Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:21, 17 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
• Archive 6
• 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)

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)

I do know what it means. Please stop making incivil and stupid remarks simply because you don't understand what I'm saying.

Well if that syntax isn't present, than how can you conclude it has to do with vertical alignment..? -Randall Brackett 05:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You used depict incorrectly (just because it's more or less a synonym of "show" doesn't mean that you can use it in place of all uses of show; don't ask someone to depict something unless you want them to draw you a diagram or picture), and it's not the first time you've used a longer word you don't really have a good grasp on when a simpler word would have sufficed. This mannerism makes trying to carry on a discussion with you quite difficult.

I'm not sure what syntax you're referring to, but the template you posted over Template:General CVG character has vertical center-alignment, and I don't know what's causing it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No I did not. I asked you to depict it, as it was assumed we were using diagrams per above. I'm sorry you have a difficult time in communication. You're the only editor who has noted this. I'm not sure whether you're simply playing a game with me or you simply cannot comprehend what I say but the syde remarks are going to stop. I've no idea how you percieve them to be constructive.

If you don't know what's causing it, I'll have a more experienced editor who dabbles about in template space take a look. I'll keep you updated. -Randall Brackett 06:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a snide remark; it's just something most people are probably too polite to point out, and it's made all of this quite difficult.

Your template uses centered vertical alignment. See the diagram above for what this means. It's bad, because it causes fields to run together visually. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Something I just noticed; your template doesn't use either of the standard infobox classes (infobox and infobox bordered). I wonder if this has anything to do with the vertical alignment issues. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. I simply want the image space to center correctly in place of the gaping hole that appears. To me, it looks very intrusive. I'll keep fiddling but I think I should look for an ouside view on what I've done. -Randall Brackett 06:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have been correct. I've attempted standard infobox syntax with the design. Tell me if it still vertically aligns or whatnot, it seems to be stable on my monitor. -Randall Brackett 07:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Now the alignment is fixed. Now for the issue of why we're changing from the design used in the other WP:CVG infoboxes. I'm still wondering why you want to do that. I was kind of hoping you'd make your case at the project talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'll post my reasoning over at the project page and will present visual basis so others can comprehend the 'method to my madness'. -Randall Brackett 07:19, 15 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)

I haven't any intention of trying to convince you that my actions are any less obnoxious than the other editors. Have you also informed the other editors not to troll? I have made the complaint to you, complete with diffs, as an administrator, and you have ignored it. Basically all you are telling me is that what they are doing is fine and that I am not allowed to the same as them. All that means to me is that you are acting on their behalf and in an unfair manner. For what reason, I haven't a clue, and I don't really care. Ste4k 05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy 8

Just wondering — have you had a chance to take a look at FF8 today? Ryu and myself overhauled the article, and we think it's FA-worthy. It's on peer review right now. Thanks :) — Deckiller 06:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking very nice. The criticism is a bit choppy, but I guess that's unavoidable with a game so widely-loved but also widely-derided. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear god, that criticism section is easily the most difficult thing I have ever worked on. Ryu and myself took multiple passes on it — and he's an english teacher. We may need a third person to give us a hand for that section. — Deckiller 06:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so it's not the most difficult thing, obviously, but it was a tough section to write. — Deckiller 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much the grammar as the "This part is good! But it's bad! But it's good!" and so on. I'm not a big fan of the gameplay/graphics/story division (novels aren't reviewed on story/prose/style, are they?), but I guess it's so pervasive in game reviewing that you can't avoid it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I think it's the most difficult section to write in a gaming article because of all the aspects of the game, and all the polarized reviews. When we try to balance criticism sections, we end up forcing it to be choppy, so I guess we'll have to live with it — I don't really see a solid solution for that section. Oh well :) — Deckiller 06:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• I read the section stating that you dislike criticism/reception sections, and that they should be distributed into the matching portions of their respective articles. While I disagree, I find it to be an interesting viewpoint. — Deckiller 06:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  It's been a while since I updated that. It's not really something you can do with works of art. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  Ah, okay. By the way, I credit you for helping tp inspire my "cruft dam" arguement that you probably remember from some previous AfDs. It started exactly one year ago tomorrow, when I first came here to create numerous crufty articles on Xenosaga. A few weeks later, you motivated me into becoming a mergist. Perhaps I should give you an "award and/or other crap" for your inspiration? ^_^ — Deckiller 06:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  Hee. All the award I need is help cleaning up the garbage, that's all. I'm glad I helped get you started, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, ever since those first merges that's been one of my major quests: clean up garbage and morph things into encyclopedic articles. Lists provide a key stepping stone, in my opinion. For example, with star wars technology: 1.) 20-30 1-5 paragraph articles on technological aspects of star wars (comlinks, datapads, HoloNet, Hyperdrive, etc), 2.) List of Star Wars devices and similar lists, 3.) User:Deckiller/Technology of Star Wars (as they would say in the theater, coming soon).

