User talk:A Man In Black/Archive20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ultimate X-Men (story arcs): Peer Review

Greetings! In January, you participated in the discussion for the 2nd deletion nomination of Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). After two months of rewriting, reorganizing, and referencing, the article is now undergoing a WikiProject Comics peer review. Your editorial opinion would be most welcome to help us improve the article to A-class status. Thanks for your time! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 06:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Sonic games}} inclusion criteria

An inclusion criteria for {{Sonic games}} has been proposed at Template talk:Sonic games#Proposed inclusion criteria, with an introductory preamble at Template talk:Sonic games#Shadow III: Son of Shadow. You are cordially invited to discuss the proposal. —davidh.oz.au 00:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wii Play

It was never agreed to use the Wii Play European pic. Rather than just putting in the NA pic, I will just talk with you first. How can I get the NA cover put it? TJ Spyke 01:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

By making some sort of convincing argument that hasn't been made. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marvel ultimate alliance

TI removed all the specualtive information, and you're sitll tno staisfied. there is ntohing abotu these two sentences: "It's important to note that despite the game's title, the game does not take place in the Ultimate Universe. Also, there is no word that it definitively takes place in the Earth-616 universe or the X-Men Legends universe." And they do belong in the lead, as they are detials as important as the original Marvel Legends name. Please, the original speculation you ahd a problem with was removed, and nwo this was just good reorginazation. Please refrain from reverting this reorginzation again without a valid reason. And callign ti "spoeculation" is no longer valid.TheGreenFaerae 01:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you offer any reliable sources for your claims? I'm trying to clean speculation, POV, and general fanboy junk out of this badly mangled article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Common sense does not need an attirubatable soruce. Now your edits elsewhere, i agree with. I only have a problem with you removing thsoe two indispouutable facts. Is there anything that points to the contrary of these statements? No, there is not. Stop beiong so obstinate and reverting valid remarks. I'll tell you what, if you feel otherwise, ptu the "coitation needed" tag on. that way, the facts remain where they belong and they are ntoed in tyhe way you feel they should be.TheGreenFaerae 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

They are not indisputable, given the number of people who keep claiming that it's "obviously" 616 or "obviously" Ultimate or "obviously" neither. We do not speculate here on Wikipedia.

Please take the time to correct misspellings and typos in your talk messages. I find it difficult to understand anything you're trying to say. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree with that. The sentence however states that there is no word on who's right. It does not say it obviously takes place in such and such, it says there is now word that gives an answer either way.What you are removing is the compelte opposite of that statement.TheGreenFaerae 01:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't split my posts.

It doesn't work like that. We don't say "Well, we don't know if such and such is true, or if such and such is true." We just omit mention of any of them. It's not a controversy; it's non-debate, since continuity is such an unimportant topic that no reliable source has commented on it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it's ridiculous to claim "It's important to note" a claim when not one single reliable source has ever noted that claim. If it's so important, where are the sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll remvoe thsoe words.TheGreenFaerae 01:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought it was easier to read if i adressed each statement by itself.TheGreenFaerae 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please remove all mention of continuity from the lead until you can produce some sources that mention continuity? This is an issue for a comic wiki, not a general-purpose encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll mvoe it if you want, but I'm goign to mvoe the Hasbro mention then as well, as it is tied in with the ultimate mention.TheGreenFaerae 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How about they both go? I can't find sources for either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No. They both were added and have been accepted by the community for soem time, and there is no reason to believe they were false. I'll tell you what, why don't we let the majority of the community decide? That would end our dispute, wouldn't it?TheGreenFaerae 02:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where we remove claims that cannot be attributed. We don't vote on verifiability. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you may be right there, however, the reaosn we leave it up to the community is because neither of us can come to an agreemenet, and rtaher than escalate a dsipute, we trust the rest of the community to recognize it and remove it if ti is apporpirate. i ahve affixed {fact} tags to the statements, so they stnad otu as needing a source. Now, trust the community to either find a soruce or remove it, and step out fo the issue to avoid escalating a dispute. I will do the very same.TheGreenFaerae 02:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't just tag dubious claims and leave them. Those have been there for months, with no sources forthcoming. It's time to remove the unsourceable cruft and speculation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"We" int ehis case, only refers to you. You are practiciing policies in violation of WP:OWN, and you need to stop now.TheGreenFaerae 02:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We, in this case, is Wikipedia. WP:A is one of the core tenets of this project. Where are the sources to which you are attributing your claims? Don't you see that "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source" right below the edit window? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In the itnerests of keepign us on equal foot and stopping your excessive deletion policy, i ahve reverted all of both of oru edits to the alst non-contested edit. TheGreenFaerae 02:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Excessive deletion policy? I'm trying to convert lists to prose. I remove the list, and by the time I can write the prose, you've already reverted. I'm trying to clean up the article; lay off the undo button. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Page was fully protected to prevent the edit warring between the two of us. You are absuing your admin status by editing anyway. stop now.TheGreenFaerae 02:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Chill. It was protected between me opening an edit window and saving. I reverted it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a drive-by opinion, but based on just this thread, and not having looked at the article, I would tend to agree with MIB on the attribution requirement. I work mostly with biographies of living persons, where we are really hard nosed about it. Unsourced material gets removed, period. We're not dealing with a living person here, so it isn't quite as dire. - Crockspot 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page deletion

