Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:15, 14 July 2006

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

If you're coming here to reply to a comment I made on your talk page, STOP, go back to your talk page, and reply there. If I made a comment on your talk page and expect a reply, your talk page is on my watchlist. I'd rather not follow conversations in 79 million different places if I can at all avoid it.

Archives:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Miscellanous archive
• Random awards and other crap left on my talk page

List of Advance Wars COs

Dear self:

Revert more or less back to this version, while doing cleanup along the way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mario communist metaphors

Hello, I realize you are busy, so answer, or do not answer, this at your convenience. Do you believe that a page similar to the Smurf Communism page should be created to explore the rumors of communist metaphors that are allegedly inside Super Mario Bros.? I left a question like this on the Mario talk page, but no one has commented on it, and that was a while ago...--ttogreh 06:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Emphatically not. I don't think a Mario Communism page would be appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but could you please elaborate on why you feel such a page would be inappropriate?--ttogreh 08:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it would be original research and would be far short of notable in any case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

== Sorry == Sorry about that. I'll try not to. Wikipedian27 13:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for chiming in about the comma thing on Jason Todd. It's been extremely difficult to change the article; one or two other editors seem to have ownership problems. It was just kind of upsetting to have someone point out that I've tried to work on the article, blame me for not correcting one specific kind of mistake, and then do making more of that mistake. I agree with you that the article needs real-world context. I've just been kind of cautious to edit the article after the kind of difficult to do so in the past. Anyway, I appreciate that you took the time to look over the article. --Chris Griswold 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-pokemon

zomg yer antipokemon! I often wonder if wikipedia shouldn't include a clause that says fanatics on issues shouldn't be abllowed to express opinions on AFDs...--Crossmr 03:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

zomg so anti-Pokémon! Yeah, well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 14:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

Im not mad at you, because I know that the block oviously had something to do with HighwayCello, but Cute Minun, is the account I want to keep. The block happened when I was right in the middle of making major improvements to the Minun article, and I had wrote messages on others talk pages asking them if they need help. Not replying, would let them all down. Cute Minun seemed to be a lot better than the old Iloveminun, and I would rather have it the other way round, Iloveminun, being the one who gets blocked, and Cute Minun, being the one who gets unblocked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.162.78 (talk • contribs) .

Please don't make any new accounts while you're blocked. They will, in turn, be blocked. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I would still rather have "Cute Minun", even if I do have to go through the block, and anyway, it would usually be over by now. 81.158.162.78 18:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You tried to bypass your block, so I extended it again. This is common practice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, i'll stay blocked for the amount of time, but when my block expires, I want to use Cute Minun over Iloveminun 81.158.162.78 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Pokeinfobox

I disagree with this re-design, completely it looks horrid and chunky, can the project actually discuss this before you go off on a tanjent and change it? Regards, Highway 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Part of the redesign was necessary; hiddenStructure is depreciated. The only reason it looks the way it does is because it was easier for me to make it look like {{Pokémon character}} (which has been uncontroversial) than to re-implement the old appearance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

But it's horrid! It looks like someone has attacked it with a ruler, and it's insanely coloured in. Couldn't you fix the hidden structure? If you give me a link, I'll read how to do it. Highway 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss this on the talk page for the template itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

please respond

It looks liek you've forgotten about the above notice. Please respond, I need to know whats going to happen. 81.158.162.78 19:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think switching usernames in the middle of an ongoing arbitration case is a good idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I really want it changed, you can put a message on the arbiration page, saying that i've changed by username, and you can make me do something for you if youwant. 81.158.162.78 19:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think it's a good idea for now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

please, the Iloveminun username has became a nightmare, and because of it I can't get anything done. I'll do something to help with my Ip if you want 81.158.162.78 19:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should discuss the problem 81.158.162.78 19:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is over until your blocks are over. If you comment again before your block is expired, I will block this IP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Unified character infobox

I noticed you've edited infoboxes pertaining to characters within the cvg space lately, and I was wondering if a unified box could be constructed as they are quite similar in both appearance and structure. Surely, a single box would simplify things? Vic Vipr _C 19:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am working on a single box. {{General CVG character}} is a unified video game character box, with support for individual sub-boxes for series-specific info (for example {{Metal Gear character}}). Take a look at Solid Snake to see an example of this implementation, and the CVG project conversation on this very subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

Please refrain from editing my talk page the way you just did. It's MY talk page and I do whatever I want with it. Just keep the article and we can leave each other alone. CoolKatt number 99999 02:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, removing warnings about inappropriate behavior is not appropriate. However, if you don't list AFD pages for deletion again, I don't care what you do with the warning on your talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This guy has been a problem user in the past. I'd block him. --CFIF (talk to me) 03:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't. I'm clearly involved in a content dispute with him, and I really don't care so much as to take it to AN/I. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes/Big Rollo vs. CoolKatt number 99999. That should tell you all about this user. --CFIF (talk to me) 03:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

