User talk:MalikCarr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, MalikCarr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  TomStar81 (Talk) 09:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] metalocalypse trivia

would you support Metalocalypse trivia plz .thank you very much

[edit] Personal attacks

Stop Calling users "vandals" without any policy to back you up is considered a personal attack, and is a blockable offense. I recommend you stop, and enjoy editing at Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this some kind of a joke? "Enjoy editing at Wikipedia"? You blank sections of an article, then accuse me of violating Wikipedia policies? Where do you get off, anyway? MalikCarr 00:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't read your latest rant on the Mario Kart 64 talk page before I made the above comment; I was operating under the incorrect guise that you were civil and could be reasoned with. You can blank entire sections of that article to your heart's content, I'll be fine with forgetting it even exists if you agree to never message me again. MalikCarr 01:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You do a great job humoring me. For instance, you do not act civil, and yet you demand that everyone else treat you with the utmost respect, as if you were superior to them in any and all ways. Ironically, one who accuses another of violating policy is mortified by the idea of being accused of it himself (even though the accusation of policy violation by the offended is structurally unsound and thusly proves the other person's accusation). You may not enjoy Wikipedia if you confront people by name calling when they make an edit to an article that you object to. One is not supposed to bite the newbie, but you have the arrogance of someone who has actually earned the right to be arrogant about themselves. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
What kind of uncivil person offers a parley to someone they disagree with? It's not my fault you decided to continue your destructive efforts against that article well after I'd offered to end this revert war before it got too far off the ground. It is laughable to suggest that since I accused you of violating a Wikipedia policy, and, in your mind, it was "structurally unsound", that means that your accusation must be correct. A default setting, if you will. Ho ho. As for the rest of your argument, it isn't even worth debating. Now, are you going to let me have some peace or would you honestly prefer I go find a bunch of dorks who happen to think the Mario Kart 64 article is perfect at the revert? The whole "concensus, not a vote" aspect of Wikipedia's democracy is such a farce, it would prove an excellent point too. But let's not do that, okay? I have bigger things to worry about that your meatheaded opinion of how a N64 article should look. Like some people with an axe to grind nominating dozens of articles for deletion because they do not believe they have real-world notability. MalikCarr 20:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, almost forgot. After calling me a "child" "uneducated" and making remarks to the effect of "shouldn't be allowed to post on edit Wikipedia" what grounds have you got to stand on to say I've made personal attacks against you by suggesting vandalism? MalikCarr 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're so civil to offer a parley AND declare that I am intentionally "doing damage" to an article with the intent of lowering its quality. And... are you daft? So when you were declaring me as a vandal, you didn't accuse me of violating WP:VAND? And what the Hell? Wikipedia is not a democracy, people present arguments and debate various things. Even if you have the majority of people gunning for a bunch of lists (which the FAC discourages) on this article, people aspiring to make the article - you know - GOOD, will say "well, you know, we like good articles, not bad ones". Simple as that. And meatheaded? You sure are being civil. Are you also going to tell me to "stifle it, dingbat"?
The difference is that you ARE uneducated and a child of Wikipedia. You don't know most Wikipedia policies and don't seem to understand the ones you know. You call people vandals for making edits you disagree with. What am I supposed to do, tell you how educated you are in Wikipedia policy? And you are being a child by calling names over a disagreement. And you, who has called my opinion "meatheaded", that my edits are destructive (not because they are, but because my edits make you upset). I've helped feature five articles - Wario, Henry Fonda, Katamari Damacy, Lakitu, and Cat. I believe Wario and Lakitu reached the FARC, but Katamari has not. You've never featured a game article - heck, I bet you've never been involved in featuring AN article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
So you've decided to drop the article and start trolling my user page now? That's amazing, a true testament we can add to your belt of achievements. What is this, SomethingAwful's forums transplanted into Wikipedia? In any case, you've already got me off your article, isn't that enough? Or am I going to have to deal with you until I register a new account? MalikCarr 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your AfD comments

Re: your comment [1]. It's pretty clear that you intent the term "deletionist" to refer to all those opposing your opinion in a derogatory manner. I've reviewed the comments by Edward321 as you suggested, and see nothing to support the argument that WP policies and guidelines require that this article be kept. Perhaps you could try to be more clear in making your point, and a little less ad hominem, and I could understand what it is you are trying to say. Pete.Hurd 03:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems I'm not alone in thinking this [2]. Pete.Hurd 03:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, second that from Pete Hurd. I have no objection to there being articles on Gundam in Wikipedia: all I have done is nominate for deletion those ones which should not be in Wikipedia, and I suspect you and I would largely agree on what those articles are. Please also note WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND: this is not a war between so-called "inclusionists" and "deletionists" ,despite what it says at mechatalk. Moreschi Deletion! 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
How is it that I am supposed to ignore overtures from "the other side" when the ranks of the Wikipedians who march lock-step with the AfD creator are also calling for WikiProject Gundam to be deleted as well? 'Tis not to say there aren't idiots on our side by any stretch of the imagination, because there are, but between two bad arguments the difference is that one is in favor of going "Ministry of Information" on the collective asses of a bunch of articles, while the other isn't. I tend to have a fairly conservative mind when it comes to making sweeping changes, ergo I tend to believe in inaction over hasty action. Is that so wrong? MalikCarr 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe two people - probably just 1 - have called for WP:GUNDAM to be deleted, none of which have any association with me. Moreschi Deletion! 20:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not yet convinced that there is an organized movement among the deletionists in this aspect, but even if they're few in number, as we've seen, it doesn't take many "delete"s to get an article blanked. I think you should know that better than anyone. MalikCarr 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I've been here a while. The chance of WP:GUNDAM getting deleted is nil, because articles like Gundam and an admittedly limited amount of others are and should be in Wikipedia. You also might like to read WP:AGF and WP:TINC to clarify a few things. Moreschi Deletion! 21:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC) And the only axe I, or any other editor for that matter, has is the improving-the-encyclopedia-axe. That's what AGF is about. Moreschi Deletion! 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I've read Assume Good Faith so many times my eyes are beginning to bleed just looking at it. The charming A Link To The Past and the tussel we've had over a certain video game article comes to mind. At any rate, no matter how often I "assume good faith" that doesn't change the effects of certain heavy-handed deletions I've encountered before. Like a movement to delete the small, concise list of ships in Homeworld because video game articles are not supposed to be "strategy guides," nevermind that Half-Life 2, a featured article, not only has lists of weapons and enemies, but also lists their health, weapon damage and console commands to add or remove them mid-game. Mindboggling. MalikCarr 21:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That bunch of links to pages with only Amazon.com links

Just so you know.

