User talk:A Man In Black/Archive18

Infobox CVG syntax guide

I began drafting a syntax guide to go along with aforementioned infobox and I'm inquiring if there's any interest in one being made. I suppose the reason is mainly to clarify certain fields and bring it closer in line with other projects such as films and books etc. Anyway, you'll find it at User:Combination/Sandbox Template talk:Infobox CVG/Syntax Guide. Thanks for your time. Combination 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wapanese vs. Japanophile

Hi, I'm contacting you since you are the one who protected the Wapanese to Japanophile redirect. I'm not sure what the Japanophile article looked like at the time you did this, but it has in the meantime gone through an AfD and a consequent rewrite to reflect the dictionary meaning of the word instead of the internet meme. Because of this, the redirect from Wapanese is now meaningless, it redirects to an article that has very little to do with the common conception of what a Wapanese is. Could you remove the protection and bring back the Wapanese article? Much obliged, TomorrowTime 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This article was bordering on an attack page, and the rest of it was speculation. No, I won't bring that back. If you want to make a sourced article, I'll delete the redirect, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I did see the article before I contacted you here, and I agree, it is terrible. And under the circumstances, with a Wapanese article being a vandal magnet for frustrated kiddies with no lives, I can see how a protected redirect can seem like an optimal solution - it's in a way even better than deletion. But the Japanophile article in itself has no real connection to the term anymore.

Ok, how about this: I write up a sentence or two into the List of ethnic slurs article and you redirect it there? There's bound to be quite some people watching that article, so any vandalism is more likely to be swiftly dealt with than it would in a separate Wapanese article, and frankly, I don't even think Wapanese deserves a standalone article. Would that seem like a viable solution to you? TomorrowTime 19:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Are there any references? If not, it seems like a protected {{deletedpage}} might be ideal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy X

Although if the whole "Mega Man Copy X" or "Copy Mega Man X" was unscourced, by taking out the personality section you hurted the article more then you helped it, and technically Copy X is the "Mega Man" of the MMZ series. BassxForte 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources for any of it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Scource? Give me a scource that Copy X isn't the mega man of MMZ! BassxForte 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You're the one making the claim. On Wikipedia, unsourcable material should simply be removed, which I've done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I really dislike the "If you can't give a scource it means your a lier" rule, if I recall speculation is allowed to exist on wikipedia, not generally but occasionally. BassxForte 21:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Um. No, it's not. Speculation is called out in WP:NOT, and it's been there for ages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote many character articles.

Hey. Just wanted to let you know that I rewrote Albert Wesker, Jill Valentine, Leon S. Kennedy and other specific Resident Evil character articles. Let me know how they stand up now. I also rewrote Strider Hiryu, eliminating most of its weasel words and plot cruft as well, and I'm planning on rewriting Dante (Devil May Cry) (already did some work on the other appearances section). Tell me how I'm doing so far and any other advice. Thanks! Jonny2x4 17:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are looking 100 times better. You're doing some great work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the Cross Fusion page

Hey MiB, I'm having a little problem on the Cross Fusion page, and was wondering if you could lend me a hand. You remember that list of each Cross Fusion Member that I wrote for the page? I realized how unencylopedic and crufty it was, so I removed it entirely while expanding the History section of the article in recent edits. Tempest115, however, is clinging to it despite the reasoning behind the removal of the list. Initially, he/she just put the list back on the page, but after being reverted, he/she created a seperate page (Cross Fusion Members) to house the list. Given that the list is unencylopedic/crufty/fan site-ish and unnecessary (as the Cross Fusion article details the history of the process and the history of the members involved, and not the members themselves), I believe the Cross Fusion Members page needs to be deleted (perhaps a lock on recreating the page after it's been deleted would be effective). --Benten 15:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I redirected and it seems to have stuck. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Well, Pokemon is a PART of Nintendo, which is why everything Pokemon related belongs under the Nintendo project. That's also why I didn't add the Video game template. And, the Legend of Zelda WikiProject has the Nintendo template as part of its template, and not everything Zelda related has been in video games. -- Scorpion 19:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any good reason to put the Nintendo Wikiproject tag on pages the Nintendo Wikiproject probably won't be doing much to maintain. Technical arguments don't supercede pragmatism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, 850 of the 900 Pokemon articles are directly Nintendo related, so it saves me 7 hours of tagging using AWB. ANd either way, all of the Pokemon mangas, anime, etc are based directly from the video games. -- Scorpion 19:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I'll leave the template off and tag the articles the hard way. -- Scorpion 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

American Dad vs. Family Guy

Do you know what happened to that article? Was there an AfD? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I speedied it as an A7. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't piss mme off!