White Rose AfD

I just wanted to say thanks for helping restore civility there, and to ask you to request that the IP poster that is annoying anybody who shows up to express an opinion there to please desist? I think we all know his opinion by now, and he is badgering folks. Thanks! BenBurch 03:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you appreciate my nonsense pruning, but I wish you'd stop feeding the trolls, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've desisted. I'll just leave hands off now unless somebody has a real question I can put a real answer to. BenBurch 03:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative notice board

Hi A Man In Black. Thanks for reverting Tony's shameful early closure of the deletion review. I just wanted to inform you that Tony is flat out lying when he says he "deleted a recreation" of the conservative notice board. It was a not a recreation but actually a restoration by another admin, CBDunkerson who attempted to make the project more neutral by renaming the board into the political notice board. See the logs here and here . It is really surprising that Tony would continue to say that it was a recreation when we already told him in the deletion review discussion that it was an undeletion. See and Thanks. --Facto 03:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't mistake my actions as support for the idea or any incarnation of it. I want to see it gone; I just don't think bypassing DRV serves that end in the most efficient manner. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony just bypassed it again. --Facto 20:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Broken AfD for Ben_Burch

Hi! An IP tried to start an AfD on my entry, but did not complete the job. BenBurch 13:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon anime

Just because you don't like a section doesn't mean you can violate WP:OWN. Leave the section as it is please. CoolKatt number 99999 05:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who doesn't like it, and it's wholly unsourced and rather trivial. It was deleted for a reason; please leave it be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It belongs whether you like it or not. Please stop vandalizing the page. CoolKatt number 99999 05:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never claimed, nor do I feel, that I own either page. I do not want to see a chunk of wholly unencyclopedic and completely unsourced information from a deleted article in either of those articles, however, and I am not the only user who feels this way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I was curious which Pokemon article was being discussed here, so I looked through this user's contributions to find it. You might want to take a look at some of the newly created "articles" there, including List of channel 17 TV stations in the United States. The channel list articles boggle my mind. I can't imagine what on Earth they could be useful for. --Chris Griswold 18:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume CK#9999 knows what he's doing there, or that someone who does know about that sort of thing will deal with it. I'm not going to charge in blindly to mess with something I don't know anything about, particularly with a user who already thinks I'm persecuting him. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Gah... he added the stuff into the Pokemon anime article again. 69.223.130.16 13:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

StarCraft Medic

Hi there. I noticed that you changed the Medic article into a redirect to Brood War. With you being an admin and all, usually I would not object, given as you probably would know more about articles and when to delete them in general. However. I noticed that the deletion vote for the StarCraft unit series was a "No Consensus" as of February; the Medic was one of those articles included. Though I do agree that some of the articles (haven't gotten to them all yet) are probably overspecific, I do believe that the units themselves merit a page, even if a small one, simply because StarCraft is one of the defining elements in the RTS genre and has continuted influence in the world today.

Thus I ask. On what grounds did you base your wipe of the article? And why was only the Medic article redirected, as opposed to the whole lot mentioned in the VfD? Also, would it have been possible to rewrite the meat of the article into a less strategy guide-like piece? Please note that I do not intend to convey a confrontational tone that might be implied; I basically want to know what was wrong so that I could contribute more effectively in the future.

I'll be inactive for a few weeks, so I know this isn't exactly the best time. Still, any answer that shed light on the situation would be appreciated! Thanks, Ourai 02:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to start things off, I didn't delete it or protect the redirect or anything; it wasn't an admin action.

As for individual articles, I don't particularly feel that mere association with a notable work necessarily makes every fictional object, character, or place associated with that work an encyclopedic subject unto itself, and I redirected the Medic article (which was filled with instructive, GameFAQs-style tips) for the same reason that I would redirect "Superman's cape" to Superman.

I redirected it after someone added a wholly unencyclopedic stat breakdown more suited to a Starcraft fan site, and partially because I'm unhappy with all these crufty SC non-articles outlining the plot, blow-by-blow, for every single mission, as well as individual articles for every single object, character, and unit. I figured if nobody objected, I would press forward, someone would object and I would convince them and could press forward with some support, or someone would object and I would find no support and I'd work on something else instead of coming off as a lone nut on a crusade (never a healthy thing to do on Misplaced Pages). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank you! Ourai 04:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

signature

Just out of curiosity, what is the a in your signature supposed to be? It comes up as a square in IE and a question mark in Mozilla (both on Windows), but you've got it hardcoded so I can't decipher what character you're trying to substitute in there. (And if you're not, this is just a friendly notice that it's not showing up for everyone). Reply here if you like. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a black chess pawn. I know it doesn't render in most browsers; that's the joke. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

...I don't get it. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Pokémon (anime)