3 were total crap with less than 500 ghits total , and I put speedy tags on all of them. 1 was linked to a barely notable band, so I prodded it. 1 was a blasted straight-out copyvio. 2 were alright, just unsourced, so I sourced and edited them. 1 (the Star Trek one) was about books, so Amazon links were alright.

While I'm sure this will possibly frustrate you, your actions in pointing these out did help find a copyright violation. Feel free to show many any more such offending material. If it's sourceable, I will source it, and if it isn't, I'll nominate it for deletion. I apply the same rules to all articles. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're on the topic of Ghits, I suggest you should review this page. While it is not a Wikipedia policy, I have referenced this page often in deletion proceedings on both the pro and con side, and many I've worked with here before find it to be a good piece of material. Google hits should not be a litmus test for an article's notability. MalikCarr 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
While I agree (and I've used that page a long time) when I'm up against something that has not a single source I can find either online or in my library (which is pretty large) and when all the mentions seem to be trivial, it can sort wheat from chaff. If you find an author who has 4 solid sources but only 500 ghits, he's notable and good. If you find an author who has 350,000 ghits and no good sources, I hesitate to say he isn't notable. When you find no sources and no ghits, well..it's much harder to find examples where neither are around and yet the subject is encyclopedic. Not impossible, but harder. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 10:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on Moreschi's RfA...

..particularly this one, are skirting the edges of civility, good faith, and my patience. Last time I checked, WP:GUNDAM had about 12 core and maybe 7 or 8 occasional members. WP:SCISSORS has 24 members, and about 4 or 5 occasionals. If this was a coordinated attack on WP:GUNDAM by "rabid deletionists", not a single article would survive, I assure you.

Instead , I would suggest that the articles (at least the one's *I* have participated in) simply don't meet standards, and I don't think they ever will. I'll try to give you an example of what I mean. Take the main article, Gundam. The second paragraph, here, hasn't got a single source, but makes no less than 5 major assertions, such as "turning point in the history", "credited for inspiring the Real Robot genre",etc. Obviously, despite the fact that the article has no good sourcing, no one is going to nominate it. If they did, it would clearly be for the purposes of being a disruptive idiot, since Gundam, as a whole, *is* notable.

When we get to the major armored suits and weapons, again, leeway is available. I can't stand Japanamation and even I know what the RX-78 Gundam represents. But for minor things, such as (and no, I won't nom it for deletion)MSN-03 Jagd Doga, it's hard to call. The article has no sources, and it has nothing to go by. With others, like MS-14 Gelgoog, there isn't a single reason why they aren't sourced -- I KNOW there are sources. It's been here since 2004. Why?

I'm not the one nominating them for deletion. Accusations towards an entire Wikiproject are very severe, and it implies you aren't reading what our WP is about. Please consider what you are saying and what the deletion debates are about. Make copies of the articles, source them in your userspace or offline, then put them back. Once sourced, properly, wikified, etc, they can't be deleted. But blanket statements will only end up turning people against you and drawing some of the REALLY trigger happy deletionists along. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 11:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've assumed good faith since the beginning of this ridiculous crusade, but after a month of deletions from the same group of people and admins closing discussions without giving an ounce of merit to dissenting arguments, good faith is high-impossible to assume now. There's also the fact that Moreschi commented that he was "done nominating AfDs" in WP:Gundam's talk page, which he has been fairly honest about. Now he just endorses MER-C's AfDs, and as an admin, I can see him closing them with just as little regard for dissenting opinion as has been given by other admins. Is it a cabal? An organized movement? I don't know, I haven't got enough proof to assert that. But dammit it sure acts like one.
Additionally, per your WP:SCISSORS comment: intimidation may work on some editors, but you'll have to do better than that to get me to crawl back into my hole. MalikCarr 18:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Jesus Christ. I wasn't trying to intimdate you. I'm trying to show you that if there was a conspiracy against you it would certainly be so overwhelmingly obvious that someone else could see it. You are not assuming the slightest bit of good faith towards anyone who opposes you. That is not acceptible. I'm trying to be as civil as I can and DISCUSS things while you only seem interested in slandering everyone as violating process and deleting Gundam articles out of some kind of idea that you're being persecuted. Stop it. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
And so it begins with the personal attacks. Honestly, the deletionists are all the same... MalikCarr 23:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Point out the personal attack. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 23:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, I'm a slanderer? That wasn't so hard to point out, was it? MalikCarr 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, why don't you take it to the administrator's notice board, then? Mm? You claim that admins are closing AfD and violating process, you claim there's a conspiracy of deletionists, and when I say you are accusing people of things without any proof and making statements that are both untrue AND misreprentative, you say it's a personal attack. Clearly, if you're right, then someone should know about this. I've tried to engage you to discuss the issue, and the sourcing, and all you want to seem to do is insult people and claim it's a vast deletionist cabal conspiracy. See what others who have no stake in this have to say, I strongly suspect you'll fail the laugh test pretty badly. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to put words in my mouth now as well? I never have, and do not intend now, to take this to an "administrator's notice board," no matter how snotty and elitist you are behaving in this inequity. I have not claimed that admins are closing AfDs and violating process; I have claimed that admins are closing AfDs in bad faith. I have not claimed that there is a conspiracy of deletionists; I have claimed that the activities of certain users resemble conspiracy nuts' ramblings due to their conduct. And here you go accusing me of slander... tell you what, I just won't debate this issue with you any further. It's not worth the effort. Have a swell day. MalikCarr 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Metalocalypse Confusion