'I MEEN IT YOU DLEATED BOLTH OF MY ARTICLES THE AMERICAN DAD VS FAMILY GUY AND THE BUBBLE STRUGGLE 2 ARTICLE I'M GOING TO SEW YOU FOR $10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 I WISH I COULD YOU SON OF A ***** ******* *******!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Superjustinbros. 20:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Wow, I knew there was a reason to keep your talk page on my watchlist ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Template: Mortal Kombat characters

It was deleted because at that time Template: Mortal Kombat series had the characters[1]. Now, following your policy of short templates, it is small and only has the games and such. So please, let the character template exist! (there are many templates of this kind...) igordebraga ≠ 21:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And, much more recently, it was deleted as useless here. You're right. Those other templates should probably be deleted, for the same reason. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (2nd nomination)

I made a mistake with my comment, someone reverted me. Sorry about that Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete

I'll let you judge for yourself: Destiny Board and Thousand-Eyes-Restrict. --Benten 15:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Speedy Delete for ya

User:Product entertainment network Contribs is a spam account which by it's name is just for advertising a product. Not sure how to request it for deletion, so I am letting you know. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 05:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fan fiction terminology

I see that you followed up the deletion of the article on 'Jossed' by removing it from Fan fiction terminology as well. You state that this is because the term is not verifiable. The problem is that every single term on that page is verifiable to the same extent, or lack of it by, the rules as you have interpreted them. Those terms are created by fans, they are documented by fans, they are easily verifiable by half a minute's work with google and you will find agreement between all the fan glossaries as to what they mean. If fans aren't the experts about fandom then who is? To refuse to accept fan glossaries as a verification is bizarre. So I, personally, would consider that verifiable by any sensible standard, but if the rules of Wikipedia are such that they aren't then you need to be consistent. Either delete every single fandom term - which I personally think will annoy a lot of people and reduce the value of the site for no very great gain, or don't delete 'Jossed'. I am aware that by saying this I am risking you deleting the whole article on fanfic terminology but I think this is something that needs to be thought about a bit more carefully. The whole issue of verifiability for fandom terminology is muddy and it clearly needs to be thought out in greater detail. You cannot apply the same rules to something like fandom as were created for an academic discipline. So either the rules need to be made more flexible, or you are permanently prohibiting Wikipedia from including material that end-users would benefit from. But please don't just delete one word at random, thus reducing the comprehensiveness of the terminology article.

Having said all of which I have neither the time nor the emotional energy to care about this issue or spend any more time on it than I already have. There are plenty of alternative sites that provide fandom glossaries for these terms so its not as if the Wikipedia articles represent irreplaceable resources. Agrestis 06:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Where have those fans gotten their observations published? I'm not asking for scholarly journals, just publications (online or otherwise) more substantial than personal sites and UrbanDictionary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

non-fiction templates used in articles about fiction

Do you remember a discussion about a template describing a corporate entity being used in articles about fiction? I thought the outcome was that we were not supposed to use templates like that in articles like that. Battle of Metropolis has an infobox for military battles, and I think it out to be removed, but I can't find that discussion. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I'll bet the very level-headed military Wikiproject would be happy to clarify their usage guidelines if someone mentioned that the template was being misused in that way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Duh, found it. WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

... Stop N Swop

Why do you keep removing the link to the stop n swop page in the banjo kazooie template? I asked nicely for you to not be silent about removing it, and to tell me why you're doing it. But once again you just removed it and said nothing. Can you tell me why, because this is getting really annoying. DietLimeCola 17:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must've closed the talk page before I replied.

Basically, it's an in-fictional-universe (as opposed to real-world) tidbit of setting that isn't necessary for understanding of the main game articles. It'd be like a a WWII template that has the major battles, the major nations, the national leaders, and the name of one single PT boat. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pikmin template

I noticed you reverted my edit. What I did wasn't vandalism, and was simply a fix to a cluttered and wrong template. It's title: video games. Articles for the characters and so on, should be labelled differently. Why do you insist on unorganized, cluttered templates? RobJ1981 08:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you can't let others edit the templates? I did see the talk for Tekken series. Just because the article for Tekken 6 isn't great, doesn't mean we should leave it out of the template. Others have the right to edit templates, without you reverting them all the time. A cluttered template titled "video games" with no sections dividing the actual games, game characters, movies, books and so on: is a big mess. That's not navigational, that's clutter and a mess. RobJ1981 06:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the articles about the characters are about video games. They are not themselves video games, no; the template directs people to articles about video games.

