User talk:A Man In Black/Archive8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit warring and discussion[edit]

My apologies for the edit warring, there. I simply didn't condone the rollback and lack of descriptive eidt summeries in article construction. Since you strongly dispute some of my edit and related reasoning, I suggest we adhere to 1RR and bring relelvant discussion to talkpages. Inquiring for third opinions is also preferable.

Again, I apologize. I really would like us to work together on this. -Randall Brackett 03:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.
As for image sizes, I've been trying to get to a standard width of 200px on pretty much everything; a little less for tall images and short articles, a little more for short images. If you're pushing everything to the border, you're often dwarfing the actual article, as well as bloating an already-large infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really think its our difference in monitors; 200px for the Gandara image looked nearly unable to be seen to me. I comprimised with 235px, as I thought it fair to keep the infobox in a reasonable size and one that allowed the image to be seen.
Of course this is irrelevant; since its merged. On the minor characters article, the lack of information is attributed to the game's distribution solely to Japan. The official site is here: [1]; without a translator (my japanese is horrid) we can not derive any background data for the article. -Randall Brackett 03:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm starting to think we might be better with bulleted lists and one-two sentences in the game articles for the SS series. Most of these articles are unexpandable stubs that will never have anything but plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Let's merge Cham Cham into the list as well. I believe removing the infoboxes was a good idea; I'd expected editors to fill in information but nothing ever came of it. -Randall Brackett 03:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge away, or tag for merging, whichever you like. I'm busy converting the infobox at the moment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?[edit]

I am being actively harassed and you have reverted incorrectly. This person has already notified of harassment. Ste4k 07:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Edge article[edit]

Perhaps you should explain how exactly a fictional category should be emphasised, if not by describing the subject in question as fictional. It's a fictional weapon, appearing in the fictional Resident Evil video game. What else is there to add? Gamer Junkie 08:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen WP:WAF? I mis-linked it in my edit summary, but it shows how to handle fictional objects from an out-of-universe style, instead of an in-universe style. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't large enough to explain from an outside source point-of-view, everything requiring explanation has already been addressed in the main Resident Evil article. If you're suggesting the entire article be scrapped and re-written, perhaps you should explain exactly what you want addressed regarding its fiction so that the next writer won't do exactly the same thing. Gamer Junkie 08:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean that it's not large enough to explain from an out-of-universe perspective? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wish to add information regarding the publisher, the creator, date of release, etc. Why? Its not worth the effort, the article itself is simply a small page intended to explain what the "Samurai Edge" is to people reading the main RE article who are unfamiliar with the name or weapon. Gamer Junkie 08:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not worth turning into a properly encyclopedic article, then it probably needs to be merged or deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you suggest merging the article instead? You still haven't explained what it is you want adjusted within the article. Gamer Junkie 08:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't a clue where to merge it. I know a bit about RE, but not really enough to know where it would go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why the article exists to begin with. There is no specific article or category for it to fall under. I wrote much of the article in question and, as such, would not like to see it deleted or merged. I would simply like to know what you wish to add to the article to help explain its fiction. Gamer Junkie 08:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, right now it's just not encyclopedic. It tracks the movements of a single fictional object, without ever offering any context or even explaining in which games each claim can be attributed to. I'm tempted to prod it, honestly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the problem you have with the article is that you believe most of it has been entirely made up then? Much of the information can be found in files picked up in-game, more is explained in bios and official sites regarding RE. You said you're not a big fan of RE, I assure you, I am, and I know what I'm talking about. Gamer Junkie 09:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's made up (Well, it was made up by Capcom, but you know what I mean), I think it's wholly unsourced, and subtrivial. Wikipedia can't rest on "I know what I'm talking about"; you need to cite sources, and "the RE series" doesn't really cut it.
Additionally, I don't really think this article is worth going to all the trouble of rewriting and sourcing, since it's subtrivial; one gun in one game series. I think the best thing to do with it is redirect it or delete it, from what you've told me in this conversation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should open a poll regarding that decision. Regardless, I can't specify every single file I've come across from a game made in 1999. If you want sources, I'm sure they have something at the official website or you can pick up a copy of Nemesis from eBay. Instead of deleting the article, why don't you personally add the references you would like to see displayed?

