allow you to self revert if yu wish, and it is only controversial as ed tried to make it contriversial, there would be no edit war if you all discussed before mesing up hundreds of pages.. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 07:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

ed g2s and Combination don't support it, and you're edit warring with vandalism cleanup tools. This is your warning before a block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not reword my comments, thanks. I did not change the debate either, i tidied it so it could be read easier. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You edited your comments well after the fact. That's just plain deceptive. Don't do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i edited my comments. If there was conversation branching off i would of left the old comment there but that was just a comment. Mine is now a "vote" in a straw poll type thing. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make attacks to me in your titles, your behaviour is inappropriate. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll limit it to accurate descriptions. I ask people nicely to open a new header, and link the page they're talking about. You did neither. And please stop spamming my talk page with warning templates you can't even be bothered to subst. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I find this all quite bizzare - I have been commented on ANI where Matthew seems intend to create a totally false impression of the situation. I have no idea what his agenda is but I find his behaviour there very very odd. --Charlesknight 13:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR

No blocks, but please try to de-escalate this situation somewhat. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 12:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try. It seems to have developed into an actual discussion on talk, which is good if a bit back-and-forth. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Temporarily undeleting an article talk page

Per this discussion Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MatthewFenton#Outside_view_by_Crossmr would it be possible to temporarily restore the talk page to show the offending comments made by this user for the RfC?--Crossmr 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you were kind enough to undelete the talk page, maybe protect it for the duration of the RfC, it doesn't need to be edited.--Crossmr 16:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do that, but I'm not sure what page you want undeleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Free Willy

Hey, MiB, are you on-line for long? For some reason after a history merge, edits in Free Willy are still not restored two hours after I hit the restore button. I'm going to bed; can you please revert the self-direct when the edits are restored? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like they're restored now. I'm not sure what's up on your end. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That is bizarre timing. Thanks. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I could help. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Fenton

Hi AMIB, I'm asking you to unblock him for the simple reason that you shouldn't block a user that you are edit warring with, over an issue related to the war. I will speak to him a final time about using popups to make editorial as opposed to housekeeping changes. Please allow other admins to mete out any further blocks should the need arise (I assure you that I've got my eye on this one). Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 11:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not an edit war. His reversion stands now, and would've been allowed to stand if he had made it civilly. This is at least the fourth time in the last week he's used vandal tools to edit war, and I don't have any faith that he further warnings will accomplish anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. He's been quite antagonistic, I'll grant you, but the two of you have been butting heads over the TV templates for a bit. As the block has been reviewed and declined by 2 admins on his talk page, I'll leave the issue at this, but this would have been a good block for another administrator to handle. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 11:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmh. There's no way for something this specific to be handled by another admin without it coming off as another admin acting as a proxy for me, anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any chance you could enable your email? I'm sure admins need to have it enabled so any blocked people can contact you. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have, nor particularly desire, a working e-mail address at the moment. I watchlist talk pages,, and blocked users can always leave a note there if they need to contact me about the block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Was it a good idea to protect his talk page? He could be asked nicely not to replace unblock requests after they're declined. (Sorry about the momentary wheel-war there, I thought it was semi-protected.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the deal with that guy? Does he always just implement changes without telling people and then argue that it can't be changed because it's in use? --Chris Griswold 12:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

MF emailed me to review his block. I don't have time to get fully versed to understand what's going on (I only find the one [17] revert you linked to elsewhere). My only comment is: 31 hours? I guess I don't see the history to warrant such a length. Cburnett 15:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Er. I don't think I meant to block him for 31, but for 24. I never knew what the 31 hours was there for, actually. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

per the above, do you think we should RFCU Insanity13? I can see being clueless and cut-and-pasting in the request instead of rewording it, especially considering the number of edits of insanity13. I just don't want to leave a person indefblocked who isn't a block evade sock. Syrthiss 15:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but if someone else wants to go to CU, I wouldn't object to my block being overturned based on that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Heheh I'm not convinced either, but its prolly best to be sure. I'll go do it. Syrthiss 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Insanity13 is a friend of mine i know in NZ (The only one i know who uses 'pedia) so i asked him to pase my replys here as i couldnt reply. I'm not sure how check user works but it should confirm he isnt my sock puppet (also note he likes games (he created an article on worcraft of the world), i'm a scifi geek and dont play games only watch tv (I've played habbo hotel once/twice (okay i used to play daily)) MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