It's not that the article on Tekken 6 is bad; it's that it has no hope whatsoever of being a core topic. (It cannot be an important article yet.) It's too far away, so there's nothing but Namco's promotional material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Page vandalism

can you protect this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RevolutionTT article from vandalism? Yoosq 15:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Destiny Hero

Could you speedy delete this page? It's not only an undiscussed recreation, but is poorly done at the moment. I myself am not sure of the processes needed to nominate an article for deletion, and you're the only administrator I know of, so....thanks. Drake Clawfang 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Samiamshiznits

User talk:Samiamshiznits has been removing the speedy deletion tag placed on T1B, even after being given a last chance warning which tells him he will be blocked if he continues to vandalise. Please could you either delete T1B with immediate effect, or block the user? the_jmac! | Talk 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Silent Hill series

Could you please explain over at Template talk:Silent Hill series why you insist on keeping this template minimalist and non-inclusive? There is no good reason to omit the future releases, which have plenty of information. The template is for navigation, and navigation is being restricted by the few number of obvious links in the current revision. Readers may be unaware of Category:Silent Hill, and a category cannot present articles the way a template can. Right now it is not clear what the difference is between the Silent Hill link in the header and the next Silent Hill link. I think it was rather rude to revert a good faith addition with no reason given. Pomte 08:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed the {{Tekken}} debate mentioned 4 sections above. I will comment there as well. Pomte 08:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A Conspiracy With You, Sir...

Recently, some user started uploading images of Pokémon with unknown copyright status. This prompted me to ask you if this is better than this in terms of the picture inside the character infobox.
On another issue, I was wondering what you meant by superfluous when you removed an image of May back in June 2006. Why would such an image be "excessive"? If that is so, do these articles contain superfluous images as well? -- Altiris Exeunt 10:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No more Yoda Trivia?

Boo you, pointless Yoda trivia?? Trivia is never pointless, your point to removing it...not senseful since people enjoy trivia.

Snerkie 10:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Resident Evil Template

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Navgiation_template_RE is forming a consensus for the old version for that template. So seeing as how people want that form, that's what it will probably be changed to. I thought I would give you a heads up, just in case you do your normal revert of "standard appearance" to it. Hopefully this happens for the other ones as well. A clutter mess of a template isn't navigational at all. RobJ1981 18:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Frank Zappa trivia

... has been moved to Cultural references to Frank Zappa since that's what it seemed to be, and there are several other articles with parallel names. You were the last to add the <toomuchtrivia> designation, so I'm wondering if the name change addresses your issues in that regard. (Fully admitting that it still needs lots of style work that I have no intention of doing ;) CovenantD 02:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In no way does it resolve my qualms, but I'm not really up to dealing with "Cultural references to" junkyards today. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL Fair enough. It's still tagged, so maybe some day somebody will take care of it. CovenantD 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding those edits

Regarding your edits here, the edits I made there were actually good-faith and not advertising (if you though of that). I don't know the exact reason why you reverted my edits there because you didn't specify the reason in the edit summary. --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I know they're good-faith, but upcoming games that haven't been shown in playable form and don't have release dates or final names aren't core topics, required for understanding of the main game articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:HORSE

I think you may want to weigh in on the talk page of WP:CHURCH. Apparently your edit got reverted on the basis that "there was no consensus to reject" or something. >Radiant< 10:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care that much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning Template:Resident Evil series

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Resident Evil series. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. There is no reason whatsoever, other then a personal bias against Wii, not to include Umbrella Chronicles. It's an official, 2007, RE game. Other then that, the RE template is not solely videogame. JackSparrow Ninja 19:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A bias against the Wii? I was excluding it for the same reason as RE5; it's not been shown in playable form and has no release date. We know next to nothing about it, so it's hardly a core topic that needs to be linked from every single article.

