User talk:A Man In Black/Archive21

Future Sight Notable Cards

I realize that content on Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced by "reliable" sources, however, it is nigh impossible to find such sources for notable Magic cards. I have replaced the cards on the list that DO have sources (almost all of them from MTG.com, about as reliable as you can get for this stuff) and believe that removing this part of the list is tantamount to vandalism (I will report it as such, should you find it nessecary to remove the section again). If you still feel that the list is not up to your standards, try improving it instead of deleting it. That said, happy editing. --Lifebaka 23:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Try the discussion at WP:MTG, where three months ago I asked for independent, reliable sources and none were forthcoming. (BTW, the promotional website of the publisher of the game is about as far from independent as possible.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Much as I dislike it, I can't fault your reasoning there (besides, WP policy is in your favor). I'll be keeping all of Time Spiral block and Lorwyn block at least clean of unsourced notable cards, but I won't remove any sourced cards from the lists. I'm gonna' leave that one to you, and won't try to undo any of that. --Lifebaka 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting notable cards is counterproductive and doesn't help people track down these sources. If you are so interested in improving the articles please help to get the sources, instead of just telling other people how an article should be run. Any deletions or edits are only supposed to happen to improve an article, NOT take away from it. An official site is reliable if nothing else exists, if it does exist for the older sets please may you show me where so I can get things sourced upto standard. Thanks Rohrecall 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiberium

Would you please help the article by rewording the current work to an encyclopedic article instead of reverting the article which serves nothing. -- Warfreak 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of wording. It's a matter of content and sources; that entire section is original synthesis based on playing the games, with an eye on describing a fictional universe to the exclusion of our own. Deleting it is fixing it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You fail to listen to other users, because if you do, a combination of the to is far more informative than your little article alone. I fail to see how this reverting is helping anyone. Anyone except yourself probably. -- Warfreak 22:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Piling unsourced original research written in a way that takes a fictional universe as real makes for an entertaining fanpage, but a poor encyclopedia article. I suggest doing this sort of writing on Encyclopedia Gamia, where it is welcomed, instead of Wikipedia, where it is barely tolerated until deleted or completely rewritten. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have written a third opinion on this issue, to help solve the dispute. It can be found here --User:Krator (t c) 00:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Muslim athletes

Ignore me if you already knew this, but if you want to salt an article so that it stays a redlink (but can only be recreated by an admin), you can list in this month's list at Wikipedia:Protected titles. WjBscribe 01:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Knew you couldn't stay away

Welcome back. I knew that, eventually, the fact that nobody else was editing like you do would force you to return. You believe so strongly that what you're doing is right that seeing people work on the articles differently (or not work on them, in the case of the Magic ones which, from my view, are already being reverted) irritates you to no end.

I am a little upset you returned when you did, because I had 10 bucks on the fact that you'd make it to July. :) Scumbag 02:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay! You are back! :-D Miranda 00:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Need Help

I know you are an administrator, and I need help with an image. I have no idea how to upload images with the copyright data, etc, so I was wondering how I would go about upload this omage (http://www.starcraft2.com/art.xml?16). If you cannot help me, please tell me who can. The Clawed One 00:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we're stealing images from the Starcraft 2 website. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, on the Zeratul page (Zeratul being the being depicted in the link), currently, an outdated picture is being used, and I would like to use an up-to-date one, seeing as how the current one if a decade old from '98. Also, if it helps with discerning the copyright data, there is a wallpaper download of the same image. If that means it is fair-use or not I am not sure. The Clawed One 00:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The image on the Zeratul page reflects the multiple million-selling game in which he appears, instead of the unreleased and far-off game in which promotional materials imply that he might. Why not use the far more recognizable image? Why is newer better? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best to use the most up-to-date photograph of any person? And even then, it should still be noted (and demonstrated) in the article that his appearance differs greatly between the two games. The Clawed One 00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a person, it's a character. This is important to bear in mind; the dominant depiction, not the most recent one, should be used. (For example, Spider-Man retained the red-and-blue costume in the lead image despite the occasional temporary appearance change.)

Additionally, the image you linked isn't a promotional image; it's just a picture ripped off the official site. That's not okay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the official site alright, believe me, you go the Blizzard page, go the SCII site link, it takes you there.

Also, that's different, if Spiderman went AWOL in comics for ten years then showed up with an entirely different costume, wouldn't it be important to show both? I see exactly that on his page. Look, if you don't want to help me, just say so. The Clawed One 00:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got help. If I couldn't upload the image at all, you should have just told me that. The Clawed One 00:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you add all those tags? The article makes it clear he is fictional, I looked at the Wikipedia policies on such. Also, there are several references. The overly-long plot summary tag is the only appropriate one. The Clawed One 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• The lead is the only place Zeratul is treated as a fictional character; the rest of the article is largely "History of the StarCraft Universe."
• The references are all the games themselves or Blizzard summarizing their own games, which are generally insufficient due to a lack of objectivity or distance from the subject.
• The original research is the originaly synthesis; this is the StarCraft storyline, edited to cover points important to a specific character (without any sources to show importance in general).
• The overly lengthy plot summary is the entire article; there are two factual claims (Zeratul is a character in StarCraft, Gamespot said such-and-such about it) and the rest is recapping SC's plot in explicit detail.

Each tag explained. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Welcome back and all, but the TV pages have been just fine in your absence...and have been just fine with me taking care of them....especially KXGN. Now, a brand spanking new schedule is up (for the week of June 4), for which I will update weekly. References...^[1] Trust me, there are plenty of people who have the TV stations section well taken care of. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You haven't solved the old problem, though. There's no claim there that this particular schedule is important; you've merely looked at a schedule and decided that this one is important.

If I may use an analogy, Wikipedia has a rule against covering the color of a building, because it's trivial information outside the scope of this project. However, this particular building has white and red stripes, which is rather unusual for a building. To reference the claim that the building is unusual in that it has white and red stripes, you need a reference stating that it has stripes and that this is unusual. A mere list of the colors of buildings is insufficient.

We need some sort of reference showing that this station's schedule is worthy of note, not merely a list of schedules of every station. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::I think me and you have gone through this before. KXGN, last dual affilated network station in the US. Yes, it is important. Don't ask for references and knock them down just cause you don't like em. OK? If you came back just to start fights and cause agruements, then many it is best you go back into retirement and stay there. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse an automatically-generated table with the schedule for commentary in reliable sources. When I say sources, references, or any synonym for same, I mean reliable sources. An automatically generated table of every single schedule is not sufficient to justify an exception to WP:NOT.

