Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:30, 27 June 2007

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

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

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

Archives:

• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
• 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
• Miscellanous archive
• Random awards and other stuff left on my talk page

Brandt close

Good luck. Have fun sorting out that mess. JoshuaZ 23:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to reading your analysis. Make me proud I unblocked you. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You closed it the exact same way I would: suspend it and read all the arguments. Well done. (I would've participated in the closing, but apparently I've had prior involvement.) Good luck. Let's hope no one abuses Deletion Review because they disagree. (messedrocker • talk) 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would hope someone would take it to DRV if they don't feel I've arrived at the best conclusion for Misplaced Pages as a whole. I can't realistically hope to avoid DRV, only hope to forge a solution that will survive it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Should I copy over the edit history of the article to something like Talk:Daniel Brandt/edit history so that there will be a lasting copy of the edit history for GFDL purposes? (In the event the page itself is deleted?) (messedrocker • talk) 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It won't be, unless someone deletes it despite this close. A protected redirect does as good a job as that when it comes to obscuring the old history. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For having the guts to close the AfD, I "proudly, yet angrily", present you with this Barnstar. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Arroooo. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely spot on close. Well done. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

An eminentally well thought out and sensible close. To paraphrase someone: good work, and good luck.--Cúchullain /c 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your work. Keep it up no matter how much noise you hear. --JWSchmidt 18:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV

I'm really sorry to have to do this, but I've requested a DRV on the Brandt AfD. . JoshuaZ 01:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		I merely commented on the Daniel Brandt AfD, however your conclusion and recommendation was definitely thinking "outside the box" and merits a kudo! Wildthing61476 01:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Add a bar to that barnstar, my friend. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Another one from me. Good job!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I, Durova award A Man In Black the Editor's Barnstar for superb work in the Daniel Brandt WP:AFD. It isn't easy to approach a dilemma that has festered for so long and come up with something that makes the situation better. I think you did a better job of resolving that discussion than I did in opening it. You've earned my respect both for your courage in closing a very difficult AFD and for your excellent reasoning that balanced the needs and arguments of all sides. Durova 20:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I see I'm not the first one to notice! You deserve a compliment for that wise, indeed Solomonic, decision on how to handle the Brandt AFD. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I second (or third or fourth) all those barnstars. Good work :) Martinp23 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

This is slightly overdue, but great to have you back, Mr. Black. Now if HighwayCello returns anytime soon, I'll be REALLY surprised. Also, I was wondering if you or someone else who sees this might be interested in uploading a better console pic for the GameCube page? The one on there now really looks pretty sad IMO, what with the ugly orange 3rd-party memory card and the messy wire. I'd do it myself, but my digital camera sucks bigtime. Nintenboy01 03:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

With regards to your Archive links at the top of the page. Say I want to consider a new page, but want to see what it looks like before I create it and thus want it as like, an off-shoot of my user page. Like, under the magic discussion here, the one guy mentions a page "User: A Man In Black/Whatever" How would I do a page like that for me? The Clawed One 19:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make a user subpage, just make a page named User:The Clawed One/whatevernameyoulike. You can add this after the http://en.wikipedia.org/ in the title bar, link to a nonexistant page with the name you'd like, or type the name in the Search box and hit Go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm attempting a large merge and wanted to test it first. The Clawed One 03:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Public Information Research

Hi, I'm leaving this here as I see you don't have e-mail enabled. I was wondering if you would agree to us having one article on Public Information Research, rather than four articles about its various projects. This would be in keeping with your closure decision, I think, to merge relevant material into title(s) about PIR's work, rather than a bio. I've written a draft, which you can see here; I've deleted it in the meantime, so as not to risk further chaos. :-) Could you let me know what you think about organizing things that way? SlimVirgin 23:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinion about how to organize things, but that sounds reasonable to me. It seems like a good redirect target for the Brandt title, if that merge is done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, but even more so with the notion that "Daniel Brandt" should redirect to Public Information Research, not to NameBase. I wonder if you could fix this? (NB I've spent a bit of time trying to tidy up these various PIR articles.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about where it redirects. I'd suggest opening a discussion at Talk:Daniel Brandt about this, and I'll redirect whereever everyone agrees it should point after the DRV is done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV notification

I have asked for a deletion review of Daniel Brandt. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ta bu shi da yu 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There was already one going, sorry, didn't see it. I really can't see why you think a "complex merge" is going to satisfy anything. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt (redirects here)

";Daniel Brandt (redirects here)" in the see also sectiom was a label, a title, a subsection heading. It is common and appropriate in see also sections. WAS 4.250 16:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other examples you can show me? After editing for years, I've never once seen that done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Missingno.