Do people even care about console wars any more? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see you removed RE5 as well, which makes no sense either imo. Regardless of how much there is known about it or when it comes out, it are officially announced parts of the RE series. Besides, REUC has got a releasedate, this year. JackSparrow Ninja 14:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sometime in 2007" isn't a release date. A release date is a date. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

RE template

Looks like you deleted the discussion of the RE template, but you haven't archived it. hahaha Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 21:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thread I intentionally deleted was when people felt the need to pick fights in threads unrelated to their beefs, one thread up-page. To which thread are you referring? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi A Man In Black, you have been reported for 3RR violation on Template:Resident Evil series and have been blocked for 24 hrs. As an admin, I expect you are well aware of our rules, including WP:3RR, and I would assume you understand that as an admin you have to serve as example to others. I hope you take this time off to restudy the rules and contemplate your actions. Many thanks. Crum375 01:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa... Something doesn't seem right here. First you get blocked for 3 hours for 3RR on Ultimate_Spider-Man_(story_arcs) at the end of December, then about 40 days later you get blocked for 12 hours for revert-warring 3RR on Internet Relay Chat. And now 20 days after that you get blocked for 24 hours for 3RR on Template:Resident Evil series. Unlike any of your older blocks, each of these three recent blocks were handed out for good reason, and they were the first blocks you got that weren't mistakes on the parts of the blockers. I'm seriously starting to feel a little concerned for you here, I sure don't like seeing you or any other good-faith user undergo stress over this project. Of course, I can stop feeling that way and stay out of your business if you'd like. Best, Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 06:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The IRC revert block was reverting a troll, to be honest, I just didn't feel like explaining this to the blocker and getting it smoothed out since the block never affected me. (Essentially the same deal as with Princess Daisy.)

Most of it is because I haven't spent any time concentrating on WP lately, just cleaning up in snatches of time. Usually this means forgetting who I've explained reverts to and who I haven't, where the ongoing disputes are, and how many times or if at all I've reverted. All of the CVG templates blur together at this point, for example. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. That's nice to know. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 06:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuing the above thought, I've considered giving up on template cleanup, but then we'd get stuff like this and nobody else really cares to fix them (except Combination, to be fair). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi Protect

please semi protect List of Pokémon episodes... there are many unknown guys editing this page by adding false infomation or repeat problems that has been resolved... please reply in my talk page Ragnaroknike 08:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Megaten Template

You are directed to: [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Cornflake (talk • contribs) 07:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

SH Template

I completely understand why you removed the soundtracks from the template, but why did you remove everything else? It was my understanding that templates should help ease navigation through linked articles under a specific heading. What you've done to the template is make navigation much more cumbersome. You seem keen on keeping it the way you've made it too; reverting any other edits. I would like to ask that you reconsider your drastic trim of the template. --Thaddius 13:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

0rigins because it hasn't been shown in playable form. SH5 because it doesn't have a name, let alone a release date or any playable showings. Experience because it's a minor promotional giveaway, plus I planned to send it to AFD at some point. The Order because it's an in-universe article not necessary for understanding of the bulk of the articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fatal Frame Template Deleted

Hi, I noticed from the deletion logs that you appear to have deleted Template:Fatal Frame with the reason of This is a navbox that links to one single article, and I can't be arsed to send it to TFD. Is there any way to recover the original text? I am quite positive that it linked to more than one article beyond Fatal Frame itself such as Miku Hinasaki, Mayu Amakura, Mio Amakura, and others. Thus, I'd like to take a look at what the text was prior to deletion to see what had gone wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcjsuen (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

It linked to all of the character articles, granted, but those links would end up being removed per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes anyway. If you'd still like it undeleted, I can; I really didn't have any business deleting it in the first place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Eeeeye

Hey AMIB, just wanted to leave a message saying "sorry" for any of my past behavior. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I'm pretty quick to forgive here on WP; no sense carrying any grudges. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not PD image

User:InvaderSora is challenging your judgement on Image:MVC-021S.JPG. I have history with this user and am not in the mood to edit war with him. ' 16:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We Love Katamari

Did you see my comment on the Talk page? The page itself was not moved. My edit is a commonly used method for preserving an article's English title while reformatting the text on the page to reflect the special characters in a name. Please see the above link to the Talk page for my explanation, so that you can explain your revert of my edit. I request that you will try not to yell in all caps. Thank you! Joie de Vivre 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Augh. That's a common method that has been depreciated, repeatedly. There have been two or three templates to do it, all deleted. It screws up some skins; it pretty much only looks good in monobook. If other articles are using this, they need to be fixed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am waiting for answers at the Village Pump if you are interested to hear what others think. Thanks for your courtesy. Joie de Vivre 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Gears of War achievements

Hi, I was editing the Gears of War Achievements page at the same time you were so I could complete the list. You obviously wanted to redirect the article to somewhere else, and I accidentally replaced it with everything that I added. I'm not sure where you wanted to redirect it, so I just thought I'd let you know. Thieflordgamer of Xbox Live 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Guilty Gear series