Do try to keep a civil tongue in your mouth. I'm not really in much of a mood to put up with obnoxiousness. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::OK, BackChannel gets their schedules directly from the stations themselves, just like TV Guide, just like Titan TV, just like Zap2It. It's the next best thing to getting a print-out from the station themselves. Now, since KXGN is the last CBS/NBC affiliate (can only be confirmed via pay site 100000watts.com) and KXGN doesn't just carry the 9pm MST (10pm EST) program, they carry whatever program they want at 9pm from NBC, it is worth noting. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that that's the actual schedule. You need a reference to show that it is the only CBS/NBC affiliate (you can cite the 10000watts article), and I don't see why you need to show the entire schedule when you can simply say "KXGN is the last station to carry both programming from CBS and NBC, such as <example> and <example>." It's worth noting, but not worth illustrating with the entire evening schedule. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::I can't cite 100000watts.com because you can't see anything on that site (listings, etc) without an account. It's costs alot...so unless you had an account as well, you could never confirm it. It would be original research without confirmation. ::Since KXGN runs the NBC programming (and without confirmation) and doesn't always run the final show of the night from NBC or holds some over to another day, it should be worth noting. ::As for news, most TV pages WCBS-TV, WJLA, WAVY, WHSV, KABC-TV, etc, have a TV newscast schedule. Since KXGN carries KTVQ news along with their own 5min newscast, it is also worth noting. ::The reason for the BackChannel schedule, is because it is the only website that actually links to the station. No zip-code required. Yahoo TV used to, but doesn't now. BackChannel, like I said, takes the schedules directly from the TV station. TV station tels BackChannel, BackChannel posts them online. TitanTV will show you the same schedule...that I can directly link to as well. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's acceptable to cite a for-pay article. Bear in mind, most books and other print references are for-pay, essentially, too.

As for the news schedule, why is it the business of an encyclopedia to have the news schedule of every single television station, especially given that that encyclopedia makes a policy of not recapping TV schedules? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::Most of the time, the schedules include where what anchor is seen. But in this case, since it is from KTVQ and KXGN has the little 5min newscast, it is kinda notable, especially in the smallest DMA in the country. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Where are the references to back up these claims, both factually and the implicit claim that they're important? (Basically, references that aren't databases.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::I can reference a Wikipedia article on the Montana Television Network, for which KXGN is affiliated. KTVQ parent company Evening Post Publishing Company owns all CBS affiliates in Montana but KXGN. They call it the Montana Television Network. The Evening Post owned stations carry all the news programming, KXGN just carries the 5:30p and 10:00p 'casts with their own 5:55p and 10:30p 'casts thrown in. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, as anyone can edit it. This is why Wikipedia strives to rest its authority on reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::To my knowledge, Evening Post doesn't have a website, but I can look. Also, on the WRC schedule, you would have to wipeout ALOT of schedules, not just one. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference doesn't have to be online. Print is fine, and often better.

As for removing the news schedules, I'm working on it. Please don't pee where I've just mopped. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::I would perfer if you would leave those be. There is alot of work from alot of different editors that went into those and are kept very up-to-date.

::^[2] has reference to Montana Television Network on KXGN. NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"A lot of people worked on it" isn't a good reason to keep something on Wikipedia. If someone worked really hard on their novel, would we keep it if they posted it here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

::But you are removing entire sections with no real basis. You can't site NOT:TVGuide, cause they aren'ty going into the whole schedule (syndicated, network, etc.), they are produced newscasts by that station. That doesn't fall under WP:TVGuide. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone felt the need to comment on these schedules other than directories of every single schedule? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

::Other than you? No. No one else has a problem with them, especially not the members of WP:TVS who watch over these pages and add and constantly update these schedules. Schedules of newscasts and news programming that are produced by and broadcast on these stations. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

List of 2001: A Space Odyssey trivia

You recently deleted (via making it a redirect) the entire contents of this article without discussion. I have reverted your action as vandalism. I must ask you to consider that this article was part of a larger group effort and that one individual here can not arbitrarilay make such a decision out of the blue. If you belive that this article does not belong here, then please post it for AFD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That is the procedure. The trivia article was created a year ago by User:Bungopolis as a split from the source article on account of it being too big. This material has been here in one form or another for a considerable amount of time. Please follow procedure. -- Jason Palpatine 22:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC) This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

Do you know what vandalism is? WP:VAND is an enlightening read; I suggest you peruse it.

Were you planning to incorporate these contextless factoids into another, larger article, written in proper encyclopedic style? There's no harm in deleting stuff that's too trivial to include, and all you need to do is use the delete key on your keyboard. If it's needed for a merge, fine, but we don't need all that crap.

Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. The procedure is to just be bold when you find an article that's full of junk with a useful title for redirecting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You are not following procedure -- that makes your actions vandalism. Being bold and being vicous are not synomonous. --Jason Palpatine 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want it deleted (and I'm not sure what "vicous" is). It may later be useful for a merge. I merely think it's best redirected, as it isn't a useful article as a standalone and the article from which it was removed won't benefit from its addition right now. It should not have been spun off in the first place, merely removed from the main article and left in the history.

Be aware that the definition of vandalism you've come up with is your own, and doesn't have anything to do with the definition everyone else uses. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeratul

Now, I know you consider observations from the video game OR or whatever. But, please, explain to me how citing the exact same information that anyone else would recieve is OR. The Clawed One 23:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Because you're deciding that that information is important, with nothing but your own judgement guiding it. The business of writing this encyclopedia is taking the published knowledge of the human race and boiling it to a usable reference tool, not evaluating works of fiction and summarizing them. History, not story. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, we might as well delete most of the movie-centric pages that have summaries. Oh, and a lot of video games too, they have to go. If fictional summaries aren't allowed, then why are they around? The Clawed One 23:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they can be improved by doing a little research, just like this one can. Is there a reason you're fighting with me instead of doing that productive research? You want to improve the article, and that's admirable. Go improve it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, since you seem to think you have all the answers. what would make the article better? Sources? Have those. Out-of-universe summary? Did that. Or should I just slap the Redirect to Protoss on it and solve the problem that way?

Sources that aren't the game or the manual. Come on, try harder than that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain there's more than one source. The manual isn't even sourced itself. The Clawed One 23:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You have the Gamespot link, which is a good start but used for one sentence. After that, you have the game itself, the manual, and three links to Blizzard official sites.

Additionally, you have no info on conception, and only the one sentence in the lead about critical reception. Try cribbing Superman's article sections and seeing what you can come up with for real-world content, and that could be a good start on some research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And why are those Blizzard sites and the manual not valid sources? As for real world content, there isn't much to tell. He'll appear in SCII, and was voiced by James Harper. Either way, seeing as how he does exist in the video game, his character in the game is as important as his creation, etc. The Clawed One 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC) What about the StarCraft books? They valid?

Because they're primary sources that don't establish importance. Likewise for the books. If there's no real-world content, why is there a Zeratul article at all? Wikipedia isn't the summarize-every-fictional-work-from-the-point-of-view-of-each-character project; it's an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Clawed One 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to do any research, then. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact is I did do my research, you just seem to hate any page with a unsourced sentence. The Clawed One 00:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You had one sourced sentence, then a lot of original research ascribed in a handwaving way to the primary sources you analyzed to perform your original research.

