User talk:A Man In Black/Archive24

Ideas for the fictional military conflict infobox

Let's brainstorm about this. First, what fields can alter that are already in the T:IMC infobox? Moving from top to bottom...

We'd need "conflict", since that's the name of the thing.
"Partof" would probably be something like "Battle of Helm's Deep - Lord of the Rings universe".
"Image" and "caption" would remain relatively unchanged.
"Date" would be the date when it appeared in the real world first (i.e., Helm's Deep would have the publication date of The Two Towers, Battle of Wolf 359 would have the episode airdate). Wars would operate a little differently; for example, Time War (Doctor Who) would have the date it was first mentioned in a Doctor Who episode, while Dominion War would have the airdate of the first episode it took place in.
"Location" is obvious - change it to the actual work of fiction, so a link to the book for Helm's Deep and a link to the episode for Wolf 359.
"Casus" would be removed, or perhaps changed to the writer or author of the work of fiction in which the conflict appeared.
"Territory" could be merged with "Result" in describing the effects of the war or battle on that fictional universe.
"Result" would vary from article to article.
"Combatants" is straightforward; have countries like Rohan or the United Federation of Planets, or groups like the Justice League.
"Commanders" would only be the leader of each group; for example, Helm's Deep would be Saruman for the Uruk-hai, Theoden for Rohan and Aragorn for the Fellowship.
"Strength" could possibly be merged with the "Commanders" field to create a "Major characters" field?
"Casualties" should be just the main characters who died, not the total casualties (i.e., just Haldir for Helm's Deep, not "300 elves" or whatever).

What are your thoughts? --Hemlock Martinis 02:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First things first: do we need a battle infobox, or a storyline infobox? I'm not entirely sure a battle-specific one is necessary. Much of what you have up there will be useless in many contexts.

That said, I'll be fiddling with these ideas at User:A Man In Black/Yeah shortly, in addition to responding to these ideas. I'm busy fiddling with something else at the moment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional military infoboxes should be structures just like normal military infoboxes. Only counting main character show die? Considering the "date" to be when the fictional work aired instead of the in-universe date? That's silly. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here on Wikipedia, we deal with fictional subjects as artefacts of the real world, not histories of fictional universes. I'm not sure the real-world date bears mentioning, but the fictional-world date almost never bears mentioning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm diving in on it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm going to work on this more tomorrow. I am tired. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the addition of a field naming the work in which a battle was described, and maybe an 'Other major characters [present]', I don't see the sense of making any changes to the battlebox. Saying the Battle of the Hornburg occurred in 1956 and the Battle of Unnumbered Tears occurred in 1977 would be ridiculous. Almost all of the fields in the battlebox are optional; if something is unknown or not worth mentioning, then skip it.

—wwoods 15:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why such a date field would go with the associated work. For example, a Battle of Yavin field would be "Star Wars: A New Hope (1977)".

This is why I'm trying to make a new template, instead of cramming a square peg into a round hole. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a much better idea about the dates. --Hemlock Martinis 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

As a break from the controversy you've been drawing, would you be up for some polite conversation about general wiki philosophy? I've long been mystified by the view that its disproportionate coverage of different subjects is actually damaging to Wikipedia, but those who think so are seldom editors. Judging from the entirety of your user page, you're the first person to hold the view that I've had a chance to talk with, and I'm curious about the reasoning behind it. --Kizor 23:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not damaging to Wikipedia, and I don't hold that it is. I feel that the idea that interest in a specific issue somehow overrides the need to apply Wikipedia's standards and goals. There's a tendency to say "This is important and we should have an article on it!" without regard for the fact that we cannot have an article on "it" due to a lack of sources other than the editor's original research in the form of consuming a piece of fiction and writing their conclusions, or because "it" is redundant (for example "Battle of such-and-such" when that battle is the story of a book).