First of all, there isn't really a true 'standard' appearance for navboxes, it's just whatever looks best for those articles. However, if this truly does bother you, please at least go through the trouble of creating a seperate template like the Soul series does with Template:Soul series and Template:Soul characters and making sure each article has their respective template.--SeizureDog 07:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, and the character templates have been getting deleted at TFD as redundant with the relevant categories. I'm not going to make a template I'd just send to TFD as redundant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

One would hope an administrator knows the difference between a guideline and a policy. Besides that, it seems most people disagree with your game-deletionism from templates. JackSparrow Ninja 07:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. Were you planning on addressing the reasoning behind that guideline, or just ignoring it? It was formed as the result of lengthy discussion, and if you look on the talk page you'll see zero disagreement about excluding lengthy lists of character links. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't address the fact that having an alternate template for characters greatly helps in navigation. Did you happen to notice that all three examples in the guideline that you cite, Mario, Zelda, and Metal Gear, have alternate navboxes for their characters?: Template:Mario characters, Template:Zelda character, and Template:Metal Gear characters. There's nothing wrong with applying this new guideline (which I wasn't aware of), but just please be sure to do a proper job about it.--SeizureDog 09:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On this point, I disagree, and TFD consensus seems to agree with me. That said, if you want that template, go right ahead and make it, or open up a larger discussion at WP:CVG or whereever the centralized place for template discussion is or open an RFC or whatever to establish consensus in general. Just please don't readd the list to the series template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Orre crime syndicates

I was wondering if Team Snagem and Cipher (Pokémon) should be merged into Orre crime syndicates, similar to how Magma and Aqua were lumped into Hoenn crime syndicates. Hbdragon88 08:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be merged into the relevant game articles, to be honest. Real world organization > in-universe organization. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd do that in a heartbeat for the Phobos Battalion, as it's only in one game, but Cipher/Snagem are a bit harder because they span Colosseum/XD. Hbdragon88 08:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect them to Colosseum, split the info over the games. They're really not so important we need articles synthesizing a chunk of the plot of these games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

unreliable source?

I'm sorry, but if you think unofficial/fansites, like thesnakesoup.org, are unreliable sources, then you are no different from people who jump the gun or discriminators. What exactly is it about these fansites that is "unreliable"? Has it ever occured to your mind to confirm any information they provide? I, who is a big fan of Metal Gear and the series, have seen their (the snake soup) information and I KNOW that it is correct. Give me the scoop? Did you know the sites like metalgearforever, thesnakesoup, outerheavenresistancehq and mgsaga are the only most informatve/important sites out there?

You may want to read WP:RS and WP:ATT. I'm not sure what this is appropos of; no, I don't think an uncorroborated claim made on a fansite belongs on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and it isn't right to edit an article and fill it with information based on one's experience alone and say it is correct. And that's what has been going on for all these years here and it was accepted and guys like you made sure it stayed. And there are no claims, there are facts. Guys like you ignore the fact that official websites have the right to be sourced even if they are wrong, as long as they are official. While unofficial ones are unreliable/untrustable just cause they are unofficial. I understand how things go here. But just rememebr this: at least 60% of wikipedia can be blindly passed with informaion that is false due people's free edits, and it's all through "official" sources. If you're gonna stand by a ideal, learn how to use it right. Now there is no uncorroborated (whatever the hell that means) claim; THEY ARE CALLED FACTS AND THEY ARE CREATED THROUGH POSITIVE AND ENSURING EXPERIENCE. See, based on how much wikipedia itself is not trusted by the world, it is clear that you're implying that any kind of information, be it true or false, can be (and is being) put on the articles, so long as it is not "an uncorroborated claim made on a fansite". I applaud your ability to singular-discriminate.

I don't believe you read the pages I linked you to, sadly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you read my message, which is even more sad. I in fact read that shit, which is a long page of stuff mostly I don't care about. But its main idea is to put down the unofficial sources is what I so far understand. It is quite cool to have a website with such dumbass rules like these, one being a site that is probably very most informative than other sites. But it is clear that wikipedia has rules that care more about sourcing to "official" sites than unofficial, no matter the reason is if it has real info or not. God.

Basically, fansites aren't typically reviewed or edited, and have little accountability or mechanism for retraction of errors. This separates them from online pubications, which typically are edited, accountable for mistakes, and tend to visibly retract errors.

For what it's worth, official sites usually aren't very good sources, either. Being better than an official site isn't much of a claim. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Got much not to say to that. Other than things are just simply screwed up. Ah, whatever.

