User talk:A Man In Black

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Man In Black is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

Hello there. If you're going to leave me a comment (or yell at me, which is seeming increasingly common lately), please start a new header at the bottom of the page (or add to an old one), and sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of them.

If you're here about a specific page, be it an article, talk page, user talk page, AFD page, or whatever, PLEASE LINK THAT PAGE. Odds are I'm going to have to check back to it anyway to reply, and more than once someone has left a comment about an unspecified page and gotten no help from me because I had no idea what they were talking about.


LINK THE PAGE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.


IF YOU'RE COMING HERE TO REPLY TO A COMMENT I MADE ON ANOTHER PAGE, STOP, GO BACK TO THAT PAGE, AND REPLY THERE. For example, if I made a comment on your talk page and expect a reply, your talk page is on my watchlist. I'm not interested in starting parallel discussions on my talk page.

Archives:

A Dick on my talk page
A Dick on my talk page


Contents

[edit] Charizard

You did a great job checking Bulbasaur and find its problems. But I have some kinda feelings that Charizard is having similar problems, mind checking it out? TheBlazikenMaster 14:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation

I have filed a request for mediation over the Gundam edit warring at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam‎. Please sign your acceptance or rejection over this issue. hbdragon88 05:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Admin assistance needed

Since you're a proponent of limited fair use images, I have to ask for your help in Superman-Prime. User:CmdrClow, who uploads images without regard to actual fair use, refuses to give my argument credibility, as I am not an admin, therefore my argument is "opinion". The dispute is over this image, which is redundant with the image already used in the article.' 23:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pesky Pokes

Thanks for your feedback on the current issues on the Bulbasaur article. Initially I threaded responses to your points on the talk page, but have now unthreaded them (diff here). I took the liberty of labelling your points with A, B, C, etc. instead of bullet points to help editors relate comments about what has (and hasn't - we seem to have got to S so far) been done about it. I hope that is acceptable. Thanks again for your feedback there.--Barnyard animals 08:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion for something with regards to the Zeong article that I think you and I can actually agree on

Regardless of our content dispute, I would like to ask that the article be semi-protected from these IP addresses. They're all the same person and they're messing with the article because of my recent AfD nom of the White Privilege article. Jtrainor 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you link me to the diff of a destructive or vandalistic edit? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well no, I guess Jtrainor couldn't, because that would be impossible from your perspective - his edits all remove content from the article, and apparently that's a good thing nowadays.
At any rate, how is it not obvious that that user is engaging in a POINT campaign, which is against policy no matter what the criteria of the edits in question? Just look at the contributions of the four accounts he usually posts on, all of them attempted to influence the AfD referenced in the Zeong's talk page, and from there he's branched out to every Gundam article I've edited and consistently screwed with it. Nevermind using a sockpuppet to votestack, he's also been trying to evade 3RR violations with them (and somehow managed to break the rule on most of them regardless). I just did a sweeping cleanup of the Mk. II's article the other day, and within a day he's there. POINT is not even a realistically contestable accusation at this juncture; does this mean you're going to endorse his actions just because it sticks in our craws? MalikCarr 11:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He isn't disrupting Wikipedia by editing articles for style or tagging in-universe sections as such, so WP:POINT doesn't apply. He isn't making an clearly destructive edits, so WP:VAND doesn't apply. It looks like you have a content dispute with this user, so, no, I'm not going to semi-protect articles to exclude someone from disagreeing with you.

If you could link me an example of a destructive edit, I would reconsider. The usual "deletionist" rhetoric isn't going to fly here; hbdragon and Stephen c couldn't find any destructive edits either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear self

Don't forget to finish this at some point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Mobile Suit

Template:Mobile Suit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Conrad T. Pino 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Mobile Suit

Please help me understand, as one of the contributors, recent Template:Infobox Mobile Suit activity by expanding Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit#Ahem and thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 18:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Topic updated – Conrad T. Pino 01:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Topic updated – Conrad T. Pino 03:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Topic updated – Conrad T. Pino 10:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort, I do have the page watchlisted, and will keep up with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party is now active, and your input is requested. Further information is available at the Mediation location, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 23:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Destructoid

