Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:35, 26 April 2009

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 21 22 23 24 25 26 *
• Miscellanous archive

Angry Video Game Nerd

I appreciate your work to maintain the quality of Misplaced Pages articles, but I am confused why you continue to delete notability information. The references used on the page are completely independent of the show and are automatically generated by the YouTube system. This is something completely out of the control of the channel's owner. It does show notability because rankings are based directly on subscriptions. Some are more meaningful than others. The global ones are significant while I freely admit the other ones (such as director) represent a subsection which might give statistically misleading results. Would you be opposed to maintaining the global stats and removing the non-global ones?

The show is extremely popular in the gaming community - especially the retro-gaming community. I am a member of the retro-community (in fact I hopefully will finish a homebrew by the end of the year (cartridge and all) - ugh, the old systems are not easy to code! :)

This is not the case of "fanboyism" - at least not in my case. I am quite fond of the "Ask ThatGuy" series, but it certainly hasn't reached notability. The stats on that site are his, and thus untrustworthy. I am also not just another user. I have created quite a few SVGs for the site - the California Flag included. Anyway, have a great day/night (whichever side of this crazy orb you live). Cheers -DevinCook (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Because they aren't in any sense notability information. They're badly sourced claims. Automatically generated rankings are transitory, and imply no particular importance unless they're superlative. Being the top-ranked creator on YouTube is worthy of note; being one of dozens of "highly-ranked" creators is not. We need a source taking note of these rankings, not simply an auto-generated site listing "This is the 38th-most-popular video in Arbitrary Category!" It's not that they're not trustworthy; it's that they're not important. We need a source that isn't Rolfe's own YouTube profile. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever expand articles? I'm trying to find article work, but all I find is, "revert, revert, revert, remove, remove, revert, revert." Your user page also insists that this is your only function on this project. The prolonged edit war on Angry Video Game Nerd is getting very frustrating. It's like 3RR, but you drag it out over a period of months rather than a day. At least you've stopped with the deliberately deceptive edit summaries to remove more sourced information than stated.. for now. Due to that incident, I am still not convinced that you aren't just chipping away at this article until you can rush it to AFD and have it speedy deleted after a three hour discussion. Vodello (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you have a point, or were you here to heap personal abuse on me? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

For fuck's sake. The point is that you're dangerously close to WP:3RR violations with the article, you've been blocked from Misplaced Pages 10 TIMES in the past for 3RR, you've been warned many more times about 3RR, and the only way you've 'learned' from all of your previous blocks is that you wait an extra 12 hours before continuing your revert war to sneak around this site's rules. This is completely irresponsible and unbecoming of any Misplaced Pages Administrator, and it needs to stop immediately. Vodello (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think things are getting a bit tense over this article and have asked for help at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Few_week_long_edit_war.3F as perhaps some kind of mediation may help? Sincerely, --A Nobody 10:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm doing this again

I can't believe that I am having this argument over the Buffy episodes again, but here we go...

1. If you have a problem with unreferenced facts, LOOK UP THE REFERENCES YOURSELF!!! Honestly, these references can be found with a little work, and I have proven that. Instead of taking the 5 seconds to delete everything, take the 10 minutes to be a constructive Wikipedian, ya' know... not a dick, and look up the references yourself.
2. Nowhere, ANYWHERE, does it say in any of the Misplaced Pages rules that the title used for an episode in a foreign country (they are not straight translations, but the titles used in other countries where the show airs) is not allowed.
3. Those "fansites" that you called "inappropriate" for "The Wish" were not in any way user supported and, given that the facts the site was used as a reference for hardly need a citation anyway and I only put them there to attempt to soothe you, it hardly matters that the website is not the epitome of scholarly thought.

I have other grievances, but, as usual, thinking about you makes my head hurt. kingdom2 (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you will probably say "add the references yourself", but that is not the point. I should not have to come in behind you, clean up your mess, and take time out of my day that shouldn't have been taken, when you could have just as easily added the references in the first place. Or, better yet, if you do not have the time or feel you lack the expertise in the subject, just add {{cn}} to the unreferenced material. That is what that template is for, after all. You point out what you have a problem with and I assure you that my fellow Wikipedians and I will do our best to try and conform the articles to your ridiculously impossible standards. kingdom2 (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you should have to do it in the first place. In most cases, these speculative, OR-filled sections have been sitting for months untouched. "My impossible standards" are not my standards nor are they impossible: they are this project's standards, and content that does not or cannot meet them needs to be removed.

