I wanted to thank you for helping with the SOCOM II article. I was prevented from editing on the article again, and that guy kept on adding OR. Thank you!
Actually, Lets put some truth on the Socom II Subject.[edit]
This guy, right above me went bouncing from moderator to moderator to get his way. They ended up talking to me and thought I was correct. So he obviously kept on going until he could find someone to do his bidding for him. Law of averages/large numbers, you know?
Anyways, here is the REAL deal on that article and on the topic. This guy is involved in one of the later cheat devices made for this game.
He is completely unhappy that he is not the first cheat device, or the best cheat device, or whatever he wants reality to be for him. So in his quest, he gets you guys to delete the true, relevant information. Now even though even his is no longer listed on the topic, he can still tell people that he made "The First, The Best and the Only Cheat Device that would work online for the Playstation 2 or Socom Game Series". Then if people go to look it up on Wiki, there is nothing there.
Please understand that I have sources and proof for the information I posted on the topic.
Also understand that these devices were invented FOR the Socom series, mainly Socom II, and they spread from that point forward.
They are of major historical importance to home console gaming.
Also, other information on the article, that I had nothing to do with writing whatsoever, was informative and followed Wikipedia's guidelines.
I don't understand this type of malicious editing. It seems that whoever gets to you first, has more "wiki-friends", or spends there entire day on this site, somehow has more "wiki-clout" and gets their way. What about just looking at the situation and judging it fairly? Maybe offering ways to fix the submissions. If there was anything wrong with my submissions, I have no problem at all at hearing about what needs to be corrected, so I could learn exactly how to post content on the site properly. Cached Entity (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't play SOCOM anymore. I don't even know what online cheat devices, nor do I care. You just assume what you want so you can advertise your cheat device. SOCOM II is not your advertisement, and considering that the damn Video game project reviews that article and pretty much pwne dit, they agreed. This is not an advertising site. This is an encyclopedia. You love the unsourced information and OR. this is not the site for that.
So, before you try passing off your fucking conspiracy theories, use your brain.
- Shane
Hey dumb dumb, Can you please show me an advertisement? ANYWHERE, in ANYTHING. If you want to use that tactic to remove content you do not like, then technically, the entire article is an advertisement for Socom II, or the Sony Playstation. On top of that, I personally have nothing to do with Code Majic. Code Majic is also NOT FOR SALE. Can you read that? Code Majic is NOT FOR SALE, maybe that will help you. However, Socom 2 IS for sale! OH NOS BAN TA ARTICAL!!! :rolleyes: Cached Entity (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I removed from the SOCOM 2 article was unsourced, mostly game-guide, and highly opinionated.
If you two want to fight, don't do it on my talk page. CE, I don't intend to address baseless and rather idiotic accusations. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how you look down on people and insult their intelligence on every post where someone has a legitimate issue with things that were deleted that should not have been deleted.
Lets make this clear, "We" were not fighting. I have nothing to do with the guy. My post has been there WAY before he came along and defaced it. He wants to be given credit for something he had nothing to do with.
MY content was/is sourced. There is also plenty of video and images to back it up. There are well over 100,000 people that have downloaded the final version of "Code Majic", and "Code Majic" even had it's own team of people working within Sony to help find ways around the device. The device is well known.
As far as your insult on my intelligence, the basis of my statements or arguments, or "Idiotic accusations", I didn't see anyone make any "Idiotic Accusations". Be kind and point one out for me.
Just for future reference, "unsourced" is not a word. You might want to make note of that.
Maybe you need to learn how to deal with things by being polite and kind but firm, however you are not going to intimidate me, as you really have no power over someone on a site like this. Can you ban this name? Sure you can. I.P.s can be changed and things can be done. Obviously it has already escaped you that it is an anagram in the first place.
As far as addressing the insulting of everyone's intelligence, I don't feel I need to do that directly, as it has already been dealt with in my previous statement.
How about some adult cooperation, instead of a bunch of childish banter.
(BTW, this post has been saved via FireFox "ScrapBook".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cached Entity (talk • contribs) 06:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listen man, I don't even want to talk to this guy. I came here to talk to you to begin with. I have tried talking to him, and he is just a power hungry freak. So I am here to talk to you, to deal with the situation, I will no longer respond to him and his comments on your page, period. Cached Entity (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced is a word. It is that which is not sourced. I'm sorry you've had a rough time in your introduction to Wikipedia, but accusing me of colluding with people isn't going to make it any smoother. I suggest reading WP:V to get an idea of how we source factual claims on Wikipedia.
By the by, I don't recall threatening you. I haven't blocked anyone in over a year. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I for one, was not talking to you about threatening me, I was talking about his attitude(This is one reason I said I will no longer talk to him or respond to him on this page.). Second off, "unsourced" is not a word, instead of assuming things, try looking it up. I DO know what is considered a source. Therefore, my source was correct and acceptable. I am not sure exactly what you are reading differently then I am. Cached Entity (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Code-Majic-Info-Sourced.pngCodeMajic Info Source @ TheCyndicate.com No, that would be YOU, being an IDIOT. Let me help you out, I will give you both a screen-print of the page, but I will paste the text as well.
So here is the image & here is the text,
Code Majic
The same unsourced faff pasted on my talk page removed for my sanity
Why did you redirect this page only a month after an AfD was closed with a "keep" result without prior discussion? Yes, the article is a mess. However, I do not feel that it was appropriate to delete this article without any discussion. I have put the article back in place, in all of its lack of glory, for however much it matters. I feel that this warrants further discussion before making a decision on your own about the article. Λύκος 04:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because honestly man, this guy likes to go around and destroy work related to Sony and the Playstation section. You know, the Socom II section had a section about Code Majic in it. The people that made "Code Majic" went on to make the first PSP Homebrew cheat device as well. It seems that this guy goes around attacking Playstation information. Maybe we could contact some SCEA people, get Wikipedia blocked from the PSP and PS3 browsers because of their abusive stance on Sony products. These people are obviously Microsoft FanBoys or something. This is supposed to be about legit, true information, NOT popularity. Cached Entity (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without drastic action, nothing will happen. I went to stub it because it was awful, and it ended up being exactly the same as the stub description in the PSP article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the talk page before doing that? In the last day I removed inappropriate sources and found 7 reliable sources which discuss the subject at length, as well as discussing how to rewrite the article. As it is apparent that more than one editor disagreed with your redirection and there was just an AFD discussion about this article perhaps you should have joined the discussion instead of trying to force the redirection through.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw them after redirecting, but we'd still be better off starting building it as a subsection in the PSP article until we have sufficient sourced info to justify a split. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stub on main psp article is hardly any better. Forums, self-hosted images and websites all fail WP:V (I'm in the process of seeing if the 7 sources I've found can source that paragraph but those unreliable sources are being removed)--221.143.25.19 (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This needs far more than a trim. Little of the current content can be sourced beyond self-hosted websites, forums and blogs all of which fail WP:V. The fact of the matter is that reliable sources don't tend to cover scene releases of hacked firmwares. So while some people may have envisioned this article as a repository of everything that is ever known about every single iteration of hacked firmware for the PSP, the reliable sources won't support that.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you said it required drastic action. I took that drastic action and I'd welcome your comments.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is degrading, derogatory and insulting personal attacks not against the rules here at Wikipedia? I thought making negative personal attacks on a living person was causing MANY legal issues with Wikipedia, therefore it became a rule NOT to do it. Last time I checked, I AM alive. Cached Entity (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't even aware the page had been blanked (I saw my edit on the page and thought everything was alright). Thanks for the revert. -Jéské(v^_^vMrrph-mph!) 07:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey MIB, I've suggested to Le Grand Roi that we ask for editor assistance to get new opinions and, hopefully, a consensus. Otherwise this will probably fizzle out to a default keep for lack of a clear consensus. You OK with that? ReykYO! 04:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity who asked you to protect the page[edit]
Out of curiosity who asked you to protect the Rescue page? Inclusionist (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw an edit war, I intervened. I don't watch the request for protection page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK buddy you got me in a knot seems as though I can't prove to you anything regarding Madonna or Honey the cat yet it's there...
I know they exist! I know they do! But all the sources or evidence or proof I find doesn't fit into anything... according to you...
So I'm asking you cause you seem to know the wiki like a book inside out please help me find something to prove they exist without having a steel chair hit my head...