Please do not remove the cultural references section. Doing so is considered vandalism. CoolKatt number 99999 02:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reinserting previously (overwhelmingly!) deleted material into that article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Choose. It stays in the article, or gets its own article. It must stay one way or another. CoolKatt number 99999 02:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it mustn't. It was overwhelmingly deleted from Misplaced Pages in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cultural references in Pokémon 4. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It was an AfD it did not deserve. Now, either let the section stay, or undelete the article - and make sure there are NO OTHER AFD'S FOR IT WHATSOEVER. This is your last warning. CoolKatt number 99999 02:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not your place to decide that an AFD was undeserved or inappropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggest

That you unblock CoolKatt number 99999. Not a comment on appropriateness of the block, but it seems like you're involved with content appropriateness issues aside, and it would probably be better if an uninvolved admin take on actions such as blocking -- Samir धर्म 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a feeling that a block would break CK#9999's typical pattern of revert warring until forced to stop doing so, and this feeling has been borne out. I wasn't planning to leave the block, anyway, unless CK was unrepetant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looks like CK#99999 will resort to appropriate channels. -- Samir धर्म 02:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

thought you might be intrested

take a look at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/23 June 2006 Betacommand 03:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

merge proposal

I've suggesting this article be combined into Black for more expansion. This article also seems to be unable to be expanded beyond stub status and would prevent clogging on the black disambiguation page. User:Megaman Zero was also merged into User talk:Megaman Zero, so this seems like the most plausible course of action. -Zero 03:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How dare you! I've blocked you for disruption!!!!!11one - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

:O -Zero 03:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair-use imaegs

I would suggest you be involved in tagging Pokémon fair use images with rationales, it seems like its taking forever, thanks --Pokesaur 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Bagon.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Bagon.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages'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:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 08:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Resident Evil disambig

Why have you turned the Resident Evil page into a disambiguation page?

Disambiguation pages are meant for terms which have a number of meanings. Resident Evil is a franchise with many elements - there is only one meaning.

The Resident Evil (series) page as it is now called gives an overview and history of the Resident Evil franchise and everything that it has spawned with links to the various films and games where they are covered in more detail.

I propose that this disambig page is once again turned back into a redirect to Resident Evil (series) again where the topic is properly handled.

DamienG 10:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact you can already see from the page history that people have started adding the names of other films. Somebody previously turned Resident Evil into a disambiguation page and again people started adding images and links to the various games so it becomes a poor clone of Resident Evil (series) which should be back at Resident Evil.

DamienG 11:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Consistency. There are three different things named "Resident Evil," and it's reasonable that an incoming link may be referring to the first game or first movie. That said, I've added a commented-out warning not to add the sequels, film or game, again. You're right that it needs to not become another clone of Resident Evil (series). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

CKs Archives

On his talk page he's mentioned once or twice that he's archived his talk, but there are no links there. Any idea where they are kept, and shouldn't an obvious link to them be a requirement of archiving your talk page, since everyone wants to make sure you're not hiding warnings, etc. --Crossmr 21:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

DVader.jpg image

It's all right. License is correct. ru:User:Lone Guardian 217.118.79.9 01:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAP

If you are trying to promote articles to featured status, please consider joining WikiProject Featured articles, a project where users around Misplaced Pages work together to promote articles. We hope to see you joining the project. Minun 15:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in VG characters

I'm currently cracking down on fair use in articles pertaining to video game characters as they often contain images depicting characters in different costumes which are 99% of the time not being discussed within the article text, and there's usually not a proper caption either that connects the image to the text. I've noticed you've removed some and I'm hoping you'll continue to do so as these removals are often reverted by a select few editors. For clarification, you may cite items #3 (one image is adequate for identification and illustration), #8 (decorative purpose) and #9 (no critical commentary). Anyway, thanks for your time and hopefully I haven't wasted it. Vic Vipr 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've been removing those images for exactly those reasons, and will continue to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this. However, Vic, I'm concerned that this is the bulk of your mainspace contributions lately, I looked, and there has not been any legitimate article edits recently. Please don't allow your obsession with process to overshadow your contribtuion to the expansion and improvement of articles. -Zero 11:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Template trouble

What's wrong..? Do you need assistance with this..? -Zero 11:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, fixed it already. It was a loose pipe floating around from a copy/paste, kicking the content into the !IF part of #if, instead of the IF part. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh nevermind, I suppose you handled it yourself.

About the general templates, I've recovered from the shock of the previous implementation and I'm no longer opposed to the template, although I still would favor a more simiplistic design than that of the lifted from the CVG design. I'll argue the template design of the main CVG talk at a later time, as there's so much to accomplish on my to-do list, one of which, unsurprisingly, is the removal of spoiler tags and their usage on wikipedia. -Zero 11:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd talk about removing spoiler tags on the talk page of the spoiler tag itself as well as the Village Pump; I don't think a bottom-up crusade is going to work very well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am. However, I haven't ceased removing them. Absolutely not. See Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning and the valid discussion on my talkpage. -Zero 11:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Mainspace projects I'm working on are outlined in R & D, in case you are interested. -Zero 11:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor charactes and WP:FICT

Can you explain to me why these articles aren't redirects to List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch: The Series...?