Ummm sorry dude I think you have me mixed up with someone else... I didnt delete the whole character esction I just changed one thing pickles did...--MetalFleur 02:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow you're right... I'm sorry dude one of my friends must have messed around with my account or something when I wasn't looking or something. I really don't remember deleting all that. Sorry again. I guess Ill watch what Im doing better or something.   --MetalFleur 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:MSN-03.QP.Sh.GIF)

Thanks for uploading Image:MSN-03.QP.Sh.GIF. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

Have you read WP:FICT or WP:WAF? These articles need the kind of cleanup described in those guidelines. I've tried to start in on this in Sazabi, Zeong, and Jagd Doga, only to see blank reverts and claims of ownership from both you and Jtrainor.

Take this revert.

  1. You replace an infobox designed based on the advice at WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes with one filled with in-universe trivia
  2. You change the headers from level 2 to level 3, when there is no level 2 header to begin with
  3. You remove the italics for "Mobile Suit Gundam", the proper name of a longform work

I am trying to improve these articles. You don't have to like it, but I don't appreciate this obstructionism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have difficulty assuming good faith on your part given our past history on topics of this nature. Deleting easily sourceable information, discarding the many sources and references that I have assembled into these articles as inconsequential, and making threats as to the future of these articles are not improvements, no matter how you try to dress them up, and no matter how many Wikipedia policies you use to justify these actions. I've seen this type of "strategic" editing to articles as a vehicle for deletion down the road before. MalikCarr 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I haven't discarded a single source or reference, and the only data I've discarded is fictional weights and lengths and specific fictional armaments and other fansite statistics.
I'm not strategically editing these articles to prepare them for deletion. It's not assuming good faith to accuse me of conspiring to delete your articles. I'm trying to improve these articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Everything on this page can be sourced to an official reference. Referring to those figures as "fansite statistics" is the type of blatant ignorance on the part of the deletionist camp that makes it so easy to justify wholesale "shotgunning" of articles when the time is right.
I should also make note that implications as to the intellect of the inclusionist camp (with regards to knowledge of Wikipedia policies) and inferences of ignorance thereof are a hallmark of the deletionist camp. Reviewing any of the AfD debates for other articles of a similar nature can reveal that to even a casual observer.
If you truly want to help improve an article, as you claim, why not attempt to find more sources for it, or paste in additional content (all result in a positive flow of information, which is good for articles), rather than haphazardly deleting content and media because you believe it is "trivia" and pasting fistloads of templates here and there with questionable backing? I'd rather not make any more enemies among established Wikipedians, but you aren't really helping here. MalikCarr 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not blatant ignorance on the part of the deletionist camp. It's the plain-language advice of WP:WAF.

You seem to want to make this out as some glorious struggle. It's not. Right now, I'm removing the obvious problems, like unencyclopedic in-universe description, bad non-free images, and other fansite material not appropriate to a general purpose encyclopedia. Again, I am trying to improve these articles.

You don't get to decide that my grammatical edits, infobox cleanup (backed by WP:WAF), header fixes, and cleanup tags aren't appropriate because I'm somehow your enemy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's a cleanup now, is it? How many injustices have been committed against articles, big and small, in the name of "cleanup"? Let's say, for example, that I happen to believe the in-game statistics of all the items on this page are "in-universe trivia", or better yet, constitutes a "game guide," so I'm just going to go blank all of those and call it a "cleanup." Is Wikipedia better for this? Have I improved the article, and by association, the project as a whole? No. All I've done is hacked a good deal of an article's content off, because I didn't like it.
I apologize if there were grammatical edits that I've reverted. As an English major, I appreciate good grammar and sentence structure. The "take no prisoners" nature of this conflict between inclusionist and deletionist forces has created collateral damage on all sides, and this happens to be one of them. I'll fix that after this incident is over.
The article's headers and horizontal rules were discombobulated when a bot came by and removed all the spoiler tags. Since bots usually know what they're doing, I figured this was part of the policy. I liked it better with the rules in place, so if that was somehow erroneous on its part, I'd be happy to put them back in.
Lastly, whom are you to decide what I am and am not allowed to decide? Are you the decider? The only people who don't believe that there is a conflict, strife, if you will, between inclusionist and deletionist camps are the deletionists themselves, which history can show to be a calculated maneuver. What better way to avoid conflict that for one party to convince the other that they are not at war? It allows the aggressor party to skip the ugly parts (the revert wars, prods and nominations) and get right to the good stuff (the sweet, sweet wholesale destruction of "non-notable" articles). MalikCarr 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? "Take no prisoners"? Conflict? Calculated manuevers? You seem to be under the impression that there's some grand struggle, but I assure you that it exists only in your imagination.