It would seem that solicitations, when represented as invitations formatted as an ad-link, are acceptable on User:Talk pages. Do you consider these types of links advertising? (cross-posted excerpt from Mr Wales' User:Talk page}

Question regarding userpages

Hello, AMIB. I had a question for you regarding what the right course of action to take against a user who uses their userpage for things against policy as outlined at WP:Userpage. The user in question is FurnaceOfMonkl, and they (in addition to being an editor who consistently pushes POV in articlespace) have posted several images on their page calling people who believe in global warming, etc, drug-addled. Later today I'll probably just blank it if I don't hear back from you, but I felt it's better to ask around before messing with other peoples' talk pages. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Article movals

I was wondering if you'd be interested in assisting moving a number of Dragon Quest/Dragon Warrior articles to comply with WP:NAME? Some of these titles have been released into western territories by the title Dragon Warrior, which according to policy takes precedence. I can't say whether any backlash is to be expected, which I am willing to deal with should it become necessary but I am however unable to move them myself as I lack admin privileges (they were moved previously), but this a matter of simple housekeeping and we're just enforcing a policy after all.

The articles are as follows:

• Dragon Quest (video game) to Dragon Warrior (video game)
• Dragon Quest II to Dragon Warrior II
• Dragon Quest III to Dragon Warrior III
• Dragon Quest VII to Dragon Warrior VII

Cheers! Combination 23:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media and release information

May you please protect this page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobabobab (talk • contribs)

I think he is on a wikibreak so you are best taking this to: WP:RFP. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Now he's made it official that he's on Wikibreak, at least. Judging from the reason he posted on top, I might expect to hear from A Woman In Black sometime soon. I think I found a photograph of said wedding. (^_^) Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 18:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

question

Why did you redirect Meryl Silverburgh to the reccurring characters list. The information on the article gos to waste this way. -- Psi edit 19:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Howdy! The recurring characters page has the bio info on her, and not every video game character gets a whole wikipage dedicated to him/her/it. If you feel any of the information in the other article was lost that is of value, you can recover it from the history and add it as appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Animal Crossing

To reply to your comment: No need to link to redlinks that don't need to made, either

Why don't YOU make these pages, or add them to Animal Forest??? --Zeldamaster3 15:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Because they don't need to be standalone articles, and I'd rather work on Animal Crossing (although I lack the time to do so, lately). Navboxes don't need redlinks in any case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just one Question...

Are you the same Man In Black that posted up Final Fantasy 7 music on VG Music.com? Just wondering... 12hernn 01:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay... 12hernn likes tacos.

Template:Infobox CVG

This template has been changed to add two other items of "useless bloat" as you put it, could you look at it and maybe explain what's the difference between one editor doing this and another? --Timdew 09:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars WikiProject Roll Call

" Hello! "

Thank you for contributions. You have signed as a member of the Star Wars WikiProject their is a Roll call going on currently at the Star Wars WikiProject talk page. Please sign if you still want to help out.

Again, Thank you for your help!--Team6and7 20:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Solid Snake

Hi -- I've reverted your edits to the talk page for this article Talk:Solid Snake. Editing other users comments is Not Allowed (see Basic rules for all talk pages). However, you're also correct that talk pages are meant to concern the article, not just be random comments, so I've also added a note to the user who posted the Ted Turner comment regarding that. If you have questions, please don't revert my revert, but let me know on my talk page. Thanks! --Bookgrrl 11:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing disruption and trolling on sight is allowed, and I can't fathom why Bread is picking a fight over routine cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for not reverting my changes. I appreciate your POV -- you're right that trolling and vandalism can be reverted (although I'd be very hesitant to do so on a Talk page, since Talk pages are by definition a place for expressing opinions). But I think a simple off-topic comment doesn't qualify as either vandalism (because it isn't a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia) or trolling (because it's not inflammatory, rude or antagonistic -- unless you think being compared to Ted Turner is an insult, which it might possibly be LOL!! It's simply an off-topic comment (and they usually get ignored) which should be accepted as a good-faith edit. Seems to me the best approach is the simplest: assume good faith, leave the comment, but post a note to the person who left it educating them as to the real purpose of Wikipedia. Thanks :) --Bookgrrl 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone is trolling for a dumb argument about whether Solid Snake looks like Ted Turner. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That is your final warning, do not delete other users' comments as it is terrible form