  But I believe I already explained this concept multiple times :-P — Deckiller 06:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Make yourself clear

If you are going to warn me about something, then make yourself clear. Don't expect me to guess what you are thinking, try to figure out your opinion, or anything else. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. I don't read between the lines and you shouldn't be writing between them either. If you want to warn me in an official capacity then state your complaint, be specific, or quit disrupting me from working on articles. Ste4k 06:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No more hostile, obnoxious talk page headers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, please advise NScheffy to remove his obnoxious additions as well. Also AF. And please advise NScheffey that he has been warned several times and that any attempt to use my talk page without an intermediary is considered hostile, disruptive, and trolllike. I just want to work on articles and he hasn't yet had anything constructive to say about any article I have worked on and only derogatory remarks about me. Please see his latest comments on my talk page. Ste4k 06:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it that you don't believe that this guy is stalking me. I'd like to ask you to look at something then, and then give me your opinion. Ok? Here are my 1504 edits over the past two weeks since the beginning of the month. Here are his 170 edits over the exact same amount of time. Percentage wise, which of the two of us are you inclined to believe is bothering the other one? Out of his 170 edits over the past two weeks, I'd guesstimate that about 90% of them are either to me, about me, related to me, etc., even to the point that he will look for whatever I am working on to comment on whatever that is, and that he has even stated that intends to make me his personal target. Ste4k 07:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not moved to action. I am, however, notoriously lazy. Take it to WP:AN. I wouldn't get my hopes up, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your recent interaction with Ste4k

Hi, I noticed you have had the unfortunate pleasure of trying to interact with Ste4k. This user has caused a lot of problems lately, and I'm starting to think the only answer is an RfC. What are your thoughts? I've never gotten involved in User Conduct issues before, but this particular editor's behavior is so egregious I'm not sure what to do. Thanks. --Nscheffey 07:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I try not to think about problem users if I can avoid it, but RfC is probably the next step to take, if you feel it is appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to jump in here. I have tentatively concluded based on a comment on my talk page she left reading in part "Hi, it's me the unprofessional bored sitting at home lady again;" the series of petty melodramas she has been involved in since she's been here and a history of what can only be described as bizarre edits and nonsequiter comments on talk pages that she likes to "stir up the pot" here to add some excitement to her life. It sounds like a almost like a kind of passive-agressive trolling, albeit perhaps she doesn't realize that's what she's doing. An RfC may be appropriate, but not feeding the trolls may work also. But you both have been here longer than I, so I will leave it to your discretion. JChap (Talk) 11:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Pokémon Character

Black, why are you turning it into Pokémon locations? Highway 09:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm smoking crack. (I fixed it. Not sure what happened, there.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

{{Castlevania character}}

Could you convert this into a {{General CVG character}} compatible format? Many thanks o/s/p 09:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you object if I just used {{General CVG character}} on these articles and sent this template to TFD? It's only used on three articles and most of it is game-guide (weapons, special abilities) or trivia (age). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, {{General CVG character}} makes more sense upon closer inspection. o/s/p 10:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Replaced and redirected. Wow, there are a ton of crufty Castlevania character articles, huh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'll trim and merge as necessary. o/s/p 12:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Save for Simon Belmont, Dracula (Castlevania) and Alucard (Castlevania), all remaining character entries can be trimmed and moved to List of Castlevania characters. Just started moving a few. o/s/p 13:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry, it was an attempt at self deprecation that doesn't appear to have carried. Steve block Talk 11:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's okay. It wasn't that it didn't carry but that it could be read either as a mild rebuke or a "Oh, okay, I guess I'm not needed, then." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you

For trying to get rid of all the gamecruft it's about time someone did. Whispering 17:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Gandara

Six reverts in the past few hours? I've blocked you (as well as Randall Brackett (talk · contribs)) for 24 hours; when you return, please approach the issue with a bit less blind reverting and a bit more constructive discussion. Kirill Lokshin 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You intervened to end a revert war that was already over, and RB had just confessed to reverting to make a point. You interrupted me making an AN post about this very issue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You've just run up six (six!) reverts—some of them using admin rollback—over the highly important issue of... fifty pixels in the size of an image! I don't care why you thought that this was justified; as an administrator, you should have known better. Kirill Lokshin 02:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, please tag Image:Iroha-art.jpg as copyvio and remove {{inuse}} from List of minor Samurai Shodown characters, then. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While Image:Iroha-art.jpg does have the secondary source (the one who scanned it), it doesn't have the primary source (where the image actually came from). It needs both to be properly sourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kirill Lokshin 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Per a suggestion by Randall Brackett, I'm willing to unblock you both if you promise not to revert each other for the duration of the original block. Would that be acceptable to you? Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've unblocked you. Please play nice :-) Kirill Lokshin 03:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning category

Would you mind adding "<noinclude> ] </noinclude>" into {{Spoiler}}?

It's protected, and I can't add it.

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGriswold (talk • contribs)

Tomorrow. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. --Chris Griswold 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Added. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring and discussion

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)

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)

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: ; 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)

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)

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)

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)

What are you doing?

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

Samurai Edge article

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)