Seriously I don't know what to do... Wolly da wanderer (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I knew where to go I'd just do it. A frustrating truth about Wikipedia is that you can know for a fact that something is true, yet lack the decent sources to prove it is so. I don't doubt that this character was in the game at some point, but we lack the sources to make the claim. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick q, since you seem a lot more familiar with the whole admin side of things than I am. Im having some issues with a random IP on Floorball reverting my reverts of his external links. I was reminded of your work on Leeroy Jenkins, and thought you might know how to get him blocked? He hasnt violated 3RR yet, unfortunately, so Im not really sure what to do. Thanks. Metao (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that you cant do it. I was more hoping for a link to how to make it happen... If you can't help, thats fine. Metao (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean't since it had been built up with new out-of-world info. It has since became on of the best Sonic characters articles. If you have any issues still you know where to discuss them.Super Badnik —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Look, don't just add it back on unless you give some good reason why you still think Rouge should be merged. No one has objected to it being taken of the merge list, if you read the article you will see that we have made some major improvments: It now has a mechandise section, a development section, a more detailed voice actor section, reception and shortened the In other media Section so it has alot less in-world info, it's now alot better than Shadow's, Amys's and Knuckles' articles. If you or no one else says anything about this again soon i'll take the merge back off.Super Badnik —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
The discussion is not closed. Do not remove that tag while the discussion is ongoing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)
10:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Then go to that discussion and say why this should still be open for debate, as you seem to be the only one at this time that is still intrested in merging her.Super Badnik
Kuro and RobJ have both said that they want to give the article a little time and work before deciding how they feel about merging it. I feel similarly. Have some patience, and let them take the time to do that work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one seems to be arqueing for the merge or suggesting how the article could be imporved further. Unless we have some kind of new discussions on this soon i'll move to get rid of the merge, as the article really dosen't need to be merged now. If you want to reply to me please do so one my talk page and if you really want to keep arqueing against this merge you know where to do that.Super Badnik —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Hey, not that I disagree with what you're doing on "Future Stock", quite the contrary actually, but perhaps you could try copying the info to the talk page and explaining what needs to happen for it to be put back in the article? I've met with some success doing that on the other Futurama episode articles. If you like you could also link to the relevant discussion at the Wikiproject Futurama talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama#A new proposal for episode articles I only bring it up because I'm tired of watching the back and forth without any progress. I guess I could try to explain it to JQF on his talk but it would be easier if the discussion was on the article talk page. Just my 2 cents, you're welcome to completely ignore me if you prefer. Happy editing. Stardust8212 01:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. If I get involved, it's going to become a giant project, and I just don't have the energy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd throw it out there since the two of you reverting each other was going nowhere pretty quickly. I understand not really wanting to get involved in it, best of luck! Stardust8212 00:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove the {{rescue}} tag, it's unhelpful and unneeded as it will be removed when the AfD is complete within a few days. Banjeboi 10:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may have been a mistake then. There is currently a lengthy discussion about removing the tag from articles people feel it shouldn't have been added to. Banjeboi 11:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During your complete demolition of the Buffy episode articles, you axed everything without a source, yet left the Nazi section of Witch (Buffy episode) intact with the "This article does not cite any references or sources." template above it. Why not just put that template on the top of the page, leave the rest of it intact, and let the rest of us come up with the sources, because, once someone comes through and cuts out everything, it is extremely difficult and time consuming to put everything back, even if we have the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdom2 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article (any many like it) were tagged for months and months with no action taken but removing the tags. At some point, you have to take a careful look at the stuff someone heard somewhere and eliminate all of the unreferenced dross. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about "stuff someone heard somewhere"?Kingdom2 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The general "This is true, you gotta believe me!" sort of original research. For example, your insistence that by watching an episode and reading an issue of a comic, I'll come to the same conclusion as you that a certain character is Very Important. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are asking for is something that cannot be referenced but is incredibly obvious to anyone who takes the time to look at any buffy related website, primary source, or the thousands of wikipedia articles that say the same thing. Oh, and if it was the word "important" that was the issue, why did you not just remove that word rather than the whole bullet, leaving it simply saying "This episode marks so and so's first appearance". Finesse is far more helpful than blanket deletion.
If it's incredibly obvious, a reliable source will have mentioned it. If it isn't, it wasn't important enough to be worth mentioning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer the second part of my question.Kingdom2 (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's worth noting, a reliable source will have mentioned it. If it isn't, it wasn't important enough to be worth mentioning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still did not answer it, and that link you put up says that primary sources can be used in a purely descriptive sense, which is exactly like the situation that I described.Kingdom2 (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a trivial fact that can be noted in context in the plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is that it serves as a quick bullet reference so that the reader does not have to go through the whole summary to find an important fact from it.Kingdom2 (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first appearance of a major recurring character in a tv series is generally considered important.Kingdom2 (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't using weasel words, I was being sarcastic. Of course the first appearance of a major recurring character in a tv series is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdom2 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, now your being difficult. I'm not talking in "wikipedia-everything-needs-a-reference" speak. It should be worth noting in the episode article if it is the first appearance of a recurring character that spans over multiple episodes and seasons, it's just how it is. And by the way, how exacly is it that you manage to butcher more episode articles while keeping up this conversation?Kingdom2 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You want to make an evaluative claim. Find a reference.
Seeing this article reminded me what a dreadful state episode articles in general are in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then fix them yourself! Don't just delete everything tons of other wikipedians have worked hard on, and by the way, that was not an evaluative claim, it was a statement of fact that does not analyze anything. Also, for some reason I get the feeling that, had I not antagonized you, you would not be working over as many Buffy episode articles.Kingdom2 (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that so many people put so much effort into writing so much material that violates Wikipedia's policies of WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF, but the fact remains that it needs to be cleaned up.
Your edits were a reminder that these articles were in dire need of cleanup, but not the reason for the cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where I'm at it is 5:30 in the morning and talking to you is giving me a headache. I'm going to bed.Kingdom2 (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't just axe articles, redirect and save them[edit]
You have axed dozens of articles, including [[Battle of Klendathu]], Battle of Sector 001, List of Space Marine Chapters, and Fall of London (War of the Worlds), with nothing on the talk pages. Not only that, but you have made no effort to move the articles in condensed form to what you consider an appropriate page, nor have you tried to make them better. Wikipedia is not about removing everything that's not right. Editors should modify articles in constructive ways to make them better, so that the information is still there. In many cases, you were right to make a redirect. The reason I protest is that you don't put the articles into the page you redirect them to. If you place a condensed version of the article into the one you redirect to, and make a note of it on talk pages, you won't end up in more revert wars.
Furthermore, you should try adding to articles. Modify them somehow. Don't just remove what you consider inappropriate content. A quick look at your contributions shows that the vast majority of your recent edits are removals of content. How about a change of pace? Instead of undoing what's been done, try to make it better, while keeping the good content. I'm starting to get redundant, but I can't say it enough, Wikipedia is about making it better. Tealwisp 07:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The thing that I always thought was weirdest about the Federation in Star Trek was that if everyone had the freedom to do as they wished for a living, it would be exceedingly unlikely that there would be enough garbage collectors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 things: First, it's worth pointing out that in star trek, they've had time to evolve socially (Communism is considered a higher point of evolution), and second, they happen to have automatic garbage disposal. Tealwisp 02:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
When you have redundant or wholly excessive content, the only thing you can do with it is to redirect it to somewhere appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with that. But my problem with your conduct is that what you are deleting is not redundant. In the above mentioned cases, each article had problems. Yes, they were excessive. However, they could have easily been shortened or integrated. An example: Horus Heresy was outrageously long, longer, I think, than the 40k rulebook's fluff section, which describes the entire history of the 40k universe. it was severely reduced, and now stands as a good article, explaining what's important about this pivotal event in an extremely relevant topic. I say that it is relevant because there are huge numbers of people involved in warhammer, especially in the fiction, which is better known than the tabletop game. Tealwisp 02:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make the original redirect there, only reverted an anon doing mass-reverts. Maybe talk to 141.117.185.155? I'm not wholly unhappy with that article as it is now, and had forgotten that we had a reasonable, shorter version. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you made an error in closing this AfD as a speedy delete. The press coverage of the tour, not to mention its place in current pop culture, should have resulted in a keep, not a delete. --Winger84 (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it had been previously deleted, and nobody had resolved the issues from the previous AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it had previously been deleted when a new AfD shows that the current consensus is lacking for it to stay deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People were talking about potential to improve the article. That's all well and good, but in the meantime, we had an unreferenced article written in promotional tone when we already had an overwhelming AFD that deleted it.
Again, no prejudice against a better article, but making a WORSE article than the one which was previously deleted means it's G4 time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting it eliminates the basis of what can be improved upon. It is good to have the skeleton to put the muscle on rather than removing the skeleton and saying start over. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested in rehashing the AFD a third time on my user talk. If you'd like the article in your userspace, I can do that. If you're going to go to DRV, let me know. Otherwise, we have little to discuss. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if someone else takes it to DRV, but if nothing else you have given me a new argument and precedent to use, because if an article in a second AFD that had no consensus can be speedy deleted because the earlier AfD closed as delete then a renomination of articles for which earlier AfDs closed as keep must also be closed as keep regardless of whatever consensus is in the current discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 11:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus to delete in the AfD and your action was improper. The past AfD is superseded by the more recent one and is therefore irrelevant. Please reverse. Everyking (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just like it's improper to keep AFDing something until it's deleted, it's improper to keep recreating an article until it passes an AFD. Would you like a userfied version to properly source and then move back to articlespace? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether you think it was improper to recreate the article (in the DRV, I was specifically told that the article could be recreated), an AfD was underway and that process supersedes any prior AfD or your personal judgment. Everyking (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated if improved. It was not in any sense an improvement over the deleted version. Would you like a copy for your userspace to improve the article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under what circumstances would you allow such an article to survive? I'm not going to waste my time working on something that you'll just speedy delete. Everyking (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you have placed yourself personally and solely in charge of this article's fate, I must again request that you identify your specific conditions for recreating this article. Everyking (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, I was asleep. The article is keepable when it has multiple non-trivial references. The version I deleted was highly promotional in tone and had one reference, and digging through Google I couldn't find anything but "This the band and oh yeah they're on tour now let's talk about something else" articles, blog posts, and press releases. The ET link looks promising, but it doesn't even mention that the movie they're making is related to the tour. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly keen on spending my time writing an article on this tour, especially given the risk that you'll immediately delete it. If I write an article with one or two sentences, backed up with at least two good sources, will you leave it alone? Everyking (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, depends. If you wrote something with two decent sources, I wouldn't delete it with my administrative tools as a G4.