(The Bread 04:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

List of Pokémon abilities

Why did you delete the List of Pokémon abilities article? It was nominated for deletion last month, but the result was keep. If you wanted the article gone, it would have been more appropriate to talk in the AfD discussion. --Brandon Dilbeck 16:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Er? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon abilities is neither last month nor keep. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I'm talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon ability, which ended just a week ago. This was before someone moved the article in question from Pokémon ability to List of Pokémon abilities within the last week. I don't know what the old article (the one deleted in April) was like, but I'm sure that this newer article (the one you just deleted) was better, since it was decided to keep it. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What a mess. Yeah, I'll restore it, but it's not anything like an encyclopedia article at the moment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Who knows? We'll see if it gets any better with the release of the new game. Thanks for restoring the article. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mergism

I notice you have the Association of Mergist Wikipedians label on your user page, opposite from the photograph of you that makes you look like Smokey Bear or something. Yet when I check the Mergist homepage here I don't see your name among the member list. Can you clarify what's up with that? Because I'm considering joining that faction myself and I think you know something about membership I don't. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Easy. There are no factions, and organization is loose at best. If you say you are a "mergist", whatever that is, you are. If you say you are a leprechaun, you are. It's just a matter of describing your outlook, not joining some club. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm. They sure made it look like a faction on that page. But thanks for the input. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 19:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Bear in mind that that page is ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooold, and much of the "factionalism" is ironic, from before people took that sort of silliness seriously. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, do you attach much meaning to having the mergist association label on your user page? Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 19:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture is pretty, and the slogan of the group is poetic and accurate. Also, I don't use my userpage for much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Hello. I'm sorry that you feel Empires: Dawn of the Modern World Gameplay should be redirected, but it was just in an AFD and voted no consensus. I am in the process of cleaning it up, and you have no right to delete it. Also, much is being transferred to Strategy wiki, so I'm please asking you to bring the article back in it's entirety. It doesn't fit speedy deletion criteria, and I'd at least like to talk to you about it. --Clyde Miller 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. I redirected it. What does an AFD have to do with anything that doesn't involve deletion? For that matter, how is a "no consensus" binding on any editorial decision?

That said, the "article" doesn't have a single external source, and seems to be rooted in nothing more than direct paraphrasing of the manual and direct observation of the game. Why is this lengthy, overdetailed, OR-ish description of the gameplay necessary, given the reasonable and brief gameplay description in Empires: Dawn of the Modern World? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My greatest worry is for Empires: Dawn of the Modern World itself, which is up for GA. I think it might be failed because of an insufficient gameplay section. I took out a lot out thinking someone could read up about it if they wanted to. I don't really know what to add back in. By the way, a redirect is pretty darn close to a delete. The article is gone and cannot be looked up by anyone who wants to read up about the subject (unless they are an expeirenced user). Plus, in the AFD, redirect was one of the suggestions, but was not the decision. I though that this meant that the a group consensus was that this article should be left as it was, since some people wanted it kept, deleted, redirected, or tanswikied. The other odd thing about a redirect is there is no equivalent to it for bringing an article back. I feel like you just skipped all policy and took deletion into your own hands in a quasi-vigilantyism (I'm pretty sure that isn't a word). Can you help me decrease the cruff? I am good at citing sources, and was improving it when it was redirected. I know you hate cruff, but can't this content be brought up to a good level. I mean the article on Gameplay of StarCraft only has four references. Is that enough? I'd really like some input and would like to find a way to bring this article back.--Clyde Miller 00:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The AFD had no decision, really; it didn't have any result save that the consensus for permanent deletion wasn't there. Gameplay of StarCraft isn't a very good article, nor a very good example; why not take a look at some of the video game featured articles (Final Fantasy VII or Shadow of the Colossus, for a couple of examples) for some guideance on how detailed the gameplay section should be. Spinning off a massively overdetailed gameplay section that borders on original research is not the solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My orginal point was that Starcraft was featured as well. That was the only RTS game ever to make featured or good article status, so they must have done something right. That's why I modeled Empires after it. Those other games are well written, but what I am worrying about is how to set up the gameplay section, not how to write it. I guess I am not very good at this, becuase reading about a different genre of games didn't seem too relevant to me. They're two different breeds of games, and I thought it would be a good idea for me to choose Starcraft. --Clyde Miller 20:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Starcraft is featured, its sub-articles are a trainwreck. My suggestion is to focus on the Empires article itself, then spin off articles if and only if there's sufficient referenced content to requires such a split. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd bring up something else. Steel showed me the history of the article and that it's still intact. That only happens on merges. So really you just did a lazy or harsh merge. Since I still have access to the history, I guess I'll work on it that way and hope that E:DotMW passes.--Clyde Miller 20:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize you didn't know the history was still there. Yeah, when an article is redirected, the history doesn't go away; it's just another edit, one any user can make. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason I didn't know the orginal history was there was because it was so hard to reach. The only reason I was able to reach it was through pop-ups, and that was kind of buried as it is. Is that the only way, or is there an easier one? Steel orginially dropped me a link to it, but I thought he was an administarator and was doing me a favor. --Clyde Miller 13:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet categories at DRV