Understand that the main work of this project is examining published sources and writing articles based on the claims made therein. Everything else is just fiddling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see. I can't do OR, I can't site the game, I know for a fact I cannot (and wouldn't anyway) use fansites, and I can't use the official sites either. So yes, what type of sources can I use? Excuse me if I'm a little confused, but what am I supposed to source? The Clawed One 00:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable publications, ones which have a degree of editorial control and which are independent from Blizzard. Game magazines and books about the history of games are a good place to start. Have the Blizzard developers ever mentioned the development of the characters in interviews? Has any criticism of the game (not in the "it sucks" way, but the commentary sense) mentioned Zeratul? This is what I was talking about with cribbing sections from Superman; insight into development or critical reception, things often covered in reliable publications, are a good place to start. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have done a large-scale clean-up of the article, including additional (hopefully valid) sources and shortened plot summaries. Please provide your analysis. The Clawed One 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's some progress. What still needs to be done...

• The references aren't inline, so it's not clear what's coming from where. Do you know how to use the ref and references tag? I can convert the references if you need me to.
• There's still almost no real-world info. Conception? Critical reception? There has to be something.
• The "Fictional Character Biography" section needs to be collapsed into the other sections. Reflect the structure of the work; put the backstory in the plot summary where it's revealed in the plot. (It's been ages since I played SC, so I can't do this myself from memory.)

Remember, even when the plot summary is completely done, this article is less than half done. The most important part is real world impact. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As you might have guessed, I do have little experience with sources, so I apologize for the format. I'm on the lookout for real-world info though. As for fictional biography, it's explaining his profile and actions prior to the game, not his appearance in it, so I think it should remain seperate. Also, as such a biography, it isn't a plot summary. The Clawed One 22:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

it's explaining his profile and actions prior to the game

That's in-universe thinking. He has no profile or actions prior to the game. He didn't exist prior to the game; he is part of the game. His story is part of the game's story, and if you're going to talk about his backstory, you talk about it as part of the plot when it's revealed in the plot. If you're going to use the work as the source for the plot summary, then reflect the structure of the work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I merged the biography bit with the rest of the article another user who has made edits to the page has also been informed of the listed shortcomings.

Also, I figure "no", but I'll ask anyway: would user comments and submitted quotes from the IMDB be usable?

No, forums are pseudonymous sources without editorial control. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

By collapse into other sections do you mean something as such of the Tassadar and Jim Raynor biographies, where they are subtitled within a biography section and generally look a lot more tidy? (despite being overly long summaries, but one SC character's article at a time...) -- S@bre 09:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

GearHead

Look at Grue's comment. I may be mis-interpreting, but that seems to say that the article lives. He's an admin, for crying out loud. Admins speak for all. I don't mean to attack you personally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.13.111 (talk • contribs).

One, admins don't speak for all, two, AMIB is an admin. -- Ned Scott 00:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Also, Grue shot down AMIB before, so technically, AMIB is asking for a fight, with my favorite page. Whether or not he thinks it should be deleted or not. Again, not fighting him, just pointing out that Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information so why can't GearHead have its page? If he wants something changed, he can research it and find out about it himself, then change it. 70.162.13.111 00:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

70.162.13.111, you are not helping. -- Ned Scott 00:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

On a different note, is adding a period that much of an change. I didn't shoot it down (except in the comments) and, if my memory serves (it may not) I just merely said I didn't agree. 70.162.13.111 01:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just saw the period after the hyperlink. Sorry. My bad. 70.162.13.111 01:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Grue will agree with the prod, or won't. If he removes it, we'll go to AFD, then make our cases there, then establish some sort of consensus. That's how things work on Wikipedia.

As for deleting the article, Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of human knowledge. Advertisements for games nobody has ever seen fit to comment on in published works isn't included in that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Mario articles

Do you think you could explain to Henchman 2000 that one user cannot suddenly decide that there is "no consensus to merge" and use that as a basis to keep a bunch of articles? He seems to be one of the people that takes the word of admins as some sort of higher voice, so it would be helpful. Or you can just trash the cruft yourself if you would like (it should pretty much be everything at the top of his contributions). It's all just fluffed up, in-universe crap. TTN 10:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is bigger than that; Ex-Nintendo Employee and a couple others are involved. I suggest going to WP:CVG and getting some extra eyes on this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ex-Nintendo Employee left the site, and any other users have backed down or are just general editors (they don't care if the articles are there or not.) Henchman 2000 is the only one that has been continuing. TTN 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a large enough issue to merit a discussion, IMO. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image information: when it's enough?

Hi, I've been out of Wikipedia for a long while and I would like to know if the following images are well justified on Wikipedia: image:Iceland_selfoss.jpg and image:Iceland-road.jpg. The first one has only the tag, while the latter a short description. Is that enough or more should be added? Regards, Luis María Benítez 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Genuinely free images have much, much less red tape. The first image is perfect. The second image is problematic; it doesn't have a license tag, and it seems to be restricted to non-commercial uses, which means Wikipedia can't use it. You could talk to the author and see if he or she is willing to release it under the GFDL or a compatible license, but such a license would have to allow commercial use and modification. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable cards