• Leroy (Lilo and Stitch character) - only appeared in the most recent movie. A minor character.
• Experiment 627 - A one-shot character. Only appeared in one episode.
• Sparky (Experiment 221) - minor character. List description is suifficient.
• Angel (Experiment 624) - minor character.
• Reuben (Experiment 625)- minor character.

As a editor that commonly merges such into list articles like myself, I'm attempting to reason to this editor User:StitchPedia that isn't acceptable. I'm expasperated with the stupid insolense. A third opinion...? -Zero 18:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, describing the opinion of someone who disagrees with you as "stupid insolence" isn't a good start.

My suggestion is to use examples; List of Pokémon characters and List of Advance Wars COs are both good places to start. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have a point. Can you bring this to one of the talkpages..? -Randall Brackett 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike's AFDs

While I agree with some of them, he is jumping the gun. The whole point of making the lists was to track minor articles, yes, but it is also necessary to have data available if the article is to become encyclopedic. Fortuntaely, as an administrator, I can track the deleted articles and extract the information, so it's not a problem to me. — Deckiller 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I think most of them will be kept, and a couple will be weeded. They can always be remade if there's some new revelation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt number 99999

I understand that you have had a problem with this user in the past, to the point where he filed a Request for Comment against you. He has done the same thing to me very recently, and that effort was also unsuccessful.

CoolKatt has an RfC against him that was filed on May 17th, and is still pending (obviously, way past the 48-hour window). But, as it seems nothing may result from it, I am considering nominating that RfC for deletion and filing a new one. I may also seek mediation to resolve this dispute between myself and CoolKatt that has been ongoing for nearly two months. What do you think? Leave a comment on this page. Rollosmokes 16:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't listen to Rollosmokes. He himself is a problem user. CoolKatt number 99999 22:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take your comments under advisement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Investigation and Arbitration

On top of a ongoing investigation pending against CoolKatt, I have now filed a Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration as one more attempt to settle this. I did this after learning that he filed an investigation request against me, and for me this was the proverbial last straw. Please feel free to comment on it. Rollosmokes 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA and AfD mixup

Replied on the Star Wars WikiProject page. :-P — Deckiller 21:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:For you sanity's sake

Thank you, it's probably for the best. I think he's crossed a line, he wants me to use baton pass... Highway 21:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

COmputer Soldier Porygon

May you please put that back on the site so I can print the page out?

As it was a copyright violation, no, I can't. You can find it on Bulbapedia, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A line has been crossed

Cross posted to User talk:Smurrayinchester

Okay, I've been sent a letter from Minun (or Poke Fan's, since Minun has fell off the bandwagon) "feather" (yeah, I think he was shooting for "father") and well it's weird. It's here, I'm not even copying it over, it isn't worth it. It must be his IP, he may have a rotating one, I don't know what it is. If you could talk to him it would be great. Thanks, troubled Highway 16:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh

It's not a commercial site. It has to do with these gaming systems. If you would have actually looked at the page, you would have seen it has to do with game reviews and the like. So yeah, thanks.

That's a generic template, sorry. Please, though, don't spam the same more-or-less irrelevant review site link across a dozen articles again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it's irrelevant when it's a site dedicated to the discussion of gaming consoles. I didn't do it randomly across a dozen articles either. I went on Golden Sun, Golden Sun 2, Playstation, and Nintendo. That's it. And that's because it was RELATED information. I also corrected something on the GSII page. I'm not doing this for me.

There are thousands upon thousands of pages dedicated to the discussion of gaming consoles. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links policy and only add links that actually contribute to improving the article instead of links that are merely topically related. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously "Improvement" is relative.

Hmm, kinda looks like there's a mild dispute about whether to have more or less external links in articles like Golden Sun. I know that every fansite about a game (like Golden Sun Realm) should not all be put on the page, but I've read WP:EL for myself and think that there should be at least one fansite as part of the external links, because it fits all the criteria of the policy page and seems useful. I'll need your opinion so that I know how I should handle potential linkspam myself in the future. Erik the Appreciator 23:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO, if it can't ever be a reference for the article (and it isn't itself the subject of the article; e.g. Fark and fark.com), it shouldn't be an external link. If it can be a reference, make it a reference. If it can't, get rid of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Athlete bit

"I'm not an athlete of any kind, though." I've always wondered what you meant by having this on your user page. Is there a joke involved? If so, I haven't got it yet. :) Erik the Appreciator 19:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would reasonably conclude its in reference to he is not very physically active and attractive to the ladies, in strark contrast to myself. I'm what my fellow editors would describe as a "wikimaster". I'm fit, attractive, a consistent contributor and I can tote bales too. A Man In Black still has not attained this level of mastery. In the future, perhaps. -Randall Brackett 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Will you mentor me in being awesome? --Chris Griswold 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Zero, you are twisted.