For me, it's not about disproportiate coverage; it's instead the harmful tendencies in the coverage of subjects others might consider disproportionate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insurrection article

I would like to get your opinion on the plot section of the StarCraft: Insurrection article. Do you think it's too long? I probably need to make it a little less in-universe in style, but I've been wondering if I need to cut it down a bit as well. -- Sabre 16:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a closer look at some point, but I can tell you now that the references are messed up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we've moved the rewrite of the Jim Raynor article back into the mainspace. It should now satisfy WP:FICTION as a minimum (and hopefully future versions) and shouldn't need templates splashed everywhere ☺. If put in context with other character articles "good articles", the appearance section shouldn't be too long - it needs to be considered that the character is involved in two released games, a secret mission and two unreleased games, but we've managed to keep it to only a few paragraphs in an out-of-universe perspective. The development section (whilst looking brief compared to the appearances section) also seems OK compared to some of the other character articles Deckiller pointed us to and considering that not much development information is available. The reception one needs some expansion, but it's easier to shove it into the mainspace so everyone can look into it. The development and reception sections have mainly been written from only one secondary source each, but we've only used three primary sources and have used a load of tertiary ones from SC legacy to reference the appearance bit. Take a look over, give us some feedback over the talk page. And due to the lack of full out-of-universe information, only a small number of characters will be getting main articles back. The rest will be contained in an overview-ish "characters" page, with information on development and reception as stated in WP:FICTION. -- Sabre 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want my random thoughts on talk or on my talk page? Either place is fine by me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's talk page would probably be best. - Sabre 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is it possible to have the history of a personal sandbox merged with the actual article? I've basically rewritten the entire Jason Voorhees article in my personal sandbox, and I'd rather not lose the edit history if I can help it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's possible. I'm not sure it's a good idea; it makes the history of a page very difficult to navigate. Why do you want the history merged? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep track of my edits. Slightly egoistic, because I like having an accurate count of my contributions on Wiki, and when I delete the sandbox that I worked in, I'll lose that. I already lost 400+ from another page that I worked up, and this one would be no different. I can understand how it could be odd in the navigation though. I would assume that if the diffs would change between current format and old format as you cycled through them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's that important, why not just copy-paste the sandbox version into the article, then move the sandbox to a different name and leave it there? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figure if it's not in use then it shouldn't take up space on the mainspace. Maybe I'll just use it for some general edits. Either way, it really isn't important after all to keep the count. Thanks for getting me to think straight. :) BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal Online

Hello, I cannot be bothered to go through your entire archieve to check if anyone has accounced this, but first of all, I read on your user page that one of your dislikes is Cabal Online, and I do not believe you are in administrator as they are suppose to keep a neutral mind on all subjects (some exceptions on extreme subjects I'm guessing), and you just deleted the entire article of Cabal Online 2 days ago because you don't like it?

Sure, the article was not entirely neat and no where near complete, but it is better to have some info rather then none... now you seem to be a decent person backed up by some comments left by users, but I cannot help and ask...

WHO THE HELL GAVE YOU PERMISSION TO DELETE CABAL'S ARTICLE BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT?

Now... I am rather upset at the moment so I cannot think clearly, so please forgive me if you are not refering to the game Cabal Online or that you did not delete it out of spite, but it does say in the history of that page, that you entirely deleted it on the 19th on July 2007.

Why?...

The cabal on my userpage is the imaginary cabal of Wikipedia admins who secretly run the site, and it's a joke. I deleted Cabal Online because it had previously been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabal Online. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh... the pages delete explaination is to clumped up to read... but it seems like you deleted it because its unresourceful... I don't see how, I mean its explains a bit about the game, there was a screenshot and the links to sites that had "more" information about the game, that alone was enough to get me into the game.

I am sorry for shouting as I was a bit mad, I have a bit of a short fuse so sorry... anyways, what will it take for Cabal to be re-writen and be allowed to stay, does it need more rock solid info about the game, when it was released, info about the game mechanics?

It needs to be written based on what people have said about it in reliable sources (basically, publications with editorial control). It can't just be based on the official site and personal observation of the game itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

odin sphere

hi can you please let us know in the talk page for odin sphere if youre completely going to reconstruct the article. i thought the characters section with pictures is fine since many forms of media have a character section along with pictures with a description of their role. some of the other edits you did were pretty awesome though. ~Corpse 18:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the images largely because they were excessive use of non-free images (especially since the cover already had pictures of all of the characters), and I don't need to ask permission to edit a page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

I see you don't have e-mail preferences specified. Would you mind e-mailing me, please? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a working e-mail address. You could try catching me on IRC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio deletion