What are the reasons given for why Consolitis was deleted? Considering it is a very frequently used descriptive term, both among the general gaming public and the press, it seems perfectly notable. Also, I don't understand how WP:DICDEF applies here when we have such pages as ++ungood;, newbie, etc. In fact, the whole of Category:Video game culture is full of such phrases. An explanation would be appreciated. -- Grandpafootsoldier 02:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, lots of those articles aren't very good, either. Again, while Wikipedia has lots of noncompliant articles, that doesn't mean that non-compliant articles don't need to be dealt with. It just means that there's lots of work to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richmond Hill Rams logo

Why did you delete it? Was it tagged, because I was not notified (as the uploader) that it was tagged? If I had of been notified I would have rectified any copyright concerns. Could you please put it back up so I can repair it? DMighton 03:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, is your name based off of the Dark Tower character? DMighton 03:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. What's Dark Tower? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephen King's The Dark Tower. The Man in Black is Randall Flagg, the first nemesis of the Gunslinger. It is a 7-volume epic and considered by King to be his masterpiece. DMighton 03:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I detest King, so I've never read it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This rationale thing, how does it work? What am I supposed to do with it? I really don't understand what I am looking at with that. DMighton 03:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

nm, I think I figured it out. DMighton 03:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that A Man In Black referred to government agents, like Men In Black or something. Hbdragon88 04:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does "no rat" mean?

I see that you deleted the image from Battle of Metropolis with "no rat" as your reason. What does that mean? - Peregrine Fisher 07:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No fair-use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use rationale. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Charizard

Ok, maybe the "basically" isn't needed, but let's be honest, Charizard really DOES resemble a typical cartoony dragon design, doesn't he? He looks a little bit like Dragonite even. Plus note that it says he RESEMBLES a dragon, not that he IS a dragon. Also most dragons in media are usually the size of a T-Rex when grown, so "medium" for Charizard seems appropriate. I know there isn't an official source, but let's not be too legalistic. It's just an impression on Charizard's basic form, after all. Nintenboy01 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a cited ref, and the ref describes it as a reptile. You're changing the meaning of a cited sentence, and that's not really helpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't notice "reptile" anywhere. I checked the links. Nintenboy01 21:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was cited at one point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That was odd

I blocked Johntan007 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) indef pending an explanation of what he was doing, seeing as he started up again after your warning. Picaroon 01:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just some weirdo. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dosidon, Garmeil, Keikouo, Neorant

What is your reasoning behind removing the rumors for Pokemon names? On Shinx, it says:

"The English name for Kolink had been tentatively reported on a fansite as Spinx, and later Shinx, a portmanteau of the words shine and either lynx or Sphinx. This name has not been officially confirmed by Nintendo or Pokémon USA."