I found some articles that ignore WP:WAF, WP:FICT, and WP:FUC. I'm trying to fix this. Please don't be unnecessarily obstructionist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That "ignorance" is contested. Furthermore, you just "found" some articles that allegedly violate policies? It's just a coincidence that these all happen to be of the same subject, and all happen to have had their "encyclopedic" qualities called into question, and all happen to have been heavily edited, sourced and cleaned up by yours truly? I'm not buying it. MalikCarr 20:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I started at Zaku II, which I looked up because I was watching MS 08th Team and nerding out. Then I saw it was in DREADFUL condition, as well as on AFD. I figured that these articles deserve better, so I started nosing around on the massive (ugly, redundant...it needs to be redesigned and slimmed and linted for redundant links) nav template at the bottom of the page, and decided some cleanup was in order. I wouldn't be fiddling with these articles if I weren't a fan. I assume you're a fan, too, which is why you've been working on these articles, too. That's usually how people end up editing such articles. If I just wanted to delete things, as you seem to imply, I could get my fill of that on newpage patrol. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait just one minute, you're calling the notability and use of non-free content into question now? You're kidding me. This must be some kind of joke. MalikCarr 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I've always patrolled non-free images heavily. I believe strongly we should be able to use fair-use images, but the cost of doing that is vigilance against inappropriate use of non-free content. This isn't new. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Now you've completely lost me. Am I being accused of copyright infringement now? MalikCarr 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No. I'm a bit perplexed at you bringing up non-free content in the first place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Errr... you cited WP:FUC, I presumed it was relevant to the current topic. MalikCarr 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh! The articles generally have far more non-free images than can be reasonably justified. Zaku II is the worst offender I've found, as it has dozens of images, often simply of essentially the same model painted different colors. Additionally, the images have poor sources, poor or entirely missing fair-use rationales, and generally need to be downscaled to the same resolution as they're used in the articles. It's not the end of the world, just another bit of cleanup that needs to be done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your talk page comment. Well, I got "warned" and "flamed" on the AN/I for broaching AMIB's edit warring and other misbehavior. (Such as the use of rollback to blank your comment in the WikiProject which is seriously sketchy.) Of course, I got attacked and he just said the same old spiel about how he's right despite clear consensus on the pages he's warring on being against him. I saw a pretty good rewrite of WAF that I'd happily support since WAF is a piece of stinking shit which noone follows anyways. Kyaa the Catlord 07:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't use rollback to remove any comments on WT:GUNDAM. Rollback give a message like "Reverted edits by user to version by user from time". I just reverted it by hand, so I could give an edit summary. Removing comments that aren't blatant vandalism ("AZSFAGLE" or "AMIB is a poopyhead") from a talk page merits more than rollback autosummary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you consider my reverting of your edit on Sazabi as "blatant vandalism". Have a nice day. Kyaa the Catlord 07:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Got me there, I really shouldn't use admin rollback in content disputes. It's a bad habit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You did it again, btw. :P Kyaa the Catlord 08:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I bite my nails, too, and forget to shave on my day off. I am a creature of bad habits. I'm not sure what to put for an edit summary when I've just been reverted with "rv."
I do think the discussion at WT:GUNDAM has the potential to be productive, despite its unfortunate beginning. I'd appreciate further comment from either of you two, there. Or Jtrainor, but I'm afraid he's thrown up his hands with the whole thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:MSN-03.Sh.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:MSN-03.Sh.GIF. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:MSN-04.Sh.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:MSN-04.Sh.GIF. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Man In Black, etc

AMIB isn't as bad as you think, and, as is clear from the history of those MSN-0X articles he's not letting this drop. Please at least try and get along; there's no deletionist cabal out to get your articles. – Steel 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel there's just too much circumstantial evidence to look the other way as WP:AGF would like us to do. Regardless, AMIB believes he is following consensus, and Jtrainor and I believe we are doing the same, ergo I see no reason to back down just because he's an administrator. I'm not afraid of being blocked; someone else will take my place. MalikCarr 21:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, when someone tries to martyr themself, it has the exact opposite effect. Once a user has been blocked for something, administrators are more willing to block for that same offense in the future. That said, I really don't want you blocked.

I'm really frustrated with you, though. You've reverted all of my edits to the articles you see as yours, no matter what the edit or what the reasoning. Such edits have included copyedits, expansions of the article, restructuring of the article, and removal of inappropriate non-free images, in addition to this whole thing with the infoboxes.

I don't want to delete or redirect these articles. When I want to delete an article, you'll know, because there will be an AFD or prod tag on it. Instead, I want to clean out the deadwood in the hopes of getting these articles up to Good Article or Featured Article status. Part of doing that is cleaning out excessive non-free images, disposing of copyright violations, and generally bringing the articles up to WP:WAF standards. This is a necessary part of improving articlees on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I cannot bring these articles up to FA status on my own, as I cannot read Japanese sources. All I can do is do cleanup and rewriting based on those sources I can read.

I am disappointed to see this cleanup reverted en bloc, accusing me of trying to accomplish something my edits cannot possibly accomplish. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Cleanup" was what I did earlier this year to avoid having these articles slashed and burned in the great conflagration under Moreschi and MER-C. You have an exceptionally draconian interpretation of a few critical Wikipedia policies, and seek to "clean up" this little corner of the project to that interpretation. I happen to disagree with your views on those policies; "cleanup" to you is content removal and degradation of quality to me. You cite your precedents, I cite mine, we argue and revert back and forth endlessly.
You've tried very hard to package your editing as being productive, in line with policy, and to make the topics in question better for the project in general. The amount of effort alone is commendable. However, from my perspective, the only constructive edits you've made are to italicize certain things in headers and the body of the text, and as you've noticed, I've kept those in my reverts.
Perhaps I was wrong about you in the first place. Though you certainly enjoy deleting things, you at least try to fix them first (no matter how much I disagree with your interpretation of "fixing"), which the traditional deletionist does not. Could we call you a neo-deletionist? A quasi-deletionist? A centrist with deletionist leanings? I could go on, but meh.
Point to be, our interpretations of the policies in question are vastly different, and while I'd be willing to continue debate on the topic, I'm not just going to sit back while the articles are cleaned up/crappified and the frivolous/absolutely necessary images tagged and deleted. MalikCarr 00:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you be amenable to mediation? I think you'll find that my interpretation of WP:WAF isn't as draconian or uncommon as you think. I also think you've vastly overestimated my "deletionist" tendencies; I spent a year trying to figure out some way to make individual Pokemon species articles work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support finding an an impartial mediator to help. If things continue as they have all three of you will end up in the shitter and the article will stabilise in a state none of you want it.
On a side note, Malik, can we ease up on the deletionist stuff? AMIB as far as I know hasn't called you anything recently and it doesn't create a brilliant environment for reasonable discussion. – Steel 14:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MSN-03.QP.Sh.GIF and WP:FUC

We can't keep doing this. I don't want a fight with you, and I don't like blocking people.