The sources would be about the tour and say a lot more than just confirmation of its existence. I already identified two such sources (out of the hundreds that were available) in the DRV last month, so all I'd have to do is find the DRV. Everyking (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make you a deal, then: if you refrain from making any unilateral decision about the article, I'll recreate it. Everyking (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in making a deal about anything (nor do I really see how "If you do what I want, I'll do what I want!" is really a deal). If you want to write an article there, go to town, I'll just userfy instead of G4ing if I think it's G4 material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's inappropriate for you to unilaterally make all the decisions about this article. Let someone else decide. Everyking (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say "unilateral" like it's a bad word, or like it has anything to do with this. It's not as though I closed that near-unanimous AFD myself, or the DRV that upheld it. The CSD have laid out a set of rules for unilateral action in limited cases, and this is within them. Moreover, you're haranguing me instead of doing what you want to do to improve the encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get you to take down the roadblocks, and you're telling me to just slam straight into it and see what happens. If you won't even agree to refrain from making a unilateral decision about the article's suitability, there's no way I'm going to waste my time on it. Everyking (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested in playing games with this. Do what you will. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I've taken it to DRV again. Everyking (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am only doing what you seemed to approve of at Arathi. I am clearly not persuading anyone that the Warhammer stuff is notable, so, why not begin writing the article on the topic that is notable? Why shouldn't we consider all possibilities? Why would you or anyone possibly be opposed to trying to write an encyclopedic article that has actually been covered in reliable secondary sources? If you want to cut the Warhammer stuff from the article, go ahead, but how it could it possibly be a bad thing to at this point just go ahead and start writing the other article? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would not make sense as the most coverage in reliable secondary sources for Abhuman is in the context of Gothic modernist literature. If anything the Warhammer topic would be in an article on Abhuman (Warhammer). By the way, I don't play or personally have any interest in Warhammer. I am only seeing whether or not Abhuman should be redlinked and it shouldn't because there is indeed a valid topic on that, which is what I am writing and for which if no one else is arguing for the Warhammer article there should be no prejudice against writing. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put it under another namespaced title for the time being instead of disrupting AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'll be blunt for once. Saying I am "disrupting" the AfD is false and an insult. For this one, I am not arguing any further for the Warhammer content; however, would you be opposed to my going ahead and completely writing a new article about the concept as used in Gothic literature as that does have lots of secondary source commentary and is discussed in the context of such noted authors as Bram Stoker, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Rudyard Kipling. Please comment in the AfD if you would support totally cutting the Warhammer stuff and allowing me to continue the rewrite based on the other topic. I am hoping that how Arathi and Commander Dante currently look can be a positive precedent for what to do with ones that say lack consensus for Warhammer but for which a different arguably legitimately more "encyclopedic" subject exists. I am hoping that this will be a good opportunity to work constructively and aboid further going back and forth in the discussions over the Warhammer sub-articles. Obviously I couldn't make such claims for all of these Warhammer articles, but some like Arathe, Abhuman, and Commander Dante are ones that I believe we can instead boldly write a new article on a more clearly notable topic. I am hoping that this will be a way to mend fences, i.e. instead of going back and forth over Warhammer notability, let's just leave that consensus where it is and instead go ahead and make the article about a subject that I don't think we disagree on as having notability. It would make for one less back and forth AfD here on out and instead allow for the creation of a genuinely notable article. Please consider. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've had this explained to you, at length, why this is disruptive. If you want to rewrite based on a different topic, do it in Abhuman (Gothic fiction) or whatever and move it when the name is free. Derailing AFD midway on an unrelated topic confuses everything terribly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anything calling good faith efforts to compromise and move on "disruptive" is what is actually disruptive. I am doing this to in effect say at a halfway point in an AfD, okay, I am the only one arguing to keep and I am not convincing you, so let's just go ahead and boldly write an article that should be under Abduman, which should not in any way be even remotely controversial. There is a such thing as disagreeing with me, because I am a strong inclusionist and disagreeing so fanatically as to not see a chance intended for something constructive to actually end the back and forth disagreements and work on what no one thinks is not a worthy subject, i.e. instead of dragging along another contentious AfD just going ahead and doing what you approved of at Arathi. I am saying now that with regards to the Warhammer ones, if there's a topic to be written let's not bother raising tensions in the AfDs, I'll just concede if there is a topic worth writing and in fact I'm willing to personally start writing that article on the other topic. There's no point in writing some separate article elsewhere only to then move it here when no one else seems opposed to say having the clearly notable topic just written instead. I added a section break in the AfD and I believe editors are intelligent enough not to be confused. In fact, what they should see is okay, well consensus to keep the warhammer article isn't really taking off, so let's just go ahead and write over that with the other article. Doing so saves time and energy and should allow for a more colloboratively atmosphere. Here is in fact a big chance to get me to not argue back and forth further in the Warhammer ones, but instead to just go ahead and write a new article of generally undisputed notability. That way if anyone does feel strongly about the Warhammer content they can instead discuss it on the talk page of the article, but why not go with a way to 1) diminish the usually back and forth at the AfD, 2) save time and energy as a result to make constructive and productive edits, and 3) have instead a cited and encyclopedic article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've laid out a non-disruptive course of action. Do not persist in the disruptive one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already undertaken a non-disruptive course of action. Labeling it as such is outright baffling and is what is making it. I have never undertaken and would never undertake a disruptive one. I am offering a means of compromise. Okay, I get that you do not like me, fine, I cannot make everyone like me, but instead of allowing for the discussion that would likely persist at being the usually unproductive one to proceed, you are making it disruptive by trying to curtail a compromise. I cannot imagine why you would not say, "Okay, well, Le Grand is going to stop arguing about the Warhammer notability, and that worked well in Arathi, and no one else is arguing for the Warhammer content at present, so let us just go ahead and see what can be done with what appears to be the best topic to be covered in an article titled Abhuman." I am offering a compromise and a means by which we can all edit constructively and proactively. Please do not squander an opportunity to actually get somewhere. If you give in here, which is not even really giving in, but just allowing us to move onto making an encyclopedic article, and show me that you can be reasonable, then you know what, I will take that as a sign of good faith and open-mindness and adjust how I too go about approaching these articles and discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs are discussions of topics, not articles. By changing the subject mid-AFD, you confuse newcomers, cause confused replies to those who were commenting on the original article, and just generally make an unnecessary mess of things. When you can simply make a different article under a different name without causing any confusion, there is no reason to persist in disrupting an ongoing AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one could possibly be confused as it clearly apparent with the section break as to the manner of the discussion. Stifling alternative ideas is disruptive. I can per our be bold guidelines go ahead and drastically revise the article under discussion as is as there really is not some kind of groundswell of opposition to an article on the Gothic topic. There's no real need given the current status of the discussion to wait and even if all of a sudden there's a pile on of support for an article on the warhammer subject, then really that should be the one in a separate Abhuman (Warhammer) article. We need to broaden our horizons and consider all options on the table, because ultimately what we should be after is how best to cover encyclopedic topics and even if ideas take a discussion in totally new direction, we need to fear that if the end result is actually something mutually acceptable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about an entirely different topic. Go and write your article on the entirely different topic. I've told you how and why.
Well, I already started doing that at Abhuman. Anyway, I believe I have come up with a reasonable compromise here regarding this and other Warhammer AfDs and I am confident that I'll be able to get all the open-minded editors on both sides of these discussions on board. So, take care! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by your edit summary in this diff, I get the feeling that you have a problem with me. TheChrisDRants•Edits 13:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I clicked on your contribs instead of your talk, and noticed that you switched a copyright tag on an image that you had recently put in a template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added, not switched. I added the tag before placing it in the template. The previous image was out of date (old car setup), and slightly biased (GBR livery) - which I replaced with a recently published image of the new car in the global livery format. TheChrisDRants•Edits 13:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you think you are accomplishing by editing my posts, making "nyuhh uhh" replies to me, etc., but I doubt it is actually accomplishing anything productive. If you do not want to engage with me in a serious discussions, then you should not add to raising tensions or drama in these discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replied with "Nuh uh! Yuh huh!" when all you were doing was gainsaying, as opposed to discussing or even arguing. Empty gainsaying is...well, empty. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You replied when I was trying to engage in discussion. I do not know why you keep misrepresenting and misinterpreting my posts and their intentions, but I strongly urge you to take a step back and reevaluate. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't doing a very good job of engaging in discussion. I am criticizing your driving not because I think you're trying to drive badly, but merely because your car is wrapped around a tree. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, instead of either say ignoring me or making every reply to me be on focus and unambiguously constructive, you just make things worse? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only one who's had difficulty understanding me. Many people have criticized your empty filibustering and tendency to simply reverse people's arguments regardless of how nonsensical it is. I'm reasonably sure that you're the one not getting it, here.
Moreover, this Fox News reversal nonsense is exactly what I'm talking about. Even if I'm not making very good arguments, it doesn't suddenly make your empty filibustering, nonsensical reversal, or other disruptive conduct suddenly less disruptive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course deletionists will critize their opponents. That these articles have scores of editors and thousands of readers suggest that the handful of the same editors in these AfDs are out of touch with what the larger community actually wants and to be honest, do not you see your going back and forth with me as just filibustering as well? I have never and will never make any disruptive edit to Wikipedia. Every edit I make is consciously made in good faith and for the benefit of the project. I do not play Warhammer. I do not play Xenosaga. I have no personal interest in these franchises. I do believe that these articles are consistent with what Wikipedia aspires to be and as such I am willing to volunteer to my time to vigorously argue to keep them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And there it is. "Of course liberals will twist the truth to try and make conservatives look bad!"
A GIANT PICTURE OF A FISH IN THE MIDDLE OF AFD IS DISRUPTIVE. DON'T DO THAT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Try and is nonstandard for try to. I will try to (not try and) be better about writing to you." -Diana Hacker, A Pocket Manual of Style, 39. Try "Takes the infinitive: 'try to mend it,' not 'try and mend it.'...try to is precise, and when you are writing formal prose...write try to." -William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2000), 62. Anyway, the purpose of the fish is because I think the AfD itself is disruptive in this instance. We already had a consensus that did not close as delete or no consensus. Yes, consensus can change and all, but when we get a "keep" close, barring someone discovers the article was a copy vio or something, we should move on to either improving the article or discussing other articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"My argument was right, so my giant picture of a fish must also be right."
No.
Your giant picture of a fish was disruptive. Note that I did not remove your argument that we should keep even though I disagreed with it and felt it was redundant; instead, I removed the GIANT PICTURE OF A FISH. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, strange that you single me out, but didn't make the hoopla when someone else did so previously. The nomination and going on and on about the fish when I haven't reverted it again is disruptive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I singled you out because I'm not one to jump up and criticize conduct. I usually don't bother someone for the first or second time doing something disruptive, so I didn't bother Father Goose. If he made a habit of it, I probably would.