Why is it that on this page we can have the rumored English names, but not on the pages listed in the subject heading? Ksy92003 06:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I haven't cleaned up Shinx yet. Rumors that haven't been printed in any reputable source aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And why is that? Show me where it says that we can't put information like that. Part of what the name has been rumored to say should be in the article. If you can find a place that says no, then okay. But if not, then it should stay. Ksy92003 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT. This has been discussed, at length, on the Pokémon Wikiproject, and the upshot is that a rumor on a fansite about an "anonymous source" is not sufficient verification. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between taking a rumor and stating it as truth and stating a rumor and saying that it's a rumor. I am doing the second, saying what its name has been reported to be, but saying that the name "has been rumored to be...", saying that it isn't the official name. What is the matter with this? Ksy92003 16:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't a difference. We don't put unverifiable content on Wikipedia. This is not the place to spread rumors. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How is there not a difference? I'm not spreading any rumors. Did I ever say in any of those reverts you made that its English name was confirmed to be [whatever it is]? No.

Either way, I left a comment with User talk:M C Y 1008#rumors about this. He has made tons of edits to all of these Pokemon articles, and it seems like he's on Wikipedia 24/7, so I think he can solve this little dispute we're having. If he has the same claim as you do about these "rumors", then I'll stand down on the subject. Ksy92003 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't say "There's a rumor that..." on Wikipedia, either. We don't put unverifiable content on Wikipedia period. Not "We don't put unverifiable content on Wikipedia unless we make sure to say it's unverifiable." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A reminder when tagging images with fair use notices

It would be helpful to notify the user who uploaded any image on their user talk page after doing this, definitely warning them to produce an actual source and provide fair use rationale; this wasn't done when Image:Gon (Tekken 3).jpg was tagged. There are a lot of people who don't actually watch edits in images, so it's fairly likely that a user will not notice any impending deletion until after the image is removed. I recommend a bit more communication in this regard. Thanks. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 12:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC) ╫

Orphanbot does that automatically. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe Carnildo can tell me more about the bot's response time. We shall meet again. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 14:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC) ╫

[edit] A limited unblock?

FAAFA has contacted me to request a limited unblock for the sole purpose of participating at the arbitration case. That seems fair to me. Do you object? Durova^Charge! 23:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections, if more-knowledgeable parties are willing to accept his parole for the unblock. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I object. His outburst on his talk page after he was blocked shows that he has no good faith toward the project. There's nothing he could add further to the arbcom proceedings at this point anyway. He would just keep rehashing the same points ad naseum, and continue to attack other editors. He's been given too many second chances already. - Crockspot 00:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I object. You should work this through the arbcom clerks if he has info to pass on to them. He should have a community ban unless the Arbcom says otherwise. He has 5 votes out of 6 necessary for a 1 year block. He has the email address of the ArbCom . Please put this request on the admin noticeboard if you wish to pursue this and not make a unilateral decision. Also User:Daniel.Bryant is the blocking admin. --Tbeatty 03:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad was the first person I contacted. He referred me to you. Before I read your reply I received another message from FAAFA and decided to decline that editor's request. The subsequent message speculated in a manner that would have generated a cloud of doubt over my integrity if I had complied with the request and if the message's contents became generally known. My personal politics have no bearing whatsoever on my administrative decisions and I wish to protect my reputation for impartiality and fairness. Due to that circumstance it would be more appropriate for FAAFA to petition someone other than me to follow up on any alternate suggestion. Thank you for your time. Durova^Charge! 04:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He's a real peach, ain't he? He hasn't figured out that you're supposed to burn your bridges AFTER you cross them. - Crockspot 04:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I doubt he burned any bridges or say anything insulting or even controversial. Rather, I suspect he speculated on the politics of Durova rather than just an appeal to fairness. I suspect he fundamentally misunderstood Durova's interest in getting his block partially lifted. An insinuation such as "we liberals need to defeat the neocons" would be enough to make Durova uncomfortable as it implied an association that doesn't exist. Even implying that there would be a bridge that could be burned would probably make her uncomfortable so I wouldn't even speculate that even though I know what you were trying to convey. That kind of appeal would me feel uncomfortable. I applaud her decision regardless of the actual concerns. If FAAFA is reading this, I encourage him to e-mail the information to any active arbitrator (list at WP:AC) with the request to forward it to the arbitrators' mailing list. --Tbeatty 08:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dorapion/Drapion

Could I please ask - why did you revert my edit to the revelation of Drapion's name? It HAS been confirmed on Pokemon-games.com; doesn't this count as a reliable source? - NP Chilla 01:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the "source" was downloading and deconstructing a Flash applet. That's not exactly a published source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PSP Third Party Firmware Editions

Could you please stop removing this from the PSP article. This is the third time I've had to revert this, and I'm getting fed up. If you're an administrator, you should have known to have read the talk page first, which does have a comment to leave it there.