You can't play power games over copyright issues, though. Picking a fight over copyright issues means you will lose and Wikipedia will lose your contributions.

Image:MSN-03.QP.Sh.GIF was a fairly straightforward violation of WP:FUC 3a. It was the exact same design with different colors and trivial appearance differences. There isn't a possible fair-use rationale for it, as another image will have exactly the same reason for inclusion, unless you planned to replace Image:MSN-03.Sh.GIF with it.

I don't want to chase you away from these articles. I simply want to impress upon you that copyright issues are not lightly ignored. To this end, you have been blocked for 24 hours. You are welcome and encouraged to return to Wikipedia when the block expires, but do not reupload Image:MSN-03.QP.Sh.GIF unless you are prepared to deal with its issues regarding WP:FUC 3a. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you have decided you are the sole arbiter of the "trivial" differences in image. I happen to believe it is critically important to showcase the only two known versions of this machine. The red one showcases both the standard head design and the unique weapon it handles. Given that there are two and only two iterations of this machine, I believe it is critically important that this article represent both.
In any case, you can continue to block my attempts to improve these articles if you so desire - you're an administrator, that's your privilege. I've read WP:FUC thoroughly, and have found no rule or section mandating "one image per article", and the fact that you've decided to support your interpretation of it by blocking me simply reinforces my long-standing points about the deletionist camp. Oh well, I suppose I've brought this on myself for thinking one deletionist was any different from another. MalikCarr 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The unique weapon and head that aren't mentioned anywhere in the article. I'm willing to discuss this with you further, but fighting about it by reuploading that image is not going to end well.
I don't intend to block your attempts to improve the articles. I am disappointed that you have seen fit to block my attempts, however, and that you persist in describing any of my efforts as well as myself as part of a "deletionist camp." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Your reading comprehension is quite selective. It has been noted that there were only two units, and each one was unique to the other by the differences I have listed. MalikCarr 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's the right track, as long as you ditch the personal remarks.
I've blocked you for reuploading that image once again. I had hoped that you would understand the gravity, if not necessarily the necessity, after the first time.
Please take a day to cool down, and we can further discuss the image then. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, check this out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mosquera%5Crationale

This looks extremely useful. Jtrainor 03:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Msn-02 Perfect Zeong.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Msn-02 Perfect Zeong.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Msn-02 Perfect Zeong.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Msn-02 Perfect Zeong.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction guidelines

You might want to make your views known on the notability guidelines for fiction. (See WP:Anime for a link). Kyaa the Catlord 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've provided my thoughts. Thanks for the heads up. MalikCarr 05:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. :P Plenty of OOU info, seems rather balanced. Well done. Kyaa the Catlord 17:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The "meat puppetry" is so obvious as well. This is why I was quitting this shithole of an "encyclopedia". Kyaa the Catlord 07:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

To whom are you replying here? G.A.S 07:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I was replying to Ned Scott - when I started typing that your message wasn't posted yet, so I apologize for the lack of continuity. MalikCarr 22:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Msn-02 Perfect Zeong.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Msn-02 Perfect Zeong.jpg. 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. BetacommandBot 17:49, 10 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] Please clarify

To whom did you reply here? Please clarify the statement. G.A.S 09:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott and I continue to see unevenly on this issue. If you thought I was targeting you in this regard, please understand that was not my intention. Furthermore, you've got one of the less draconian policy candidates currently being suggested, which I'd much rather see go into effect than the type of language that TTN and the rest are espousing. MalikCarr 10:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I suspected you replied to someone else, but the positioning of the text had me wondering. I usually name to whom I am replying in the edit summary if there can be any doubt. Regards, G.A.S 10:47, 22 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 04:16, 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] Name calling

Please start WP:GOODFAITH and stop name calling. Your repeated reverts of well explained, valid edits of MSN-02 Zeong with no explanation are disruptive and not helping to produce a good Wikipedia Article.207.69.137.7 13:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black! Jtrainor 20:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:ConanmkII.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ConanmkII.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Mobile Suit

Please help me understand, as suggested by User:Jtrainor, recent Template:Infobox Mobile Suit activity by expanding Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit#Ahem and thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 19:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Topic updated – Conrad T. Pino 01:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Topic updated – Conrad T. Pino 03:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Topic updated – Conrad T. Pino 10:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you replied under Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit#Visual look inspection without identifying which of the 3 nominees your comment covered. Would you mind going back and moving your comment under the applicable nominees (Nominated by history, Nominated by A Man In Black, Nominated by MalikCarr)? – Conrad T. Pino 22:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank YOU and tag you're IT.  :) :)  Conrad T. Pino 00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant the public Wikipedia:Sandbox or one within your user space like User:MalikCarr/sandbox. – Conrad T. Pino 02:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfM

I stand by my edits. AGK is an elected member of the Mediation Committee (according to his userpage), and since I've never participated in mediation before, I can only assume that the removal of talk page comments to a Discussion subpage is the convention for RfMs. Ask about it with him, don't shoot the messenger. hbdragon88 22:59, 3 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] In-Universe perspective