My apologies for the impersonal nature of this message, but since you participated in the recent Sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin discussion, I thought you might like to know that the categories are now at Deletion Review. This is not a solicitation of a specific response, as all participating users were notified, but your input would be appreciated. Thanks! - EurekaLott 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Ownership

You've seen WP:OWN and Template:Maintained, haven't you? Well I'm not really sure on how to claim someone is owning an article because it could be interpreted as a personal attack. The page I'm talking about is Naminé. See the talk page and such. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica (2003)

BSG (Re-imagining) was not about a TV series, hence why the year was removed in the first place. There is currently an on-going discussion about the title on the Talk page, and that is why it was moved. - Debuskjt 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice an ongoing discussion, but could we use something that isn't marketing-speak? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Video Game Indexes

You seem to have a personal crusade where you want to either delete video game indexes or break them apart. Although I disagree with you in their usefulness, I don't think it is proper to delete whole sections without a general discussion. You can tag all of the articles that you find, but I don't think you ought to delete entire sections because of how you feel about something. For the record, I do have to agree with you that the two articles you deleted might be better suited for the main article, but you never gave anyone a chance to express this opinon. --Pinkkeith 19:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really a crusade; I've helped to create a number of indices as well. The problem is that such lists tend to become repositories for various duplicate factoids that either don't really belong on Wikipedia or belong elsewhere. If Gamma and Mac are so important to you that they demand mention, mention them in the articles on the single games in which they appear. I'm trying to eliminate redundancy, here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

SO WE JUMPED UP ON THE TABLES AND WE SHOUTED "ANARCHY!"

:) Syrthiss 21:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Whenever I see idiotic all-caps I can't help but think of that song. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, sir; you broke my brain with that. I rather liked it. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

SF character page edits

Just wanted to say thanks for doing some clean up at the Star Fox character page. I dunno, its weird for me. A lot of the stuff there is pointless, yet I never seem to notice. :) Thunderbrand 22:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. That list needs a lot of work, and I'm glad that someone other than me is doing the bulk of it. ^_^ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow...that looks 10X better! Nice work. Thunderbrand 23:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm gonna make a to-do page for it. There's still a lot of work to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:ESES

Delete please? — The Future 00:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles and the WP:DAFT redirect. Darn trolling.. — The Future 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* — The Future 00:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I've filled my daily quota of rougeness. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Ok, I guess I'll have to find my rougeness elsewhere. :) But thanks for the start. :) — The Future 00:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Civility/Personal attacks (A question)

Hi there, AMIB. In the past I've known you to be an administrator with a clear understanding of policy, so I had a question for you. Recently, the user Getaway has edited a number of controversial pages and made edits that a few editors have found questionable. My question to you would be, given my comments and tagging of a dubious source on the Sam Brownback page, would anything I've said merit a warning for personal attacks or incivility? I'm always as careful as I can be to treat other users with respect, yet Getaway appears to have warned me for personal attacks out of the blue. If I could get a second opinion on this, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks a ton, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 04:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. Getaway has mistaken criticism of his behavior (restrained, reasonable criticism) as criticism of himself. Keep on doing what you're doing.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, AMIB, I appreciate it. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Siberian language project

You write: The result was DELETE. Whudda mess. This subject could possibly be covered under Siberian/Ukranian nationalism (is there an article on that?), but essentially nothing can be said about this conlang as a language based on reliable sources, and it's pretty obvious that Yaroslav Zolotaryov has a row to hoe. Once single-purpose accounts are set aside, it's pretty clear that it's Zolotaryov and his flashmob versus everyone else.