The Custom firmware is a very huge part of the Sony PSP, and the way Sony have made their official updates. Stop removing it. Huds601 08:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For one, we have an article on PlayStation Portable homebrew, which is where this belongs. For another, can you supply references to reliable sources (so not QJ or someone's personal site) mentioning these custom firmware versions? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do have that article, but this is a comprehensive list of the DAX firmwares which are increasingly popular. The official site for them is at http://www.dark-alex.org with all versions avaliable for download.

Yes it's homebrew, but it's also firmware. As far as I'm concerned, it is and should be in the public knowledge under the main PSP article. Until it's decided otherwise properly, it should not be removed, as it is becoming quite a large sub-section. Huds601 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's Dark-Alex's site. That's not the kind of source I mean. We need some sort of publication to cite, to use as a reference to write the article. You've just copy-pasted his revision history in the article, with no explanation of importance or relevance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In which case for now you mark the item in question as needing to citate it's sources, not remove it from the article. How can it be citated if it's not there and noone knows it needs them? What about the official firmwares, what about their citations? Does this mean they should be removed as well? You're acting before thinking or giving the section a chance. Poor judgement from a supposed administrator IMO Huds601 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Or I just remove the unsourced, dubious claims. The lists of official firmware revisions aren't particularly appropriate, either.

The section has no context whatsoever, and claims, with no visible support, that this third-party firmware is important, as well asmore important than other third-party firmware. The relvance of the official firmware is clear; the bulk of PSP users are using it and Sony's press releases are widely rereported and commented upon. I don't see the same for DAX's announcements. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What, are you stupid or something? Do you even have any kind of grasp on the PSP community? Because of people like DAX, Fanjita, HarleyG and others, people like Rockstar have gone to great lengths to secure exploits in their games. Sony have released firmware updates soley because DAX has found exploits within the firmware. Because of DAX CF, the PSP is now almost entirely customisable within OE, waves, volume bars, icons, backgrounds, anything. And it's all made to work specifically for DAX CF. Stop removing the section. You say you want citations, and as there are none, you remove it. So I revert it and add a citation banner to ask people to help find some, as should be done. Yet you still delete it for something else. Your making yourself look silly, and anyone with any kind of idea about the PSP community would leave it there. Can I also point you in the direction of this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6397797.stm The BBC have done a news report on Fanjita, DAX and HarleyG about how they have exploited the PSP and created custom firmwares. If the BBc know about it, that's major enough for me to be honest. Think before you act. Huds601 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. That article would make an excellent citation for a description of the arms race between Sony and homebrew. It doesn't back up the claim that Dark_Alex's firmware is in widespread use, or that we need a revision history for some reason.

Should PlayStation Portable mention the firmware update/new crack cycle, with credit to prominent homebrew developers? Yes. Does it need a revision history for a specific homebrew firmware? No. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Incase you can;t be bothered, heres what I mean. This is from the BBC article...

The drawback of this early firmware is that it won't run the latest games, but this problem was quickly overcome by Dark Alex, who wrote his own firmware, called Dark Alex's Open Edition, with the help of a fellow hacker known as Booster.

With this firmware installed, the PSP is completely unlocked, but also has all the features of the latest firmware.

Within days of the release of the Noobz team's downgrader and Dark Alex's Open Edition firmware, Sony updated its firmware, fixing the flaw which makes unlocking possible. Huds601 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I can read. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Drop me an e-mail mate regarding this: danhudson89@gmail.com Huds601 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't have a working e-mail at the moment, unfortunately. Was there something you wanted to discuss in private? There are a couple other, more private, venues I can use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah there was. Can ye not temporarily make a gmail account perhaps? You can just sign straight up now. www.gmail.com It's just a few things I got to say need to be done in private,a nd e-mail will be best for this. Huds601 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would like an admin's opinion

Ran across something a few days that I'd like an admin's opinion on.