You have a serious misconception of what 'in-universe' perspective means if you think the current version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MSM-10_Zock&oldid=169031766 of MSM-10 Zock does not seriously violate WP:writing about fiction; WP:problems with in - universe perspective. Please review the guidelines before claiming articles are not in violation. The same applies to the other articles that you keep removing the {in universe} tags from without correcting the WP:WaF concerns. Removing tags for {in universe} or {citation needed}, without actually correcting the problem, is vandalism. Please stop this practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.23 (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And you have a serious problem with WP:POINT, WP:3RR and signing your own posts. Troll somewhere else, I'm not going to deal with your nonconstructive edits until you start acting in a responsible and civil manner. MalikCarr 00:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Tagging for WP violations is NOT unconstructive editing.
Your entire editing history with regards to these articles are policy violations. We could do this all day, if you want. MalikCarr 00:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have even one actual piece of evidence to back that claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.11 (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I do. Your eight (and growing) accounts hadn't touched a Gundam article before that white privilege AfD. Now you're all over them, starting with the ones I've worked the hardest on. Nevermind attempted votestacking, sockpuppetry or evading 3RR violations. 2 + 2 = 4. MalikCarr 01:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

1) Anon editing is in no way a violation, whether or not they are to articles that you have edited 2) Votestacking where? 3) Not really sure what your accusations of sockputtetry are for. I have no control over which IP I get assigned to. 4) I accept one 3RR claim, but really, charges of 3RR violation coming from your account when you revert without any valid explanations, while mine each explained why the changes suggested fell within WP guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.7 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Go look at your own contributions sometime, or better yet, use the account you already registered so it won't be a sockpuppet anymore. There's a good idea, eh? MalikCarr 01:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You still didnt provide any evidence for anything - can you be more specific? And I am pretty sure that you don't understand WP:POINT either. Please re-read and be more careful before accusing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.7 (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mobile_Suit_Gundam_MS_IGLOO&oldid=157632047 for an example of how an article can be written and not be swamped with 'in universe' view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.222.133 (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You are still misunderstanding WP:POINTGundamsRus 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. That's all there is to it. MalikCarr 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psyco Gundam

Well, those sources took quite some time to find and I don't recall any for Psyco Gundam for now. Yet, you might want to include Saikoro Gundam(word play of Psyco Gundam, which literally means Dice gundam with a Psyco Gundam head stuck on a 6-sided die) and the Psyco Gundam Mk-IV the appeared in the fake story Mobile Suit O Gundam: Newtype's Light which before ZZ Gundam series went on air, New Type magazine's editor group put out as a joke in front of the real ZZ news. For now. I will see what I can find in other magazines but don't have your hopes too high. MythSearchertalk 04:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently it is fine, I recall having notes mentioning the Psyco Gundam is one of the predessesors of Gundam Mk-V, I will look into that also. MythSearchertalk 05:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ConanmkII.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ConanmkII.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gundam Epyon

Gundam Epyon#Design Dude - the whole section is WP:OR - claims made without sources to back them up. GundamsRus 09:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it contains anything that isn't reinforced by the primary media or references listed. MalikCarr 09:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
proper sourcing should back up each claimGundamsRus 09:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leo (mobile suit)

Leo (mobile suit)#Design is all WP:OR many many claims and statements without one citation to back them up is OR. And you did not address the tag of In Universe which you also removed without fixing the 'in universe ' content.GundamsRus 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That is because they are unnecessary. All the content in there is sourced to the references in question. MalikCarr 09:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, simply claiming sources exist is not enough. You need to provide citations and footnotes to any controversial claims. I have flagged areas that need to be more properly sourced.GundamsRus 13:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to put a citation behind every damn sentence, you know... it helps to establish things better for controversial claims (none of which these are, I should note), but for general facts, listing appropriate references is enough for a Start-class article. Maybe if whomever created these articles was looking for B- or A-class status, that would be necessary, but as is, your contributions are -degrading- the quality of the article. Hey, instead of just putting a template everywhere, why don't you be proactive for once and find some sources yourself? It's not that hard... MalikCarr 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User talk:Nat

Hi MalikCarr, I would prefer not to edit any thing while it is under protection. If you wish to add or change something on the page you may do so by adding the {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the article with the request. Regards,  Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  03:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PUI on Image:FAITHemblemPKproFinal.jpg

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Image:FAITHemblemPKproFinal.jpg, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You may be allowed to remove a {{di-no rationale}}, but by its boilerplate text a {{pui}} must not be removed while the PUI is open. If you disagree with the PUI, you may comment on it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_November_16#Image:FAITHemblemPKproFinal.jpg --teb728 (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Yes, I like your infobox much more. L-Zwei (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, only truly reasonable change he made, IMO, are name change and tags in ZZ section. L-Zwei (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gundam Mk. II

Well, I'm sorry to say that I have not been tracing up to current events on that article and do not quite understand what is happening. My advise would be assume good faith. Although they are both on the opposite side in the project than yours, they have shown much more care than a lot of deletionists, and I can surely tell you that we are all trying to make this project better. Their view points are countering the problems on the more common side and making comproises with them will get the articles much more survivable for now, I'd suggest stop the dispute and build a common ground, especially on the in-universe issue and such. Ask them how to write it better, and try to coop with it while making a few changes here and there, just like what I did in the Antarctic Treaty (Gundam) article talk page. It might sound stupid but I figured out that this world does have people who cannot understand simple matter if it is not written in such a stupid format, and wikipedia should be available for those people, too. MythSearchertalk 07:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 72 hours for engaging in edit wars with User:Jtrainor, User:GundamsRus, and User:A Man In Black on multiple articles for an extended period of time. Mr.Z-man 03:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gundam Mediation