I just want to ask why the Destructoid page was deleted again. As you probably know, the page has been deleted before and it has been improved greatly since then. What could have possibly been wrong with the newest entry that you honestly thought it needed to be deleted? There are a handful of other video game websites that have entries similar to destructoid's, some with less information on them. I just don't understand why the destructoid page is under constant scrutiny and has been deleted with every chance possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NamelessTed (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also confused as to why the Destructoid article was deleted so soon after it was put up. Wardrox and I, among others, put a lot of work into it, and I had planned to put in much more time and effort in order to make it the best article it could be. I’ve been on Wikipedia for a while (see my contributions), but at the very least, you could have notified the article’s creator (wardrox) or myself (I made significant contributions to the article), in order to follow Wikipedia’s “BITE” policy. You simply marked the article for speedy deletion, instead of listing it as an AfD, which precluded any sort of deletion review where its contributors could defend keeping the article on Wikipedia. I understand that you would like more outside sources for the Destructoid article, and that is fine. That is, of course, necessary to assert notability. In any case, I am requesting that the article be undeleted so that we can have back what was originally there before you deleted it — the article may have still been a stub, but it was getting to become a decent article, and now that state of the Destructoid article is lost to all but the admins. If you undelete the article, its contributors will be able to improve it — in content and sourcing — in order to put it on the road to becoming a valid article that can stay on Wikipedia, instead of one that has been deleted six times. I am watching this page; you can respond here. Hope you are enjoying your Wikibreak! —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 23:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll toss it up on a subpage for you so you can work on it without fear of deletion. I honestly don't think it's notable, but I'd always be delighted to be proven wrong by you writing a well-sourced article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly? Just because you don't think it's notable doesn't mean it does not deserve an article. Kotaku and Joystiq have articles, and they're very similar to Destructoid. Yet, no one questions them being up, and they haven't been deleted NINE TIMES. Destructoid is, if anything, more notable especially since Microsoft released Destructoid branded downloadable content for Bomberman.Lucashoal 02:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
No, the fact that the community as a whole doen't feel Destructoid is notable (as shown in the second AFD) is notable is why it doesn't have an article. Deserving doesn't enter into it; either there are reliable third-party sources that have seen fit to comment on the subject and we have an article, or there aren't and we don't. The article I deleted lacked that sourcing.
Saying "Well, such-and-such blog has an article and it's very similar" doesn't really matter, because the quality that determines whether or not we have an article is the presence or absence of proper sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much, A Man In Black! I didn’t mean to sound as indignant as Lucashoal above me, and I hope my post didn’t come off that way. I simply felt that the article should not have been listed for speedy deletion, and I think that with a consistent input of time and effort, the Destructoid article can be made into a legitimate and valid Wikipedia article. However, I have to agree with Lucashoal in one respect: it has always seemed as if Wikipedia admins were on the warpath with regards to a Destructoid article, if you catch my drift. It has been deleted over and over again, while — as far as I know — the articles for Kotaku and Joystiq, which are Destructoid’s closest analogs on the web, have not been relentlessly removed from Wikipedia. I understand that perhaps the article should not cite posts from the blog itself, in order to prevent any COI allegations, but sometimes, posts from Destructoid are the best source for information on a particular topic (for example, Destructoid’s mission statement can obviously be found only on the site itself). But certainly, in order to prove notability, the article should incorporate as many citations from outside sources as possible. I will get to work on this — you can keep tabs on it, if you’d like — and I’m going to enlist the help of some fellow Destructoid readers who happen to be well-versed in the ways of Wikipedia as well. Ideally, we’ll be able to uphold the standards of Wikipedia to everyone’s liking. I won’t attempt to actually create the article until I feel that there’s something worth putting up (though you must admit that hundreds, if not thousands, of Wikipedia articles exist with much less content, and without any hint of sourcing to boot). Once again, I’d like to thank you sincerely for your cooperation; this gesture is very much appreciated, and I will make the most of it. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 04:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Future of WP:40k

Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Sight#Notable Cards

I have re-added most of section as a comment. If suitable sources cannot be found within about a week, I will go and cut any information that is still commented out, as well as infomation that is added without being properly sourced. You have brought up many good points about these sections in the past, but I still feel that they add to an article that they appear in--assuming that they are properly sourced. Thank you for your vigilance. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 72 hours for engaging in edit wars with User:Jtrainor, User:GundamsRus, and User:MalikCarr on multiple articles for an extended period of time. Mr.Z-man 03:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam update

