User talk:A Man In Black/Archive23

Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg[edit]

Greetings. I noticed you closed the discussion for Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg and deleted the image. I don't believe you followed correct policy when doing so. Your comments indicated that you deleted the image based not on the consensus of the people who commented below, but on your own opinion that the image violated FUCC #8. In the discussion below, 3 Wikipedians (Abu, Howcheng, and Ilse) stated that they believed the image to violate FUCC #8, while 8 Wikipedians (me, Pageant, nadav, Mecu, Angelo, Videmus Omnia, TCC, and Andrew c) stated that they believed the image passed FUCC #8. (In addition, Knulclunk voted to keep the image, but did not say why, and Iamunknown thought the image should be deleted, but gave no opinion of whether the image passed NFCC #8 or not, since his argument was based on other criteria.) I can't see any way to interpret 3 to 8 against as being consensus for deletion based on FUCC #8. In the instructions for administrators page, it says "Before deleting an image, make sure. . . No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." I ask you to rethink your decision. Thank you, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use issues aren't resolved by consensus. They're resolved by adherance to policy. (Basically, no number of people who like an image can override WP:FUC.) I evaluated the arguments based on the fair-use policy, and they did not justify the use of the image. Eight Wikipedians felt it met #8, but nobody refuted that this was a routine, annual event, or that the copyright holder carefully controlled the use of these images (and our use did not meet these conditions).

In fact, it was your comments that were quite compelling, on this point. "Comment: just as a reminder, criterion #8 says "Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot." It doesn't say "necessary", but on the other hand it indicates that "useful" isn't enough." You're right. Merely useful is not enough, and the images were merely useful.

The debate was probably in the wrong place; it probably should have been on WP:CP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protoss Empire[edit]

You don't like the way it's structured, fine. But give S@bre and I a chance to clean it up. It's a new page, created just a couple weeks ago and largely subject to the edits of myself, S@bre, and an anonymous user. Of course it's not perfect yet, he and I are both working on it, don't just blank it! The Clawed One 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what's this crap about sources? It has plenty at the moment. The Clawed One 00:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of cleanup, and it's not a matter of structure. This page is an original synthesis, describing a fictional empire as though it were real, makes no reference to the real world and has little potential to do so, and is nothing more than a big dump of backstory from the StarCraft universe.

Wikipedia really, really isn't the place to do this. Have you considered Encyclopedia Gamia, which does welcome such articles? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not OR, it has sources, so I'll pretend that isn't there. As for the fictional element, again, it's a new page and is still being edited for content quite often. I'm sorry that 2 people studying a decade-old video game could only come up with a few paragraphs of how the game's designers created the game's government with only 2 weeks to look around, but I do believe S@bre and I are only human. And as mentioned, as a new page, of course it's not perfect, show me 1 single page that was featured-article quality the first day it was created. And I don't see how anyone is in any position to decide if the article has potential for real-world relevence as the page is still expanding.

S@bre and I are working hard to bring all the StarCraft articles up to encyclopedic quality, and one of those has been the merging of several of the game's factions into singular articles. We're doing our best, but the pages weren't exactly top quality to begin with, and coupled with the fact there's only two of us working and it's only been a month of two, surely you can understand how we're still working.

And as for the blanking of the page, please, before you do that again or to any of the new faction pages we're doing, use the discussion page or put up those templates you love so much. I mean, seriously. The Galactic Empire is in-universe with only a handful of references and out-of-universe info. Does that mean I should blank the page and redirect it to Star Wars without allowing editors to change those errors? No. Do I have the right to do that? No. Do you? No. The Clawed One 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources were the games and novels. You examined the article subject (the works of fiction), then wrote an analysis of it. That's what original research is.

Galactic Empire is TERRIBLE but it at least has the potential to have some real-world content. Protoss Empire does not. It has no potential for featured quality; I doubt it could even become a good article. Any possible references you might use for it belong in Protoss anyway.

Articles like Protoss Empire are exactly the wrong way to go about bringing all the StarCraft articles up to encyclopedic quality. Start by looking for non-primary sources then using them as the basis for articles. Don't start by writing essays about the backstory of StarCraft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the fact Wikipedia isn't the place for articles about this or whatever - why do we have any pages on video games at all then? If they can't be in-universe and can't be game guides, then what the hell do you want? I can describe the Protoss in an out-of-universe manner, but it'll probably be a game guide because they're a video game species. Or, I can explain their societal structure and religion, but that'll be in-universe. so, again...what do you want? The Clawed One 01:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We want articles on fictional things IF AND ONLY IF they have been the significant subject of commentary. Insight into their creation, critical reception, influence on other works, that's the kind of thing we want. Not game guides or backstory dumps. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HOW is it original research? The novels are written, published works describing the material in question, and we are merely citing what they say!