Please delete all revisions of this after the last one by Everyking. --Random832 01:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POKE is doing some housecleaning

This notice is to inform you that because many people have added their names to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants but do not seem to be active, all names are being deleted in an effort to find out who is still truly interested in the project. All you have to do is re-add your name if you'd still like to be considered a member of WP:POKE. Any questions, you can contact me on my talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article

How do I nominate a page for featured status? The Clawed One 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAC has everything you need to know. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Image:1991 B towns.GIF

I declined your speedies on this and 3 similar images. There are no maps on the page you linked or the source page listed by the uploader. And I don't speak the language. Can you give me more to go on? Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks 07:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, on this one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that I did not intentionally revert you earlier. I was cleaning out the category and thought that I had missed your page. Many folks have their pages protected to prevent vandalism, I did not know that you were doing it to stop all changes. I do often clean categories once they are deleted per UCFD, so I may forget and get your page again, but I'm sure that I won't revert you as I did last time. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, not annoyed with you, just UCFDness in general. Don't mind me, I'm just being a curmudgeon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I'd suggest that you not have that dump into the non-free resize request category, since far too often people will simply resize the images without paying attention to something like a different template which specifies different rules.

Additionally, you might want to check out the "Downstream use" portion of WP:NFC, which would discourage something like the apparent license granted just for Wikipedia. I'm certainly not going to make a big deal about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone got into a huff about the whole situation, saying that if they can't be used under normal fair use rules, then the images aren't free enough to be here.

Cheers! --fuzzy510 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look back

Take a look on Dookie's FAC, I replied. Is it satisfactory now? Xihix 22:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again. Also, linked here for ya ;) Xihix 22:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, responded. Xihix 23:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied... Someone fixed some of your stuff... Please support, I really think it's fine now, and you're the only one that is holding it back from FA :'( Xihix 00:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians

As you are already aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, including Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:SubGenius Wikipedians, and others, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word. If, on the other hand, you are not interested in the slightest, feel free to delete this. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 09:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging accounts

I put this here rather than leave it on Guy's talk page, in spite of the glaring notice above, because if you're going to answer, he's no longer involved. So, what is done then with the extraneous accounts? Is there some notice we can put on the pages linking all the accounts together, or is there anything we should bother doing? The issue is that it's confusing for other botany editors to have multiple accounts doing the same edits, so we would like some clarity that says all of these accounts are one, and only this is being used now, but not call them sock-puppets, because that's not a problem with these accounts. KP Botany 14:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave a note on the userpages that they're all the same person. It's not a problem to called them socks; it's not inaccurate, and as long as you make it clear that they're serial accounts (and not socks created for disruption), nobody will get after you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we'll do something of the sort then. KP Botany 06:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello There

Hi there. I am Jimbo Herndan, a faithful editor on wikipedia. I recently had problems with a vandal, Ockenbock, who was using the same IP as I was. The IP got blocked for creation, and now I can edit. Anyway, I recently saw Mr. Ockenbock was vandalising the Jimbo Wales poem page. I have noticed that he reverted the page to a poem about Jimbo Wales, called Der Jimbos Face. Please, just answer my question and I will have an answer. Many Vandals have used this as an excuse, but I noticed you reverted it. Here is my question: There is free speech on Wikipedia. Why then is criticizing Jimbo considered vandalsim. I also find it (the poem) raather amusing, as my name is also Jimbo. Anyway, I am not asking you to put the poem back. I am simply asking you for an explanation that many editors have been wondering about. The WR and myself. Please, I am not a vandal. Look at my contribs. I just want an answer. Thank you very much for reading this, and please relply. --Jimbo Herndan 23:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, sorry. Here is the link to the poem I should probably read more carefully. Take care now. --Jimbo Herndan 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't funny and it wasn't clever, but it was inflammatory. I would have left it alone with a helping of funny or clever, but it was lacking. (Wikipedia isn't a forum for free speech; it's a project to make an encyclopedia that expresses all viewpoints with due weight, and any speech that doesn't serve that end is regularly deleted.) I explained as much on WR, albeit much more snarkily because I don't post terribly seriously there most of the time.