With all due respect, but unless you are counting me and numerous other faithful wikipedians under "Zolotaryov's flashmob", this is way beside the truth. May I inquire what your conclusion is based on? Have you actually counted any votes? If so, I'd like to see the result! Even if you discount the bunch of one-editters who voted in favour of keeping the article, you should as well discount the votes of one-editters who voted in favour of deleting it - and believe me, there's a lot of them over here! In addition to that, have you looked at the arguments? Have you noticed the fact that in the meantime a compromise was achieved? To tell you the truth, I haven't seen many good arguments used in favour of deleting the article. In other words, I have a strong feeling that it's just your own personal opinion you are trying to impose. Please convince me. Regards, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 08:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (my own impression is that this was a typical case of "no consensus")

I discounted pretty much everyone who didn't bother to make an argument, and looked at the arguments in question; the fact that there was little coverage of this language at all, that all of it was in passing in dubious sources, and that none of it was about the language but instead about the surrounding movement. If someone wants to write an article about Siberian/Ukranian nationalism, fine, or an article about the dialects this conlang is based on, fine, but the conlang itself is only ever discussed as an artefact of those two actually-notable subjects. As for my opinion, I assure you I care little about politics in my own country, and that political spats and what-is-and-isn't-a-real-language don't cause me to lose any sleep.

I did discount "Why not write a Siberian dialect article?" as irrelevant; maybe that's throwing off your headcount? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Explain please its decision. In this voting was one User of the Siberia and two User from Ukraine. Call attention please on commentary of admin User:Grue in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Siberian language (2 nomination), as well as on this message [18] Many voted against were Users with Russian Wikipedia. --Yakudza 12:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So, am I a single-purpose account or part of Zolotaryov's flashmob? What I see is actually several well-founded keep votes versus a bunch of STRONG DELETE per ___ by users with 5 or so edits, who came there from Russian Wikipedia through vote-stacking. The tone of your closing statement makes me think that you made up your mind from the start and haven't actually bothered to read the AfD debate.  Grue  16:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I ignored all the ruwiki votestackers, too. But, hey, thanks for the wild accusations! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe you shouldn't have called me and IJzeren Jan "Zolotaryov's flashmob" in the first place?  Grue  19:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to look at IJzeren Jan's post, which is both a good example of civility in the face of disagreement as well as the reply, which has the answers you're looking for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a single-purpose account. Nor am I part of a flash-mob. I read the article, read the arguments that existed for delete and keep, found an argument from Amir E. Aharoni that seemed to invoke precedent and other examples, so it made sense to me. I then examined the userpage of this editor and saw that he seemed knowledgeable about languages and didn't seem to have a major axe to grind, so I agreed with him rather than making my own argument. I'm disappointed that my opinion was discounted because I didn't make an argument myself. Maybe Amir is part of a flashmob. I don't know. But I do think the discussion indicates no consensus and your evaluation of consensus was mistaken. Please re-evaluate your decision. Flying Jazz 15:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Have voted for keepeng 2 users from Siberian Wikipedia

1. User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov
2. User:Steel archer

2 users from Ukrainian Wikipedia

1. uk:User:Yakudza (I sysop and bureaucrat in Ukrainian Wikipedia and have voted for article after has seen interwiki link in Ukrainian Wikipedia)
2. uk:User:Oleh_Petriv

After this message have voted for removing article these users from Russian Wikipedia

1. ru:User:Edward Chernenko
2. ru:User:Vladimir Volokhonsky
3. ru:User:MaxSem
4. ru:User:Maximaximax
5. ru:User:Boleslav1
6. ru:User:Drbug
7. ru:User:Elk Salmon
8. ru:User:Kneiphof
9. User:Guinness man
10. ru:User:Serebr
11. Andrey Fedichkin -- no such user
12. ru:User:Vlad2000Plus
13. ru:User:Nikolay Kolpakov
14. ru:User:CodeMonk
15. ru:User:Morpheios Melas
16. ru:User:ShurShur

There were else several users Russian Wikipedia, but their main contribution in English Wikipedia and they not there is participants this Flashmob. I suppose that You mistakenned at count voice and this mistake follows to correct --Yakudza 19:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

IJzeren Jan's analysis of the vote

Hello, Man In Black. First of all, let me say that I completely agree that it this AfD was a hell of a mess. Yet, your answer don't convince me at all. You say that you discounted "pretty much anyone who didn't bother to make an argument". Look, I want to keep this whole discussion as civilised as possible, but in this case I really think you made a wrong decision. Indeed, it was a hell of a mess and sorting out the votes and arguments wasn't an easy task. I don't even expect you, as a admin, to read every single sentence that was written. So I took the liberty of doing it for you. It took me quite a few hours, but I think it was worth the effort. Here is the result. Let's first count the votes.