It's a reference to what you get when you Google my real name. There are two college athletes of note that have my name, then a Z-grade writer (which is the one that's actually me). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you would google your own name, an idea that had never occured to me before? You must really like being around the mirror, or something. Okay, I have now tried your idea for myself, and let me tell you, I am not a friggin' filmmaker! And I don't have a goatee, either. (I shave it every Sunday night) Erik the Appreciator 00:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It came of a discussion on IRC, actually. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, how disappointing. :) Erik the Appreciator 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Friend of yours

Image:A Man In White.jpg -Randall Brackett 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

B14rgz0rz m1 h34d 45p10d3

I'd like to think Pokemon is more relevant then Xiaolin Showdown. I'm a fan of most of what you call "cruft", but this is just obsessive. Ace ofspade 03:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What's just obsessive? Who said I don't like Xiaolin Showdown (I love it). I'm lost. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned you hate obsessive cartoon fans, and I think all the articles for it are just obsessive —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.68.92.30 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't hate obsessive cartoon fans. I am an obsessive cartoon fan. I'm just not a big fan of obsessive-cartoon-fan levels of detail on WP, that's all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to say maybe you could help trim a little bit, you seem to be merge-crazy

Not my best work, but I think you'd agree that nothing on those lists needed its own article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Merges

I've completed all the merge tasks at WP:PAC2, cheers Minun 19:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Charizard

According to Charizard's peer review, we need to add around 30 references to the article so we will need help from as much Wikipedians as we can find, cheers Minun 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Black Zero

I could care less if this image is deleted or not as I don't think it should have been included to begin with. I added all the things that you required in event that someone feels its need for inclusion in the Zero article. Thanks for teaching me a couple things Zero X Marquis 01:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Hey, were you the one who recolored that image? If not, we also need a source for who recolored it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It says in the fair use rationale that I was the one who recolored it. Zero X Marquis 05:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sith Lords

Hi. I suggest you take a look to Darth Plagueis's trivia section. I see your point in reverting my edit to the Darth Vader's page (altho I don't necessarily agree), however the two articles would better be consistent. --Blindscape 14:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge (vg character)

Stumbled upon Devil Jin and thought Jin Kazama would be a better fit, though I'm not too certain of how bold one can be, so that's why I'm here. Thoughts? o/s/p 14:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to merge, go right ahead; the only reason I hadn't merged is because those article need total rewrites, and I knew I'd get bogged down in that if I tried to merge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Monkeys

I'm not sure about the redirecting of Ukkiki. It's been around for over a year now, and survived an AfD in the past. Anyway, was it discussed anywhere? I always thought that turning a page into a redirect like that was usually an Afd dicussion outcome. Oh well, let me know. Sorry to be such a bother, RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a bold action, and you can redirect a contentless page without an AFD. I just don't see any enyclopedic value to the page, and there's no sources or any hope for sources, so it flunks WP:V anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it contentless. I'm not going to be a jerk, however, and revert your redirect. I would just like it noted that I strongly disagree, based mainly on the article's AfD, where it was decided that the article be kept. Not only that, but the article was even slightly expanded after its AfD closed. Anyway, good luck in further editing. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Vg021206.gif

I don't think this is speedy-deletable; It was posted here "with permission" before 2005-05-19, and supposedly, that sort of images are only speediable under CSD I3 if they're not actually used in articles, and this picture appears to be (VG Cats as the most prominent example). You could always either take it to IfD or something, or ask the original uploader to clarify the licencing by using {{fairusein}} and providing fair use rationales. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Misread the date on the upload with that one. I'll probably do that eventually, but I can't really be bothered to at the moment and it's not hurting anything for the time being. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My mistakes

Sorry about that thing I did to the headers of Charizard, I thought I was supposed to do that Minun 10:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the "In other media" section needs cleanup, would you like to help? Minun 13:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Imposters

I noticed you have been impersonated by multiple users, theres:

• A man in black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Man In Black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• THE MAN IN BLACK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Just like to warn you, cheers Minun 19:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Halo Weapons

Hi there, just wanted to suggest adding List_of_weapons_in_Halo:_Combat_Evolved to your current afd nomination for the other Halo weapons page for the second game in the series. The suggested page is the same thing, except for the first game in the series. It includes such gems as "The Pistol along with the Sniper Rifle is considered by some to be the best weapon in the game" and " It is known that some players can easily defeat a foe who is armed with a rocket launcher simply by doing multiple head shots" and "A player with this weapon can become an unstoppable juggernaut with good cover/backup." Since its basically the same as the other page, I don't see the need for a separate afd (although maybe thats simpler, I dont know). Anyway, keep up the good work on the anti-cruft crusade! Bwithh 00:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. As for the separate AFDs, like I said on the AFD itself, I'd really rather keep these AFDs separate whenever possible so that issues with each article can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

General CVG character Template

I've recently made minor aesthetic touches to the template, which I've clarified on Talk:Kyo Kusanagi. This has alleviated my concerns with the illustrated images and one I feel comfortable with implementation. I'm going to flip this across the articles, but I don't understand this crazy sub-template-subst-main thingy you've done. Please help. -Randall Brackett 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It was specifically designed to share appearance with the rest of WP:CVG's infoboxes. You also broke the {{{width}}} parameter and widened the standard width (making any page with this nearly unreadable on smaller monitors). That was why I reverted.