How does it have any potential for real world content? It's a fictional form of government in a fictional franchise, same as the Protoss Empire.

so if I can't write about StarCraft's storyline, why have any articles about it at all? Shall I save you the trouble and redirect all the species, factions, planet and character pages about it to the main article now? You're practically telling me to write about the Number 5 without referring to it. The Clawed One

Please don't split my comments. It's rude.

It's original research because you're taking scraps of what those books and games say and forming them into a new form. You're not reflecting the structure of the story; you're instead taking fleeting references and forming them into a history.

As for Galactic Empire, it has the potential for improvement because lots of people have published commentary on it. People writing about historical parallels, people writing about Lucas's intent and creative process, people being influenced by it in their own work, and so on.

You can write about StarCraft's storyline, but not in explicit detail bordering on copyvio and not in new forms that don't at all reflect the structure of the works you're writing about.

Basically, don't write histories of fictional worlds, characters, or things. That's not what we do here. We write about their history in the real world, and give brief in-universe descriptions to lend context to that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well my apologizes about the splitting, I merely did that to reply to each paragraph separately.

So, if people have written about Lucas' work, how would citing what they say about the Empire be any different then citing the novels? From what you're saying it sounds like simply taking data about different aspects of the game subject from different sources isn't allowed, because that's all the novels are - they give information on the same subject, just different aspects of it. To be perfectly honest, a lot of what you've said on this subject seems to contradict itself.

So, I can write about the storyline, but I can't quote the sources for it because that's copyvio, but I can't rephrase the info because it's OR, and brings into question the same problems with the novels you mentioned. That about right? The Clawed One 01:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going into explicit detail describing a fictional world is copyvio and fails WP:WAF and WP:NOT. Summarizing a plot as part of an encyclopedia article that talks about a fictional work or fictional thing as an artefact of the real world is okay. Do you see the difference, here?

Talking about what people have said about a fictional thing is part of talking about its impact on the real world. Protoss Empire can't improve in that way because nobody has published anything talking about the Protoss's empire other than fictional works that use that empire as a backdrop (or fansites, I suppose, but those aren't very good sources for anything). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles will be pasted to the Wikipedia Annex. — Deckill er 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, doesn't matter anymore. The Clawed One 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the pages have been redirected, and another source might be interested in the material (perhaps StarCraft Wikia). Annex's purpose is to provide an archive for stuff that doesn't belong on Wikipedia but may be useful at another Wiki/should be kept for historical purposes or at a place because there isn't enough info to substain a separate Wikia. The tricky part for us is going to be importing all the templates :) — Deckill er 02:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well while I've considered joining the SC Wikia, I'm so used the oppression of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how I'd adapt (I'm half-serious, I don't know how the SC Wikia operates and don't want to cause more trouble than I already have). So that's not by business. The Clawed One 02:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as a note, thanks for the rv to my page, AMiB, I didn't even notice. The Clawed One 02:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AMiB, for doing nothing less than spitting in our faces. You need to grasp that these things take time but your insatiable and irrational need for immediate perfection blinds you this fact. The articles were not perfect, but the potential and the out-of-universe information - no matter what you say - is there and had you waited it would have got into the article in time. If you actually took the time to help rather than spewing out constant stream of criticism and deletion notices you may get the progress you desire. You can't expect complete perfection straight up on first attempt.

If you looked at discussion pages more you may also notice plans for future articles: one of your main criticisms of the Protoss Empire page was that much of its plot summary was also in the Protoss page. If you had bothered to actually look around you would have discovered that we had plans to rehaul that article to focus on the Protoss as a species in an out-of-universe style but in similar fashion to the scientific article on humans - the plot details would have been removed and put into the Empire page for the exact reason you wanted to destroy the Empire article (but you never attempted to delete the articles which were merged to form the Empire page). Quite what you want from a plot summary is unclear, but it seems that you would see an entire game summary for the Protoss containing only the sentence "They were invaded by Zerg" as too long.