Further to your queries, I'd like to inform you that the above RfM is now active. Anthøny 19:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] No content in Category:Second-generation Pokémon

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Second-generation Pokémon, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Second-generation Pokémon has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Second-generation Pokémon, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Makoto (Street Fighter)

I recently recreated the Makoto (Street Fighter) article, and you reverted it, saying: "(No sources, no content, why was this recreated)". I didn't add any sources because I used the ones that were already listed, and I added as much content as I could think of. I listed my reasons for recreating on the talk page, but you apparently didn't read it if you asked "why was this recreated". I'll see if there's anything else I can add, though I severely doubt it, and I'll restore it again unless you can convince me that Twelve (Street Fighter) is somehow more worthy of an article than Makoto. I don't understand the thought process of seeing my edit summary of "see talk page", not going there or going there and not reading it, then reverting it to a redirect. MonopolyMan (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Twelve article is equally awful, and probably should also be merged and redirected for the same reason. The sources in the Makoto article are primary sources, making the article largely a verbatim copy of copyrighted Capcom fan guides. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Street Fighter: The Later Years. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BackLash 17:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Could you undelete the revisions on 21 July 2007 from User:A Man In Black/Yeah? (specifically, about the lists of things you hate.) I'd like to use them on my userpage but I need to attribute it to you, and while I could just undelete it myself, it is your user page. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That page is dev/null for old revisions of my scratch pages and user page, but here's the list.

As I am a Wikipedia administrator, I am required to inform you that I hate these things:

  • Sunshine
  • Kittens
  • Puppies
  • Lava lamps, apparently
  • Happiness
  • Free speech
  • Lists of Jews
  • Your articles
  • Opposition to the Cabal
  • Dissent
  • Oranges
  • Wikipedia

- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Just for the record

I don't like you very much, and I doubt we will agree or get along on many topics, but at least you are no Durova, and I commend you for that. Jtrainor (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

??? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
O____________O! You didn't hear!? It's all over the Internet!

Google wikipedia durova, and also, check out this stuff, I think you'll find it an interesting read. The email itself is still out there too, though not on Wikipedia (lol redacted).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive330
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Durova
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova

I would give a short version, but, uh... there isn't one, really. Email me if you want a link to the email itself; it's redacted from Wikipedia and thus I can't post it, though I did find a place where it had been mirrored. Jtrainor (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave up on Wikipedia drama a long time ago. I don't really care any more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] sup

I want the people harassing me to go away. Do you particularly care if I have that little list on my user page? I assume you do since I've stated in various places that if you or AMIB complains, your names will be removed, but I feel that a straight yes/no answer will be the quickest way to get them to vanish one way or the other. Jtrainor (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A more direct question he's asking is do you want to be on a list called "List of people whom I think should not be able to use the edit button" on his userpage? — Save_Us_229 21:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It's no longer there, so I don't see any reason to argue about it, or bother JT about it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I shall take that as a yes. Jtrainor (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you contact me on AIM?

I believe you have my AIM SN. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I lost my AIM friends list a while ago. Can you refresh my memory? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it is in the history of this page now, please delete that when you get it (I tried doing selective deletion myself but am having connection issues and have always been not competent at selective restoration so I'll leave it to you). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rouge admins

I have nominated Category:Rouge admins for deletion. Please express your views on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't care, but please don't remove the cat from my page if it is deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] sigh

sigh--Docg 15:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

x2, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18#Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 12:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Hokutomaru

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hokutomaru, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hokutomaru. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Gear Solid FAR

Metal Gear Solid has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Pokeinfoboxexplained

Template:Pokeinfoboxexplained has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — bd2412 T 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A short note

I do not understand your recent hostilities towards video games or anything concerning them. I seems like you are not working with the users, or the information in articles that you blantantly delete, but you simply ignore both and go along with your deletes, such as the one where you deleted a certain article off of a series of articles about technology present in video game Half Life 2. It completely screwed the whole series of articles and created a large hole in the information. Why you do this is beyond me. -- Black Mercy (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Context please? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
He's presumably talking about Combine (Half-Life 2), but I believe he may have confused you with MarphyBlack (talk · contribs) as he has edited the article while you haven't (at least, I checked back to Dec. 06 and found no edits). hbdragon88 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Magnemite2.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Magnemite2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Chris Redfield