Are you suggesting I send it to AFD? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is "AFD"? Gamer Junkie 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already stated, I don't want the article deleted so obviously that is not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that if you don't like how the article is written, you should make the changes you feel it needs. Gamer Junkie 09:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm stating that I'm not qualified to do so without some idea what games are involved, and the article doesn't currently give me context sufficient to determine same. Additionally, I don't think the article will be encyclopedic after being sourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suppose we won't be reaching an agreement on this issue anytime soon. I believe that it details a major weapon used by many characters in several RE games, and that there isn't another description of such depth on the Internet today. People who read the article will most certainly already be familiar with the Resident Evil franchise and will hardly be interested in the sourcing of information and out-of-universe perspective or relevancy. You obviously don't agree. I suppose you'll do what you'll do. Gamer Junkie 10:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ste4k[edit]

What should I do about this user removing my comments from her page? I've already tried to "let it go" during many conversations, but now I'm completely sick of her attitude. Removing my comments is insanely irritating and I'm not going to stand for it. Let me know your opinions on the matter. --Nscheffey(T/C) 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC, I guess. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

Mmmm... fresh fruit 'n' veg! You know, if there was onewthing I could never, ever give up eating, it would be fruit. So varied, so utterly delicious...

Hi A Man In Black! Long time, few encounters. How are you? Still the bright, bubbly person we once knew and loved :P?

Anyway, having looked at your recent talkpage entries (yes, your userpage is still on my watchlist), I can see perilously few positive messages, compliments or other such niceties (I've never been able to spell that word) so here you go: a message with no griping, moaning, groaning, vicious or catty comments, or even useful, insightful discussion. Instead, you got me, rabbiting on - is that an improvement? I doubt it, but you have me anyway. Oh, and this delicious-looking fruit 'n' veg stall (sorry, I'm a veggie to the core). Enjoy!

Thanks and kind regards, —Celestianpower háblame 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hee, I appreciate it. Lately I've been running into the same problems I used to have with Pokémon cleanup in other fandoms. Fun fun fun, you know? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowasaur![edit]

Lol! XD Highway Batman! 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade and CVG merger[edit]

When you have time, could you stop by my talk page? We're discussing a possible merger of the Arcade and CVG boxes and your expertise in terms of templates could be useful. I suppose the outcome would result in a much more streamlined solution than what we have currently. o/s/p 16:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Ac!d[edit]

Why did you move both Metal Gear Ac!d pages? The official names are spelled with "!" rather than "i", later tonight I will move them unless you can give a valid reason not to. TJ Spyke 01:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official names don't really matter. Common usage vastly favors the plainer spelling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Shell, Shadow Moses and Zanzibar Land[edit]

You seem, at the moment, to be actively wanting these articles...deleted. For a while now though I have been contemplating creating a Metal Gear Locations (Or some other better name) article. This way you can incorporate the specific aspects of each place to without each article being a stub. Would you object to that? (The Bread 05:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Really, I don't think that's a good idea. You can just mention the setting briefly in the game articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon #360[edit]

Thank you. (Lol) Highway Batman! 10:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you'd get the message. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Word to your mother. Indeed. Highway Batman! 10:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I keep changing that whenever I get bored. Useless fact: Word to your mother is a redirect to Vanilla Ice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really are on the verge of a mental breakdown aren't you. I can understand the rage. Highway Batman! 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. I was just listing to Ninja Rap right now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Nods* Yes, yes you were. Highway Batman! 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norton[edit]

Sorry, I should have specified that I was referring to the other fellow's reasoning as to Norton's not being a "real" emperor--I realize that you aren't making that argument. And perhaps I should have refrained from speculating as to other's motives altogether. Nareek 15:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'm sorry for how I reacted, too; looking at it now, it was needlessly harsh. Sorry about that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Distribution[edit]