Also, this "I'm disruptive? No, you sir are the one who is disruptive" silliness again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I merely aped what seemed to work for another editor in another discussion. I would not have added it in the discussion if it backfired for Father Goose. I did so as a means of altering my approach based on what seemed to work for someone else. And if you read the comment associated with it, I intended it as a wake up call for those of us on both sides of these discussions, i.e. those on the inclusionist side will be more apt to take seriously those on the deletionist side if they focus on some of the more obscure Warhammer like stuff but don't also try these renominations for articles that were clearly kept and that are actually verifiable. It was intended as an attention grabbing call for us all to finally discuss compromises and instead of seeing that for what it was actually intended to be, you yet again just focus on unconstructively trying to challenge/discredit me. We do not have to like each other on the various sides of these discussions, but we should seriously start to discuss compromises so that we do not just have one contentious AfD after another and if we do so then we can focus our efforts colloboratively on what we can all even reluctantly be okay with losing and what we can at least allow those willing to improve to do so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to take liberals more seriously if they devoted more effort to [what I think is an important liberal cause], instead of [opposing my conservative beliefs].
Keep being an inclusionist. Keep arguing for inclusion. Stop doing disruptive things. Argue better for inclusion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think I am a liberal? Yes, I know I have the whole I support Hillary Clinton for president userbox (that did not go as I hoped!), but I am more politically centrist as I have some conservative leanings (I greatly enjoy shooting, for example, and spent a good deal of yesterday target shooting with a pistol and rifle with my father before taking a break from that to box a few rounds) and some liberal leanings (I am pro-choice, for example). I am not sure what I would be as regards capital punishment. On one hand, I think actual child rapists, serial killers, fundamentalist terrorists, etc. should be microwaved or some other... But on the other hand, I do not trust jurors, judges, or prosecutors to always be honest or reasonable and as such it is unacceptable to me that innocent people be excuted. Anyway, it is far more easy to argue to delete in these discussions, because the same time that I and others are looking for sources and trying to improve the articles in question, we have to also go back and forth with those who are only continuously arguing to delete. As such it gets immensely frustrating when I have an AfD watchlisted and am looking for sources only to see yet another reply to me, reply to that reply thereby losing time that could be spent finding additional sources and adding them to the articles, but oddly enough I reply to people as I think it would be rude not to. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...*sigh*
I don't think you're a liberal. It's a metaphor for the situation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you, but there's a vandal repeatedly placing false information on the Walking with Dinosaurs page. Me and another person have fixed his edits twice, but he still makes them. I posted a warning on his talk page. Could you ban him? His IP address is 4.244.24.131.
Cheers. The redirects were going all over the place, which caused one particular editor to start manually editing thirty biographies instead of fixing the one double redirect, but I think it's calmed down now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your admirable attempts to separate the conduct issue from the content issue, it was to no avail. I applaud your patience, though. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh well. I want to say it is too bad but I'm caught up thinking that it may just be for the best. I'm ambivalent, really. Like I said, thanks for being so much more patient than I could have been. Protonk (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of what you deleted in The Doctor Is Sin original research or speculation is perfectly valid, but deleting an in-show reference to Skeletor, for example, doesn't make sense. One of the characters -said 'Skeletor' thus making a cultural reference. Lots42 (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's unreferenced trivia. Who says that's a cultural reference worth noting? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly valid point. But it -is- a ref either way. Lots42 (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's a technical point, but the end result is that it doesn't belong in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This message is a test to check to see if members of the Warhammer 40K Project are still online, active and interested in helping the project. If you are no longer interested in the project all you need to do is...nothing! If you don't respond to this I'll take your name off the list and you'll never here from us again. If you're the proactive type you can remove the name yourself or talk to me and I'll do it.
If you are still interested in helping out the 40K project or otherwise still want to be listed there you can say so in response to this message on your talk page or on mine. Alternately you can add our new userbox ({{User WikiProject Warhammer 40,000}}) to your userpage and I'll take that as a response. The userpage doesn't automatically include people in a category of members yet, but it might in the future.
We've assessed most of the articles in the project on the Version 1.0 assessment scale (the table on the project page should take a few days to update) but we need to push to get the core articles in the project up to GA status. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help the project along. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I beg you to undo your block. There is no benefit in blocking; he has stated that he did it with the best of intentions, and it is an extremely long call to say that he would have let it appear on the main page, or if he did, I am sure he would have been waiting for the moment it did, in order to tell an admin about it. (He occasionally pops onto IRC; I suspect he might have done so at this time to speed up the fix if it was required) Given the immense amount of work he has done for Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikinews, and Commons[3], a wiki-trout slapping would have been in order for the disruption; but a block? What is being protected? He is probably asleep now, making the block even more pointless. It would help him take this as a shot across the bow if the block was undone, as a courtesy. His block log now records your opinion on this (which is shared by others too; I'm not suggesting that you're going out on a limb here); I think the point of the block has mostly been made. Please reconsider so that he can explain his actions in more detail on the ANI thread and elsewhere, and also so that he can do the 25 DYK checks as promised. John Vandenberg(chat) 09:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote a hoax in the article space, pushed it into DYK with an undeclared sock, all to prove a point experimentally. I blocked him because of these, rather than because I thought he might get his hoax on the main page.
Understood. I am involved, by way of working closely with him on Wikisource for well over a year, so all I can do is ask. If you think the block should stand, so be it. Besides, he has not appealed and there is only a few hours left. Cheerio, John Vandenberg(chat) 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you would be so kind and to undelete Beer Money Inc (professional wrestling). As it says on the deletion nom page that what matters is sources. I would source it and make it verifiable if you would wish. I was just going to wait till it was determined to keep the article.--WillC 06:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one will be fine, however, I don't think "(professional wrestling)" is needed since there is no other article named Beer Money Inc.--WillC 06:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, whatever that means. Just for you to know give me a few days to source it and make it fairly well written article since I have article under GA review (Lockdown (2008)) and another article that I'm working on in my sandbox so that I can put it under a peer review (Slammiversary (2008)). Plus I have an article that is a GAN and it could go under review at any moment (Sacrifice (2008)).--WillC 06:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, hey just another contribution I can make to the project. Hell If I don't do it then no one will. Just for you to know I'm the only one who works on that tag teams company section. Well a few ips and a few users who fix the small stuff. But hey I have to start on the tag team articles and single wrestler articles eventually. This one will be easy though since the most notable stuff just happened last month. I'll probably have it a GA by next year. Well thanks for the help.--WillC 07:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ManInBlack. Regarding your unilateral descision to remove the entire list of examples from the Supersoldier page; if you wish to make such large-scale changes, please discuss it with other editors on the Talk:Supersoldier page first. A better course of action than simply deleting the material might be to create a separate List page and link to it. In that way, the content is still preserved and can be improved to more encyclopedic standards, while the main article remains free of Cruft. If you are amenable to this idea, please respond on the Talk:Supersoldier page, your comments are welcome. --Noclevername (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Making an all-cruft spinoff article is no improvement.
There's plenty to say about supersoldiers in fiction, but a list of characters passing editors think might be considered supersoldiers isn't a useful part of that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I filed the protection request, and am glad it was accepted, but why do this? Can you please reinsert my good faith edit? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that I'm removing the other image that people are warring over, sure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to remove both, I'd rather just have the two images on the article with Brawl's image in the lead than to have no images of Yoshi. - A Link to the Past(talk) 01:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you and everyone else will stop edit warring entirely if I do that, I'd be game. Would that be the case? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please protect the article again? Sesshomaru has been edit warring, and ignoring the basic reason why the page was unprotected in the first place (although I have to take some blame for reverting an edit on that page after he made it). - A Link to the Past(talk) 05:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that I have sought review at ANI [4] given your long standing contributions to the project and the fact that I decided not to block your opponent due to inexperience. SpartazHumbug! 15:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a comment about your block of the person with whom you have been edit warring. I leave it to those not involved in this content how your use of the administrator position should be handled. DGG (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A user created specifically to revert my edits en masse is a pretty obvious SPA sock. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, next time you find one of those, just give me a call instead of doing it yourself ... :-) Fut.Perf.☼ 15:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a list of Star Wars articles that have no sources or merely low sourcing, and since you seem to be involved in improving WP:SW's activity, I thought you might like to be involved. The list isn't of what to merge, what to delete, or would I say that all of the articles have bad sourcing. If you need clarification on why a certain article is listed or where sourcing is needed, feel free to ask. Feel free to also add to the list, but discuss removal first. - A Link to the Past(talk) 18:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AMIB. I'm not sure if you'll remember me, but you and I clashed over various pages some time ago. I come to you now seeking that eye for articles on fictional subjects I once despised you for. ;)
Currently, my last six months have been spent, on and off, working hard on Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. Compared to its previous state before I began my crusade in March, it's quality has increased exponentially. My ultimate goal is GA status, and I hope to bring the article to the nomination table sometime this month or next (I know it's not FA quality, but am confident it is GA). Tomorrow I'll be looking over the Wikipedia style guidelines for further ideas to improve its quality that little bit more, but for now, I come to you.
The article has been peer reviewed three times, and while each has certainly led to improvements, ultimately I still find their feedback lacking. So it is, I sought you out. If you have time, I'd like you to look over the article for anything at all, that can be improved. I'm working hard on the article on a regular basis now, finding any reliable source that has relevant information I can add, so if there's anything I should be looking for that isn't there, I'd like to know. As I said, I remember your skeptical view on in-universe and POV articles before - thus, I believe if I can appease you, GA status is within my grasp. ^_^
As a note, in the development section, a fansite is sourced. I don't agree with Wikipedia's policies regarding that, but wish to abide by them. That in mind, the knowledge that Soul Reaver began its production as "Shifter" seems to be one of those "friend of a friend" tales that many know, but finding its source has been difficult. Once I find the original source of this info, or a reliable source reporting it, I plan to use that, but in the meantime the fansite citation is there just as a placeholder to show it's not just something I made up.