An editor has nominated Chris Redfield, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Redfield and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:47Z

[edit] World War Z

the WWZ article is getting overly long and fanwanked again i think it requires your delicate touch once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.101.29 (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

this page really needs your attention the problem is increasing expontionally see for your self [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.102.165 (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Metal Gear (disambiguation)

An editor has nominated Metal Gear (disambiguation), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal Gear (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt (redirect only) on DRV

I know you're not very active these days, but if you happen to see this message in time, your views at the 5th Daniel Brandt DRV (over the redirect, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 24) would be appreciated. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon

The list of participants of the Pokémon WikiProject is quite sizable, however, there is no way to determine which of whom are active contributors to that project. All participants in the list have been moved to Inactive. If you consider yourself to be an active member of the Pokémon WikiProject, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants and move your username to the Active section. Thank you. Useight (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:MG2SSCodec.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:MG2SSCodec.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfD nomination of Stoneskin gargoyle cape

I have nominated Stoneskin gargoyle cape (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. RichardΩ612 12:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Hey, AMIB. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sonic character

Hello, A Man In Black. A user from a project that I work very closely with, Wikiproject Sega, has decided to contest your deletion of certain statistics from the aforementioned template. I happen to agree with this user, whose name is Fairfieldfencer, but I don't exactly approve of the way he's going about it, getting himself involved in an edit war on the template. Instead, I would like it if the three of us (and maybe Kung Fu Man, who reverted Fairfieldfencer's changes before he reverted them back), could have a discussion on the matter and come to a collective decision instead of edit warring. We can talk about this at Wikiproject Sega, since this certainly is a concern that involves some of the project's highest-importance articles (Sonic himself is Top-Importance, others are high or mid). I do realize there is a talk page on the template, but I believe a discussion at Wikiproject Sega is the better move in this case. Thank you for listening, and you can reply on my talk page if you choose to opt-out of this invitation. I will be informing Fairfieldfencer of this discussion as well. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not participate in edit warring yourself, as you did with this edit [2]. Cigraphix (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A Man In Black, this is why I suggested we discuss this. Edit warring is going to lead everyone nowhere. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, huh. Didn't even see this.

Well, it's unencyclopedic crap, of a level of detail we don't even do for real people. Not much else to say. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logo galleries in TV station articles

It is the belief of myself and other concerned editors that you are abusing your administrative powers with regards to the inclusion of fair-use images in television station articles (i.e. logos). As those of us who contribute to the affected articles have stated, the images are included for historical and informational purposes, and are many of them are discussed within the article, therefore satisfying current Wikipedia guidelines. They aren't just there for decoration. However, you have continued to unilaterally delete the images in question without engaging in discussion, just as you did last year.

Wikipedia policy may say what it does, but it is NOT the LAW OF THE LAND. Another concerned editor recently discovered some relevant information on this topic, and I'd like to share that with you. From the Television Stations Wikiproject:

“ Prior to January 1, 1978, copyrights were in effect for a 28-year period. During the final year of the copyright, it could be renewed for another 28 years, but the onus was on the copyright holder to do so. Depending on renewal, copyrights expired after 28 or 56 years, and could not be renewed for a third period. In 1976, Congress passed copyright reform, effective in 1978, in which, for our purposes, i.e., works created for hire, the copyright is in effect for 100 years from the date the work was created, or 75 years from the date that the work was published, whichever occurs sooner. There is only one copyright period, and the copyright cannot be renewed.

Congress also passed a series of laws that in effect, extended those new copyright protections back to 1964 by means of an automatic renewal, but only if the work had a copyright notice. Per the non-free content guideline, for works created before 1978, if there is no copyright notice, there is no copyright, and the work is in the public domain.

Here's what it means to us: nearly all logos created 56 years ago or earlier are now in the public domain. Therefore, use of any such logo in Wikipedia no longer falls under the non-free standard, and should not be deleted, as it is not a non-free image. The exception are those logos still in use, such as the CBS Eye, which almost certainly are still protected under trademark laws. What's more, any logo created before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain.