I detest floating boxes, especially vertically-aligned floating boxes, which often impact readability significantly negatively when you have an exceptionally tall entry in the right column (especially two tall entries in a row in the right column). That's why I don't like it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually that was mistake carried from my sandbox. I'm going to edit this now; I only intended to remove the lines and allow the images to mesh into the template. -Randall Brackett 23:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I've made another fix. My edits are intended to allow the images to merge into the template as previously. I also previewed a number of articles while in edit modes to check this. I've retained the design in association with the project and I've kept {{{width}}} parameter (I've decreased the value, in fact). If you still spy a problem feel free to bring it to my talkpage and we'll discuss there. I'm very pleased with the results. -Randall Brackett 23:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It was specifically designed to share appearance with the rest of WP:CVG's infoboxes, and you haven't addressed any of my concerns but the trivial ones (like the {{{width}}} problem). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What are your concerns...? Your current actions seem indicate an ownership of the template without leeway for improvement in other editors viewpoints. I'm inclined to take the issue of rollback with the insufficient edit summeries to WP:AN/I. -Randall Brackett 23:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It was specifically designed to share appearance with the rest of WP:CVG's infoboxes.

I detest floating boxes, especially vertically-aligned floating boxes, which often impact readability significantly negatively when you have an exceptionally tall entry in the right column (especially two tall entries in a row in the right column).

These are copy-pasted from my comments above, and remain unaddressed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

These seem to be personal views that are irrelevant to the workings of the encyclopedia. The first is paticularly nonsensical as the design is retained in the format of blue and white. Retaining the design is a minor issue but one I contested in view of image issues I discovered and ammended. The previous design (which is exactly the same minus line breaks and the like) doesn't fullfill the need of sheltering the images in a way suitible.

The second quibble is perhaps pressing and I will attempt to do something about this, although its a fairly baseless argument, one that doesn't hold in observations of article space. Your arguments seem to pertain to asthestic views, which doesn't hold in any relevance. My edits to the template were to ensure complete readability with all editing purposes and keep the template as useful on a long term basis. Its in line with the consistent nature of all character templates used across projects. All follow this essential format so its already been previously established. -Randall Brackett 00:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot of long words and absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

Let's simplify. Your design sucks. It uses vertical alignment, which made reading top-to-bottom (the way a tall box, like an infobox, is read) difficult. It removes the borders when all of the other CVG templates use borders. It changes the color from the standard CVG color for no reason I can figure out.

You haven't addressed any of these points, just answered with a lot of obfuscation, with references to "image issues" you haven't detailed and "complete readability" when you haven't answered my own specific readability points. I can break things down to discuss each of them individually, but the last time I did that, you conceded all the points then went and forked the template anyway. I'm a bit fed up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you've succeeded in arguing yourself into a corner where you cannnot but simply conceed this really isn't relevant to Misplaced Pages on a number of matters, but I'm not concerned about the attitude. I'll copy and paste what I noted on Talk:Kyo Kusanagi:

Its difficult to describe what I observed into words. When the infobox was implmented earlier, the images didn't mesh into the template and looked unnatural against it, as if it didn't belong. It, however, looked fine on most renders. I changed the template, taking away the bolded lines and devisions. It looks suitible across all articles now and I feel its a great comprimise, something AMIB and I can be happy upon.

Upon earlier inspection of the template, which was derived from the CVG infobox, the original formatting was created with the intent to house box art and the like. With character images being more variable and can be implemented in various manners across the wiki I thought this minor change was suitible. I also retained the blue and white design, signifying its relation to the CVG project as this was a note raised by A Man In Black earlier. I'm pleased to say this is a great solution.

In short, I think the syntax of the template should include the designs established by all of the other templates across the wiki merged with what we have currently. You're objections are noted. I'll attempt to ammend them with code from other designs but I've seen no problem with the edits and they were certainly productive. Misplaced Pages is really not about doing things your way, as I think you must have realised after all this time. Prohibiting input from other editors and callaboration destroys the point of a wiki. -Randall Brackett 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reply was at Talk:Kyo Kusanagi? Oooookay...

It's not a compromise AMIB can be happy with. It doesn't use borders and it uses vertical alignment. Those are the only substantial differences, and one is inconsistent with the other CVG templates and the other negatively impacts readability. Address these points please.

As for "drawn images not meshing," you are the only one who has reported this. I'm inclined to believe that it is an issue limited to you alone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be confusing. I noted I made the reply on the talkpage in question on my original post and the it should appear on your watchlist. How you could have not realised this is beyond me.

Okay. Your concerns are noted but I've no idea how they affect the template's usefulness to the encyclopedia: It doesn't use borders and it uses vertical alignment. Those are the only substantial differences, and one is inconsistent with the other CVG templates and the other negatively impacts readability.