I'll be careful about blocking that IP in the future. If you'd like, I can leave a note on its talk page stating that it's your IP, and you'd appreciate it if administrators were careful to not block registered users when blocking that IP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the explanation. And also, I thank you for understanding the IP problem. It would be very nice of you to leave that note, and I thank you for doing so. --Jimbo Herndan 03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one revision

Can you please delete this revision at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Jet123/Desk&oldid=143334827 please for privacy issues.

Thank you,

Jet (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement on Ken Arromdees'application for arbitration over Wikipedia:Spoiler

Hi, I noticed this statement by you, in particular these words:

the edits are automated and appear to be following an undisputed policy (unless you go to Wikipedia:Spoiler's talk page) so nobody knows that there's anything to dispute, and the use of bots backed up with swift reverts and accusations of edit warring means that people are chased away from even trying to dispute it.

Some serious allegations there.

You're aware, I hope, that no AWB mass edits have been performed in the past six weeks or so, when the last of the 45,000 tags were removed.

Secondly, at the time of the mass edits the guideline was indeed an official guideline:

Spoiler guideline as it was when the last of the AWB edits were made. 11 June, 2007.
Kusma's edits of early June showing that he last performed a AWB spoiler tag removal on 10 June.
David Gerard's edits of early June showing that he last performed a AWB spoiler tag removal on 10 June.

Now there was vigorous discussion on the talk page, true, but the guideline was not marked disputed until after the tags had been removed.

Moreover during the first few days of June until the spoiler tags were all removed by AWB (on 10th remember) there was some quite vigorous editing of the guideline but not such as to suggest a vast dispute.

On use of bots, I take that to refer to my TonyBot edits. See my response to Ken on the arbitration page here.

On accusations of edit warring, it is an indisputable fact that those who have been accused of (and in some cases blocked for) edit warring were edit warring against multiple editors to restore spoiler tags against consensus. I can give solid examples of this but obviously if you have cases where a false accusation has ever been made, and of which course I am unaware, it would be easier if you were to present them. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I dispute the claim that the edits were automated. In David's case, at least, I have known the man for over a decade and if he says he checked each edit individually then he did so. --Tony Sidaway 20:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of these facts. I was urging Arbcom to take the case based on how I saw it, not based on new evidence. It's a little early to start litigating. :P - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't too early to ask you to correct your false statements. --Tony Sidaway 02:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see them as false. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've refuted them above to the best of my understanding of your complaint. --Tony Sidaway 02:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of questionable listings

my photographs:

pd released:

Image:VNJ-3 PP2048.jpg - WW2 pdgov/photog released to pd
Image:Algerian_civil_war.jpg - pd released, page gone

Third Reich copyright:

hope this helps! ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV of Straight pride shirt.JPG

I did not see your post on my talk page, so I has asked for a deletion review of Image:Straight pride shirt.JPG. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. And if Wikipedia or the Foundation specifically has agreed to seek AP's permission before making fair use of their images, please post a link at the DRV. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong RFC

I don't believe it's canvassing to bring this up, as you mentioned something before, and I need a second person to sign off on it. I've reopened it: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong. I've also not been able to complete it as fully as I would like; any input would be appreciated. The Evil Spartan 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

I'd like to nominate Stephen Colbert (character) for deletion. However, the page has already been nominated before here, and I don't know the procedure for nominating a page that has been nominated before. What do I do? The Clawed One 22:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{afdx}} has what you need, as does WP:AFD. I'm not able to spend much time online in the near future. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your input on improving Fist of the North Star article

I want to improve the Fist of the North Star article and bring it to Good Article status (and maybe even Featured Article status if possible). I managed to remove many speculative statements about the state of the English license and added references to creator's interviews and so forth. But I still think it needs some improvements. Any suggestions. Jonny2x4 04:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/L formerly User:Feba

I note that you blocked the above applicant, under their previous username, for 1 second, per this. I haven't the foggiest what it is about, but will leave it up to you if you feel the need to comment about it at the RfA. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 23:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke on IRC. 1 second is generally a technical or humorous block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt redirect

Hi there. I think I have a solution for the Daniel Brandt redirect. Would you be able to comment at User_talk:ElinorD#Talk:Daniel_Brandt? Thanks. Carcharoth 00:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, it is useful