Anyway, your feedback would be greatly appreciated. I truly want to get GA status and have worked hard towards it, and I believe with a little more work, it'll be there. The Clawed One (talk)
If I makes you feel better, I didn't see your reply either. :p. I got rid of the fansite reference and found a more reliable one, and I've nominated it for GA am currently awaiting a GA review. Thanks anyway, although if there's anything else you feel I need to change, please feel free. The Clawed One (talk)
I know you've been working with a number of others on deleting "non-notable" pages in the 40k wikiproject. I recently discovered an article for all the weapons of the 40k universe (I moved it into userspace for now, as the article is atrocious), and I wanted your opinion on whether such an article could be substituted for any remaining species-specific pages. By "such an article" I refer to a hypothetical article that doesn't delve into the disgusting details that this one does in its current state. I found (and lost) a small article on some weapons, which could establish notability, though I can't say for sure, as I need to find the article again. My examination of the notability guidelines and WP:IAR says to me that this proposed article would be the best option, both to avoid cruft accumulation, as well as real world information (i.e. parallels between model design and real objects, to be sourced, of course). If you have any ideas about how to get a collective page to the point where it can stand against AfD, please share with the rest of us, as you are, I think, the only remaining admin for the 40k project.
And on the note of being an admin, there are a number of pages linking to the recently deleted tau tech page. Tealwisp (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That page makes me sad. Honestly, unless there's anything sourced that can go in that page, I can't see any reason to keep it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was my reaction. That's why I was looking to rewrite it, and I wanted your opinion on using a mainstream gaming magazine as a source. Tealwisp (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. I never even considered WD, which I don't read anyway. I think there may have been a small miscommunication: I was referring to a video-gaming magazine (GameSpot), which has a small series on a few units and species which I have finally found. Unfortunately, said articles do not cover what I hoped they did, but still, they are potentially useful if they qualify as reliable 3rd-party sources. And on the note of WD, would another hobby magazine be an acceptable source for establishing notability? Tealwisp (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mm. I'd have to see the article. A few of those articles are reprinted or paraphrased press packet materials, and those aren't too useful. Other hobby magazines are useful, generally. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So long as it wasn't a 'zine or self published. grognard.com has some links to indexes for old wargame magazines. Not sure which are self published or how old they are. there are some links to hobbyist mags there too. I dug around a little bit but didn't find anything. What is the URL to the gamespot piece? Also, are you sure they weren't talking about the PC wargame Warhammer 40,000: Rites of War? Protonk (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grey Knights, Heavy Weapons team, Flash Gitz, Daemon Prince, and the Harlequin were all I found, under Dark Crusade anyway. They are not the sort of thing I had hoped to find, but they're something at least. I did a quick check under Soulstorm and found this, which could help establish notability for equipment. They were not talking about Rites of War or the Tabletop game, but that was exactly why I had the thought: the fact that non-tabletop gamers are taking an interest helps to demonstrate why the information "would be of any use to someone without a codex," as Thumperward put it. Tealwisp (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just figured that meant it was a collaborative article. Are you sure its on all of them? Tealwisp (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the meat of the article is even in blockquote style? Pretty sure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where could one find the original press releases (just out of curiosity)? Tealwisp (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Call the GW press offices. Although they tend to not hang on to old press releases too much. I had to dig up a similar issue for Intel and found that what isn't on their searchable db is pretty much gone forever. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't proper press releases, but they're "exclusive" info releases that are nothing more than copy-pasted PR fluff. I can't offer you proof of that, but I can tell you that I've posted a fair few "exclusives" that consisted of nothing more than verbatim text from an e-mail from a PR rep. It's pretty obvious here: blockquote text, no byline, not written in GS's house style, not a headline story. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really delete all the cultural references from every page? Why couldn't you have just put a Trivia and/or OR tag on them? Or actually integrate them into the article? Or find sources yourself? Lists like this are the only reason pages like this exist, see all 420 Simpsons episode pages. Do something constructive, don't just pull a DFE. Rpachico (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lists like this are the only reason pages like this exist
Huh. Seems like someone should do something about that.
Sources don't exist, tagging is useless, integrating unsourced material into the article is unhelpful, and as for the other dirty stalls, I'll finish mopping those after I mop this one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources if one knows where to look. There's the creators' blogs, the episodes commentaries on the DVDs, and interviews with the cast and crew. I'm sure someone could go through each page and find sources for the truly relevant facts. Throwing a tag in the section just seems much more helpful. And I'm fully aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but if these pages really are that useless, why don't we condense the truly relevant sourced information to the episode list page? Rpachico (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then scour the creators' blogs and the episode commentaries and write the articles based on those. A bunch of stuff people noticed while watching the episodes isn't going to help anyone do that.
As for merging them, yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a conundrum. I've always enjoyed the "cultural references" and trivia sections for tv shows and movies on Wikipedia; they remind me of the similar sections on IMDb. And I'm sure many other users do. But how do you post such information, or integrate it, without violating some form of OR? I'll give you an example. There's a scene in an episode of The Venture Bros. where a "Major Tom" is about to crash in an experimental spacecraft. Both him and his radio contacts quote David Bowie's "Space Oddity" almost word-for-word. How do you include information like this without doing OR? Rpachico (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You publish your observations in a reliable source, then cite that source on Wikipedia.
There's a niche for a watcher's guide to Venture Bros.; it'd be interesting and fun and I'd read it. I just don't understand the need to shoehorn that into this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Warhammer 40,000. Evidently it is the onlyWP:40K article selected for 0.7. So I was going to be damned if the article was going to DVD in its current state. I did a little cleaning. As a result, I think I've exhausted about 90% of the reliable, independent sources that happen to discuss warhammer 40K and there weren't many. If you have time I would appreciate a peer review or c/e before October 20th. If you don't have time then that's cool, too. Protonk (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be advised that ALTP is reverting edits made to remove AVGN from Wikipedia pages. My edits are made per the previous group consensus at the video game project discussion. As was decided, vigilance was decided as the best means of keeping the spam off the wikipedia pages, rather than blacklisting AVGN outright. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This also includes further questioning on my talk page, where he's pretending the entire discussion at the video game project never happened or never really meant anything. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest bringing it up at WT:CVG; asking me to come and disagree with ALTTP is generally neither necessary nor productive. ¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking you to come in and disagree, but rather enforce the consensus previously achieved, as you did when you first went around removing the AVGN links. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hee, I was being silly, ALTTP and I disagree on pretty much everything. We'll play it by ear; I don't plan to do any mass reverts, but I'll keep an eye on ALTTP if he starts doing some. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About your edit, are you sure they're supposed to be three? Because Double Team DS, in case you never bought one, lets you start two savefiles, and you can choose what version of the game you want to play in that savefile. I guess Double Team DS shouldn't have been mentioned as if it were a third version, but it isn't a different version. It's simply a game cart that contains both versions of the game, with extra bonuses. So I think we should say that there are only two versions. --UltimateDarkloid (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three games titled Mega Man Battle Network 5 were released. The DS version lets you play through either storyline, but it's a separate release. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I think you're wrong. Gamers tend to know a version as a different version of the game, not a different release. It's like a release that contains all installments of a certain series, for example. There is a difference between a version, and a title, or release. As long as no new game is there, it's still two versions with three titles. This could confuse readers. I for one, before purchasing the game, thought that Double Team DS was a third verson with content from both other versions, and it was not until i got it that I lernt the exact truth. I think we should change the article to be less confusing and more direct in its explanation of the releases. I hope you understand. --UltimateDarkloid (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two versions of the story, three versions of the game. The sentence is referring to whole game, not the individual stories. Since the following sentences explain what each version of the game contains, there's no chance for confusion.
I for one, before purchasing the game, thought that Double Team DS was a third verson with content from both other versions, and it was not until i got it that I lernt the exact truth.
I doubt "Mega Man Battle Network 5: Double Team DS, which includes the content from both games as well as extra content" would have caused that confusion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is what happened with me. I thought it was a different version of the game. I was confused. And besides, like I said, a title or release is different from a game. Each game has a storyline, Double Team DS contains two games, so I figure it's two versions that were re-released together. I mean, like the Game Boy 12-in-1 game cartidges, don't tell me all of those are a single game?--UltimateDarkloid (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it is a separate release of the combined games, and if they are changed, it is a different version. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. Team ProtoMan and Team Colonel versions are the same versions as the ones in Double Team DS. I strongly imply this point: A release or title is different from a version of a video game. And the changes are minimal, just to upgrade from the Game Boy Advance to the Nintendo DS. Capcom officially produced only two different version of Battle Network 5, and then re-released them in a special DS edition. Again, I reiterate that a release is different from a version of the game. Take Japan, for example. Battle Network games are usually released twice, the second release containing added content. You could say different versions of the same version, but that's not what the article should talk about. Gamers like to know a version of the whole game, and that's what we should tell them about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimateDarkloid (talk • contribs) 14:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request feedback from you on the wording of User:Erachima/Inclusion (stand-alone lists). The page is a preliminary guideline proposal I have written in response to the WP:N RfC, which showed that there is no consensus that WP:N applies to stand-alone lists, but also displayed a lot of demand for an inclusion guideline that does apply to them. The proposal is intended to cover all types of stand-alone list, but it also covers fictional lists more specifically because I don't think a version of the guideline that didn't specifically address them would stand a shot at being accepted.
I'm asking you for input personally because, first, I know you have lots of experience with AfD work and lists, and second, you usually lean the other direction from me on deletion debates. I'm trying quite hard to make this proposal a reflection of actual practice/consensus and keep my own bias out of it, so I'm trying to solicit a range of opinions. --erachimatalk 10:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need your input on this. I'm working on improving the quality of Capcom fighting game articles, particularly Street Fighter II and Darkstalkers and I could use any suggestions.