Address them for what, exactly...? I'm not concerned about your quibbles if they don't improve the template's value to wikipedia. I'm not concerned about anyone's problems with it if its purely being reverted to accomplish a personal preferance. I made my edits in view to improve said usefulness.

Incidentally, what makes you think I'd ever support the idea of disallowing the variable point of the wiki? If there's a policy with backing where it permits the ownership of template space and the uniform design in your view I'd certianly like to see it. I surely must have missed something here. Is it about you or is it about wikipedia? -Randall Brackett 00:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This won't be consise. I'm copying said discussion over to WP:CVG project page. We'll continue discussion over there. -Randall Brackett 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The other CVG infoboxes use borders, and as such this template also uses borders. Please give a reason not to be consistent with the other CVG infoboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Vertical alignment makes it hard to read a template, especially when you have two large entries in succession in the right column. Please give a reason to use vertical alignment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop blithering about ownership of template space and variability on Misplaced Pages and other such time-wasting nonsense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am being consistent. I'm being consistent with all of the other character templates; in the borderless design while retaining the format of the CVG templates. Vertical alignment is used to keep the template in its current design inline with above (if there's a policy or some sort of concensus citing where the direct design is rquired I'd like to see this).

When you refer to "blithering", I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that complaints about a template being adressed is not probmatic to the procedure of editting. When you can freely admit that the reverts on the template were assisting in a way the latter doesn't, I don't really see how the complaints can be taken seriously at all. -Randall Brackett 01:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Consistent with which character templates? If you're referring to the old character templates, I don't see any reason to be consistent with largely inconsistent and now-replaced character templates, when the alternative is to be consistent with widely-used templates with a similar purpose and origin.

As for vertical alignment, consistency isn't more important than readability. I'd be happy to replace a a less-readable design with a more-readable one and to blazes with consistency. Vertical alignment makes the template significantly less readable.

I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that complaints about a template being adressed is not probmatic to the procedure of editting. This is blithering. I know what each and every one of the words in that sentence means. However, I cannot parse that sentence. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm trying to implement the design used by Template:Superherobox, amoung others. I'll keep working on it. -Randall Brackett 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

SHB probably isn't a very good example to emulate, as it is currently undergoing a lot of redesigning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No matter. This is irrelevant to what I'm attempting to accomplish. -Randall Brackett 01:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Point being, don't use vertical alignment just because SHB uses it, because SHB sucks for readability. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree. You're the only editor that's said this. I don't see the problem and I'm using the lowest of monitor resolutions. -Randall Brackett 02:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

SHB sucks for readability because of the vertical alignment. VERTICAL ALIGNMENT IS BAD FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE. Don't use it! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've no opinion of your viewpoint on the matter but I would ask you provide evidence of this claim so that I may take it seriously. Hidden structure is outlined in wikipedia space and looked down upon. This isn't. -Randall Brackett 02:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm. SHB doesn't use vertical alignment. I wonder what ibx I was thinking of.

In any case, here is an example of why vertical alignment is bad. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Really..? I'll take a gander at your code, there. I think I can remove vertical alignment whilst retaining the design I was attempting to implement, which should keep us both happy. -Randall Brackett 02:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother looking; it's your code, dumped in my userspace.

What would make me happy is for all of the CVG templates to use the same formatting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it should, really. I see no policy on this, nor any concensus or basis of fact.

We're starting to go round in circles. I saw nothing wrong with example you provided me with. Now please tell me why you my oppose my posistion on the matter. You still haven't answered the questions other than the arguments "I don't like them". -Randall Brackett 02:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What questions? You've removed the borders and added vertical alignment. You say we shouldn't use borders because {{SHB}} doesn't use borders, I say the CVG examples are better because those are stable templates. I say we shouldn't use vertical alignment because it causes large entries in the right column to flow together and because the other CVG templates don't use it and because I don't like it, you...don't really justify vertical alignment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at the code now - I don't recall using vertical alignment. I'm not certain about "stable templates". What on earth are you talking about...? The CVG template was created with box art, cropped CVG renders and screenshots in mind. I'm changing the template to fit the different images that can be adapted to it so it looks neat and natural. -Randall Brackett 02:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I updated it to the last version you posted at {{General CVG character}}. It still uses vertical alignment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Point this out for me. I do not see it. -Randall Brackett 02:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

topalign   This
           is
           an
cenalign   example
           of
           vertical
botalign   alignment.