Thank you for cannibalising our work and making the many hours both myself and The Clawed One, as well as hundreds of others including Prelate Zeratul, Kimera757, M&NCenarius and David Fuchs have spent attempting to create a decent StarCraft Wikipedia section a complete waste of time. You may not have actually directly removed the articles, but you are sure as hell the reason why: under your stupidly high expectations you would have eventually deleted them too. Whilst you are at it you might like to look at some other articles with similar problems, such as everything relating to fictional media, all which under your "rules" should be deleted. I don't want to take this to arbitration but I will if you persist in this complete lack of patience or respect for the work of others and you continue to fail to realise that this is an ongoing process and these articles will take a significantly large amount of time to bring up to standard. -- S@bre 12:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and whilst you are throwing out policy pages to vaguely back up your points, allow me to throw WP:CON in your direction. You entirely ignore it. -- S@bre 16:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent Protoss Empire to AFD. If there was the potential for out-of-universe content, why didn't you mention that in the AFD?

I'm not really willing to take accusations that I ignored consensus by sending an article to AFD seriously. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? We DID say there was potential for out of universe content, but you said, AND I QUOTE YOUR EXACT WORD on this VERY SAME talk page, that the page "makes no reference to the real world and has little potential to do so"! And as the for the second part, somehow, the idea of you ignoring accusations of unfair conduct really doesn't surprise me. The fact is you're just as bad as any of the vandals out there, you remove content, revert hard-worked edits, and make little to no attempt to explain such actions beyond spewing WP pages and policies! The Clawed One 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I still feel that way. I patiently await some examples to prove me wrong; empty rhetoric isn't doing it.

If you think I've done something wrong, please point it out. Diffs please. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you telling us to add in OOU contents when you yourself have said there isn't any? How is it you've managed to advise we find the very type of content you've said doesn't exist? Make up your mind!

What have you done wrong? You vandalize, in every concept of the phrase, you slap clean-up templates on hard-worked articles, you remove and redirect pages without prior discussion, when asked about such edits you just quote a bunch of WP pages and lecture us on Wikipedia's policies, and AFD, critique, remove, and in general edit pages with de-constructive edits, often on pages concerning subjects you have no knowledge of! You, sir, are in every way, a vandal, the only difference is you think you're always right because you're an admin! The Clawed One 03:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be deleted unless some out-of-universe content can be found. If you don't want the article deleted, go find some out-of-universe content. I personally don't think there is any, but I am willing to be proved wrong.

Now, please spare me the vandal crap and go read WP:VAND, too. I'm really sick of people accusing anyone they disagree with of being a vandal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, you've shown an amazing refusal to accept you're wrong. And I read the VAND page, and much of the criteria for vandalism are things you have done, in particular "Blanking without consensus or discussion", and "abuse of tags". Now, I could understand why you would brush off my accusations, but I know for a fact that I'm not the only user who thinks these things about you, and we can't all be totally wrong. The Clawed One 03:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GO. FIND. SOME. SOURCES. You are wasting your time and mine with this. Either leave me alone and do the research or leave me alone and don't do it, but you are wasting my fucking time calling a call for sources vandalism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murakumo: Renegade Mech Pursuit[edit]

I closed the AFD as speedy keep. Thanks for fixing the article! Shalom ^Hello 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No e-mail address?[edit]

E-mail feature does not work? -- Ned Scott 07:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to ignore e-mail in general, so I don't have it enabled because I won't read the e-mail anyway. Are you on IRC right now? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am, irc.freenode.net as "NedScott". -- Ned Scott 08:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I am looking at a message to you, blinking sadly, neglected and unloved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your subpage[edit]

Apparantly it does (referring to your subpage creation summary). -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 08:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A_Man_In_Black,[edit]

Thanks a lot for the help!! It is amazing to see the understanding , patience and dedication of Wikipedia moderators. Happy to be part of this !! Looking forward to more co-operation. Regards Tinucherian 14:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, and I'm glad I could help. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfB question[edit]

I've asked an optional question on your RfB, the same as I have asked of all current RfB candidates. Walton^talk 14:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to self[edit]

While blocked, it seems I can't see the text of deleted revisions of articles using Special:Undelete. I can see the deleted page history as well as the deletion log, but I don't have links for specific diffs.