I couldn't help asking, but is there some sort of joke tradition going on with putting the dead guy on your talk page onto other people's pages and labeling it as vandalism? If it weren't a joke, it's kind of a strange thing for an admin to do. And let me assure you: If you put one of those Nixon-faced goblins on my talk page, I'll replace it with a dick of my own... This is Erik the Appreciator 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a joke; a very weird vandal once put one on my talk page, so I kept it because I was amused. It sort of became a thing after I decided to poll #wikipedia for people who wanted to have their user pages vandalized with a picture of a Dick, and it went from there. Minun put a request on his user page to have it redesigned, so I added a decoration. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can actually challenge your credibility with that explanation: Research into your talk page's history reveals that it was not the vandal that put the Nixon picture there, it was you that put it there to replace what the vandal had put in previously: an actual picture of an erect male tool. And the reason he did that was because you deleted a page called "Pope John Paul Kiddiefiddler", which he was apparently attached to. Ahh, details are entertaining... Right now I don't want one for myself, by the way. Erik the Appreciator 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did? Huh, well, there you go. I remembered the vandal putting it there. Oh well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those who deny Polk are uneducated[edit]

Bona Fides 21:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't push a POV. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Mega Man X (character)[edit]

Oh please, I can only read kana and the most basic and common of kanji. xD; But I did it.—ウルタプ 03:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeeah. I'm not sure what kana and kanji are, so I'm gonna just pretend I understand that and thank you for the help. Thank you muchly for the help! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece abilities[edit]

I must say this looks like afd material to me. -Randall Brackett

Nintendogs[edit]

Sorry for the Nintendogs article, I might have overlooked that section. Regards --Manop - TH 05:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reappropriating a redirect?[edit]

In the instance of WP:POKEMON, aren't you actually appropriating it? As far as I can see, King of Hearts had it directing to the pokemon test first. Hiding Talk 11:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er. I never meant to imply that the project had it first, just that it should be pointed to an active Wikiproject instead of an essay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er. That's not what I understood you to say. Because you used the term reappropriation, I assumed you were saying it had been and still should be redirecting to the WikiProject. I was just confused by your language. It just seemed a silly point to me otherwise, because if the Project had wanted the shortcut it had lain there until April waiting. Still, there's probably little worth discussing it any further. Hiding Talk 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to User:Hamedog, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. HamedogTalk|@ 11:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for people who wanted their userpage vandalized on IRC, and you said yes. It was just a picture of Richard Nixon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A huge plane[edit]

Is there anything I can do to help right now? —M inun Spiderman 18:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just notifying you that my current task is cleaning up what you left on WP:PAC2, cheers —M inun Spiderman 19:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not using fair-use images outside of userspace would be a good start. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It said on the descripiton page it was in the public domain, I might be wrong but I was just honouring what it said on the description page —M inun Spiderman 12:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is? Oh, well then! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look im on teh internets and IRC get on it[edit]

Wazup ma homie poké g --mboverload@ 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect change on WP:PKMN, WP:POKEMON[edit]

If you're going to change an established redirect created by someone else without gathering consensus or even notifying anyone, you could at least change all the old links that went there first. Come on, you can't just hijack a redirect. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Jirachi2.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jirachi2.png. 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. 08:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Highway Return to Oz... 10:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

______ITS DONE_____[edit]

Operation PokéFix has been completed for every article on Wikipedia. Special:Contributions/Mboverload --mboverload@ 10:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you muchly! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where's my beer >:| --mboverload@ 03:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Catch me on IRC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VersaLife[edit]

Why did you remove the info box. I put it up on the article because I thought it was helpful. Shanequinlan01

Because corporation infoboxes should only be used for real corporations. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next mission: Star Wars[edit]