I've noticed you've removed some notable cards, however, I don't think you're doing so in an effective way, since you seem to be doing it rather blindly without even looking for sources. And I consider Wizard's website to be a reasonable source of information on the cards for the individual notability which is more in the case of "This is interesting" as opposed to on the article level. IOW, the mere fact that they've noticed things is enough for the article on the set to make note of it as well. And in some cases, there are actual sources. Sorrow's Path, for example, is commonly featured in lists of the worst cards. I know I've read more than one article about it in print, not just on the web. I suggest doing some searching yourself, or at least, moving the content to the talk page to discuss it with folks first. FrozenPurpleCube 01:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Note, btw, that I don't think every notable card somebody has added is truly notable, or anything, I just think your methods could improved. FrozenPurpleCube 01:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WOTC's site is very much not a source of notability, since WOTC has a vested interest in promoting their own game. Eventually, these lists of trivia will hopefully be incorporated into the body of the articles, and ideally we won't just be parroting WOTC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It would be one thing if the question was on the article level. But this is about the content of an otherwise acceptable article. So there is no reason not to use them as a source. They are a reliable source, ta regular content provider, and they are an excellent source of facts. Thus they are quite acceptable for these purposes. If you can come up with any particular argument why in one case or another they *shouldn't* be used go ahead, but as I see it, you're just mindlessly demanding third-party sources. As I see it, almost any first card to do (X) is worth considering notable. Or card which was the last to do something, like Timmerian fiends. Sometimes this will even be remarked upon by contemporary third-party sources (or modern ones), but those may be harder to find. If you really want them, you can look for them, I won't object, but do show more care before you remove the information. If you want, add {{cn}} or move the content to the talk page instead. Bring up the issue directly, don't just remove it. Try to help fix it. If you disagree, I suggest you participate in the discussion at the Wikiproject and see if you can convince people there. But there is no current consensus for your methods. FrozenPurpleCube 14:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just to be absolutely clear, I would have no objection to you *adding* content from such sources as you'd prefer. They may not be as easy to find as those one wizards.com but I have no objection to their use. I merely object to your removal of things without even an attempt to replace them. It'd be one thing if coverage of individual cards weren't ever somehow notable, but since they are unique in some ways, I don't see it as an overall problem. FrozenPurpleCube 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't forget to read WP:SPS which is the closest standard that applies here. This is clearly a case where there's no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it, and it is relevant directly to the applicable subject of Wizards products. And I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want to express your views there. FrozenPurpleCube 16:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Since FrozenPurpleCube has created that discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, please don't remove information from Magic articles pending the completion of the discussion. If/when it comes out in your favor, you should feel more than free to remove as much information sourced from www.wizards.com/magic as you see fit to. Until then, please just leave it alone. --Lifebaka 21:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? I brought this up three months ago and nobody's done anything about it since. How long do we futz around with unsourced, low-quality material when nobody is improving it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Until consensus is reached. If you would like to have your voice heard, challenge Mister.Masticore's request that MTG.com be considered a reliable source for Magic articles. --Lifebaka 22:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is quite bothersome to get into a revert war over this. And how long? Well, Wikipedia is a work in progress. The fact that an article hasn't been fixed over time only means, well, not enough monkeys have been banging on their typewriters. If you can fix it yourself go ahead, I have no objection to you adding more sources. I merely consider your blanket objection to using MTG.com at all to be excessive as it is not applicable to a specific problem. Not once have you specifically pointed out an actual problem with any of the content. Yet you somehow think it's *wrong* for us to say "This is the first card with quality X" or "This is the last card with quality Y" when it's sourced to Wizards.com. Why? What's wrong with that? I have yet to see an answer from you on that sort of thing. So please try to answer my questions on the noticeboard. FrozenPurpleCube 23:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed a work in progress, so it's important to clean up the inappropriate content so we can move forward. It's wrong for us to say "This is the first/last card with such-and-such quality" and the implicit claim that this fact is somehow important without some sort of non-advertising source to use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Absurd. The cards are the essence of Magic sets, analogous to chess pieces, or the tiles in Settlers of Catan. We cannot include information about every card in a Magic set article, so we include a few (5 or so was deemed to be ideal). You can certainly argue that certain cards would better illustrate the nature of a given set than others, but removing all of the cards is the worst compromise possible. On that basis, you could delete the image over at Chess illustrating how a pawn captures, because there are no sources proving that pawns tend to capture rooks as opposed to bishops or knights, or vice versa. --Ashenai 13:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have a better set of criteria to suggest, go right ahead. Give me some idea what you think would constitute a definition of a notable card. But me, I think it's pretty obvious from coverage of new magic sets that cards that are new or unique in some way attract interest. If you want other sources, go find old copies of Scrye or Inquest, or look for retrospectives on older sets in newer material. But your methods are summary removal and have included things like Invitational cards which anybody should be able to recognize do receive third-party coverage. To not even leave them up with a template suggesting looking for sources? I'm sorry, but I just don't think you've looked at the individual situations well enough, but have adopted a blanket wipe it out mentality. That's usually not helpful. FrozenPurpleCube 17:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A card that has been noted by a reliable source. That's the definition of notable on Wikipedia. You know all the cards (or groups of cards) with citations to, say, SCG and Inquest and Scrye and MTGSalvation, and how I didn't remove those?

Comparisons to chess pieces are silly; people have written entire books about the use of single chess pieces. Can you say the same about any MTG card? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't know cards you haven't removed, and I don't know that you've even bothered to look for sources yourself. Is it really so hard to accept that the Magic Invitational or YMTC is notable without forcing me to cite every single instance for an invitational card or YMTC as notable? That just makes for ugly articles. FrozenPurpleCube 22:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cite every single instance for a factual claim. That's what we do here. Do not assume your reader is automatically familiar with the fact that Pro Tour Invitational winners get to make a card with their image on it. I brought this up three months ago, and naively assumed that people would do what they were supposed to do in the first place. Now, three months later, it's time to deal with this. Maybe YMTC is only important to fans of Magic, and has no impact outside of that community. Maybe the only mention of the PT Invitational winner cards is on fansites and the official site. It's time to turn these from fanpages into encyclopedia articles, and removing content that has never been covered in a reliable source is part of that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And I graciously provided a source from Wizards.com that verified the statements made about the card, didn't I? That isn't the problem. The problem is you reject the use of that source. That's the problem. I'm sorry you don't consider Wizards.com a reliable source. I've never seen why except some blanket objection. Never once have you provided an example that demonstrates an actual problem with their pages. Sorry, but that's just not well-reasoned at all. Since we've established that content on Magic will exist on Wikipedia, absent an actual showing of bias in a particular instance, I see no objection to using Wizards.com as a source. If you want to add further sources, go ahead. If you want to add fact or citation-needed tags go ahead, but try to show a little more examination before removing cards. FrozenPurpleCube 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am, largely, disputing the importance of these various claims, not their veracity.

Wizards.com can only be used to verify the veracity of a factually disputed claim, not verify the importance of a claim whose importance is disputed. WOTC doesn't have any reason to lie and every reason to be factually accurate, but a vested interest in promoting the importance of their own products, even those they no longer publish. Little, if any, weight should be given to WOTC saying "Such-and-such card is important," and then only in the context of discussing larger topics. (For example, it'd be fair to say in the Onslaught article that the tribal themes of Fallen Empires influenced it, cited to such and such MaRo article, but not make a list of the tribal cards he mentioned in passing in the FE article.)

Do you at least understand this argument? All of this handwaving about "Why would Wizards be wrong?" is a red herring; the issue is not veracity but importance and due weight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And so far as I can tell, nothing you've shown indicates any actual problem with over importance or undue weight being given to anything. Sorry. I don't even see a problem with Mark Rosewater being referenced discussing the Fallen Empires set in its article. Such statements are quite within the realm of WP:SPS as there's nothing contentious about it as far as I can tell. FrozenPurpleCube 23:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wizards.com is going to give undue weight to WOTC's products. It is the mouthpiece of WOTC, and cannot make any sort of claim of being independent, as the bulk of the article writers and the entirety of the editorial staff are WOTC employees. Claiming that a company's website is an independent source on the company's products is an extraordinary claim.

It's appropriate to use it as a source for the conception of a set, sure. (Who else can we possibly use?) But using it for critical reception of a set, in the form of describing the noteworthy cards of a set, is insane. It's citing Ford.com for critical reception of the Ford Mustang. It's citing Microsoft.com for critical reception of Windows. It's not good sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What undue weight did they give to anything? And who is talking about any critical reaction? None, absolutely, none, of the cases where I have referenced Wizards.com have been in any way related to critical reaction. Sorry, but I think you're misapplying third-party sources. That applies to notability, not content. See the page itself. Read it. Read WP:SPS. If you don't accept my understanding, then fine, start up an RFC somewhere about it. But so far, I think you're the only one with your extreme views. Certainly the noticeboard discussion hasn't gotten anyone who concurs with your approach. I really do think your interpretation is overzealous and not based on actual problems, but merely a concept that there could be a problem. FrozenPurpleCube 23:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To put it more clearly, I am willing to accept your concern that there *could* be a problem. However, I require you to demonstrate that there *is* a problem before acting. See the difference?