With top alignment (the usual one, and the one I prefer), "leftcol" would be adjacent to "The". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I still don't see how that's a problem. In your examples, you deliberately placed the data aligned horizonally. In the template example you used the "br" commands. This becomes a problem if used on any page in wikipedia, be it template or article. -Randall Brackett 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. Your template does automatically what I did deliberately. Look at User:A Man In Black/Yeahtest and you'll see that the fields are vertically center-aligned, the same way as my example. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Lets look at your syntax:

|realname=Bill<br>John<br>James<br>Alice<br>Susan<br>Austin<br>Tom<br>Jimmy
|aliases=Nate<br>Beth<br>Nick<br>Don<br>Teresa<br>Jack<br>Vinny

It does not implement text in an horizontal fashion. This was perfomed manually, by you. Pleasse don't make blatently false statements. And I know the template does not do this because I have tested it on a large number of articles. -Randall Brackett 03:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I forced the right column entries to be tall for the sake of comparison. Nothing I did in the example did anything to change the alignment settings in the template itself. I'll use a different example, if you prefer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I was saying, vertically center-alignment causes long entries to run together. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of the columns which compenstate for the text being inserted, I'm speaking of how you used the br command to align the text. The template does not do that.

If there's a legitimate example, yes, I would appreciate it. -Randall Brackett 03:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the problem. You don't actually know what I'm talking about, probably because I'm not explaining very well.

topalign   This
           is
           an
cenalign   example
           of
           vertical
botalign   alignment.

This is how vertical alignment works.

When you have top vertical alignment, the left-column field would appear aligned with the top of the right-column field, as with "topalign" above.

When you have center vertical alignment, the left-column field would appear aligned at the middle of the right-column field, as with "cenalign" above.

When you have bottom vertical alignment, the left-column field would appear aligned with the bottom of the right-column field, as with "botalign" above.

Make sense? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please depict where I implemented this in the syntax. -Randall Brackett 04:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't use the word "depict" if you don't know what it means.

I'm not exactly sure what's causing it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

Where are you when he does this to me for the past week or so? I change three comments on my talk page and now you are aware? Please see him and his merry band that have been stalking me for the past week. Charles_Buell_Anderson Thanks. Ste4k 03:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't really justify trolling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a very quick read you did there for a topic that has an AfD, AfD discussion, and archived talk pages, etc. Do you have some time to look at where I learned from him and his friend? I'm not trolling anything. He put remarks on my page. Sure, I stuck my tongue deep into my cheek, but what justifies your remark and revert if you don't intend to clean up all of the various things he and his friend have done in exactly the same manner to me?

Easy enough. Nothing justifies trolling. I skimmed the talk page and saw lots of you accusing people of trolling or vandalism for disagreeing with you or consolidating dispute tags, so I didn't feel any further action was needed on my part. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the entry in this encyclopedia, you are labeling the wrong person troll. Please see:

If you are going to bother to make reverts, then please do so in a equal and fair manner. Thanks. Ste4k 04:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You were trolling on your talk page, by making deliberately provocative headers. AF was making the headers a bit more specific, if not exactly neutral. I'm not seeing a problem with AF's conduct. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Define trolling, please, and you failed mention anything about the talk page of the article on Charles_Buell_Anderson.

Being deliberately obnoxious to get attention. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So what do you call someone that follows someone else around on any article they work on and make pointed comments and personal attacks instead of discussing the article? You appear to be ignoring the issue about the talk page on Charles_Buell_Anderson. Ste4k 04:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-existent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your evaluation. There is nothing different from the three edits I made on my talk page compared to the many obnoxious remarks made by your friends. There is also no justifiable way to say that I would try to get attention on my talk page when the people disrupting me with self-admitted personal attacks intiate the conversation. It is at best a guess on your part, and you have deliberately imposed your own POV in the determination that my edits to my talk page are any more or less a redefinition of clarity "if not exactly neutral". Therefore, it appears that you are acting only as an editor and friend of the others rather than as a neutral party in an aministrative capacity. Ste4k 04:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My friends? Who are you talking about?

In any event, you were being deliberately annoying on your talk page. Don't do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes your friends. By injecting a POV judging for yourself whom is or is not making an "annoying" comment when the facts are clearly equal, you are "siding" with others. That makes them your friends (in common lingo). There was nothing annoying about anything on my page. If there was, then please be specific. Ste4k 04:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The things that I removed were obnoxious trolling. Don't do that, or anything like it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are only stating your personal opinion and are not specifically supplying any reasons for it. It is therefore only baseless opinion. If you cannot explain what makes my edits obnoxious even only to you, then how can I justify considering your opinion in any way? You say, "the edits were obnoxious" but you fail to say how or why you think so. I say that AF and NS's actions are obnoxious too. You deleted the evidence and willfully refused to investigate it. Direct question: Are you actiing in an administrative capacity or are you just irritated by something you don't want to look into? Ste4k 05:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlike in article space, I am allowed a certain amount of discretion as to what I deem disruption and how I deal with it. I am exercising that discretion. I think your actions are obnoxious and disruptive, whereas I don't see the actions of the articles you are trying to rile as disruptive. This is indeed acting in an administrative capacity, but I'm not currently interested in the actions of other editors unless you're somehow making a case that your actions are mitigated by the actions of others (and you haven't done much to convince me of that).

In short, an admin is telling you not to troll. Knock off the trolling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)