If we merely look at the votes for keep (including strong keep, mild keep etc.) and the votes for delete, we get: 31 keep, 32 delete, 2 abstain. That is, completely disregarding any arguments used or any number of edits made.

Of course, we don't want to include the votes of those who merely joined in order to vote here. If we discount anonymous voters and people who made no edits before this AfD was started, we discard:

• 11 for keep: Ottorahn, 62.33.22.253 (Rutopist), Roman Baiduk, be:User:Booxter, Kojpiš Anton, 212.40.42.166, 1 Anonymous, User:195.5.46.19, 85.202.213.101, Bluz, pbato, and
• 2 for delete: 213.171.61.131, Andrey Fedichkin.

Which still gives us the result of 20 keep, 30 delete. This would still classify as no consensus, methinks.

If we discount the votes not only of those who had no edits, but also of those who had few edits (less than 50), we additionally discard:

• 6 for keep: Steel archer, 82.209.xx.xx, Yaroslav Zolotaryov, Gwarnik, 85.141.215.53 (Дмитрий Никитин), Alexander Gouk (be:User:Alexander Gouk), and
• 5 for delete: Ochkarik, Vladimir Volokhonsky, Serebr, Boleslav1, ShurShur.

Thus, we end up with the following list of people who had a lot of edits before this AfD started:

• 14 for keep: Nat Krause, IJzeren Jan, Yury Tarasievich, Nlsanand, Yakudza, Timichal, Jim Henry, Amir E. Aharoni,  Grue , Shao, Flying Jazz, Sandstein, Oleh Petriv, Maksym Ye., and
• 25 for delete: abakharev, Just zis Guy you know?, mikka, Grafikm, MartinRe, bogdan, Edward Chernenko, Elk Salmon, FrancisTyers, User:MaxSem, MaxiMaxiMax, Ezeu, Kneiphof, Kaganer, Guinness man, Vlad2000Plus, Angr, Pan Gerwazy, BlueValour, Nikolay Kolpakov, Angus McLellan, CodeMonk, Mukadderat, Morpheios Melas, Khoikhoi, and
• 2 abstained: Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko), Pavel Vozenilek.

In other words, among the people with 50+ edits the final result would be 14 keep, 25 delete. Although a clear majority of the voters voted for deletion, this is by no means what one would call "rough consensus". Please note that none of these 14 keep voters can be counted as "part of Zolotaryev's flashmob".

But you are right, it's the arguments that should decide. So let's evaluate them a little.

• in favour of "keep":
  • Several people pointed out that the language got "serious media coverage" (Grue) or that it "look like a sufficiently notable conlang in that it has generated substantial press attention (Sandstein).
  • "Article (...) seems to adequately describe the cultural phenomenon (initiative on codification of dialects). It isn't OR, it's an article about OR" (Yury Tarasievich).
  • "request for a wikipedia in Siberian has been approved lately." (IJzeren Jan). The Siberian test wiki has over 1,500 articles.
  • "This is as valid as High Icelandic and Anglish. Few people use them, but they are clever people and their work has scientific value. It's more than original research and it's more than a stupid game - its creator acutally shows knowledge of Northern Russian dialectology (Amir E. Aharoni, who also added that the language is very complete).
  • Several of the "keep" voters agreed that the article should be reclassified, either as a dialect or as a conlang. Some of them also made suggestions for improvement.
• in favour of "delete":
  • "Original research, not outside the internet" (abakharev).
  • "A false presentation of an original development of Zolotaryov as a "standard dialect". You simply cannot make a "strandard" in 1-2 years" (mikka).
  • "shameless self-promotion" (bogdan).
  • Several people argued that the language is not real, fake. For example: "There are no such language, it's artificial creation of a small group of people" (Vladimir Volokhonsky).

Let me just point out that the argument that the language is artificial should not be a reason in itself to delete it. There are over 200 articles about constructed languages in Wikipedia.en, a lot of them are far lesser-known than Siberian. If the article contains factual inaccuracies, that should be solved by improving it, not by deleting it.