There is a problem with YMTC and the PT Invitational cards, failing other coverage, though. These are promotional activities, and we're sourcing them directly to the promotional activities themselves. "Come play in the Pro Tour and you might just get to make your own card, like Finkel and Budde and poor Jens with his Sucky Simulacrum!" These are promotional activities, and need to be treated in the most skeptical manner possible.

The much lesser problem is the "Grizzly Bears is the first 2/2 creature for 1G" problem. We don't need to note the first ante card, or last merfolk before TSP block, or whatever, unless reliable sources that aren't scrounging for daily content on their own products covered them. Every card is the first or last or whatever something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said to you earlier, the place for that discussion is [3] here, and it's not directly related to the question of sources. FrozenPurpleCube 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a standard. It's "reflect the reliable, independent sources written on the subject," and it's the standard we use in every single Wikipedia article. Why do MTG sets need their own rules? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPS doesn't allow self-serving content. "You should care about such-and-such aspect of a product we sell!" is self-serving. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the Invitational and YMTC coverage, third-party coverage is really a notablity question for individual articles, not the content of existing articles. Says so on the page, doesn't it? If somebody wanted to make Magic Invitational or You Make the Card pages, that'd be one thing, I'd agree with you. But that's not what is being suggested. FrozenPurpleCube 00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, what's being suggested is covering something no reliable, independent sources have ever covered. Just repeating WOTC's site isn't the business of this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You are now asserting that no reliable, independent sources have ever covered any Magic Cards? Are you sure that's something you want to be saying? Or are you saying something else and simply being unclear. If so, perhaps you might want to clarify your words. FrozenPurpleCube 00:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The specific words are "it is not unduly self-serving" . You do know what that unduly means, right? It modifies the statement to beyond simple "they could benefit from this" to "They are benefiting from this in a way that is not appropriate" . Can you give me an example of how wizards.com has unduly used wizards.com? An actual, real one. FrozenPurpleCube 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a repeater for a promotional outlet is not appropriate. This is one of Jimbo's big pet peeves, if I recall correctly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, argument by Jimbo isn't going to work. If you want to go ask his opinion, feel free, but I'm not going to assume what he feels or doesn't feel. FrozenPurpleCube 00:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Or for that matter, assume he's right. He's not always right you know. FrozenPurpleCube 00:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The assumption is that a factual claim is neither true nor important until a source is provided to back up both. WOTC is good for veracity, not so much for importance. Lots of these factual claims flunk the importance test. Corporate promotional outlets fluuuuuunk the importance test, since they exist only to promote the corporation's self-interests. We can use them for supporting factual information, but not for lists of trivial factoids.

At the heart of this is the fact that the MTG set articles suck. They don't have to suck, but right now they do. I'm trying to revamp Time Spiral to serve as an example of how these articles could not suck. It's not as though I'm going to eschew wizards.com as a source, but as a source for "Such and such card is important in general" it's not good at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to look at WP:N#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content again. Please read it. Especially this sentence: "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines" . Therefore, I see no reason whatsoever to assume that a fact is not reasonable to include in an article regardless of whether it's from the source or from a third-party. If Wizards.com is acceptable as a reliable source to confirm content, then they're acceptable. If you wish to work on what criteria should be used to discern whether or not a card is important, I suggest you go to the discussion I pointed to earlier. It's not directly related to using wizards.com at all. It's a distinct subject on its own. See the difference? FrozenPurpleCube 00:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wizards.com isn't an acceptable source for lots of things; you keep citing WP:SPS, you should know that. "Notable cards" implies a critical evaluation, and wizards.com aren't the people to trust for critical evaluation of their own product. Implicit claims can be as important as explicit ones, and it's silly to trust wizards.com to fairly evaluate their own products critically.

Now, entirely too much time has been wasted on this, and it is both distracting me from doing some actual work and preventing you from doing the same. GO FIND SOME INDEPENDENT SOURCES. The articles desperately need them. The time of reflecting WOTC's POV on their own product has passed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever sources Wizards.com isn't an acceptable source for is something that should be handled as it comes up. IOW, as I've said before, individual consideration of the specific circumstances. Not blanket prohibition. You see the difference? Not once where I used wizards.com as a source did you provide a reason why it shouldn't be used. Therefore, I ask that you accept use of wizards.com as a source unless you can demonstrate a specific problem with that.

If you think that saying "Notable cards" indicates a critical evaluation, well, I don't even know what you mean by that. It's not a term which has a meaning to me. I certainly don't see it as requiring such evaluation to be based on Wizards, but by the editors of Wikipedia, who well, do have to make decisions about what content will or won't be on a page. That should be made based on some criteria set up through discussion on its own. If you wish to discuss that subject, then please go to the section I suggested previously.

The question of whether too much time has been wasted on this, well, perhaps it has, but perhaps if you'd chosen different methods to improve the articles there wouldn't have been so many arguments. I know sometimes you can boldly try to fix things and start a snowball argument without even meaning it, but well, I decline to take the blame for this being a lengthy discussion. I don't even see it as a problem. A lot of things involve long discussions. As long as no personal attacks occur or abuse of admin priveleges, I'm willing to keep discussing things. If you're not, then I suggest you reconsider that refusal as such matters may lead to problems. Consensus is developed when people are convinced, not when somebody walks away from the discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't be a problem if the articles actually had some sourced content, and I haven't yet removed anything that wasn't on the bottom rung of bad sourcing (basically, no source or evaluative claims sourced to WOTC). Go clean up the articles. The only edits to Urza's Saga since January are people fighting over the "notable" cards. All I've done is cull the absolute worst of the content in these articles and still people are complaining instead of working on things.

Frankly, I'm sick of this "stop touching our project's stuff!" attitude and it's what drove me away the last time. Everyone's more concerned with defending their shitty articles than editing and improving them. GO FIX THE ARTICLES. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What you seem to be unable to accept is that when you're literally the only person arguing a point, and you have many established editors arguing against, that may possibly not be because you are the one true interpreter of what's good for the Wiki. A casual look at you contributions and talk page suggests this is not an isolated incident. WP:CONS is not a lighthearted suggestion, it is non-negotiable policy. Please attempt to build consensus before doing something like this again. --Ashenai 02:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't these established editors fixing the low-quality articles that have languished for ages?