Next to each listing in the deletion log, I have a "Restore" link. It is non-functional, but I see no error when I click it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to view a specific deleted diff using Undelete (example), it dumps me straight to the page's undelete history. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/A Man In Black[edit]

It looks like your luck has run out. I suggest that you withdraw the request before any more oppose votes are added to the ledger. Shalom ^Hello 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RGM-79 GM[edit]

Sadly, we don't and another sad thing is, the Zaku is more notable than the GM, and I can't seem to get anything secondary for it to make the article go any better. MythSearcher^talk 17:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. :/ I was hoping there was some great article I missed that could become the flagship example for all the others to be pushed towards. Unfortunately, the more I look the more it looks like Zeong or Jagd Doga is about as good as we have. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weyland-Yutani[edit]

"Infoboxes meant for real-world entities should not be applied to their fictional counterparts" - where is this stated? If the template automatically added its articles into categories, then I can see that it'd be a problem, but in cases like this where a hypothetical "fictional companies" infobox would be identical, I don't see where the problem is. --McGeddon 10:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAF. A hypothetical fictional companies infobox would definitely not be identical; it would emphasize real-world facts (like the name of the fictional work in question, authors/creators, etc.). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Combine combat technology in Half-Life 2 AfD[edit]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your amusing comment to a keep !vote in this AfD it made my day. Whispe ring 15:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SC Character Template[edit]

When did you create that Template? Except for the caption part, it's pretty good. The Clawed One 18:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back in February. It's a general infobox for all video game characters, with a series of sub-templates for individual series.

What's wrong with the image captions? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, with this template, you and S@bre can use fair-use images freely in the infobox on your user sandbox pages. It automatically replaces the image with Wikipe-tan unless the article is in article-space. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it just seems the captions are not needed, but that's probably just my opinion. The Clawed One 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I prefer to have image captions for all images, particularly fair-use images, but I'm not militant about it. If you don't like to have an image caption, just remove the imagecaption field or leave it blank.

By the way, can you do me a favor and subst out {{StarCraft character}} anywhere that it's still in use? It's all userpages now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random question[edit]

Hi, I had a question and you were on the top of the Admin list so I picked you! I was trying to find the answer on Wiki to no avail, how do I report a User who has I feel has personally attacked me? --EdWood 00:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can go to the administrator's noticeboard, if you'd like help from an admin. I'd try and help myself, but it's not really my strong point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban/Block[edit]

How do I request a user be blocked or banned? This user User:Wrigty seems to be confused and thinks that Wikipedia is a place to post fanfiction. Just look at the pages he has created.

Dragonfire (Yu-Gi-Oh GX)
Yu-Gi-Oh GX Summer Break
Alex Randel

Like I said, those, and his user page, seem to show he's just creating pages based on fanfics or something. Whatever they are, they are in no way real Yu-Gi-Oh! GX subjects. The Clawed One 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:AN is probably the place. I dunno, I suck at blocking people. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've asked him not to create such pages, tagged them for deletion and asked him not to create pages like this again, but if he does so, I will certainly report him. Like I said, if his user page is any indication, he's just creating articles based on fanfics. The Clawed One 02:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

I'm sorry, but your request for bureaucratship failed. Good luck in the future. Andre (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no worries. Less work to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare authorship[edit]

I'd like to draw your attention to User:Smatprt who, in my opinion, has been intent on rewriting the Shakespeare Authorship article for the last year to promote his view that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. I am only interested in article balance. See here for the list of his edits [[1]] (Felsommerfeld 16:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Is that wrong? I'm kind of clueless in this area. Have you considered asking for help here, on the talk page of a related Wikiproject? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not wrong. I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username question[edit]

Hey, does your name have to do with the X-Files or Men in Black movies? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In passing and no, in order. It comes from a mostly-abandoned interest in conspiracy fiction, predating the X-Files. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the reply. On a semi-related note, I don't know about you, but I do hope they end up making that second X-Files movie (see The X Files 2). My mother and I loved that show! Have a nice day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm largely indifferent to the X-Files. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good show, but chacun a son gout! (NOTE: In case if you don't read French, please see List_of_French_phrases#C) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfB[edit]

Hello A Man In Black, sorry about your RfB; I really do hope you run again in the future. Acalamari 22:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Thanks dude, I guess. I'm not really sorry about it; if I had been paying closer attention I would have withdrawn after tjstrf's oppose, which pretty much convinced me that I wouldn't make a very good bureaucrat. I have a streak of rouge admin in me, and I'm proud of it, but he's right. 'Crats shouldn't be judges; they should be scribes.

I'm kind of disappointed nobody cited it as their reason to oppose. I guess bucketsofg had a similar reasoning.

By the way, this isn't aimed at Acalamari, but rather anyone else planning to add a consoling message about my RFB. Instead of doing so, hit Special:Random, then add a {{fact}} tag to an uncited factual claim in that article. It'll take about as much effort and time, and you're helping the encyclopedia and making me happy to boot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention[edit]

I'd like your intervention at this page. The "2007 Transformers" section is OR and based on the user's personal opinion on the Allspark and the Matrix being the same, when they have no source but their own observations to back up this claim. Their own comments on the article's talk page show this:

"We are not, in this article, saying that they ARE the same, but that they at the least seem to function in very similar fashions" - note the seem part. I believe that's OR.
"There is no evidence that they are the same or different" - if there's no evidence to either point, why bother noting this at all? Either way there's no evidence and it's unsourced OR.
"It is both a factual and relevant statement" - their own opinion on the matter. If the statement is a fact and if it is relevant is personal opinion without a source to back up either.