I just moved Glitches found in the Pokémon video games to Pokémon video game glitches, and I need to fix the WP:2R for Missingno. and 'M. However, both are protected, and I'm not an admin. Can you do it? hbdragon88 05:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

AFD

How do I nominate an article for deletion? The Clawed One 10:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No help? The Clawed One 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Tag it with {{subst:afd}}, click the "preloaded debate" link and fill that out, then go back to the article you want to delete and copy-paste the afd3 template into the day's list (which is linked right after that). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The page I want to nominate is a real mess - speculation, no sources, no Neutral POV...unfortunately the same can be said for many of the related pages in the bottom template. It seems games in particular have sourcing problems. The Clawed One 01:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Navboxes

Hi, are you still interested in pursuing standardized navbox appearances? I'm uncertain if the CVG project ever agreed on a standard appearance, so if you feel like chiming in on the recently updated {{Castlevania series}} template I would appreciate it. Cheers. Combination 10:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That template makes my brain hurt. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, no, I'm really not. It's not worth fighting people over their ugly-ass, bloated, useless shit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Article for Removal (AfR)

I've been working on an Article for Removal (AfR) proposal and would appreciate any comments you have. Thanks! -- Jreferee 02:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No real thoughts on the subject right now, other than that it needs a better name. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

I looked at your awards and saw the barnstar for vandalism that caused the giver to smile. What vandalism was it? I would love to see it. -- Jac _roe 20:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okie doke. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:D EXCELLENT!!! -- Jac _roe 16:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments.

1. Removing one box art merely complicates issues. There need to be a visual representation of the PAL version for the PAL readers.
2. I'm going to begin a discussion related to specific information on Pokémon articles, including evolution details. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that it complicates things. This doesn't mean that the removal of the second image isn't necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Brain Age cover art

Allo.
(I didn't know if you'd prefer this here, or on the article talk page; so I arbitrarily chose here. I'm more than happy to take it there if you prefer)
While although I don't think that reasons like, 'equal consideration', or representing specifically for the sake of european readers are at all relevant, I still think there may be reasonable logic behind including both boxarts in this case. In this case, it isn't just the different titles, but the combination of different titles, different colours, updated graphics (ie. DS Lite instead of DS), and the difference in flashiness (the graph-paper style background and subdued tone of the european cover, versus the overstated NA background that makes me expect a gong, and includes a much more pronounced sudoku mention), together, seem to present a more complete look than either could do alone.
(Also, the graph-paper background better illustrates the adult-audience/non-game-game titles that nintendo's pushing now) Bladestorm 04:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we only need one image to identify this game. I don't really care which image is used, but there's no justification for using two images where one identifies the game. All of the things you just told me aren't actually mentioned in the article, and indeed shouldn't be, since no reliable source have seen fit to comment on either cover. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you have it on your watchlist or not, but further discussion has been added to the Brain Age talk page. Incidentally, in terms of whether or not anyone's directly commented on the cover, it still remains true that people have commented on the presentation of the game (specifically, how it related to a later title, "Big Brain Academy"). That is, people have commented on aspects of the game that's directly reflected by the cover. (Much in the same way that, if people were to talking about how wild-eyed and freaky looking John Doe was, a picture that perfectly illustrated this would qualify, even if people hadn't directly commented on that picture) If I'm wrong about something, then I'm always happy to be created (always nice to learn), but further explanation would be appreciated. Anyways, this was really just a notification that there's been a significant addition to the article's talk page, in case it isn't on your watchlist. :) Bladestorm 03:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A single image illustrates that just as well as two. I've commented on that talk page, in any event. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I know you've commented there. :) But more has been added, and your input is appreciated. (and, like I said, I don't know if it's on your watchlist or not) :) Bladestorm 04:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Brandt Courtesy blanking

The discussion page was blanked. The AfD was blanked. But the article history itself is still there (i.e. old versions of the article are alive). Any thoughts on purging that as well? --Tbeatty 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility concern