First of all, I'm thinking of merging Super Street Fighter II back into Street Fighter II (and possibly Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix too). Super and Super Turbo are really not that much different from previous Street Fighter II games since they build upon the same template. They simply run on a different hardware and have some additional characters or features. The current Super Street Fighter II simply reiterates the same points summarized the "Versions" section of the Street Fighter II article.
Secondly, I'm working on improving Darkstalkers and thinking of giving the three major games in the series (Darkstalkers, Night Warriors and Vampire Savior) separate article. At the very least Vampire Savior is very different from the other games in the series to cover it separately.
So what's your take in all of this? Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ambivalent about the SF2 merge. There's a lot of superfluous rereleases, but SSF2 had different hardware in the arcade and was a much-ballyhooed release when it came out on consoles. Then again, this is going on fuzzy memory and not actually hitting sources, so I'd just say go with where the sources go.
As for DS, yeah, split. I was surprised to see them merged, but I didn't feel comfortable enough with the topic to take on that project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IP address 207.38.189.240 has vandalised the Walking With Dinosaur's page, with this as proof. Please put the appropriate ban in place. 125.238.134.214 (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
k. Bear in mind we don't ban people for vandalizing once; as often as not they're just trying to see if they really can just edit the article like that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you'll revert your edit once the month has passed? I agree with you that the discussion wasn't going anywhere, but simply removing comments because the discussion gets heated is not really appropriate. Still, I admit I shouldn't talk to much since I haven't really done much productive work on actual articles myself due to time constraints recently :) Still, I think my record of creating many of the sub-pages in WP:VG gives me some credit to talk on this issue even though I've not been very productive lately. Cheers. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-8 11:42
ALTTP and FFF were going to keep arguing endlessly as long as the other had the ability to get the last word, and would continue to waste the time of anyone who tried to mediate.
In general, I agree with you, that as long as video game articles are using WP:VG's processes then video game projects should be WP:VG taskforces. I also believe that going on about this is causing 100% heat and 0% light, and is distracting people from actually accomplishing anything.
If the project is productive, they can call themselves the Grand High Council for all it matters. If the project isn't productive, it's dead, and nobody cares. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're 100% right, I'll let it go. The ironic part is that I actually created a WP:VG/Sega task force back in September 2006 (I'm not sure you're an admin, so I made a screenshot). JACOPLANE • 2008-10-9 04:48
Thank you for understanding and we appreciate your cooperation.
Also delete this comment if the aticle was already deleted. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaty2 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably not the one to talk to about this. My suggestion would be to take the advice here, and get your issue handled by more attentive volunteers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain your revert of my edit to the Venture Bros. article? I made several edits and I'm confident many of them were valid. (Wallamoose (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
You misspelled and misused the word "amalgam". You broke up the chronological flow of the chronology. You blatantly vandalized. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be changed, as keeping it here is causing constant discussions which use this different box art as an argument for moving the page. - A Link to the Past(talk) 18:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that'd happen anyway. That said, I would not revert a box art change if you were doing it for that reason. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it can be assumed that I'm not doing it in an attempt to promote PAL titles, which I have done in the past, but I'm not doing in this case - I mean, I did agree on keeping the image where it's at in respect to lack of stability, but I think that this would help limit all these discussions which are holding back discussion of the actual article's contents. - A Link to the Past(talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, what constitutes “fannishness”, etc.? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I was wondering what your reasons were for removing sections from this page, seemingly on a whim. The information contained in those sections was perhaps more suited to a "Trivia" section rather than "Arc Significance" but I don't believe that warranted the utter removal of the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Light Bearer (talk • contribs) 07:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was unsourced speculation and original research. Generally, if something is ending up in a trivia section, it either needs a better home or deletion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the information was the episode itself. All or most of the information you removed was verifiable. Your edit remains unjustified.
Generally, if the claims are based on watching the episode and writing down your thoughts, it's original research. It's like watching your cat to write Cat. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about a cat spelling cat, we're talking about information that might be relevant to someone who has never seen or does not have access to the episode in question. A passing user might like to know that the episode they are looking up is the first or last appearance of a recurring character. Or that an episode contains information that conflicts with information from a different episode. Your points are perfectly valid except for the fact that they don't apply here. At most, what was required was a cleanup. Light Bearer (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to whom is this the first or last appearance of a recurring character, or that such-and-such episode conflicts with another episode? If the answer is "according to me," your source is insufficient. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's character page on said character(s)? According to any viewer who has been witness to the entirety of a character's history in sequence? According to multiple DVD commentaries and/or Special Features and Featurettes and reputable websites? Character bios in books licensed and approved by the character's creator(s)? Would any of those be valid? The point is the information is verifiable and not based on speculation. I didn't even write it myself, all I did was add clarification to a statement that was not false, but nor was it complete and I did so using verifiable information from both the source material(the shows) and Wikipedia itself. Where's the bad? -Light Bearer (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order:
That's "according to anonymous." The idea is that we're avoiding referencing things to "some anonymous guy."
Okay, I agree with you that the present article (until recently) at Dragon Power leaves something to be desired. I'm concerned with the lack of discussion on this and I'm not 100% sure what I need to do to improve the article to make it pass whatever requirements you (plural) have. So, I'd like your feedback.
I've checked WP:VG and that Wikiproject doesn't appear to have any documented notability criteria outside of WP:N. WP:N states "If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.", which is what happened here. No problems.
So, is this primarily a problem of sources?
There are retro-reviews and coverage of the game from modern sources here, here, here, here, here, and here.
There is a write up of the history of the game, including the nice quote that the game "has one of the most fascinating histories for an American released 8-bit Nintendo game", from RetroJunk
Writer Chris Kohler has spoken about Dragon Power in an interview, citing it as one of the earliest examples of a manga-based video game in the US.
Those are recent sources. Contemporaneous sources are harder to come by because the game wasn't notable at that time. It was just another dumb Kung Fu game.
It did have a brief write-up (which I'm trying to track down, I have this issue in a box here) in "Nintendo Power" vol 1, issue 1. (July/August 1988).
It also had a very brief review in the 2002 edition of the Video Game Bible (here)
I agree that the game wasn't notable at the time of release and did not get wide media coverage. (Of course, this was 1988. Very few games did.) Newspaper searches for that time period show advertisements for the game (Toys-R-Us listed it prominently), but nothing further. Again, not entirely unexpected.
Similarly, Bandai never made a press release about it that I can find, nor are there stats anywhere about sales figures. It is probable that such announcements would have been made in Japanese and I am unlikely to find them.
All that said, there were fewer than 800 licensed NES games produced. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and so, barring WP:N and WP:V, I see no reason that articles can't exist for all games. They won't and shouldn't because many games really can't pass that bar, but I feel this one does.
In short what I'm asking for is whether you will support a rewrite based in part on these sources establishing notability? Thanks. JRP (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well.
This is a lesser blog published by the same people who publish Joystiq, which is used as a source very sparingly if at all.
This is a fansite written by someone who identified himself only as "SuperPope", who I don't believe is recognized as an expert in his field.
This is a capsule review, and offers little evidence of anything other than that the game exists.
This is a user-edited database. It is not a reliable source for pretty much anything; Mobygames is wrong about as often as IMDB (although it is a bit more hoax resistant).
This is another user-edited...something. Generally, anything written by "Pokejedservo" is not a reliable source on anything. It's also full of misinformation.
This is an exceedingly trivial mention. It's mentioned in passing, as part as a factually-dubious statement about video games exposing kids to Japanese pop art before other media followed.
This is a capsule review, again offering that the game exists. More misinformation: it would be quite the feat for a game released in 1986 to be based on a manga that started years after that.
So, for reliable-ish sources we have two capsule reviews and a passing mention. How are we going to write more than a brief list entry based on those sources?
Nobody's suggesting omitting mention entirely, so we can set aside the Wiki-is-not-paper argument; instead, what is suggested is mention in proportion to the (very sparse) sources. Hence, a list entry. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you offer some advice about Image:CTR.jpg? I uploaded this over 2 years ago. Now some user just uploaded a picture of a horse at Commons and gave it the same name. The problem is that they are now requesting my image be moved to a different name. Besides the fact that my image has had the name for over 2 years while their image was just uploaded today, the name fits mine better ("CTR" is short for "Chi-Town Rumble", while their image is just of a horse). I am asking you since I can't seem to find a page or form to object to image move requsts.