Any logo from 1951 or before can have its licensing changed from copyrighted to public domain, and the fair use rationales can be deleted. Any logo from 1977 and earlier can also be changed to public domain, provided it is not still in use, and provided it does not have a copyright notice. dhett (talk • contribs) 02:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 ”

I think that it will be in your best interest to contact the talk page at WikiProject Television Stations, re-state your reasons for "enforcing" Wikipedia policy, and dialogue with us. Until that time arises, I am reverting your changes to KNBC and WGN-TV and restoring the logos. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now, these are tagged as non-free images. Until you can make a case to tag them as free (and I don't think your case is very good), they need to be treated as non-free images, with all the requisite bullshit. This hasn't changed since the last time we went round this merry-go-round.
Besides...
Wikipedia policy may say what it does, but it is NOT the LAW OF THE LAND.
It is the law of Wikipedia, though. If you don't disagree that Wikipedia policy prohibits these images, then I don't think we have any dispute here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You are a deletionist, contributing nothing useful to wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh. I'll manage to live with myself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you will. Deletionists live to delete. Thank you for your part in helping to reduce the quality of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I sincerely agree with Baseball Bugs, MIB truly knows how to show off his arrogance... I don't mean to offend anyone, but I just have to get it out!!! He is a real threat not only to nostalgia, but also to the preservation of old television logos for the public to see. It is obvious that he is against public interest. This has gone far enough. We cannot allow our work to be deleted, work of which put alot of time and effort!!! We need to make Wikipedia stronger and more popular, not make it weak and crappy!!! Bottom line: Deletionists are an abomination to any website trying to grow in success and popularity!!! WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) MON APR 28 2008 11:00 PM EDT | TUE APR 29 2008 3:00 AM UTC
Perhaps all of us are here to improve the encyclopedia? It's why I'm here, and what I strive to assume that everyone is here to do.
I am unhappy that my view of what the encyclopedia could best be is not wholly shared by others, but I realize that the chief difference is method, not intent.
Until you can demonstrate a similar understanding that those who disagree with you are not horrible ogres out to ruin the project, I'm not sure any discussion here can be productive. Even so, Wikipedia policy stands; I would prefer to help you best avoid the various potholes while getting as close to what you'd like as possible, but a consensus of wishful thinking does not override WP:FUC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletionists serve no useful purpose here. And kindly keep your obscenities to yourself. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Cute. Affix label, discard labeled. Let me know when you're ready to conduct adult conversation; I'll be around. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The fair use laws center on not harming the author of the item in question. Tell me how the logos on the WGN page harm WGN. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's fair use rules exist to protect Wikipedia's free redistribution. Aggregating copyrighted material incrementally harms that, for a variety of reasons. I would rather have a freer encyclopedia that does not serve as a logo museum than the reverse, and as WP's fair use rules are pretty much handed down by the WMF, so would they. Policy has been pretty stable on this matter.

I would encourage (and do my best on WP to aid) the creation of a project that is a museum of old promotional material for television stations, but it's important to realize that Wikipedia is not - and barring a change in copyright policy cannot be - that project. Attempts to graft such a project onto Wikipedia are going to be successful only insofar as they go unnoticed.

This isn't deletionism (although I'm exclusionist in other ways, particularly pertaining to fiction, but that's neither here nor there); it's a genuine desire to see an encyclopedia that can be given away freely or changed freely or redistributed freely, in both senses of the word "free". There are lots of things that it would be nice to have that we cannot have without compromising the freeness of this encyclopedia.

I get that you want these logos. I get why. I even sympathize; it sucks that Wikipedia policy requires that good-faith efforts to make this project more useful are needfully frustrated. But there are hoops you need to jump through, both procedural (source, rationale) and practical (how we can and cannot use non-free images) for Every Single Image, and sometimes there's just no saving an image. Jumping through procedural hoops doesn't mean you're done with the practical ones.

Now. You can keep calling me a deletionist and I can ignore your wholly empty rhetoric, or we can talk about alternatives that are not "Delete pretty much the lot as blatant violations of WP:FUC". You'll need to understand that having exhaustive galleries of every single logo, regardless of copyright status or incremental difference, just isn't going to be one of those alternatives.