Let's also have a look at a few non-arguments used in the discussion. Disregarding comments of the type "Russian Nazis against development of Siberian culture" or "The 'language' is a creation of some separatist aggressive lunatics", we still have:

• in favour of "keep":
  • "This phenomena EXISTS. So the article on it has all right to exist too" (Oleh Petriv). Sure. My shoes exist as well.
  • "This language really needs to be noticeable by article, if such discussions are called by it" (pBato). That's autoreferencing.
• in favour of "delete":
  • "it's a constructed language, and one which is of no verifiable signifciance to an English-speaking audience" (JzG). It is explicitly stated that Wikipedia is a world-encompassing project, so wp.en is not exclusively targeting the Anglosaxon world.
  • "This article was already deleted once and rightly so. Nothing changed since" (Grafikm). This is not true. The original article was a stub with a merely a link to a LifeJournal. This was a decent article with plenty of references to the language itself and its press coverage.
  • "the article includes no references or sources, only including external links, which fails WP:V" (MartinRe). Not true, most of those links are actually references. As somebody pointed out, that was merely a formatting problem.
  • "nonnotable conlang without ISO 639 code" (Angr). This wikipedia features at least 200 conlangs without an ISO 630 code (very few actually have one). Several of them have passed AfD's with a broad consensus for "keep" nonetheless.
  • "with all the sources in Russian, this simply cannot be verified" (BlueValour). There is no policy that says references must be in English, just that they are in English whenever possible.
  • "A set of words is not a language" (CodeMonk). Perhaps the most ridicilous argument used in the whole AfD. Apart from the fact that it is not true, it wouldn't apply to Siberian even if it were.
  • "Was deleted in russian wikipedia too" (Morpheios Melas). Yes. So?

I did another count: how many people used reasonable arguments in their vote (not counting the "per" votes and the most obvious nonsense, but counting opinions I disagree with)? My conclusion: 16 keep, 14 delete.

Last but not least, I would like to note that during the AfD several improvements have been made to the article. I can't check it anymore, but Irpen renamed the article, and DrBug modified it to make it acceptable also to many of the delete voters. Unfortunately, both efforts have gone virtually unnoticed, but in fact they invalidate several of the previously made delete votes. Also, someone made the suggestion to substitute the article with a translation of the Dutch version (written by me), which many considered adequate and NPOV. The thought hadn't occurred to me, and unfortunately I hadn't seen that part.

Let's not even discuss the vote-stacking here. As you know, Andy Volokhov approached everybody who previously voted "delete", and calls to come here and vote for deletion were placed both in the Russian wikipedia and on the Russian messageboard here. But in all honesty, I suspect other people might have been doing something similar to gather keep voters, although I haven't seen it.

Yet, Man in Black, I don't really know how you got the idea that hardly anybody bothered to make an argument. In fact, I believe the "keep" arguments in general are much stronger than the "delete" arguments (mostly the usual non-notable/vanity kind of stuff). I guess the whole point of all this is the following: no matter how you count the votes, and no matter which arguments you decide to discount, the conclusion would always be: no consensus. I'm not going to attack you, nor am I questioning your good faith. But I really believe you should revisit your decision, in either of two ways:

• you restore the article and reopen the discussion, to see what new opinions can be gathered;
• you restore the article and close the discussion, with "no consensus" as its conclusion.

I really don't want to turn this into a personal attack on you. I don't want to make this incident more important than it is. And frankly, I don't want to start a Deletion Review either, because that would mean starting over the whole discussion all over again, which I believe nobody is waiting for.

Best regards, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 20:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You've moved me to reconsider my decision to close that AFD. I'm going to reopen and relist it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on making the first change to the title of The Essay

Not bad I like it, I had no idea you had a silly side (The Bread 11:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

Quite so. I just do must of my online socializing off WP, that's all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mergist-logo.svg

I agree that the rounding in Image:Mergist-logo.svg was a bit much, so I've reduced it; perhaps it may be more to your liking now? Let me know if you have any further objections... ~ Booya ^Bazooka 05:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I still prefer the png. Dunno why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you figure out why, do let me know. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 07:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NFA

We have a valid concern for only wanting editors who have worked on featured articles to become admins. As WP:ENC, our goal in promoting the 1FA policy is to raise the overall quality of WP through affirming editors who create featured content, and consequently encouraging them to create more such high-quality content. Would you care to elucidate your line of reasoning for promoting your NFA policy, aside from WP:POINT? -- Миборовский 23:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a joke. I do, however, feel 1FA is insane, but no less insane than most of the silly admin standards people put forth. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's a joke, it does not belong with serious 1FA essays. Please affix a {{humour}} tag to your "essay". -- Миборовский 23:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it's not any sillier than any of the others. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, that's your personal opinion. We are completely serious. You're not. So please, add the {{humour}} tag, or I can do it for you. -- Миборовский 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the way it is. Your advice has been noted, but consciously not acted upon. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from editing it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Princess Daisy Appearance Section