Also, since I can only use the computer at school, I will only be online for another hour today and then won't be back on until Saturday. TJSpyke 15:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a huge deal. My point is just that there is no reason to move an image that has had a good fitting name for over 2 years just because someone decided they wanted that name for something that doesn't even make sense for it (why would a image of a horse be named "CTR"). So I could upload any free pic I want to Commons and, for example, name it dynamoSP.png and the image at Image:dynamoSP.png will be forced to be moved. Nice to know (not that I would be an asshole and try and get a image moved like that). TJSpyke 13:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was intentional, and it's easier to move a local wiki image than a Commons one, that's all. Neither title is particularly unique to either image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are in-universe and copyright issues involved in the Gundam articles, I agree with you there. But I don't think your heavy-handed enforcement of your views on the copyright issues are helping to resolve this. Making a stand on these articles won't solve the wider problem. As I said at the ANI thread, I suggest you get more opinions on what exactly constitutes a copyright violation here. Is there a suitable noticeboard for that? Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems seems to be the closest thing we have, but I can't find a noticeboard that is a text equivalent of Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Any ideas? Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there is any noticeboard for just plain old plagiarism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism covers more than copyright violation. See WP:PLAGIARISM (which got hopelessly bogged down). There should be a noticeboard to discuss disputed text copyright issues. The trouble is, it's normally so clear-cut. Would you consider starting something at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems and posting a few notices to bring people to that discussion? Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? That sounds like a lot of work and getting involved in a bunch of dealing with issues I don't much like dealing with. I burned out on fussing over copyright a long time ago, with non-free images. This is just an obvious case that landed straight in my lap. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So where would you go for a second opinion on this (even if you think it is obvious)? WP:WAF, WP:COPYVIO, somewhere else? Carcharoth (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to list it there? I've got involved with one of the ones listed there, so I don't have time to follow this up. You have spent a lot of time on this, so maybe you would like to follow through on this, and get an wider opinion you can point to next time this comes up? I suggest pointing from WP:CP to a talk page that won't get deleted or redirected following a merge. Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting fictional conflicts to their respective series[edit]
So i ask you, should we treat fictional conflicts as historical articles pertaining to their respective series or should we merge them with their respective series altogether? Personally, i feel it would make the plot sections of the articles of their respective series way too long. -- 206.255.16.106 (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if it's too much plot for one article, why would three articles all on the plot be okay? We don't need to recap these stories in explicit detail, only offer an encyclopedic overview. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the fact tags, if it is a simple fact, and could be clearly seen from everyone's perspective, I do not think the citation needed tag is required. The tag's link goes to a page that says this : The "citation needed" link you just followed was placed there because a Wikipedia editor feels that the preceding statement is likely to be challenged, and therefore needs an inline citation. If you can provide a source to back up the statement, please be bold and add it. If not, please exercise extra caution when using the flagged information. If it is on a picture, the statement is obviously not challengeable since it is the source itself. It is never a matter of who cares, it is a matter of stating a fact that could be seen by everyone. WP:RS and WP:V never asked to have sources to verify sources and common sense, because those are purely redundant procedures. MythSearchertalk 09:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have nuanced factual claims sourced to "Well it's obvious to me." The statements are trivially challengable; who says it's this model? Who says that the image was published?
Demanding a higher level of quality in sourcing isn't disruptive. It's a basic part of improving an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of what you are asking a source in is disruptively out of common sense. If you want to challenge the word Gundam does not refer to this particular mecha, at least bring out one that is more culturally significant in using this word and looks like the pictures so that the information could be challenged reasonably. One of the wiki's policy is use common sense, in which I see that you are not using any in adding the tags, so I call that disruptive. You cannot bring out a reasonable argument that there could be other interpretations to the pictures, like another Gundam that is not this one that could be mis-identified, and yet you said it may be another one? In a logical reasoning process, the challenger who said something exist should find a prove, not the one saying that there is none. If you insist that there exist a suit that others can identify that as the picture shown, display your findings, source it and we can argue about if the picture is this one or not. If not, there is obviously no way I can so you any prove that this is the only one that looks like this one, just like I cannot show you prove if you insist that the research of everyone's full set of finger prints are unique is incorrect and need prove of it saying there is a probability that someones prints might look the same. MythSearchertalk 09:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I am saying we need sources. You're saying "Well, show sources that says it isn't true!" Nobody's removing these claims; I'm just tagging them to be properly cited to help improve the article. Rather than revert warring and stamping your feet and shouting about disruption, go find a source that says that this is used as the logo! It's what I plan to try and do once I'm done fiddling with prose and structure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am telling you, it is redundant to ask for sources that could be obviously seen by everyone. The picture itself is a source showing the Gundam is being used, you say that It might not be this particular model, and thus I am asking you to find a source that support your argument. I am not saying we do not need sources, I am saying the picutre is THE source and you are asking for sources to support the source I have given. MythSearchertalk 10:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I asked you to provide a reasonable alternative that could lead others to think that the picture shown is not the RX-78-2 Gundam. I am simply stating that the Gundam is used in a picture, and showed the picture just like having the article say Gundam appeared in Mobile Suit Gundam and you are trying to place a fact tag in that and asking it to be sourced. Do we really need a source saying the RX-78-2 appeared in Mobile Suit Gundam? I am pretty sure that this could be sourced, and know that you would agree on this, but by common sense, we will not ask a source for that, it is as simple as that for the pictures. If the pictures showed a blurry image that looks like a tank and I placed it in the M1A2 article saying it is, then yes, I would need a source for that, but no, a clear image showing something with features that no similar alternatives could be found that will lead to misjudging the item is by common sense that it is the item.(Especially when it is a copyrighted item) If you are going to challenge that fact, at least show something that look similar and can be confused with the Gundam that is also called Gundam(without the prefix and suffix) so you can reasonably argue that people can misjudge it as the first Gundam but it might be something else. MythSearchertalk 10:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are numerous similar-looking Gundam designs. We have many sources stating that the RX-78-2 is the Mobile Suit Gundam design, and if we're not citing them, then we should be.
If a picture of a modern tank with American markings appears in a logo, we should not claim that it is an M1, an M1A1, or an M1A2 without a source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that the full body design of RX-78 is not similar to any other Gundam.[citation needed] And any challenge that is given would be into detail comparison of both designs, which will not be a simple look alike OR type of argument. And no, we are not going to source RX-78-2 is the MSG design, that is way too redundant and out of common sense, and actually, an inline source that follows the guidelines would result in like at least 20~30 number tags after that well sourced sentence. The question is as always, is it likely to be challenged? No, I am not talking about you, I am talking about an average reader who would come by and read the article, and any reasonable editor who is at least familiar to the topic who came by instead of someone who came to be purely disruptive edits. Any reasonable comparison with a source can prove me wrong(Say, if you try to use the Gundam 00's 0 Gundam as the source, ditch it, it could be sourced that its designs are after the pictures in question and itself is designed by Okawara with Original Gundam in mind.) but before you say that it could be challenged, please present your views on why it could be. MythSearchertalk 14:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am challenging it now, in the hopes of making a better referenced article. Currently, it is sourced to your personal opinion of what is obvious, which isn't a reliable source on this project last I checked.
The burden rests on you to come up with a proper source for the factual claim you want to retain. Coming to my talk page and saying "Prove me wrong!" doesn't solve it. Further responses that amount to "It is obvious to me that this is true and you are disruptive for not trusting my expertise" are not productive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that for the whole discussion, you cannot even present a reasonable alternative that could show the slightest possibility that people would mistaken as the RX-78. No, I am not talking about my expertise, I am talking about what you are doing is simply aiming at something you came up with that got no proof at all. I asked a very simple question, if you insist that It could be mistaken, you would be able to present a simple answer to, which is a sample that people could mistaken as. You never show any, yet you keep saying there is. MythSearchertalk 15:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just cite the model manual that the image was copied out of. I don't see the problem. That that model == the RX-35343-Whatever is not common knowledge or a plainly obvious claim. An editor has contested the claim and requested a source. Why can't you just add a source and move on? Asking AMiB to prove the converse doesn't do anything, neither does appealing to a hypothetical reader. If you really need some outside input, I'll give some: I think that the claim under discussion requires a source. Protonk (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen what is going on in that particular article? He placed fact tags on every other sentence that most of them are actually sourced, he simply cut the paragraph in to 3 different parts and placed tags for the first 2, making it look like those needed different sources when the source is actually for the whole thing. For the picture I am talking about, the picture is directly from the source itself, the source have stated specifically that is the model, I have added in the source, but he simply removes them saying it is sketchy and not published. It is a museum in Japan, everyone can enter, do I really need to go take a picture and upload it here showing everything? No, actually I would guess with the level of AMIB assuming bad faith and disruptive tagging, he would say that the picture I took is OR and would not look at it at all. The icon in question for the first disputive tag is alternatively a picture that is directly from the 3rd Gundam movie, Encounter in Space, it is the same picture, and thus there will be no mis-understanding of it. Yet the reasoning of AMIB is what? the picture did not specifically state that it is RX-78-2? and I am using OR in determining the pictures are the same and asked me for a source for it? This is sounding really unreasonable to me, it would, 1st, be very unreasonable to ask for sources for every single picture of the series what it is showing. 2nd, be very unreasonable to ask for sources stating a source is indeed talking about what it is quoted for. 3rd, totally not bright to ask for a source that showed Gundam is used in the anime Mobile Suit Gundam. The level of sourcing is way beyond reasonable amount, it is almost like having a picture showing a person wearing a watch, and the watch is clearly shown in the picture with a digital display, and the article stated that he is wearing a digital watch, and someone added a fact tag after the sentence saying it is not sourced. MythSearchertalk 17:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...I'm not endorsing his behavior in the whole, I'm saying that contested claims need to be addressed by the introduction of verifiable sources (the jury is out about museum plaques, general answer is "don't use them", but that isn't always the case, see the reliable sources noticeboard). I'm not sure what you gain by suggesting that asking for sources "isn't bright", but whatever. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The good thing is, the museum in question is an official government museum, and it got this convenient website, in which the picture in question is taken from it. I am asking if I really need to go take a picture is because AMIB said the site is sketchy and removed the ref tags and reverted it into fact tags. This is the problem here, he asked for it, I opposed it but still played this little game he is playing, but all he did is assume bad faith and reverted the edit. Do you see what I am talking about? asking for redundant sources, and sources for sources, and finally refuses to use the sources he asked for. There is little improving the article but more creating disruption in articles with multiple tags, instead of reading it and help using the non-footnote sources to become footnote sources and reverting because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MythSearchertalk 21:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I told you the picture is from the site, and the link is in the image page, and if you insist on citing the source, use the image page as it. The picture itself is a source, and where is it from is clearly stated in the image upload page, thus everything you needed is there, but instead of using it, you placed a fact tag and keep reverting my edits. MythSearchertalk 07:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture itself isn't an inline citation, which is what I added a small, inobtrusive note to remind anyone who edited the page that we needed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In which you can simply follow the image link and find the web site for it and place it in as an inline source, like I told you to if you insist. Yet all you did is keep reverting to the fact tag. MythSearchertalk 13:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, new to Wikipedia editing here, forgive me if I commit any blunders. I was wondering about your decision to redirect the page about the "Real Robot" genre to the Super Robot Wars page; this page doesn't contain much information about the term "real robot" itself or its origin, though it does frequently cite it as a link to another page (which no longer exists).