Kirby WikiProject

Just wondering, would you be interested in helping clean up the various Kirby articles and working to keep cruft to a minimum? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a whole project for that? Seems like it'd make a great WP:CVG taskgroup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Kirby articles need a lot of work, and I felt that it'd be a good idea to get people together to collaborate on it. Whether it should be a WikiProject or taskgroup for WP:CVG is a good question that we can address. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmkay. I'd suggest a takgroup, myself. I'd probably be roughly as active as I am in the FF and DQ projects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. My primary target for improvement right now is Kirby's Dream Land, which I nominated for GCotW. Right now, it needs a little copyediting, sourcing, expansion of sound and visuals sections, and "finishing up" on the development section. How's it look do you think? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot could probably be combined with the Gameplay section (It's just Villain Has Conquered The Land), and the Visual and Sound sections could probably be combined into a Presentation section, if not into a Criticism section. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Merged plot into gameplay, combined visuals and sound into "Presentation", and added a Reception section. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Magic Set Card Pages

Why are you removing all of the notable cards from individual Magic expansion set articles? --Mjrmtg 04:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it's unreferenced, unreferencable POV. Notable according to whom? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah - your a Wiki God - I understand now - thats all you had to say - your edits are final - gotcha --Mjrmtg 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there are some references in reliable sources, feel free to replace anything you can source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

De-indenting Would you perhaps be willing to leave the items there for the next week or so, to allow me to review the cards claimed as notable? I would then either provide a reference to a third party's assessment of a card as "notable," or delete the card. This wouldn't stop cruft from slowly creeping in, but if it was unrefrenced, it could be easily deleted or referenced in the future. -- Norvy (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Short term? Sure. Long term? I don't think it's much of a solution. If there was some possibility of describing the effects of the set on the metagame both when it came out and later with proper attribution, that would be ideal. Living in the real world, I'd most want to figure out how the lists can be rewritten as prose, but I'd live with seeing them sourced.

Does that make sense? Describing the metagame and mentioning cards > describing important cards in prose > a sourced list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Small suggestion: insert a para right under the header describing the source or sources that the list comes from. That para can have the relevant citations appended to it and reiterate the cards to be listed. The list itself can be sub-headed if need be. Also, this will allow time for the cite to be put in, just tag the header with {{fact}}. — J Greb 07:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't ever seen {{fact}} accomplish anything on an article that wasn't part of a cleanup drive (either formal or informal). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There a variety of source that these things could be cited with such as the magic arcana column which meets reliable sourcing. JoshuaZ 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WOTC's own site is sort of a lousy source. They're hardly independent (and thus sort of lousy for establishing importance), and they frequently hype cards that come to nothing while missing the cards that turn out to matter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason I choose the Arcana column is because while yes it isn't exactly independent a large fraction of what the Arcana column has is retrospectives which gives it more reliability than WoTC trying to hype a card in an upcoming set. JoshuaZ 07:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The official site for the game in question still feels radioactive. Part of this goes to the fact that all of these set articles flunk WP:N pretty miserably. I decided going right ahead and merging into lists wouldn't fly, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate both of your feedback on the update I made to WP:MTG, under "things we're working on." Perhaps we can hash it out there? -- Norvy (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The "notability" of Damnation is exactly why I think citing the WOTC site is a bad idea. The only claim of notability is that WOTC, the company with a vested interest in promoting their cards, happened to promote it first from the new set they were promoting. "We thought this card was so important we wanted to get you hyped about it right away!" is not a claim to notability. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Marathon template

Please take care when making wholesale changes to templates. The formatting changes are very welcome, but you removed categorization and caused all transcluding pages to drop out of their primary category. Thanks. ⇔ ChristTrekker 04:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, that template is being used to put games in their category? That's a terrible idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? A nav template is used (only) on (all) pages that are central to the topic of that template. Seems like a great place to centralize for maintainability. Help:Templates and Help:Advanced templates illustrate this usage. ⇔ ChristTrekker 05:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It obscures how the category is being populated, and has no real advantage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ravnica

You just deleted the whole page without discussion. ... ... Um nominate it for deletion and tell us on the talk page, please. (Ravnica (Talk)) - Deadbraincell 05:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Explained on talk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reported to WP:ANI

There is an open case at WP:ANI#Running combat. I encourage both parties involved to use that as a discussion board to solve out any differences. Cheers Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You also have a 3RR case open as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Time Spiral notable cards