I know you've been following my star wars cruft battle over the last few months. Well, I'm ready to step it up. Hopefully, I'll be able to leave the orgnaization/quarentine stage and enter the "real life perspective" metamorphasis phase within the next few weeks ;) — Deckiller 05:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been tagging everything I can find with {{in-universe}}, but please-oh-please can Darth Vader be one of the first targets? It's so fixable but so cruft-heavy, and I've been coming off as a lone nut trying to fight the cruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was starting with the most nastiest examples, but I'll work on Darth Vader after these Final Fantasy FAs conclude. By the way, what do you think? — Deckiller 05:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...think about what? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...the Final Fantasy FACs :-P — Deckiller 05:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of them, and I'm not really very good at telling a FA from anything else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's quite okay. By the way, you think Darth Vader is bad? Cloud Strife is an absolute nightmare. — Deckiller 05:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The hugeness makes me cry. I'm tempted to cut it down to a one-para stub. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put it on my queue, but I doubt I'll ever get to it. That article should be no more than 30 KB. Heck, even Squall Leonhart, which still has melodramatic issues, is ten times better. — Deckiller 05:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, always more work to be done than energy or time to do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you had to choose: deleting a six day backlog of orphaned fairuse images or cleaning up Cloud's article? — Deckiller 05:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No question, editing tasks over admin tasks. The images'll get deleted by someone else, eventually. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say whether I agree or disagree, because it may come back to haunt me in RfB. ;) — Deckiller 05:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck RfB in the ear. I wouldn't wish bureaucratship on my worst enemy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have an interesting acronym for RfB that relates to your comment, but again, it might come back to haunt me in RfB :) — Deckiller 05:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think my response to being nominated for RfB would be to solumnly vow to admin Willy on Wheels and SPUI. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfA - Requests for adminship
  • RfB - Requests for B-cratship
  • RfC - Requests for comment
  • RfD - Requests for deletion
  • RfS - Requests for suicide

— Deckiller 06:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to bed. Make sure the Wiki doesn't explode. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G'night. — Deckiller 06:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Roll (Battle Network).jpg[edit]

Why does it say "Primary source needed"? It's got the copyright tag and I mentioned where it was from (and in the past that's all that was necessary), what's missing? --Covenant Elite 07:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Fire scanned it or got it from somewhere; if it was a press kit image, you need to say that, and if it was scanned, you need to say where. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But how am I to know all that? --Covenant Elite 23:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know that about an image, you really shouldn't upload it to Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, that didn't really answer my question. Second, I've posted images on Wikipedia before and never had to say where it was from, why am I asked to all of a sudden? And third, other people do the exact same thing I did, why aren't they getting picked on? --Covenant Elite 04:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on the FHFIF characters page.[edit]

There was some vandalism (though reverted, but the attacks were definitely repeated) on List of main characters in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends by anonymous editor(s) (whose IPs are shown) during the previous two days (assuming it's Sunday now). I believe the attacks are linked, given details of the editors' "contributions" since none of them are exactly anything to write home about. I reported this to Shanel but it turns out he's on Wikibreak. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 08:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade box conversion[edit]

Saw your note on WP:CVG talk, how do you go about to quickly convert these things? //osp 10:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Arcade_box_conversion_-_I.27m_ready --mboverload@ 10:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Companies and infoboxes[edit]

Nearly all fictional companies have their own info boxes. Live and let live. Also I wouldnt go and do a serious edit on a resident evil article. They wouldnt like it.