It's in three parts:

The edits by User:STEALTH RANGER to Captain. He's added a large section on "Captain" as used in fiction and prose, effectively doubling the article's size. It reads as OR to me but I would like a second opinion before either tagging it or out right removing it. I think he created it in order to support part 2.
List of Superhero Captains created and predominantly edited by the same user. It smells of OR and blatant fan cruft. I'm not sure if tagging it will do any good or if it should go to AfD.
The same user is adding a link to his "list" to various article as well as a non-existent category: Category:List of Superhero Captains. One that really worried me is his insistence of having a link to his list on the Category:Fictional captains page. I had removed that, with an appropriate edit summary, but he just added it back, with no comment.

(Note, I have also posted this on Steve block's talk, but since he's noted he's a bit wikibonked...)

— J Greb 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Blatant, crufty, OR. The list can go to AFD as obvious original research, and the category can go to CFD as a non-defining charactaristic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Section of Captain tagged, List AfDed, and the sister cat, thankfully, doesn't exist. Fictional Captains is part of the "Fictional character by profession" morass.

Thanks for the second look. — J Greb 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Hopefully we can get "Fictional character by (in-universe detail)" killed someday. Not holding my breath, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Would be nice... it's not really useful in the main Wiki context. But it'll be as easy to get rid of as the superpower cats... — J Greb 23:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rockstar Advanced Game Engine

When was consensus reached to merge this? —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 23:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are the references from which you intend to build an article on this subject? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In the article. Still didn't answer my question. If an article is lacking references than it needs a citation template. If an article doesn't deserve to be an article, it should be deleted. However I beleive this is notable. Anyway, merging to a non-related article does nothing, especially when the information in this article wasnt actually merged. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 00:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the only related article. It's the single game it's used in. All of the content from the RAGE article (the engine is used in Rockstar Table Tennis and DMA has said they'll use it in GTA IV) is right there in Rockstar Games presents Table Tennis (check the second para). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting a developers game engine to a specific game doesnt make sense. I guess if GTAIV uses Rage 1.1 then we should make an article for Rage 1.1 and redirect it to GTAIV? Just please leave the article alone. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. It's the game engine currently used in one single game, especially since the only commentary on the engine is "It's used in this game, and will be used in future games by this developer." If you prefer, we could redirect it to Rockstar Games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Reference: [1]

What more am I supposed to have?
How do I just delete it and avoid all of this frustraiting mess?

Angel the Techrat 05:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to know where you originally got the image you modified. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of 2001 Trivia

Did you get that out of my edit history? No problem, just curious. anyway, I can't say I completely disagree with that edit, but I hope you know you might get some fanboys bashing it and/or reverting. It's the reason I didn't edit in that way.TheGreenFaerae 11:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

??? Someone on IRC mentioned it to me, when I was complaining about trivia spinoff articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you entirely that they are a big problem.TheGreenFaerae 22:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism...

My recent re-caption of the lovely photo of R. Milhouse Nixon on your talk page was meant in the spirit of good humour, not as a vandalism. If indeed you consider it as such, please accept this, my heartfelt apology. Best Regards, Hamster Sandwich

Um. Kay. No hard feelings, really. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Press Release?

Hey, just a bit curious to as to the identity of this press release you spoke of for Magnezone, where might I see it? -Sukecchi 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In re Talk:Infernape

I apologize for making that heading, as the moved talk page didn't show up on my watchlist (and thus I didn't know you had already discussed it). -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 03:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DoomRL article deletion

I think you really jumped the gun with this speedy deletion. Not notable? DoomRL has both notable internet sources as well as PRINTED sources. The least you should do is nominate the article for deletion.

Notable web sources:

It was also featured on:

http://planetdoom.gamespy.com/

Paper sources, among others:

Computer Games Magazine [2] February, April 2006, page 83 [3] (printed).
CD Action (polish version -- biggest polish game mag) [4], Issue 11/2005, (printed, also on Cover DVD).
Level (biggest czech game mag) [5], Issue 9/2005, page 114 [6]

And those are NOT roguelike sites/mags.