I see lots of established foot-stompers and complainers and reverters, and few established editors. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Insults and incivility aside, I repeat: WP:CONS is non-negotiable policy. I'm fine with removing truly unsourced cards (and I believe most of us are), but if you simply feel a source is insufficient, establish a consensus for your point of view first. Naturally, uncontroversial improvements to the articles are welcome, and we do appreciate your hard work in that regard. --Ashenai 02:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Take this diff. Where does this article mention YMTC or Crucible at all? There's a useless, reactionary defensiveness often protecting content that is wrong on its face. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you not notice that I added a source that does mention crucible? I've now removed the source you mentioned, which does seem to be irrelevant to the article. --Ashenai 02:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you added a cite to a promotional organ touting the merits of their own product, while keeping a link to something that didn't mention anything relevant at all, all as part of a blind revert. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As for notability, notable, on Wikipedia, is that which has been noted in a reliable, independent source. If WP:MTG wants to argue about some subjective definition of their own, they're free to waste their time, but I'd appreciate it if they could keep subjective evaluations based on personal interpretation out of articlespace. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a monopoly on the English word "notable", and individual game pieces do not have to satisfy WP:N to be mentioned in an article. See our articles on just about any board game for precedent. If the issue confuses you, I'd be okay with a compromise where we called the section "Cards of interest", for instance. --Ashenai 02:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unanswered is the question implied by "Notable cards" or "Cards of interest." Cards noted by whom? Cards of interest to whom? "Cards of interest to Wizards of the Coast" is a shitty answer to that question. Right now, the headers are "trivial facts about some cards," which doesn't cut it for encyclopedia content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The answer is "of interest to the public, as determined by the editors of the article via the WP:CONS process. It's the same process we use to decide whether anything makes it into an article.

Individual game pieces are not constrained by WP:N, as long as we're not trying to write a separate article about them. Technically, a link to the appropriate card in Gatherer would be ample sourcing, as this would enable a user to look up the card and confirm that it exists. In fact, in theory, there would be nothing wrong with listing ever single card in a set: the only reason we don't is because of issues with article length and bulk. --Ashenai 02:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree, then address my point re: the Settlers of Catan desert tile. It is mentioned in the article as one of the game pieces, and yet there are no sources showing that the desert tile is in itself notable. Do you not find that a problem? If not, how is, say, the Crucible of Worlds card different? --Ashenai 03:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Subjective interpretations of personal observation aren't part of this encyclopedia, however many people like them. "It's notable because WP:MTG agrees that it is" doesn't cut it here. The desert tile is mentioned as part of mentioning all of the game pieces, something we can't practically do with MTG sets, each composing hundreds of cards. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at. If each Magic set had only 20 cards, so we could list them, that would be okay, but since there are more than 20, the ones we list suddenly have to meet some sort of notability criterion?

In any case, I like Deckiller's solution of renaming the section "Example cards". Does that seem like a more acceptable compromise to you? It now asserts nothing about the cards' notability. If you feel that different cards would make for better examples, feel free to discuss. :) --Ashenai 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then we have a list of trivial facts, without context or value. Why not take the sufficiently sourced material and incorporate it into the body of the article and ditch the rest, like I suggested in the first place as well as three months ago? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you feel these facts are "trivial", and "without context or value"? They are no more trivial than the set itself, the context is... the set itself, and the value is that of showing users some of the contents of the set, often along with some relevant design or marketing history. --Ashenai 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Because they claim to be important but fail to explain how, and are picked without any sort of unifying rhyme or reason. (Subjective unifying rhyme or reason isn't better at all.) Plus, they're bulleted lists of factoids, which I hate hate HATE HATE HATE and am very glad we now have guidelines to prevent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they do not (currently) claim to be important: like I said, there's no policy demanding that individual game pieces should be independently important. They claim to be "example cards", which is a good name for the section, because that's what they are. Naturally, it behooves us to choose cards which best exemplify the set: this isn't particularly dependent on sources, though. Black Lotus is an important card (which is why it has its own article), but does not exemplify Alpha all that well, in itself.

Your criteria would make sense if we were debating whether an individual card should have its own article: in that case, WP:N would need to be satisfied, and we would need to find independent sources confirming the card's notability. Mentioning a card in an article on the set it's in is not even close to the same thing, though. --Ashenai 03:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(tab reset) Jumping in, there's a few options that can be taken. I think integration into the rest of the article or prosifying are the best options. The cards can be cited as examples throughout the body. At the very least, though, I recommend prosifying the "example cards" section like the rest of the article and mention each card for its precedent. — Deckiller 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind, every card is a precedent in some way. MTG's nature is that every card is a new rule or new combination of rules unto itself. It's not going to be possible or desireable to cover every precedent, which is why I'm pushing so hard to stick to precedents covered in reliable, non-promotional sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That point is only valid in a strict logical sense, not in an encyclopedic sense. Every object (not just Magic cards) is the first of its kind, if you restrict the definition of "its kind" enough. At some point, common sense is quite sufficient to assert that "first 1/1 vanilla Wizard" is not an interesting precedent, while "first card that enchants a card in a non-play zone" is. --Ashenai 03:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, although there are some things that are fairly obvious enough: some of the examples can probably be cited without a need for reliable sources, such as the traditional cycle and perhaps the legendary cards. The others should probably be mentioned in a reception and criticism section, perhaps something like "Players were displeased/pleased with the card Serra Avanger because....". — Deckiller 03:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, I understand the irritation at the attitude some people have with regards to fixing articles. I've run into it with Chess and Chemistry a lot. However, I don't find a problem with your desire to fix articles. If you'd just come forth and said "These things need to be fixed" I'd have no problems with your actions. I don't even find a real problem with removing many of the so-called notable cards. However, I run into a problem with regards to your position of use of Wizards.com. I think it's overzealous, and not supported by any reasons whatsoever. Again, I suggest you consider cautious examination of the usage of the site instead of blanket denial of it. This applies to each individual circumstance, and unless you can come up with a good reason why something isn't valid because wizards.com is the source that is verifying it, then I recommend you not delete it. If you want to look for a third-party source go ahead. If you want to make sure it's not talking the party line, when there are reliable sources that disagree, go ahead. But please try to be more accepting. The fact is, wizards.com is a professional website, and the magic section doesn't just produce advertising copy. FrozenPurpleCube 02:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the bad source was simply a mistake on my part, I copied and pasted the wrong link. My bad. Oh well, mistakes happen, try to be a bit more accepting of them. Perhaps if you'd messaged me with "Hey, this is the wrong link, did you mean some other link" I'd have been able to provide the correct one for you. Or you could have looked for one yourself, given that I hope you have enough understanding of Magic the Gathering to recognize that any of the YMTC are guaranteed to have third-party sources in spades? That would have been much more effective than a mindless reversion. FrozenPurpleCube 02:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries on the mistake; I figured it was because you were reading the article about the Kai Budde/Voidmage art, and that's why I just commented the section out for you to fix the ref. I figured you'd see the edit summary on your watchlist; mistakes happen all the time, and are harmless. Ashenai reverting to something that is just plain wrong without bothering to check is infuriating, and speaks to me of the general Wikiproject "Don't touch our shit" attitude.