The central company in the resident evil story is big/important enough to have its own infobox. --mboverload@ 08:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Importance doesn't enter into it. That infobox describes Umbrella as though it were a real company (and yes, I saw the little "fictional" at the top), which is something we shouldn't be doing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

What you are doing on the New Super Mario Brothers Wiki page is vandalism, adding more reviews to the review section should not be reverted back. It is providing more opinions for the viewer on this particular game. It should be noted that the particular review I am adding is for NON profit and is from a down to earth gamer's perspective rather than a paid critic working for a corporation. Also Gamerankings is a site that has hundreds of scores submitted from various sites and is a great place to have many opinions offered to you at one single location. Please think about what you are doing before you do it. Thankyou --Stiffler52 15:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TotalGamerZone is not a reliable source, and, frankly, neither is the largely-fan-submitted Gamerankings. This reviews section is not long for this world, as a handful of the reviews will be used in an actually-encyclopedic "Critical reception" section and the rest discarded.
On the other hand, linkspam is vandalism and can be reverted on sight. Please desist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerankigs is part of the CNet umbrella which owns Gamespot. Yes there are fansites submitted but they must pass strict guidelines before they can be submitted. The site must have over 300 reviews for a multiplatform site and over 150 for a site dedicated to one particular console. It is a great way for the user to see many opinions all in one place. If anything Famitsu scores should be removed considering we do not have access to the actual review and it is in a foreign language. --Stiffler52

I'm quite aware of how "strict" the guidelines are, having gotten my own lame fansite past them. Famitsu is a major, well-known publication. TGZ isn't, and Gamerankings isn't even a publication. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize the guidelines have changed for Gamerankings though right? And if you compare a Gamerankings score to any of the major "publications" you will realize that it falls in line with the average, because Gamerankings is the average. --Stiffler52

Yup. And those guidelines aren't anything like Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. I don't see any reason to link to Gamerankings (and the video game Wikiproject has decided not to include Gamerankings links, again and again). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is if you feel that removing gamers opinions will make Wikipedia a better place, more power to you. Should Wikipedia not be a place for everyone? Should it not be a place where even the lesser views are still identified? --Stiffler52

Removing advertisements makes Wikipedia a better place. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a venue for advertisement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All in the eye of the beholder I suppose. --Stiffler52

Regarding ownership of talk pages[edit]

Thanks for not respecting my wishes, I have come to expect no less from you. I am fully aware of the discussion regarding warnings. Frankly, it is irrelevant to what I have stated on my talk page. Surely I am within my rights to state that I do not wish to use the User talk page to communicate, but inted to comply with clearly enunciated policy and ARBCOM rulings. It is clearly stated that Wikipedia:Removing warnings is not a policy.