You should dump that. AGK has removed my challenges to hbdragon as "disruption" despite there being no compunction that non-parties do not comment on the mediation case page. I don't see his mediation as being fair unless he's willing to follow the four pillars and remember that wikipedia, and all the pages within, is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, mediation is the only shot at resolving this long-standing conflict, and I urge you, MalikCarr, to not reject it outright. If it fails just because the parties cannot come to an accord, that's one thing, but if it fails on account of the withdrawal of one of the parties, that just looks bad. I'm following through with all steps of WP:DR if need be, and I hope this is the first and only step I need to take. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I believe this won't go anywhere because it only addresses a small portion of the problem - A Man In Black has more or less marginalized and ignored the consensus of WP:Gundam (they're all just sockpuppets of Jtrainor and I, after all), but the only people involved in the mediation affair are Jtrainor, A Man In Black, myself, and hbdragon, and the latter is more or less an unrelated party.
Effectively, you've turned an ongoing crisis of interest between one editor and a Wikiproject into just the most active participants - it minimizes the legitimacy of the status quo, which is what I believe should be maintained. That said, I am going to wait and see what happens with this business before I make a hard decision like quitting before it runs its course. MalikCarr (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Did what I read say what I think it does? Did AMiB use his admin privelege to revert the infobox on a protected page on an article he's involved in a dispute on? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Uh, as far as I know he hasn't - begging your pardon if I implied that somehow. That said, if this has occurred somewhere, do let me know. That would definitively be AN/I material. MalikCarr (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL

"you call that better grammar? here, this fixes the problem" from someone who is complaining about civility in Wikipedia, come on now.GundamsRus (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, before we complain about others civility, I'd say that everyone is having civility problems if we cannot stop thinking other parties are uncivil and wrong. Can we stop blaming others and start some real discussion about how to improve the articles now? MythSearchertalk 15:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You are the -least- deserving of civility of any editor I know. I've lost count of how many edits of mine you've reverted as "vandalism", nevermind the fact that a vandalism report was filed AND APPROPRIATELY IGNORED. Go complain to someone who cares. MalikCarr (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As the person who initiated posting completely baseless accusations of vandalism on a project page, I fail to see you as a model of any type of civility.GundamsRus (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • sign*, if you are not going to work together, can you two just ignore each other and stop accusing? Start some real work, please. People might have faults before, and both of you are not being CIVIL if you ask me. So can you two just forget about past problems and try to work together instead of warring? MythSearchertalk 18:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have recanted my accusations of vandalism on other pages. You continue to revert my edits and those of others you disagree with as vandalism. Try again, buddy. MalikCarr (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:71.106.26.251

Hey do not agree with the vandal as you did here you are simply making the vandal want to vandalize more by agreeing. It is against Wikipedia's guideline of Do Not Feed The Trolls. Rgoodermote  01:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Who's agreeing with whom? I told him to quit vandalizing that page, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume I was violating a guideline in that function. MalikCarr (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote "I'm sure Daniel Park is quite the flaming homosexual" Rgoodermote  01:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? I told him to stop vandalizing, thus we are not agreeing. MalikCarr (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
But upon stating that you agree that the person is most likely a homosexual can be taken as a sign of agreement, sure you said not to vandalize but you still agreed with the person. Rgoodermote  01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If that's your perspective, fair enough. I disagree with it and stand by my edits. In any case, it's not good form to remove material from talk pages unless you're archiving it - also, while good advice, feeding the trolls -is- an essay; doesn't seem like grounds to mess with someone else's contributions on a talk page. MalikCarr (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it again and attempted to add dif...to tired to argue over this matter. You have your opinion and I have mine. You may restore and I will ignore. Have a goodnight and may the rest of your days be filled with joy Rgoodermote  01:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you've added the diff, I'll be content to drop this business if you'll redact the "trollbaiting" accusation - I have a reputation to keep up, you know, and I have enough people looking for reasons to discredit my editing as it is. MalikCarr (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yo. Calm down. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Rgoodermote  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Sorry mate, next time we meet I hope I am more mature. Rgoodermote  01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And yeah you were not troll baiting I was a little rash.Rgoodermote  01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since you were nice about it, I see no reason to continue insisting on my edits. Best wishes in your future contributions and what have you. MalikCarr (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A little late to reply but I wish the same and I hope you a goodnight. Rgoodermote  02:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gundam Mk-II

It displays right, but it is a courtesy to place a new line in the two different sections so that others will have an easier time to find where is the beginning of the new section when editing. MythSearchertalk 08:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is why edit warring is not encouraged. It blinds editors from the clear view and is very likely to introduce mistakes into the article. MythSearchertalk 08:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That is all, but making the articles easier to edit is also positive contribution. MythSearchertalk 09:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GundamsRus

Hi; Jtrainor pointed me over here when I asked him about GundamsRus. Jtrainor has said that GundamsRus is a sockpuppet of some sort; is there anything to back that up? If he's abusing socks (or is an abusive sock) I'd be pleased to block him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Gads, that's ugly stuff. It will take a while to wade through, I'm afraid. A cursory glance at the history of Psyco Gundam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (which you pointed me to) shows a history of edit warring, incivility, and just general unpleasantness on the part of all participants: you, GundamsRus, and Jtrainor. Teasing out who did what is challenging, to say the least. It may be a case where all of the participants – to one degree or another – let their personal feelings and opinions ride roughshod over any attempt at cool, rational, civil discussion.
In particular, it appears that neither Jtrainor nor GundamsRus is willing to approach the other in a civil manner anymore. I don't care who started it, but at least one of them needs to stop it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gundam Mk-II

I'm a bit confused by your recent edits to the article. I notice that you removed a {fact} tag and restored some speculative material ([3]) without adding a source for the fact or contributing to the discussion on the article talk page.

Your subsequent edit [4] removed some {AM-in-universe} tags without comment on the talk page and without changing the wording that led to the tags in the first place. The sarcasm in the edit summary also isn't helpful.