Hey there. Would you consider the cards listed on this page under "Famous Cards" have enough support to stand on the page? --SparqMan 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still Wizards of the Coast telling people what to care about for their own game. :/ These articles run the risk of being nothing but parroting WOTC's own statements about their own game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AMIB; there is no need to have "notable card" sections. It is ok to use cards as examples of certain abilities within the set articles, like cycling; reprints or rehashings of cards, like Lotus Bloom; or combos that have become world famous, like Fish or Megrim/Underworld Dreams/Wheel and Deal, if it can be attributed to a reliable source. That's the key: attribution. That, in turn, helps dictate notability, NPOV, and NOR. — Deckiller 20:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't shill WOTC PR, but what is a reliable and attributable source for something like that? There is no scholarly work on MTG, just MTG players and WOTC employees talking about decks, combos and cards. Can you think of a source that is not based in a players POV? Are multiple articles on a combo/card/deck sufficient? Just trying to think of ways to support that type of information. --SparqMan 15:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be scholarly. What about Scrye and Inquest? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Created a new VG-related In-universe tag.

Considering there's as many VG-related articles that are written from an in-universe perspective, it's probably time to do a VG-specific tag like the comic-related Template:Comics-in-universe. See Template:In-universe/Video game and let me know how it looks. Jonny2x4 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I should probably combine these into one template with parser functions, but in the meantime this is fine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User

I directed him to policy and explained it plainly, although we might have to bring more established users in to convince him, as well. — Deckiller 20:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Steel359 (talk · contribs) blocked him, surprisingly. I really don't want a fight with this guy; he's writing the kind of thing I'd upvote on E2, but it just isn't what this project is about. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just viewed his unilaterial policy page, and I think it's clear that he'll never follow Wikipedia policy, which is unfortunate. The block was a good move, becuase he has been disrupting and edit warring. By the way, what does upvoting on E2 mean? — Deckiller 20:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

People like him (though I've never run into someone quite like him) are the reason I don't write articles anymore. Forgive me if I'm being unnecessarily harsh. – Steel 20:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything2 is another project-about-everything kind of project, but people own their own articles (in that they control them and own the copyright), but a name may have multiple articles. There's Slashdot-like or Digg-like scoring on articles, where established users can upvote what they like and downvote what they don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why the Final Fantasy WikiProject is so great; it upholds policy and is interested on making all articles adhere to policy; it is a long process, however. — Deckiller 20:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:DQ

I'd love to give them a hand, but I've only played 10 hours of one game in the series. Also, the FF WikiProject is trying to set a goal to get all articles to at least GA status in the long run. — Deckiller 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hee. That was as much to Steel as to you, admittedly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Scary Go Round

I've added cited quotes from two newspaper reviews. -- Dragonfiend 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiberium

Stop practically blanking Tiberium. Just because you're an admin does not give you carte blanche to nuke whatever you please. You are in violation of the Three-revert rule once again as you have been blocked for in the past. If you really want to change the article then discuss it on the talk page instead of declaring it fancruft and wiping the article of any useful information. GeeCee 06:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:WAF or WP:FICT? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Rules

Please gice a more relevent reason as to why you deleted the trivia section for Omega (Mega Man character), and please don't hide behind one of wikis rules, too many people on this encylopedia hide behind that crap. (no offense intended) BassxForte 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a bunch of speculative garbage that would be a blight on a fansite. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How about the part where it states "It's unknown if Omega's biometal form in Mega Man ZX is canon or simply a gameplay extra", thats enough to be in the article. BassxForte 06:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also unknown if Omega is actually a giant bunny pretending to be a robot. We don't say "It's unknown if..." to imply that something might be true on this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Guh... I was the one who originally put that line of trivia in there, who dare you say that is what I was trying to do! BassxForte 06:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You meant what it said, "This might be true, it might not be, we don't know." We don't do that here. We base our claims on those made in reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How about the one where it translates the japenese phrase Omega it says before the final battle with him, how is that speculative? BassxForte 06:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that at all noteworthy? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem very skilled at making bad excuses, ok, how about the one where it mentions the most probable reasons for the diffrence between the body of copy zero (Zero), and Original Zero (Omega). BassxForte 06:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, lucky I stumbled across this. You should have mentioned this to me too, since I removed it first. Basically all of them had inadequate sourcing, and it was all speculation. Y'know, guesses. Nothing definitive. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your hurting the article... plain and simple... your hurting the article. BassxForte 03:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Leeroy Jenkins