I am concered about the generally civility of the content you have pasted onto your talk page. I do not find what you have said about Richard Nixon amusing, and an admin should have better maturity than that. Francisco Tevez 17:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it is capitalized as a proper noun, so it is a Dick, as I am technically a Dave. You are a Francisco. daveh4h 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Overall. His behaviour still seems to be shocking. Francisco Tevez 18:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lighten up. We're not here to socialize and goof around, but we're not limited to being tight asses. TTN 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A sense of humor is absolutely vital for an administrator, in my opinion. Any serious editor will burn themselves out rather quickly if they don't have a bit of an outlet (I've sure as hell got one of my own). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ok Francisco Tevez 18:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

this might do instead.

Notability for Queen of Blades

You shoved up a notability for the StarCraft: Queen of Blades article. Whilst I agree with it at the moment, please don't take it further to a vote for deletion. It's on the to do list, but be advised, it's a rather long to do list. I'm working on a lot of StarCraft pages at the moment, so it may take some time. -- S@bre

Incorrect spelling in Tittle

article: Seige of Bastogne It should be Siege of Bastogne Please fix this error, as it may cause problems --DWP17 21:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT rewrite

This should interest you:

User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction).

Relevant discussion being held on my talkpage and WT:FICT. — Deckiller 22:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Very few advocates of encyclopedic treatment of fiction are commenting. Yourself included, which is rather surprising. Busy? — Deckiller 05:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been consciously working on getting stuff done in the article and image spaces, instead of getting bogged down in policy. That said, I'll take a look. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This one might actually be worth it. It's split down the middle right now. — Deckiller 05:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I just committed political suicide on the mailing list (which will be my last e-mail on that list, since I unsubscribed), I think I'll call it a night. Long road ahead. — Deckiller 07:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiEN-l has ever been a massive, useless, clusterfuck, existing only for people to argue with banned trolls and get into retarded flamewars. I don't see any reason to worry about or reply to any post there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I will never use that jokefest of a mailing list ever again, and I have little respect for the people who were "arguing" against me, except for one or two people. The insulting by several users in particular were enough to make me vomit, especially considering I was only intending a one-way ADVERTISEMENT of the rewrite. Such armchair immaturity, if it were to spill over to Misplaced Pages, would indeed cause the project to fail rapidly. I unsubscribed. — Deckiller 13:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Block

How do you request an annonymous user for blocking? The Clawed One 23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Nenolod&action=edit

Hello, I'm contacting you to find out why you deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Nenolod&action=edit . You say that it had unnecessary personal attacks, but rather than rectifying that, you outright deleted the entire RfC, which clearly had merit due to policy violations. As to your question of certification, I personally contacting Nenolod on his talk page, AND linked to the diffs on the RfC. The initiator of the RfC, if I recall correctly, said he contacted Nenolod via IRC, and perhaps he could have clarified that had he been asked to. Instead, the page was deleted perhaps an hour after it was created. I request that you reinstate the RfC and let whatever clarification that may occur, occur, at least for a few of the 48 hours given. Regards, cacophony ◄► 10:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

See your talk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Nenolod

I believe that you are correct. I have nothing against nenolod, despite his continuous off-site assumptions of bad faith and threats to expose some sort of conspiracy. However, the fact is that his recent behavior of putting IRCd and IRC Services articles for deletion were done in a disruptive manner. The question of whether or not he is doing it to make a point (which I do believe he is, but I'm not about to argue over it) could be discarded if one simply realizes that he is doing so in a way that is impeding the process of improving wikipedia. To quote from WP:POINT:

• If someone lists one of your favourite articles on AfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier articles...
  • do state your case on AfD in favour of the article.
  • don't list hundreds of other articles on AfD in one day to try to save it.

And on his talk page, he states that he has added other competing IRC services packages to prod simply because he was asked to re-add the prod notice to Atheme that he previously removed.

Personally, I don't agree with the deletion of the InspIRCD article. I happen to have used it a few times, and despite my decision that I didn't think the software could scale properly, I feel that it is notable, and worthy of inclusion in at least the comparison of IRCd softwares article.

Ultimately my goal is to "lubricate a squeaky cog", not "squeak louder". So, given that, what do you propose should be done? I guess I can be bold, and simply remove his notices. I just don't want him to get the wrong idea. Thanks. Jmax- 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)