You'll note that after my revert, I noticed the incorrect source and removed it. Leaving that in was a simple mistake on my part, and I've fixed it. I don't know why you found that so infuriating, to be honest. --Ashenai 03:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the YMTC contests, the problem seems to be that the contests are generally little spoken of in reliable sources independent of Wizards, which says to me that they're of interest to fans only. For example, I was playing when Spiritmonger came out in Apocalypse, and I can't at all recall Scrye or Inquest or the one other rag that was out at the time (not Duelist; maybe Topdeck?) mentioning it. The cards may see mention, if they bear mention their own merits, but not because of the contest, and the contests themselves seem to be not mentioned at all outside of wizards.com. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't put it on my watchlist, and I won't. I wouldn't have even known about it if I hadn't seen the discussion here. But if you seriously believe there would be a problem sourcing it, I don't know what to say. It seems trivially obvious to me that it's among the easiest things to source. Thus I would suggest in such cases you use {{cn}} instead of deletion. In any case, while you may believe Ashenai has an attitude, I'd say that you have an attitude of following your idea of the rules without considering the actual results and reasons. FrozenPurpleCube 03:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Implying that this is all of a sudden is disingenuous. I brought this up at WP:MTG three months ago. It was even mentioned as URGENT on the front page of WP:MTG. Nobody did a thing in the intervening three months.

How long does unsourced POV content get to sit untouched? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I have crossed the line in some way: AMIB, I found some of your remarks inflammatory, whether you meant them that way or not, and my temper may have flared slightly. Again, I apologize if you were offended.

My point remains that your position is not supported by policy (there is no policy stating or implying that individual game pieces need to meet WP:N on their own to be mentioned in an article about the game, and precedent clearly shows that it is not needed), and it is certainly not supported by WP:CONS at this time. I don't believe it is actually supported by anything other than your own unwavering conviction. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. --Ashenai 03:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"This card, out of all the ones in the set, is important enough to get special mention!" is a POV. Wizards.com is insufficient sourcing for a POV of "This aspect of a WOTC product is important." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is no more POV than selecting one particular game element or position to demnstrate over a different one. The Chess article demonstrates a pawn capture by showing a pawn capturing a rook. Why a rook? Would a pawn capturing a bishop or a queen be better? How do you think this was decided? I somehow doubt the editors consulted sources for whether pawn-rook captures were more important or notable than pawn-bishop captures.

Your arguments about selecting certain cards to showcase over others being POV are purely your personal opinion, and are not in any way grounded in policy, as far as I can tell. --Ashenai 03:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My arguments on how to select certain cards are grounded in one of Wikipedia's core policies, and it's how we select certain content in general.

If your arguments are grounded in WP:V, I'm not seeing how. All of the cards mentioned are verifiable (via the Gatherer link), as are the facts mentioned. Could you quote the section from WP:V that you feel the articles are in violation of? Again, please quote the relevant section, don't just nebulously assert some sort of paraphrase. --Ashenai 03:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ever-shifting lists of random cards chosen on the whims of passing editors are not encyclopedia content. Offering dissimilar, non sequitor article examples doesn't really move me. Why do we need lists of example cards at all? Why can't we cover the set with encyclopedic prose, like we do for every single topic in this entire encyclopedia? FFS, what's the demented attachment to the specific way things are done right now (which happens to ignore WP:TRIVIA's excellent advice to boot)? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't find my arguments convincing. I don't think WP:TRIVIA particularly applies to this, as describing game pieces in an article about the game in question is not trivia in any sense of the word. I would still like to point you to WP:CONS as policy. You have so far failed to even come close to consensus. Unilateral editing of articles in defiance of consensus is frowned upon, as I'm sure you know. --Ashenai 03:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(tab reset) Resistance to change has always led to the downfall of great businesses and organizations. Just a random comment :) — Deckiller 03:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all for change, as long as it's an improvement to the article. :) --Ashenai 03:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And as I've said before, I think there may be a valid concern, however, I don't think that AMIB has chosen an effective means of addressing it. I've continually asked him to participate in a discussion for establishing criteria for what makes a given card notable. This has not been forthcoming. Instead, we get what I consider a summary action on his part and a resistance to using sources about material that is not in any way in violation of the established standards or supported by a particular reason on his part. It'd be one thing if he could say in a specific case that there was a problem with citation of wizards.com, but I've not seen that either. FrozenPurpleCube 04:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AMIB, if you wouldn't mind, could you show us how you would like the notable card sections fixed? Using some page such as User:A Man In Black/Time Spiral or User:A Man In Black/Notable Cards, so no one will be able to take issue with any edits you might make on it? I'd at least like to see what you have in mind for these sections before we try to implement any of your suggestions. Thank you. ----lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

By not doing "notable cards" sections at all. Take a look at Time Spiral#Nostalgia; while it isn't perfect, it mentions the artifact-on-a-stick Magi in a much more natural way than a bulleted list of trivial facts about specific cards. Don't make a section for individual cards; mention the cards where they're relevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Mobius

Its from the game C&C Reneage, which I noted over thier now. Can remoce that <redacted> tag yet, or do I have to jump through more flaming hurdles? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It still needs to be reduced, but other than that it's fine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reduced? Now I am lost. Could you maybe tell me what I need to reduce, and by how much it should be reduced? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The image on the image page needs to be reduce to to at least close to the resolution that it's being used in the article. This isn't an immediate thing; if you leave it, someone will eventually take care of it with a script. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I see what you're sayin'. Its going to have to be the script because the best I could do otherwise would be to crop the image, and that apparently won't be enough to satisfy the requirement. Thanks for the help, and sorry if I seem a little on edge; summer school be stressful, ya know? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I know it can be stressful to suddenly see what seems to be a bunch of deletion tags on an image you uploaded. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

You come back and I am ready to check out due to stress. Partially due to some rather intense events at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy today. I'd really like it if you helped hold up the fort there while I recharge. Oh, and by the way, even if we're both guys, I love you. — Deckiller 06:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha, okay. What's going on over at WPFF? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I let them (the oldbies) get to me, and I didn't realize it until I went back and read my comments. The oldbies have been coming back by force, and are sickened with the fact that we've been merging at a high rate. I took the blame for everyone, and used up a lot of energy in my incoherent rambling. I'm sickened with myself, so I'm taking a break, but if you can sift through what's going on there and help out, that would be awesome. — Deckiller 06:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll watchlist it and jump in if things start to get out of hand. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• You might be interested in this: I started a sandbox with my planned rewrites to WP:FICT. It's mostly ramblings right now, jotting my ideas and all. It's at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction). — Deckiller 20:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back, Man in Black. Viriditas 07:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WRC-TV

You have no consensus, you haven't even tried to reach consensus, you are only doing this on one page and one page alone, and it is part of WP:TVS. Soo...revert or shall we call this vandalism? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your novel definition of vandalism, and I plan to remove similar schedules from other pages. I've just been busy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

::Dude, you can't remove sections of Wikipedia just because they MAY violate a rule. If so, I could remove your Richard Nixon picture for fair-use violation. These are added by WP:TVS, they are produced by the stations, they are NOT schedules of other programs on the station (ie: syndication, network, etc). You have not reached a consensus, you have not tried to reach one, you are going into this half-cocked and all of these will be reverted by not only myself but others. ::But, do site a rule that one, doesn't contradict itself with "...although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable"....yeah, promotions would be in direct violation of "resource for conducting business". But, since these are on all TV pages and are covered by WP:TVS, you are going to have to go through them first, not just go half-cocked around Wikipedia deleting what you wish because you can and you have admin powers. Think first before you act or leave it up to someone else. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I can remove sections of Wikipedia because they DO violate a rule. They're television schedules, of little use other than as a directory of when a show is shown. A daily television broadcast is not a major event or a promotion.