Here's the source of this list : http://doom.chaosforge.org/wiki/index.php?title=DoomRL_Media

Would you kindly consider reverting the deletion and putting the article under VfD? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.219.180.99 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Wow, this is one of the worst deletions I've ever seen. To delete articles on two of the most popular roguelikes in one day... That's something. I suggest you to use WP:VFD next time around when you wish to delete articles on topics of which you haven't a slightest idea about. Grue 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame, then, that nobody bothered to assert notability in the articles. This was an article with no clear maintainers that failed to assert any notability whatsoever, so I speedied it per A7. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

With this reasoning you could delete half of Wikipedia. Speedy deletions are only for obvious cases, AfD is for the rest. This was article was around for some time, edited by many different editors, and none of them disliked it enough to splash a {{delete}} on it (by the way, this template exists for a reason, so that at least two people verify speedy deletion conformance). So, basically, in no way this was a CSD. Grue 08:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I speedied it along with several poor articles all edited by a user who had previously declared no interest in sourcing articles.

Now, you came to my talk page with a harsh comment, treating a rather dubious claim as though it were the most obvious thing in the world, and, additionally, it has spurred you to actually do something to back up the claims in the article. I'm not really seeing the harm, here, nor am I seeing any reason to continue to discuss this with you, as you're clearly looking for a fight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ratchet & Clank series

Template:Ratchet & Clank series Why are you constantly reverting whenever someone adds the latest game in the series? It has been announced officially and I cannot see why it should not be added.--Viridis 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have a release date and it hasn't been shown in playable form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd compare it to unreleased, still in production movies. I've seen them in templates. I see no danger in allowing the new Ratchet and Clank into the template.
What is the template for? Grouping articles by subject. If the article for Tools of Destruction is listed and linked to along with the other games in the article Ratchet & Clank series, it should be in the template aswell. Or at least mention on the talk page why not to re-add it at the moment to save yourself the trouble of all the reverting.. --Viridis 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The template is for directing users to the core topics of the article series. The games are the core subject; promotional trailers (which is all R&CF is) are not core subjects. The article should probably be merged to Ratchet & Clank series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I see your point. We can wait until more is know about the game and the article is more fleshed out. Shall we mention this on the template talk page or maybe a comment within the template itself so people know not to edit?--Viridis 15:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Template:Grand Theft Auto series has a noincluded message that could be swiped. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devil May Cry template proposal

I've currently proposed a totally new navigation box for the Devil May Cry template. I'd very much appreciate your comments on the navbox, if you'd care to take a look. If you support the navbox, please indicate this on the talk page.

Oh, and speaking of Devil May Cry... I wouldn't mind terribly if you dropped by the DMC2 Featured Article Candidate page and left your comments there, as well. Cheers, Lankybugger○ speak○ see○ 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha, already replied on the template talk page. I'll hit the FAC page soonish. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for being nitpicky with the FAC. I want nitpicky. Nitpicky will help me improve the article, while simple praise won't. In fact, if you've got any other concerns, feel free to go back and raise them as well. I'll take a run at all the stuff you mentioned and should have it fixed by tomorrow. Cheers, Lankybugger○ speak○ see○ 20:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. I never could get the point of "Support" on FAC; how is that helpful at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

List of Marvel Comics endearments has been nominated — unfortunately, I believe — for deletion. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at the article and adding a comment, pro or con, at its "Articles for Deletion" discussion, then the article, either way, will have been assured a fair and knowledgeable hearing by editors familiar with the context. Thanks -- Tenebrae 05:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Don't let the weasels get you down. WP needs conscientious editors like yourself. With regards, T.

Well, looks like I fall on the other side of this one, but thanks for the heads up. You know WP:CMC has an ongoing-debates board somewhere, with AFDs listed, right? That'd be easier than catching users one-by-one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of speedy deletions

I'd like to point you to the wonderful world that is WP:AFD. Let consensus decide whether the article should be deleted or not. Regarding GearHead, you have to be totally unaware of the roguelike world to believe this game is non-notable. Indeed, as some anon helpfully points out, "GearHead has HOTU "Top Dog" status, and is one of the most popular contemporary roguelikes in group with Dwarf Fortress and DoomRL", which is truth. So, please, stick to the topics you're interested in, and leave roguelike articles to roguelike experts. Grue 08:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, check WP:CSD out to save you from future embarassment. GearHead is not "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content.". Grue 08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A slender program made available only a website isn't web content? Then what is?

Also, perhaps, would you have a reference to back up the claim that GearHead "is one of the most popular contemporary roguelikes"? It seems to me that that would be the sort of thing the article itself should claim, and with a reference to support it.