I also feel that your "helpful" posting to my talk page is a back-handed way in which to harass me, as you surely know that you are one of the administrators that I obviously do not wish to communicate with at all. Can I say that I do not like you without that being uncivil or being characterized as a personal attack? Is it ok just to think it, but not write it? No incivility is intended in this remark, but I would rather not communicate with you at all unless absolutely necessary because I do not like you. Is telling someone that you don't like them "uncivil"? or a "personal attack"? If stating so is somehow "uncivil" or a "personal attack", I hereby apologize in advance (do I have to MEAN the apology for it to count?)and ask how I could explain that I do not wish to communicate with you in any way, shape or form without being uncivil or making a personal attack in communicating to you that I wish no further communication with you.--Nicodemus75 23:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note because I thought you might want to know.
As for the rest, a fact of life is dealing with people you don't like. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, thanks for leaving the note. I would request that you please refrain from "leaving me notes about things you think I might want to know" as I do not wish to receive such "notes" from you in the future. As for the rest, how I am dealing with this fact of life, is by calmly and as civily as possible, asking you to refrain from communicating with me unless entirely necessary. Is it so hard for you respect my wishes not to communicate with you further?--Nicodemus75 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noted (if you can pardon the pun). I was under the impression you were asserting the right to remove comments left on your talk page and reply to them elsewhere (as another user has done), rather than expressing your desire not to use your user talk page at all. (Frankly, I mostly skim user talk page headers.) I won't leave any more notes unless it's admin business or something where your input is strictly needed.
In the handful of places I had seen your comments, I had noted your more-measured, more-civil tone and it is appreciated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated that you will respect my wishes not to communicate with you unless necessary.--Nicodemus75 23:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiousity, how do you suggest that people get in contact with you when they need to speak with you specifically? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even bother to read what I have written on my User talk page? I asked that editors please refrain from communicating with me there unless absolutely necessary. I suppose it depends on what your definition of "need to speak" is. I am trying to express that I am not interested in communications (even such as this one) unless they are absolutely relevant and pertinent. If someone wants to talk to me in a manner other than this, I am putting up the notice on my User Talk page to make it clear that I do not wish to communicate unless it is necessary. Editors should be able to communicate with me on talk pages of relevant articles or on appropriate project pages for any other requirements. The only reason I am entertaining even this conversation as long as I have on your user talk page is because I wish to "settle the hash" with you, as it were. I want to get any "necessary" communication with you over with now because I don't really relish the thought of communicating with you in the future. I feel it is best for my future participation on WP to avoid you and people like you at almost all costs. Whether it is your intention or not, I interpret your communications with me as goading, insincere, harassing, offensive, frustrating, snide and back-handed. This may be a failing on my part, that I interpret your comments in the worst light even while trying to assume good faith, so to deal with that, I am choosing not to communicate with you, and request that you refrain from communicating with me.--Nicodemus75 00:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I admitted that I didn't read it very closely.
How would someone notify you that a category/template/image you created is up for deletion? How would they notify you of an RFA/RFC/RFAr? How would they bring to your attentions problems with your conduct? These are vital roles of user talk pages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "absolutely necessary" do you fail to understand, is it "absolutely" or "necessary"? I consider this discussion concluded.--Nicodemus75 23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the funniest discusions I've read on a talk page in a long time -- I'm not certain if this was the intent or if Nicodemus75 is serious about what was written. My only regret is that by leaving this reply, I may have forced Nicodemus75 to read additional comments in a discussion that obviously isn't wanted. --Stephane Charette 21:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Missingno.jpg[edit]

It appears that Missingno.png was deleted because it was an unused fair use image. Missingno.jpg is used and in fair use. Ryūlóng 07:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That image still has no source info, other than a reference to a deleted image which in turn references ANOTHER image I can't find anywhere. We don't know who took this image, so it's unsourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the big Missingno. website isn't helping either. If I uploaded a sprite of the original Missingno as a png, and then source it to that site (which I more than likely editted my file from), would that be fair use, and sourced? Ryūlóng 07:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It'd probably be best to just get a ROM and an emulator and take your own screenshot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or it's time to get my camera and dig out the blue version. Ryūlóng 07:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably ask at WP:PCP. Pictures of GB screens rarely turn out well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have learned that a little too late. Ryūlóng 07:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way that I can source a sprite in my files? Ryūlóng 07:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you know what game it's from and who took the screenshot and who cropped it, no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Request Filed[edit]

I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Nscheffey. See here. Please post any comments you desire to add. Ste4k 08:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)[edit]

Lets discuss this on IRC. --Cat out 04:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must be missing out on sooo much without IRC. — Deckiller 04:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not anything you're not better off without. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SotC[edit]

While I don't want to get into an edit war over this, Final Fantasy X has 4 different covers in the infobox and nobody seems to mind. -- Steel 00:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FFX really shouldn't have four images, either. I'll speak with Deckiller and the FF project about this, but, in the meantime, SOTC needs not to have three images crammed into the infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge undeletion notification[edit]

Howdy, I just wanted to bring to your attention that I have reversed your rogue rouge deletion of Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments, please refer this to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion if you wish to delete this page. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil[edit]

I wish you would stop recreating the DAB page at Resident Evil.

If you actually read the article now at Resident Evil (series) you will see that it covers all elements of the Resident Evil franchise and not just the games.

Both the two other articles you put on this DAB page are already covered better on Resident Evil (series) and if you look at the history for the Resident Evil page you will see that putting a DAB here just causes people to start adding content to it that is already on the Resident Evil (series) page.