I think I stumbled upon this discussion at WP:RSN, but now I was checking something... re: [1]. This was a useful list, and as far as I remember the game back then, it seems uncontroversial. The section was just as unreferenced as the rest of the article: why single only it for removal? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was opinionated original research. All of the articles have problems, but these lists were awful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Phoenix (organisation)

While I can sympathize with your views on this article, don't forget that you're getting dangerously close to a 3RR breach. It might be as well to call it a day for now—we're not in any danger of missing the deadline. Cheers, Physchim62 (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This too

Hello, After this please have a look at this too. Please note that I asked the fellow to revert my edits on dysentery too. He didn't oblige. 59.91.254.5 17:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, but you need to chill out on attacking Blnguyen. It's inappropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, If Wikipedia has a future it would be thankful to you if you would block Blnguyen for reverting almost half a dozen times Ngo Dinh Can back to a worse version and at the same time blocking an exceptionally civil and excellent user on a suspicious and in fact false check user case filed by a troll. A thread is still there on ANI I suppose. In another vein, what's the purpose of Dyk? Is it any information from any new article or some interesting or curious information? Blnguyen and a crony of his have made this DyK thing horrendously asinine business. 59.91.254.5 19:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Weird-o grudge thing going on. I'm not getting into this except insofar as it affects articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are engaging into meaningless conversations with this troll. The only reason he (i.e. User:Kuntan) is editing this article because it is similar to my first name. He has engaged in real life stalking of various users including myself, Samir and Thunderboltz. Generally Blnguyen is quite concerned about NPOV and you don't have to take the word of a banned troll to look at this with a coloured perspective. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuntan is editing Anuruddha because Buddha's cousin had the great fortune of being the namesake of a boy who uses Wikipedia for other means? And since Kuntan has a mind gone very askew, what he does is to copyedit Anuruddha to stalk this teen! Real life stalking? Really? Yes, maybe Rahul Gandhi's legal team might answer you and several others from Hinduunity.org for that shortly. "you don't have to take the word of a banned troll to look at this with a coloured perspective" Your verbosity, like Blnguyen's, is less than coherent. AMIB, Please look at Blnguyen's talk page for his reply to Hornplease. He says he didn't know, see etc. Lunarin 16:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove comments that are not simple vandalism from my talk page. I will waste my time as I see fit.

Similarly, I am not planning to carry any banners for people with a grudge. If I see someone removing reasonable copyedits, sure, I'll replace them, but I'm not getting into this fight except insofar as I plan to improve articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT rewrite

Although it will open up Pandora's Box, I'm thinking about implementing the new version today. Only one user has expressed concern over it (and it was over the use of lists and markup). Thoughts? — Deckill er 18:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Let me know when you do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to implement the rewrite at midnight UTC (8:00 EST I believe); after looking at all the AfDs, the concepts outlined in the rewrite are the ones being followed anyway, so resistance should be low. — Deckill er 19:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented. — Deckill er 02:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Fighter's Manual

If you're wondering why it's "increasingly common lately" that people are "yelling" at you, it's probably because you're going around doing stupid things like deleting files and complaining that it should be on Wikisource. It would have dead-simple to put it on Wikisource before you deleted it, but, now that you've deleted it, it is rather impossible without someone finding a new copy.

Log: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:TheFreedomFightersManual.pdf

Quote: "deleted "Image:TheFreedomFightersManual.pdf" (raw source material, take it to Wikisource)"

~~Idiot~~.

Gee, thanks. You know, I can restore that for you to transfer to Wikisource, if you want. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Images

Do you know anything about the pokemon image updates? User:Zappernapper was uploading them and he's suddenly stopped it seems. User:Water Pokemon Master is wondering what's going on. -WarthogDemon 22:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. Ask Zapper? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have. He seems to have disappeared for the moment though (his last edit was like a week ago) so I thought I should probably notify you as well. Er, hope I proceeded correctly. -WarthogDemon 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll give it a little (people do get distracted by real life) and if he doesn't come back, we'll see who can start in on the images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pondering

I'm wondering what to do with this page.