By the way, please don't touch my Nixon picture; it's public domain in the US as a product of a federal government agency. The fair-use rules don't apply to genuinely free images, such as the official presidential portraits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

::No, they don't violate a rule. They are NEWSCASTS that are PRODUCED BY the TV STATION. They are not covered under WP:NOT as WP:NOT is vague on TV Station schedules. Since you have not reached any consensus nor asked anyone with WP:TVS, you have not don't anything other than going half-cocked into a situation. ::Also, your picture, not only doesn't exsist (I checked) it is only used by you. So, I will take care of that. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They're schedules of newscasts. TV schedules aren't allowed because they're not encyclopedia content. I don't get why this is hard to understand. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

::They are produced by the TV stations. Plain and simple. The rule is too vague and contradicts itself. You have not talked with WP:TVS, do so and you may be taken more seriously. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC) :::::(ie:picture) - I am just trying to help. I am not trying to be an ass. Trust me. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC) ::What is your deal, dude? You are not doing this on any other page, you are not getting consensus, you are even bothering to talk to WP:TVS, who watches over these pages, you are not siteing a single valid rule, and you are |-|this close from violating 3RR.....what are you trying to do? ::Site a valid rule, get consensus, talk to WP:TVS, or at least do this to another page....or I will report you for continous vandalism. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT. Also, I'm not much moved by threats. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::How many times do I have to say this.....Newscasts are NOT covered under WP:NOT. If you remove these, you best be ready to remove the ones on the NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CW, MyNetwork TV, PBS, Univision, etc. pages as well. Don't half ass it. Now....site a VALID rule (WP:NOT is vague, contradictory piece of crap), reach consensus, talk with WP:TVS, or do this elsewhere...or you will be reported for continous vandalism. Oh, and I am not threatening anyone. I am meerly letting you know the next step. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Directories of television schedules are covered under WP:NOT. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it is policy.

As for the other articles, in due time. I'm working on multiple things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::Dude, THEY ARE NOT TELEVISION SCHEDULES!!! They are NEWSCAST SCHEDULES!!! MUCH DIFFERENT! Did ya get it that time? Hope so. You are commiting vandalism...you know it, I know it. You haven't talked to WP:TVS, you haven't talked to any other admins, you haven't done a damned thing. You come in, half-cocked, and wipe out sections and claim they are in violation of a rule that directly contradicts itselt within the same damned rule....and that rule says NOTHING about NEWSCAST SCHEDULES!!! OK...get it now? Maybe you need to go back into retirement and stay there instead of playing with the anime card games. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How, exactly, are they different? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::TV schedules are like this here or what you removed from KXGN-TV. Newscast schedules are like this, this, this, this]...and on and on. They are ONLY programs that are produced by the station. ONLY...not Oprah or Dr. Phil....just the newscasts (and sports programs in some cases) that are produced and broadcast, in 99% of cases live, but the respective station. Some of these include the anchors, meteorologists, and sports anchors that are on that respective newscast at that resepctive time.

::In no case, do any of these show when any syndicated programming comes on, if it does, it is removed, if not immediately. WP:TVS members are very careful to make sure NONE of these violate any rule and with them on 95% of all TV station pages (that have newscasts) it seems that Wikipedia admins have allowed it in this case.

::There have been cases where someone has tried to add syndicated programming schedules to a page, which I have removed myself and others probably have as well. The newscasts are produced, broadcast live by the station, from the station, by reporters and anchors who work at that station. This is not in violation....not like this - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then it's about time someone brought these articles into compliance with long-standing policy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey AMIB,

I've just left a note on NH's talk page here. I don't believe local programming grids are encyclopedic or notable, and would prefer to keep only the national programming grids, which are encyclopedic (appearing in TV encyclopedias). I've never seen a local newscast schedule in an encyclopedia, and have left a note on NH's userpage with a link to WP:NOT. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the national station schedules, but that's a discussion for another time. I appreciate the hand with the articles in question, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutralhomer has solicited input here. You may want to weigh in there. --Calton | Talk 03:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Fris, you can't have one and not the other. If you have national schedules, you have to have local schedules. If you don't have locals, you can't have nationals. This is a one way street. It's allowed or it's not, across the board. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ciel (Mega Man Zero)

I think you're one of the MegaMan editors on wikipedia, and since you haven't replied to the request on the Nintendo wikiproject page, I'm going to ask you here:

We're having a problem on the Ciel page - a disagreement has reached the point where it can't be resolved, and is bordering on 3RR. Both sides have requested other editors to add their view and reasoning. You can find the discussion on the talk page, and the edits in question on the history page. Thanks!KrytenKoro 02:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Time Spiral

Sorry; I meant to say avoid "mentioning" the stack. — Deckiller 03:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries; it was easily fixable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

GDI technology of Command & Conquer

Recently you've added two tags that suggest this page is either orginal research or overly long plot summary. Yet, there is no discussion on the talk page. Unless you are going to start a discussion, I see no reason to have that on the page. --Eldarone 04:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is plot summary, derived from personal observation of the C&C games. That's why it has {{plot}} and {{originalresearch}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Final Fantasy Tactics

Haha. I love tags. — Deckiller 12:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

TV schedules

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed change in the WP:NOT.23DIR rule. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC) :Nothing I do is going to get this changed. You all are having a good ol' time threatening me and having a good laugh at my expensive. Laugh it up and knock yourselves out. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ekans.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Ekans.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Schedules are Gone

Wow, only took me a couple hours, but I knocked 'em out. Noticed you still have ALOT of work to do in the logo department too. Would you like me to do that for you also? Just wondering.

Also, I would appericate you and User:JzG to knock off the little threaten/ridicule thing you all have going on of me. It isn't very mature for admins and it is just plain annoying. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 11:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jirachi2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Jirachi2.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Mario characters

Princess Daisy is not a filler character so I have to put it back in. 70.16.143.52 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Really. So, what game has she starred in? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario Land in 1989 is the main character of Princess Daisy. 70.16.143.52 21:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

She was the more-or-less anonymous princess of that game. Also, note that this is fairly minor compared to the characters in the template, and she is much more like the ones who aren't (minor supporting characters used as filler in Mario Party games). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Princess Daisy might be a main character and the up coming game is Super Princess Daisy and Super Smash Bros Brawl and she might not be a minor character than. 70.16.143.52 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. 'Sup, Peachycakes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation regarding the Magic article argument

Hi. We are obviously at an impasse on cards lists and similar issues, and we don't seem to be getting any closer to a compromise. Would you be willing to participate in mediation, either formal or informal? --Ashenai 09:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never really seen mediation do any good, but what the hell, sure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Magnemite2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Magnemite2.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)