I don't want to get into an edit war with this person, but the statement, true or false, is still unsourced original research and one way or the other, if the comparison is apt or not, it's still OR and shouldn't be on the page. The Clawed One 01:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as a note, I know the page itself is of very poor quality, but I lack the in-depth knowledge of the subject to clean it up entirely. My concern is only for the movie bit: having seen it and the original film where the Matrix was a key plot device, I don't want this type of improper data on the page without a source to back it up. The Clawed One 01:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is it alright if I remove the data? The Clawed One 15:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way you can lock the page? It may be removing material for a correct reason, but I still don't wanna violate 3R with these people. The Clawed One 15:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not if I'm involved in this way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably inform User:71.252.179.168 of the 3RR, then report him if he persists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gave him two warnings, he's still doing it, so I did report him. I'm just hoping VigalincePrime understands why it has been removed. The Clawed One 15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh....no such luck. The Clawed One 15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, just looked at the page's edit history. Thank you. The Clawed One 15:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation of sources. If they can provide a viable source I will admit I was wrong and leave the page alone. VigilancePrime is at least trying, the other user doesn't seem to care at all. The Clawed One 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommandbot and images[edit]

I don't suppose you know anyway to tag articles so that Betacommandbot doesn't attempt to delete them? It's attempting to delete the non-free images in the draft SC articles as they aren't being used in any normal articles. I realise that I'm not supposed to have non-free images in user spaces, but it's a heck of a lot more convienient to add them into a draft as needed than uploading them later. I was hoping you might know a template or something that will cause the bot to realise a reason to retain has been given and not flag it up. -- Sabre 09:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By putting them in articles in the mainspace, I guess. Why not move those articles out to mainspace? I've already said I have no objections. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't really in usable condition at the moment. Whilst the Raynor article is basically complete (except referencing), the rest aren't. Our new characters overview page (for characters not warranting main articles, which is most of them) only has five characters done, and large sections marked "under construction". The same is true of the new locations page, which has yet to contain any design information. I've not even started the factions yet. I thought it was best to hold them back until they were in a more usable condition. I can see them instantly being flagged up for every template going by someone (not you) not understanding what we're trying to do. However, if it's the best way to get rid of the bot spamming my talk page, I'll certainly have to think about moving them. -- Sabre 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then make a list of the images and let them be deleted. I'll undelete them when you're ready. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFB[edit]

Hey. I'm sorry your RFB failed. Good luck in the future! Politics rule 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um. This is the second time you've consoled me, ignoring a note that I'm okay and would rather people spend their time working on the encyclopedia. Is there a particular reason for this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IFD of Silmeria.gif.[edit]

I considered taking our edit summary discussion at Valkyrie Profile 2 to the talk pages, but realized that nobody seems to be looking there or maintaining that page, and more importantly discussion only works for text which can be restored. The problem with deleting images is that if the "keep" side doesn't revert war, then they get lost. Anyway, so that we don't waste any further time reverting each other, I've brought the matter to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Silmeria.gif. Feel free to correct / add to my interpretation of your deletion rationale, or better yet, replace the image with one that would satisfy your concerns. SnowFire 22:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Princess Peach[edit]

You were the reviewer for this article. I've listed it on WP:GA/R due to mounting concerns over a lack of broad, comprehensive, real-world context. hbdragon88 22:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted because you "can't imagine any reason we'd need this"[edit]

You've deleted this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_sex

with the comment: "(I can't imagine any reason we'd need this)".

Whilst I don't have any interest in nasal sex*, it was a real page, and I'm alarmed that you've taken it upon yourself to decide there's no need for it. I can't see any real need for pages like these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reina_%28Groove_Adventure_Rave%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dovyalis_caffra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_hardcore (the first three I found clicking on "random article")

but I don't see why anyone should be deleting them.

I happened across it referenced as an example of bizarre practices.

62.30.36.49 01:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared to me to be vandalism, of a particularly juvenile sort. I don't have any particular bias against unusual sexual practices, but this stub was far-fetched and didn't reference any sort of reliable sources, per WP:V and WP:ATT.

Don't take my deletion as a bar against recreating this article with references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]