You seem to be overly willing to attack me, when the articles have the shortcomings. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm only attacking you because you don't seem to be following the estabilished procedure of article deletion. Play to the rules, and there will be no complaints from me. Grue 10:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Go reference these articles. You're wasting time on my talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HighwayCello gone?

I know this question isn't really appropriate, but do you know whatever happened to HighwayCello? He hasn't been on the editing circuit since late last year. I noticed this since the Charizard article hasn't been touched by him since his domination of it last year. Nintenboy01 15:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been noticably different without him. He just vanished from the face of the Earth... Maybe Skeletor (see AMIB's user page link for info) had something to do with it? Well, allow me to post what I wrote about that story on my keepers subpage here for your reference, I'm sure you'll treasure it dearly. ^_^

The twisted rage of Skeletor (against Highway) On Charizard's page, a user does some good-faith editing along with some other users, and HighwayCello reverts. The user's inner demon takes over, his body transforms and grows horns, and he assumes his true form as Skeletor. He first carves Charizard's page and shrieks at all Wikipedia editors in general, accusing us all of bigotry, violation of WP:OWN, and being just plain degenerate scum. He then attacks HighwayCello on his user page and on Charizard's talk page, and when A Man In Black reverts the war zone at Charizard's talk page, homey reposts his attack with an additional attack towards AMIB, calling him wretched and accusing him as Highway's sockpuppet. Highway is amused by this, of course, so he asks his apparent alter-ego for a biscuit while AMIB determines the user's secret identity. Then Skeletor assaults us with the reveal that Highway and SaturnYoshi are the members of Charizard's diet, and he also specifies that they are homosexuals, and Highway gets an idea and asks Yoshi out for a late-night rendezvous. Skeletor a week later rants at Highway on the latter's user page, then when that is reverted he re-attacks with an extra message to the reverter, and then as seen here, here, and here he tries his hardest to peel the literal skin off of everyone's favorite Cellist while keeping those who support Highway at bay. Then, for a long while, Highway is not heard from again... Could Skeletor have done something? No, it couldn't be - Skeletor shifts blame of Highway's disappearance to Charizard. The dragon ate the cellist!!!

Since then Skeletor has been writing about the Kanto Fried Combusken food chain of the Pokemon world. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume he's either lost interest or had more-important priorities. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so contributors tend to drift in and out. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe he was having real life problems of some sort, and Wikipedia wasn't helping. – Steel 22:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's possible. I was away from Wikipedia for a bit when he last edited. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Internet squads article

You have decided to delete Internet troll squads article on the grounds that it is "an attack paper" and OR. Could you clarify the following. (1) Was it attack against whom? Putin as AfD nominator claimed? Obviously, the artice did not attack Putin, since he was mentioned in this article only ones and as a third party. (2) What original research are you talking about?. The article was clearly based on multiple sources. This is obvious from the list of references. No one of this discussion participants challenged the reliability of any specific references using any reasonable arguments. How can this be OR? Moreover, there is already a similar article in Russian Wikipedia (a link has been included). The article has nothing to do with "conspiracy theories", since such "Internet squads" are well known to exist in China, as was noted by one of the discussion participants. Yes, the title was possibly bad. Then, let's rename the article or denote it as WP:RM. Furthermore, there was no consensus on deletion of this article among editors. If you suspect foul play during the voting (as you said), let's just rename the article and improve it. Would that be O'K? Thank you. Biophys 16:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Internet troll squads. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ilgiz 07:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personality

On the "Personality" section on Ciel (Mega Man Zero), I think the first section, which mentions Ciel as compassionate, should be taken out, my reasoning being that I believe it's directly copied from a mega man fansite, "Ciel Network" I think, the other sections deserve to remain in the article, the first two are backed up by the games, thus offical information, the last one, involving the potential feelings from Ciel to Zero, there is a crapload of images on the internet showing this pairing (it's fanart), the sheer amount of them means it has enough merit to be in the article. BassxForte 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's copyvio/plagiarism, delete it immediately.

Now, as for the "personality" section, fanart or direct observation of the games are not sources. Reliable publications are sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/_/m/User_talk%7EA_Man_In_Black_Archive20_a792.html"