Your deletion of most of this article [3] will be set aside for now because of 3RR (a rule I see you've broken before). But your attack on other editors work as "junk" is duely noted. --Oakshade 03:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. I removed a little bit of unsourced prose, reverted that same edit, then cleaned out a LOT more unsourced prose, most of which was junk. (Fansites, references to less-notable fictional works, original research, etc.) That's not even four edits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking for your opinion

[4]

[5]

Do you think that these two images are the same picture (albeit modified)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that LOTL or Hylia is a reliable source, just to jump a step ahead on you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. If I can show that the images are the same, I can show that LotL is unprofessional because they are stealing images and claiming them for their own (and even trying to claim they didn't). - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

They're both unprofessional. They're fansites. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. I would probably opt to not use either. However, the question is - are the images the same? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any good reason to enter into a debate that isn't going to help improve any articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It creates a definite foothold for people to argue that LotL is not suitable to be on Wikipedia. Someone has been spamming LotL a lot recently as a source. Why won't doing such a thing not help Wikipedia? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Then remove them because they're a fansite. They already fail WP:ATT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been attempted many times - first when User:Hyrule began replacing sites such as IGN with landofthelegend, adding it to External links, and then JackSparrow Ninja began using it as a source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you remember how the vgcharts thing was laid to rest? Bring it up at WT:CVG. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for three revert violation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. John Reaves (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

John Reaves (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For what? WTF? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reason for above: Near as I can tell, I haven't broken the 3RR on any article, and the (lack of) talk page commentary here is a tad unhelpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck 04:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on, but the template is being glitchy to boot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

With a lack of explanation forthcoming, apparently it's for Leeroy Jenkins, which I reverted three times, of which the last one I tried to self-revert (before being reverted for a fourth time by Oakshade (talk · contribs)). Looking on WP:AN/3RR, the "fourth revert" is an unrelated edit that is in no way a revert.

If I'm being placed on block-enforced 1RR, it'd at least be polite to mention it to me first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, if you were in my position of view you'd be outright laughing; it was only a week and a half ago that I was posting here all worried about how many blocks you've been getting recently, and since then you got two more blocks of increasing seriousness. Based on your note on your Leeroy Jenkins edits, some of this blocky business might have been the work of a rouge admin, and your blocks and opposition towards you on article talk pages in general might be because people are interested in seeing your downfall or something (a fine way of putting it). But I'm starting to think the 3RR rule is a little too strict; five reversions would have made more sense to me if I designed Wikipedia. Anyway, best of luck with dealing with the increasing stress issues of Wikipedia in the future. :/ Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 05:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit more paranoid than I'd expect; I imagine the blocking admin thought there was some sort of hot conflict going on here, and assumed I'd know what the hell he was talking about. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than paranoid, the blocking admin may have been a bit green with the tools because he seems to have become admin recently, looking at his talk page. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 05:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmh. Well, it'd probably be helpful to copy a portion of this to WP:AN/3RR; I clearly can't, {{unblock}} is not closely watched, and the 3RR notice cites a non-revert as a revert (as well as the fact that I tried to self-rv the last, but didn't get a chance, but that's not something you can see in the history since if two people make the same edit only the first one shows in the history). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

re the glitch... replace {{unblock|1=Near... with {{unblock|1=Near... (saw the same error and correction on anothe user page...) — J Greb 05:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take: two edits [6][7] were removing The Real World stuff, while another two reverts [8][9] are of removing the "What was he saying" section. That counts as four reverts under WP:3RR (it doesn't have to be the same revert four times). Hbdragon88 05:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, AMIB. Hbdragon88 05:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, another admin might consider previous 3RR blocks under gaming the system. Hbdragon88 05:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I reconsidered reverting, and tried to self-revert and move onto other things. Problem is, I'm here, blocked, having violated neither the letter (no fourth revert) nor the intent (no ongoing edit war, as I've conceded the point and tried to self-rv) of the 3RR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oakshade probably stopped because he had violated the 3RR. Hbdragon88 05:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Had he not made his fourth revert, my self-revert would show in the history. His version of the article (save for some non-disputed following edits) is the current one, and I did not at that point and do not now really feel like disputing it any more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, well, I'm really sorry. I've asked John Reaves to reconsider [10]. Hbdragon88 06:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked. Sorry about that, I should of reviewed that better. Though I do believe that some sort of block was justified because of your constant edit warring. I guess three hours is enough. Sorry again. Let me know if you want a quick block (like a few seconds) to explain in the log. John Reaves (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)