I am off to revert again. DamienG 18:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did you do with the talk page that was at Talk:Resident Evil? This has been discussed, but you've scrambled everything up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't touch the talk page there - I tried to look at it and was redirected to the talk for the series page so any 'scrambling' was already there. DamienG 09:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, I guess it wasn't you, then. Oh well, I fixed what I could and commented on talk there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Fox universe character infobox?[edit]

Hey, I was wondering, since you implimented the general CVG character boxes, could you make a Star Fox in-universe one, similar to the Metal Gear, Resident Evil, etc. ones? A while ago I tried, but got lost in the complex coding. There is sufficent info for an in-universe expansion, such as age, fur/skin color, eye color, and homeworld (basically what was on the old custom-made infoboxes a while ago, see here: [2]) Thoughts? Thunderbrand 19:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read WP:WAF, which discourages putting inane physical details like eye color, age, and such in such infoboxes, and I regret putting such fields in the other infoboxes.
That said, what fields do you want in the infobox? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny, because I read that page not 2 days ago and must have skipped over that part! Well, after reading the infobox part, there isn't a whole lot to put in. Most other things I can think of aren't that important. If I think of anything else, which is unlikely, I will reply. Thunderbrand 19:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmkay. Let me know if you want me to go ahead and make one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft fighters[edit]

I've signed up. We need more editors committed to describing fictional entities as artifacts of this universe and realizing that, if they can't, then the article doesn't belong. With fiction on Wikipedia, I've noticed that the biggest problem is not vandalism (which is easy to detect and revert) or POV pushing (usually), but good-faith yet misguided efforts to expand the articles in the direction of in-universe trivia. I used to be an eventualist, but having seen the widespread issues with these edits, I think that I've started to head towards immediatism, at least for wholly in-universe articles. A complete rewrite is too often utterly necessary even in cases where there is encyclopedic potential if proper research is done, and deletion stops the bleeding. It's kind of sad that it comes to that, really. — TKD::Talk 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been leaving in-universe stuff lay, tagging it for cleanup and merges, then doing both the cleanup and the merge at the same time. It's slow going, but everything will get done...someday... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, and that approach is probably best for subjects that inherently don't deserve articles. It's the stuff that should theoretically be sustainable as separate articles if properly researched — some of the Halo auxiliary articles, for instance — that's irksome. Yes, I saw your point about the main Bungie articles in need of cleanup, and I'd mostly agree. The flip side that, looking at WP:WAF and WP:FA, we have a good number of quality exemplars of video games, films, and characters, but little in the way of fictional universes themselves and other smaller elements of fiction/gaming, except for spoo. I think at some point notable examples of these elements need to be well-researched and vetted through FA, to set a model for similar articles. The other thing is that I'm far more involved in WikiProject Machinima than I am with video game articles themselves, and certain things that are trivial to the video games themselves are somewhat more important for their use in machinima. — TKD::Talk 10:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the Nitcentral article[edit]

Can you chime in with your vote? It's here.

'M[edit]

I apologize for calling your edit vandalism. I was patrolling recent changes, saw your edit, which screwed up the image positioning, and reverted. --NE2 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no sweat. I hadn't yet realized that I screwed up the image formatting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Why can't 'M have an infobox? It is noted to exist in the games, and although it is not an official character, it does have its own game mechanics. Ryūlóng 06:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the fields don't apply, and it isn't a character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Ex mods[edit]

Greetings. There's a small issue with Deus Ex mods article I'd like to discuss.

The article was very recently created to reduce amount of modding links in the Deus Ex. I think it was on borderline of rules, but the article currently progresses. After you deleted it, it was shortly recreated, most probably not intentionally, but just missing the fact it was deleted in the process of editing. I don's suggest to delete it, of course, and would rather ask to keep it for a while. Currently I'm in doubt about what in general should be done. Do you suggest to put mods back to the main article, let the article expand or implement other solutions? I'm personally in favor of keeping the article to expand, but, if it can't be implemented, please suggest something else. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Man_In_Black/Archive8&oldid=1084095104"