Lemme know where we go from here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Try to tell me, in one sentence, rather than this incomprehensible megillah, how the presence of several old WGN logos harms WGN in any way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It harms Wikipedia because aggregating non-free material makes Wikipedia less free. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If WGN is not harmed (which you imply), then how can wikipedia be harmed? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Because WGN doesn't need to establish harm to demand that Wikipedia either remove their copyrighted material from the project (and thus all derivatives of the project that use that copyrighted material) or cease publication entirely. That's not a big deal for WMF's version of Wikipedia; they delete the images, the world goes on. Where it's a big deal is for derivatives that are not so easily modified, such as print versions. It's not out of the realm of possibility that an article on WGN or WNBC would find its way into a print version of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's fair use rules are more restrictive than "What can we do without being sued?" or "What is accepted as fair use in general?" because there's the responsibility to people downstream. A different project that didn't have that responsibility could relax its copyright rules. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That theoretical, "what if" argument could apply to any fair use item on wikipedia. Why is some of it OK and some not? Your argument should kill all of it, not just some of it selectively, because the risk is the same. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Because some of it meets a high fair-use standard that protects Wikipedia's freedom (basically, the cases where WMF can say, "Okay. Sue us. See how far it gets you") and some of it doesn't. The risk isn't all the same. A logo gallery for the sake of a logo gallery is aggregating copyrighted material; a logo illustrating a discussion of the rebranding of a station is illustrating points made in the text. The former is "Well, we're collecting your copyrighted material for the sake of displaying it", the latter is "we're republishing your copyrighted material in a limited capacity to illustrate relevant points." Former not okay, latter okay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, give me a quick rundown of the top 10 copyright violation injunctions that have been placed against wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No. See the explanations of the reasoning behind the policy above. You don't need to stick your hand into the fire once (let alone ten times) to figure out that it's hot and it will burn you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
In reality, I doubt wikipedia has ever been sued for copyright, nor is it ever likely to be. However, I'm beginning to understand the reasoning for the rules, even if I think they are based on total paranoia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sued? Nah. WMF gets formal and informal takedown notices all the time and is pretty wimpy about them (and rightly so). Stuff goes into the complaint ticket system and quietly gets deleted. The Lava Lamp article disappeared for a while because of a misunderstanding related to this. I used to remember what the complaint system was called, but if you asked on WP:AN, you could probably get more info about how it works and the volume and treatment of complaints.
As for paranoid, well. It depends on your standard of comparison. For websites in general, sure. But compared to some other free projects...well, even within WMF's projects, many Wikipedias (particularly the German one) eschew fair use material entirely; en.WP's rules are pretty moderate in comparison. (Note that de:Micky Maus doesn't even have a picture of Mickey Mouse.) Abusing en.WP's relatively lax rules for fair use only lends credence to the arguments to abolish FU on en.WP entirely. I don't want that.
Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia; it's a FREE encyclopedia, and that limits what you can do. Like I said, a logo museum is fine and good, but Wikipedia can't be that and free. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's a news flash: As long as wikipedia continues its policy of "any idiot can edit", it will never have credibility. Given that foundation, the other issues really don't matter. I stick with it because of the hope of making it better. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, okay? So, uh. WP's non-free media policy doesn't matter because Chewbacca is a Wookiee? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's paranoia about non-free content is in total contradiction to its "anyone can edit" policy. Until wikipedia decides that it cares about credibility, none of the other stuff matters. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) And the idea of using non-free content contradicts the Wikimedia policy of being a completely free encyclopedia. Your point? Most other Wikimedia projects don't even allow a single drop of fair use. They've disabled local uploading and you must upload everything from the Commons, which is free. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's where wikipedia's schizoid approach to things comes to the fore. They want free content, but if all they could have was free content, they would have to drop thousands of illustrations. So they set up this "fair use" warzone, where every non-free image gets banged around. If they had any integrity, they would either have free content only, or open it up... because just as wikipedia is "not censored", despite being read in high schools and junior high schools and so on, their disclaimer would be that "anyone can edit" and therefore they are not responsible for what the content happens to be at any given moment... and they could use the same argument if challenged on copyright issues. They end up straddling between two boats that are veering in different directions. It doesn't work. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It isn't schizoid; it's a compromise. Disavowing all responsibility would make the project much less free, as nobody could rely on it to not be copyright contaminated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You're arguing two fundamentally different things. We want information to be free, so we don't censor pictures or content. I don't think any judge will see "anyone can edit it" as a defense if someone does decide to sue Wikipedia for copyright infringement, especially when the use doesn't have a lot of commentary attached to it. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Its being a "compromise" is the reason why it's a constant battleground... and is no assurance against being sued eventually anyway, that's just "whistling in the graveyard" on the part of those who defend the compromise, as presumably it's a theory that's never been tested. If you do totally free content, then that problem goes away... but then you're left with a considerably less useful and less attractive product. It's straddling the fence... an electric fence, at that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup. It leads to a lot of deleting stuff people uploaded in good faith. It's a good compromise, but I wish compromises didn't have to be so compromising. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe if the issue was explained clearly, as you did earlier in this thread, there would be less hostility. They shouldn't have to wade through page after page, and they shouldn't have to get their Irish up because of the Nazi-like approach that these bot programs take. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The point being that the rules themselves are stated over and over, but the reasoning behind them is not. Believe it or not, not everyone is in tune with what the real issues are. If that could be summarized in a simple explanation by these bot programs, maybe that would reduce the warfare. They go out of their way to post a paragraph to obvious vandals gently explaining why they shouldn't vandalize. Would that they would treat "good faith" editors the same way rather than bringing the hammer down on them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That's my fault. I have a tendency to ascribe the attributes of the first person to speak up on a subject (Rollo, in this case) to everyone who has the same stated view. I apologize. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
But it's not you in particular. It's every "deletionist" on here! They assume that the reader should somehow already know the reasoning behind it, or they send the reader to some megillah that makes no sense. You explained the issue in a paragraph. Why can't they do that, as a standard practice, and avoid a lot of these battles? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I assume Rollo should know the reasoning behind it because we had this whole row before, where I did explain the reasoning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The commentary issue