Stephen Colbert (character)

It's of very poor quality and has been tagged like this for several months. However, the AFD for it recently was a unanamous Keep. On the other hand, no one has made any serious attempts to clean it up. Besides AFD, is there anything else that could be done about articles like this? The Clawed One 02:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything? Also, sorry to see the landslide of Keeps in the Harry Potter Spells AFD. I'm amazed at how many people can ignore WP:ILIKEIT and get poor articles like that and the one above kept. The Clawed One 16:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what to do with that. It's awful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I have come to understand why you make some of the edits you have. Consensus is a nice thing, but sometimes, like these pages, people are stupid and biased. That Colbert article has been tagged for months and no one has tried to clean it up, but AFD it and every jumps to vote Keep. The Clawed One 04:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I would fix it is by editing it and paring it down and sourcing it and and just generally pointing out why I'm doing it and why until I get banned from Wikipedia or the article improves.

So far, it works pretty well as long as I'm willing to hang around and be annoying until good work gets done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter

I recommend we stay away from the Harry Potter articles; they are set on their perception of in-universe notability equaling real-world notability; a list of spells resulted in a snowball keep. I'd rather focus on smaller, less notable universes (which mean that people won't think that notability is inherited). — Deckill er 12:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a sucker for an uphill battle, unfortunately. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though there are so many battles on Wikipedia already... --Kizor 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of uphill battles... Savidan 15:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think singling out universes with less supporters who will rally to their cause is sporting. Rather, I think the closing admins need to realize that the number of votes means nothing. Hell, from what I've seen the gundam articles are in better shape than potter.... David Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried reasoning and providing logical compromises with the WP:FICT rewrite, but even that is raising the bar too high for many users. Perhaps I need to strip myself of the "merge and transwiki" philosophy and encourage AfD—these users seem to freak out over deletion just as much as merges, so it's not helping diplomacy. Or I think I'll stop being diplomatic and go back to full-time article writing. — Deckill er 20:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't resist: I just can't stand cruft! I renom'd it, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (2nd nomination). What's funny is I remember fighting tooth and nail to keep lists of weapons in Halo, and AMiB nom'd and deleted them all... ah, what callow times. David Fuchs^(talk) 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

roffle people, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Of course, I fought against List of Virtual Dungeon monsters, and the AFD discussion almost qualified as a speedy keep (one anon voted to delete). Too much cruft is seriously overloading me. I must retreat before I feel to overwhelmed. hbdragon88 05:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV didn't comment on my AfD, but overturned the first and listed a new AfD. Amazing how many people are arguing "its part of the most successful book series in current history, therefor something related to it must be notable". And they believe fan sites count as all the sources something needs. Where is the real-world info? Sigh... David Fuchs^(talk) 16:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A weird request

Hey AMiB, could you check out this edit and advise me what I should do about it? [2] I'd just dropped him a uw-test warning and reverted his removal of sourced information from Battle of Jenin. (And yeah, I'm coming to you cause we have butted heads in the past and I'm trusting you to not be "on my side" about this and give me a neutral response.) Kyaa the Catlord 19:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really incivil and totally inappropriate. I don't know what to suggest; this requires more time and effort to deal with than I have to spare for Wikipedia at the moment, due to real-life issues. I would recommend asking Newyorkbrad for advice; I've always found him to be clueful and fair. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I was wondering if you could take a look at the Glasgow University Student Television page and the British student television pages, i feel they did the attention of someone of your skills. Sherzo 13:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spells in Harry potter

It is currently under a deletion review. Therequiembellishere 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOMEBODY SET UP US THE BOMB

CATS:ALL YOUR GUNDAM ARE BELONG TO US.
CATS:YOU ARE ON THE WAY TO DESTRUCTION. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.218.96 (talk) 06:07:26, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

I believe deleting this thread would be in the interest of great justice. ;) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 17:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FNORD

Hi! This is Icarus!, being non-Wiki (I'm not logged in...), saying thanx for the work on the Discordianism page! Keep it up!24.176.20.60 17:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image help

Hello, I have come begging for image help. I wish to upload the image from this link.[3] Is this fair use? Does it matter if it's not? I want to use the image there for the Aging in Europe but I am unsure how to proceed. Perspicacite 06:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox MS Gundam

Hey,

I really wish there was some kind of middle ground between the superfluous crap (I didn't like using the 'concensus' infobox last night while adding the important stuff in your infobox, it's ridiculously large) and your infobox, which is nice and concise and doesn't wreck layouts at all. Out of curiosity, what else do you think you can add to the infobox without turning it into a bloated behemoth? The only thing I can possibly see that could be worth adding is an armaments list, but at the same time, that would turn the infobox into something that would no doubt wreck most articles' layout, and additionally, were it to be added I think it would need a show/hide option desperately.