Given the recent editing conflicts on the article, I would recommend strongly that you discuss such changes before making them. Don't be surprised if your recent changes are reverted, in the spirit of WP:BRD. In general, tags highlighting problems with articles don't 'expire'; they remain in place until the underlying problems are resolved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The changes have been discussed at length for weeks with absolutely zero consensus between two distinct camps of editors. The tags themselves were a compromise while we waited for the "in-universe" editors to offer how they'd write the article. Since that was never forthcoming, as I predicted, I've removed them because I believe they are erroneous. "Discussion", as we've been having for months since this distinctively POINT-ish edit war began, has produced nothing, nor has an ongoing RfM, so I'm simply going to default to my better judgment and be bold. MalikCarr (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't really address the most substantial part of the edits you made—reverting back in the lump of speculative material, and removing the {fact} tag. I've reverted your changes. Come hell or high water, I'm going to make you guys use the talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
"We", as in those of us willing to compromise, have been using the talk page. You'll note that when complaints are raised, we try to address them, and if there are disagreements, we try to act on them. The noncompromising camp, which I have elucidated on previous pages, does not - the unilateral edits and edit wars lasting forever originates from that side.
At any rate, the fact tag is unwarranted and the material is no longer speculative in nature (taking comments at face value isn't original research as far as I know). MalikCarr (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you put it to the talk page of the article, not to me. I'm not going to impose any sort of top-down edict on a content issue; even if I had the authority, I wouldn't want to.
I'd also recommend that you put down your us-against-them mentality. It's entirely counterproductive, and it's also against policy. I note that besides me only one person has commented on the article talk page since page protection expired, but that a number of parties have carried on with the edit wars that led to the protection in the first place. I'm entirely unimpressed by the 'it's all their fault' attitude held by some of this article's editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"The tags themselves were a compromise while we waited for the "in-universe" editors to offer how they'd write the article." - I must have missed that 'compromise'. It is my recollection that the 'in universe' tag was simply a part of the article when it was locked 'at the wrong version'. I have no real objection to letting the article sit with the 'in universe' tags. There are editors who seem to have a major objection for the article having any tags and so I was assuming that they would be forthcoming with options or suggestions for a version that would be written in a way that would not require the 'in universe tag'. I guess that I assumed incorrectly and if I have time over the next few weeks may work on a proposal. I will also be willing to comment on proposals from other editors. GundamsRus (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again, as you often are. Mythsearcher suggested we should leave the tags in place while those who believe they are, in fact, relevant and necessary would propose a rewrite as the template calls for. This never happened, and your statement to the effect of "no real objection to letting the article sit with the 'in universe' tags" simply underscores the fact that there will be no improvements from the lobby calling for improvement. Ergo... MalikCarr (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Generally a 'compromise' involves agreement by the parties involved. If you review the conversation you are invoking, there is a proposal by Mysthsearcher,[5] a response by you where you essentially state "The article was much worse before" [6] - but do not give a positive affirmation of the proposal. Your response is followed by a comment from Jtrainor [7] which read even in the most positive light does not show an affirmation of the proposal. Since you and Jtrainor had seemingly shot down the proposal, I did not indicate that I was party to the 'compromise' . And I see nowhere that AMIB agrees to the proposal. So, unless 'compromises' can come out of the air with none of the parties involved agreeing to them, in this instance your accusations of me being 'wrong agian' are not accurate or supported by the facts. GundamsRus 207.69.137.21 (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Knubbler.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Knubbler.JPG. 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) 20:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Revert Rule

Please read WP:3RR and heed the warnings there. You are in danger of violating this rule by your unduing of the merger of Glock articles. --Asams10 (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop edit warring on Glock articles

Both you and Asams10 are edit warring on the Glock articles. WP:3RR is not an entitlement to make 3 changes per article, it's a hard stop limit, and edit warring in general can be accomplished with 2 reverts or less per article if there's a consistent pattern.

Please stop reverting and take it back to the central article talk page.

I am warning both of your accounts simultaneously because you're both behaving in the same manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you ignored the warning and re-reverted a bunch of stuff. I have issued a 3-hour block on your account editing due to those actions. Please continue discussions on the Talk:Glock pistols page rather than further edit warring, once the block expires. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless he actually violates 3RR, your block is inappropriate. Reverting 3 times in a 24 hour period is within policy. Jtrainor (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't. There's an unfortunate misconception floating around that since a violation of WP:3RR is considered clear evidence of edit warring, it is the only acceptable definition of edit warring. To avoid any futher misunderstanding of what constitutes edit warring on Wikipedia, one would be well advised to review Wikipedia:Edit war#What is edit warring?. The fact that the three-revert rule is an 'electric fence' rather than an entitlement is also clearly spelled out in the introduction to that policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the 3RR is not an entitlement, and that prosecution of edit warring really ought to be a bigger priority of Wikipedia administration. That said, although it is a misconception, 3RR being an entitlement is the norm on the ground. Jtrainor and anyone else who's run afoul of A Man In Black (talk · contribs) (a sysop) can tell you that much. Even if I got blocked as a result it's a good thing that endless revert warring is being looked at more closely in this situation. What I take exception to, however, is the exact dispersal of blocks, or block (singular) as the case may be. Wasn't I just arguing about consistency on that trainwreck article's talk page? MalikCarr (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tu-134Cigarettes.jpg

US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works notes that:

A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law.

The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. It does not extend to any preexisting material and does not imply a copyright in that material.

The image is not free because the copyright on the artwork appearing on the cigarette package belongs to someone else beside the uploader. If you do not believe I am correct on this please feel free to submit the image to WP:DRV. -Regards Nv8200p talk 01:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about grabbing the wrong header. WP:IUP is correct as long as the image created does not violate US copyright law or any Wikipedia policy. Please read Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Legal_position and then Derivative work to understand why I removed the image. If you still disagree please consider WP:DRV. -Regards Nv8200p talk 19:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Cigarettecounter pd.jpg is probably OK since the copyright artwork is small and incidental to the whole image. The other two should be nominated for deletion. -Regards Nv8200p talk 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(reply from my talk page) I understand your point, and share many of your feelings about the dangers of copyright paranoia. The artwork is not incidental, however, so it can't be free. Just write up a fair use rationale. Give me a link to it, and I would be more than happy to undelete the image. I'll add in whatever source information exists from the deleted tag. Does that help? IronGargoyle (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)