I dont understand why the information about her sports outfits in Mario Hoops shouldnt have been there. Can you please tell me what I did wrong and how I can fix it?-User: Bandaid18

I didn't remove that. Not sure what you're talking about, here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops sorry I meant to say why did you remove the information that I got from mario hoops about Daisy. -User: Bandaid18

Because it was wild speculation about the relationships of a minor character with other characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You dont know what I'm talking about yet do you? I'm not talking about the Misc. section I made I'm talking about when I made the personality section where I said some info about Daisy from the mario hoops manual.-User: Bandaid18

It would really help if you could link to a diff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 12 September 2006

(UTC)

Dun dun dun! Just put it into my scanner and here it is.-User: Bandaid18

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v157/Satoshio/PROOF.png

No, not a scan of the image, a diff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, sorry maybe I never ended up even posting it *shrug* User: Bandaid 18

you cant just say that because she currently only appeas in spin offs, just because you dont think shes important doesnt mean she cant be described. Beofre you started crapping up this page people actually knew alot about Daisy from it then they do now. You cant take things off because you dont like who the page is about thats different from a rule violation, and their not random facts their explaining what shes like with facts sinse you always pee your pants when I dont have a citation.

Actually, I can remove things that I don't feel are appropriate just as any user can. It's just a trivial factoid sourced to the primary source, and such things can and should be trimmed down to focus on important aspects of the character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Humph! There was really no need to revert my edit to Wikipedia:Pokémon test. Page states "feel free to update this page" and there was no indication that no further examples were needed. Being bossy doesn't promote civility, in my opinion. Regards.--Húsönd 03:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And really no need to add yet another example, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's just your personal assumption. I am frankly disturbed by your attitude, especially it coming from a very experienced editor. Bad faith is the only justification I can assume. Therefore unless you provide a valid justification for your act, I will replace the content you reverted. And, ridiculous as it might seem, I shall remind you of WP:OWN. Thank you.--Húsönd 14:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Getaway

Hello again, AMIB. Sorry to keep bothering you, but you're the only admin I know who's currently active. As you might guess by the histories of Talk:Sam Brownback and Talk:Snowflake children, a debate has been going on between myself and the user Getaway again recently. I was curious if you might be able to give your opinion of the use of the politically loaded term "Snowflake Children" in article space without characterizing it as such. Personally I feel that the term should be left out entirely, just as the loaded term "flip-flopper" or "up-or-down vote" should be excluded from articles because they indirectly advocate one POV over another using the article's narrative voice. So far I think I have portrayed Wikipedia's policies on this kind of thing correctly, but Getaway seems to take a very contrary view of however I try to improve the article. By any means, any comments you feel need to be heard would be immensely appreciated. Thanks again for your patience. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no bother. I'm not the greatest mediator ever; have you considered taking this to the Mediation Cabal? They're usually the best outlet for little disputes about details (as opposed to the Mediation Committee, which better handles big systemic disputes). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I might hit up the Mediation Cabal at some point in the future if the page continues to be a point of contention, but I think that we've come to a rough consensus on the passage at issue in the article. I appreciate it. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A true classic

One of my favourite edits ever: [19]. A masterpiece of rouge adminship. Guy 22:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I felt such a silly post on ANI merited a silly response. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Eurocomicbox

Hi! I notive that you have tried to help me on the template. Thanks for the effort! I'll try to fix it by using the Template:Graphicnovelbox as an example, but I apprecaite the effort, and if you have any more ideas, be my guest! 07:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, the template you're basing it on is a redlink, but I'll see what I can do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: mention this template on WP:CMC and seek input and suggest its use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the current template, I only would prefer if all the info (second column) would be aligned. Now, it is all centred, so sections with short info (in the example, "Hergé") start further to the right than sections with longer info. I have tried to finda solution to this, but in theend I was only able to remove the colour scheme from the template but nothing else... Apart from that, it seems finished to me. Fram 15:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Oy!! You would think that the game has been released by the way people are adding tags and such to the various character pages. And I especially like that they put "rumor" next to their claim. This game can't come out soon enough, it would seem. Take it easy, and don't overwork yourself. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 02:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I shouldn't use rollback for that, but it's just so useless. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)