In addition, I think that someone needs to bring up a new concensus vote in WP:GUNDAM to see if the current (year-old) infobox can possibly be replaced. Sorry to message you randomly. Maikeru 00:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The armaments are just meaningless. Signature weapons (beam sabre, for example) are worth mentioning in the body of the text, but the specific calibre of a fictional machine-gun is completely useless in a general-purpose encyclopedia.

Show/hide is glitchy in many browsers; I dislike using it, and using it often encourages the creation of gigantic infoboxes that are gigantic in 1/3 of the browsers out there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it that way, you're right. Signature stuff i.e. funnels, remote-controlled guns mounted in the arms, etc. should be mentioned in the actual body if they aren't already. If there were theoretically a collapsible list of armaments (and since you pointed out that not all browsers fully support those sorts of functions, it's just a supposition) I'd rather they just say "It has vulcans and a beam rifle and sometimes a bazooka and a huge spiked flail." There shouldn't be any of those retconned serial numbers for the weapons--all of which are, as far as I know, only really used in the "Universal Century Gundam Online" MMORPG--or the pointless calibers of each weapon.

As an aside, those calibers really are completely meaningless. I don't think I've seen a single Guntank toy which actually pays attention to those niggling details. The caliber of the cannons on its shoulders is actually larger than the caliber of its bazooka arms, but I've never seen a model or figure that actually gets this right. Maikeru 03:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's one thing when you're talking about hard SF, but that's not what MSG is about anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see we're still passing unilateral judgements over what things "are" or "are not". It doesn't 'matter' if something appears to be what it isn't - if published material says it's something, then it's something, and that's all there is to it. There's some original research if I've ever seen it... MalikCarr 08:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need to include every single word ever said in any official guide or episode or manga volume, because excluding any at all would be original research!

Pish tosh. It's not originial research to summarizie and apply some critical thinking to what level of detail we include in our articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Sugimori?

A bit of an issue has sprouted here and I'm wondering if the solution we came up with would help. Would you be able to? -WarthogDemon 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

go away

leave the robots in deus ex article alone, you big poopy head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.153.32 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Base set list useless??

As if information were useless...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_set_list  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecooldk (talk • contribs) 17:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jirachi2.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jirachi2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, for not opposing the removal of all the Pokemon specie images, the specie images you uploaded yourself in the past like Jirachi here are coming back to haunt you. ;) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate or Laugh At)} 05:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Vader

There have in the past been discussions of permanently semi-protecting articles that have a large amount of IP vandalism. I think Darth Vader obviously qualifies. There are several comics-related articles as well. Can you think of any other Star Wars related articles that this might be an appropriate step? - jc37 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am flatly opposed to permanent semi-protection of articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an obvious guess, but may I ask why? - jc37 02:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because those pages are often vandalized because they're often edited by new users who don't know better. Blocking the editing of the most-edited pages does not serve the goal of "The Free Encyclopedia." If we're doing that, we're not much better off than if we got rid of anonymous editing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more concerned with the "most-vandalised pages", rather than the "most edited" ones. However, I can see how the two could be the same. To give a separate example, There are thousands of articles attended by the comics WikiProject, and of those, I think something like 8 are ones which are so heavily vandalised that semi-protection seems like the way to go. Essentially if vandals consistantly, and over a long period of time, disrupt the pages over 10 times more often than anyone actually edits the pages (reverts obviously don't count) then I think we should at least be thinking about semi-protection. In some cases, though, I think it's more like 100 to 1, than 10 to 1 : )

Anyway, I'm not out to convince you of anything, but rather I was interested in your opinion. So, thank you for that : )

(Also, I love the captioned picture of Nixon on your talk page. The multi-layering of punnage is wonderful : ) - jc37 09:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image size

I would like your opinion. As a heads up, here is the topic. « FMF » 01:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of WP:RFAr/COP

List of Japanese N64 games

I noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. (Floppydog66 17:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]