Is the existnece of "real robot" as a genre and a term outside of Super Robot Wars in question? If verifiable sources are needed, I do know that Mark Simmons discuesses it in his published work "Gundam: The Official Guide," as a specific genre created by Mobile Suit Gundam in 1979 (even though, yes, the term "real robot" was only made popular by Super Robot Wars). I am willing to find the book again and look up the exact page number, but before I do all that I wanted to make sure this was your actual reason for erasing the page.
DVon5000 (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Dvon5000[reply]
In fact, I can give you 2 sources stating the explanation of Real Robot and it is not a genre, it is more like a combination of sci-fi, military fiction and humanoid robot. However, if there is multiple sources(that I have 2 here) the article might be notable to stand on its own, like in the Japanese and Chinese wiki. MythSearchertalk 14:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why a magazine is not RS, anyway, I have also included official sources of Gundam stating it is a real robot anime series now. MythSearchertalk 06:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We run into the problem that you've cited two sources that use the term both in another language and also in the sense that it's an adjective describing a noun, as well as not in the same way that SRW uses the term. I'm not demanding English-language sources, here, but at least some sort of source that isn't Sunrise saying "Gundam is the real robot series!" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem. Without a source for this crucial claim, we are no longer talking about a genre; we're talking about a SRW subdivision (best dealt with in the series article) and Sunrise's tendency to call Gundam the "real robot anime/manga" (probably best dealt with not at all). Once we have this lynchpin, we have a topic. Failing that, we have nothing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is this question about why are you insisting on redirecting the article. The article though without a direct reliable source stating it is a genre, got multiple sources referring different anime series Real Robot Anime, which is significant on showing the term is used throughout the industry and between normal users that are not relating to the SRW series. Those are definitely reliable and verifiable sources, for each series listed in the article. I see no policy supporting your redirect. MythSearchertalk 15:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Find a source that is not Sunrise, a Sunrise licensee, or a Sunrise product fansite that uses the term the way you are. These "multiple sources" are all Sunrise puffing up their own products. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least 1 source is from famitsu news(a Japanese magazine), a Hong Kong anime magazine, 1 source is from a SF seminar, 1 source from Newtype magazine a source from 広島アニメーションビエンナーレ2008(an organization in Hiroshima dedicated to anime which is not related to Sunrise) and a source from Nikkei publications relating real robot anime with real life robots. Did you read the article and look at the sources, or did you simply assumed everything is from Sunrise? The rest is a not so reliable source you claimed and others are from Bandai, not Sunrise, and current 11 source has 7 sources that are not Sunrise/Bandai related. Where on earth did you see that These "multiple sources" are all Sunrise puffing up their own products.? MythSearchertalk 13:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources are using "real robot" as a term to refer to a genre of animation (or anything), merely supporting other claims made in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of them contains the exact words Real Robot Anime and Real Robot, if you are only asking for the notability of the term, it is suffiiciently provided, whether it is a genre or not, there are enough sources showing that it is being used by various media. MythSearchertalk 07:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what context? We are not a dictionary looking for uses of a term, but instead an encyclopedia looking for topics. If this isn't a genre (and I don't think it is), then it's just a marketing name for the Gundam series as a whole, and can be properly and briefly mentioned in the Gundam article without all this faff about descendants or genres or whatnot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your replies are showing that you did not even bother to read the sources. The term is used to talk about other anime series as well, and a director who did non Gundam series is quoted as the best Real Robot anime director, do you know what you are talking about? or did you just simply used your own POV and did not read the article? At least 4 of the sources have not mentioned Gundam at all, your arguments are showing very high tendency of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. A simple search with the term returns an avalanche results of different series, some even quoted to be the best of Real Robot, and some quoted a director to be the best, what do you call these? Gundam marketing name? Your argument is typical stereotyping a term and not using common sense. MythSearchertalk 07:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mark it inactive. There's no discussion and little work. Proceed from there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to ask; why did you think the article should be turned into a redirect? Because I've added all the deleted information to another wiki. To try and hit two birds with one stone, by working on the original content to bring it back, and improving that content on another wikia. I want to iron out the all wrinkles. E-123 Omega What would say is needed to make it notable for Wikipedia? Oh, and since you like a few good lines, here's some things you might like. I aim to please. I might even use some of these here if the opportunity arises.FairfieldfencerFFF 12:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references to independent reliable sources in that link. That's what anything needs to be notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of independent and reliable links. One even came from the head writer of two Sonic the Hedgehog comics. If that's not reliable then I don't know what is. And it's Ian Flynn if you're wondering. Here are a few examples. There's Omega's translated Japanese profile. The ref detailing a certain issue to find the name of one of Omega's weapons. Which is a reliable third party source. Reliable references for his voice actors, which is also third party since they're involved with the character. I realize most of the article isn't suitable for Wikipedia, but I will remove that. Basically what I plan on doing a basic copy and paste job of the editted version. All I need from you is why you got rid of the most of the Wikipedia version's information. Then I'll head over to WikiProject:Video games to get as many opinions as I can about what needs doing.FairfieldfencerFFF 15:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any from sites that aren't Sonic fansites or from people who aren't employed by Sega or Sega's licensors? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really, but thanks for telling me what I should do next. *Zips off to start looking with cartoon patch of smoke left behind*FairfieldfencerFFF 21:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I did find a few sites already there. And by the way, I think you'll be using the whole cleanse with fire speech soon. Someone just reverted Metal Sonic back into an article.FairfieldfencerFFF 21:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AMIB, we've never been on the best of terms and I appreciate you helping me like this. But it seems a bit unfair that I'm getting something, (possibly creating my first Wikipedia article, but I could make another I'm sure has notability), and you're not. Can I make you a userbox or something as a thank you? That's pretty much all I can do.FairfieldfencerFFF 21:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm largely sympathetic, but sympathy doesn't blind me to the fact that the first source mentions Omega only in passing, the second mentions it not at all, and the third doesn't seem to be a reliable source AND still doesn't mention Omega. Relevant commentary in reliable sources. If it's not relevant, if it's not commentary, or if it's not a reliable source, it doesn't establish notability (or much of anything). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the second does mention him if you loook closely. The third is for an alternate counterpart.FairfieldfencerFFF 21:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I missed it. He's the last in a bulleted list of characters that will appear in a game. If it's not commentary, it doesn't establish notability (or much of anything).
These are really tenuous references. I admire your determination, but these just don't cut it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just have to keep searching and editting then. Would you like that userbox? I can make things like what's your favourite character, TV show, stuff like that.FairfieldfencerFFF 21:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but I though you might want to see that magzine ref. [8] It's page 2 of Sonic Heroes scans are courtesy of Nega (Source: EGM).FairfieldfencerFFF 16:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Black - just wanted to ping you about the Chris Hecker page notability tag issue. I didn't want to remove the tag again without hearing from you, but there's been radio silence :) Maybe you are on vacation? Anyways please let me know what your current thinking is.--Cmuratori (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edit Wikipedia in fits and spurts. I don't have any notability issues with the page as is any more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool beans. Thanks for giving it a look!--Cmuratori (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just put up an RFC over at the project regarding a problem with the Pop Culture section at Coleco. Wanted to let you know about as well, as your input as an admin is appreciated as the other party has not tried to engage in a civil discussion. Plus I'm interested in a neutral resolution. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The blast is him and not me, right? He's on the warpath again, so I googled his name and was trying to reduce unnecessary wiki-hits. Thanks for blanking it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated an article about a fansite called The World's Finest for deletion. Anyway, the article has been listed for deletion for about two days now, but I only got one vote for a "redirect" to World's Finest. Nobody else has bothered to argue against or for the nomination. Any advice? Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to see where a consensus was reached on redirecting the page. If there was no consensus, then the page shouldn't have been merged to begin with. ScienceApe (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since you are unable or unwilling to do that, I am going to revert your changes. Please do not revert unless you can provide me a link to where a consensus was reached to merge the articles. ScienceApe (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was asleep. It's been discussed in the talk pages of WP:SEGA, WP:CVG, and the list article (I forget the exact title). Looking at Whatlinkshere for Metal Sonic will probably be pretty helpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nijon76 is trying to force edit back in previously removed game guide material, including already removed images. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I want to nominate NeoGAF for deletion, since its really nothing more than a forum with an fanatical userbase (NeoGaffers). Problem is that the article has been nominated twice, the result delete, then it was restored and nominated a third time with no consesus. Any pointers? Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi. I see you deleted the list along with that section. I realise the list has been getting exceedingly long, but there was at least one entry with a reference, and other entries linked to an article that either had its own references, or otherwise had general content that was easily verifiable. Also, there were some wiktionary links you also deleted. I see the article is already poor-quality (and the only reason I have it on my watchlist is because I've previously edited it), but having at least a short list that is reasonably sourced should be OK. Most of the entries, however, would still remain deleted, although a few extra citations could be found and added. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 19:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. I had to undo you most recent changes. Quoting YouTube statistics to show rankings in subscription counts is valid under wp:ref. Subscription information is not subject to bias nor is it under control of the show. I know you are trying to help. However, this information is comparable to Nelson Ratings or census data. True, the information is far more fluent than the census. The YouTube system show unique views - not views which could give a false count. I admit that the section that concerns video games needs some work. I will work on it today when I return from a convocation. The show has quite a large number of fan-related sites and other works. I will morph the section into this. Everything will be ref'd in compliance with wp:ref. I only advocate keeping the games because that dedication to create one is quite intense and shows strong devotion. Anyway, have a great day. -DevinCook (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REF just says how to cite things, not what to cite. Cherry-picking automatically-generated statistics without any context is not good practice, especially when you're just giving numbers of comments or numbers on a hit counter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![[6]](http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs18/f/2007/184/2/2/Mag_Scan_by_Pur_Rulz.jpg){kind=link}