I'm trying to figure out how much is enough commentary that a logo gallery would be appropriate fair use. Figure it should outline some of the history behind it in a concise manner. Blueboy96 22:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point I don't know. I was fairly sure where the line was before, and have been quite clearly shown my error in that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FICT

I would be grateful if you would join in the discussion about the preamble to the Fiction guideline at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Proposed_changes_to_the_preamble, as I agree with the change you are proposing.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re your comment on the arbcom case thing

Ever since I've started editing at Allegations of state terrorism against the US, my Wikipedia experience has become more and more wierd. I never expected to find myself on the same side of such editors as JzG and MONGO (about who I had only heard bad things, but now actually like), and I never expected to find myself dealing with people so disconnected from reality that I can't find a common point of reference at all to discuss things with them.

I appreciate your comment. When I mentioned it to MalikCarr, he insisted that Wikipedia is becoming Bizzaro Wikipedia. Jtrainor (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two kinds of people on Wikipedia: people who divide everyone into two irreconcilable camps, and those who don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UberHeadbanger

Hello, my name is UberHeadbanger, I was reported by a user named Anger22 for using a sock puppet. I do not use any different account or IP adress and I would just like to clarify that. I do not know where Anger22 came up with this. Long story short, he was changing some of the information I had written on the Heavy metal page, so I asked him to stop, but he continued, so I rewrote to him, telling him once again to stop. He afterwards sent me a message telling me I used many accounts (which I do not) and other violations that were false, and this is how I basically got suspected of using a sock puppet. It happens that I sometimes write messages when I am not on logged in, but not using a different IP address. Anyways, the whole point of him reporting me as having many accounts was due to me accusing him of vandalising my work (which I admit I was to accuse him of such) but, I did not report him. I'd like to have more clarifications about this second account I would be possessing. Thank you very much. UberHeadbanger 20:18, 29 May 2008 (EST)

I would not be the best one to consult for advice on this subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost Babel move

I was kinda pondering on doing the same thing as well, considering we have articles on Castlevania (Nintendo 64) and Mega Man V (Game Boy), and not on Akumajo Dracula Mokushiroku and Rockman World V. The only objection I had that prevented me from doing that is that Metal Gear: Ghost Babel is easier to disambiguate than Metal Gear Solid (Game Boy). Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I kind of had a feeling it wouldn't be controversial. I plan to update links as I find them or feel like it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hi

i made an edit to the lead of Adnan Oktar but the subsection following it become somewhat skewed and is now part of the lead or something. just wondering if you know what in the wikicodes might have caused this? thnx. ephix (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably not the best one to ask about this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MGS4 Spoilers

The game has broken its release date and there's already lots of spoilers in the internet? Should we allow spoilers now or wait until the game's release in four days? Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way. The article isn't going to be of much use either way for a couple weeks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)