Now, if all you have to offer is calling me a dick, we're done here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That is by far not all I have to offer. I am not the original writer of most of these facts so I cannot be there to put in the references. However, it is common courtesy to provide warnings first. Put up the cn or the "needs references" templates. Even if you for some reason do not feel the need to be constructive, you can still be courteous and give us a chance. You are also deleting things that are easily verifiable without sources, for example from "The Wish":

• Giles mentions that Cleveland is a center of demonic activity. It is later revealed in the final episode of the series that the city has its own Hellmouth.
• The character Anya makes her first appearance.
• Vampire Willow returns in "Doppelgängland".
• Merchant Of Venice: The Master says "What news on the Rialto", a direct quote from the Shakespeare play.

All of the above are easily verifiable facts that should not require sources. The first three can be found in the related Buffy articles, and the last one can be found by running "What news on the Rialto" through Google. These things should not need sources.

Also, nowhere in WP:NOT did I find anything about translations, which, once again, they are not. What you are deleting is not the translation of the title but the title of the episode as it was run in other countries, which is usually quite different. For example, in the U.S. it was "The Wish", but in Germany it was "What if..." and in France it was "Best Wishes from Cordelia".

You also did not respond to issue number 3. kingdom2 (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're here telling me that it's okay to have evaluative claims without sources other than the works of fiction themselves. This isn't acceptable, it wasn't acceptable last time, it's not acceptable this time. As for titles, seriously, take it to TV Tome, we don't do translation or localization guides on this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Unless you can show me a rule that states that the titles are not allowed, you have no basis for your argument. Also the bullets I listed are not evaluative claims. One simply references the final episode, two others refer to the fact that characters reappear - no evaluation there, just need eyeballs for that - and the other one points out that the episode happens to contain a direct quote from a very famous piece of literature. There is no evaluation. One does not have to sit and ponder the meanings of these things and type them out. They are plain, easily verifiable, facts.

You did not address the point about leaving up the templates and you still did not respond to issue number 3. kingdom2 (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I must go to sleep but I plan to continue this tomorrow. kingdom2 (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You've stated that you want to write an interlinked episode guide to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That's great. Do it in a project that does that, because we're NOT the project where you post things you noticed that are interesting from various episodes. If an "easily verified fact" is verified by watching all of the episodes and making the same conclusions you did, you're on the wrong project.

If you cannot be bothered to explain what you mean by "point 3", I can't be bothered to satisfy you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why I'm really going into detail for someone who started things off by calling me a dick, but what the hell, I'm bored.

Buffyguide.com is a self-published fansite. So says the author/maintainer/webmaster: "So anyway, I'm Jamie Marie, and I do... everything. All of the actual writing and updating of all the site's contents, including the episode guide, all other sections and updates, all technical dealings, all email reading/replying, etc."

Whatever this is, it's clearly someone's fanpage hosted on their ISP's free webspace.

These are not reliable sources for commentary on anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Where, then, is your rationale for deleting the translation sections, because it is not in WP:NOT. kingdom2 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICDEF. I'm curious; where's your rationale for retaining them? Because it's not in any policy I know of that we have exhaustive lists of all of the translated names of episodes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They are not translations for the umpteenth time, they are the titles of the episodes as aired in other countries. And there is still nothing in that link, whatsoever, that lists why they must be deleted. There is absolutely nothing there and nothing in there could even hope to be extrapolated to this situation. kingdom2 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So where's the policy requiring we catalog every alternate-language name? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what, take your WP:POV and your WP:IDONTLIKEIT and shove it! Your argument for why it can't be here is the exact same argument for why it can. If it does not say yes, then delete - conversely, if it does not say no, then let it in. There is no winning in this stupid, circular argument because you shove everything into your own POV to the point where no one can win against your almost inhuman capacity for stubbornness and tendentiousness. What is the big fucking deal. I have destroyed completely your argument and I have proven that the bylaws that you have been quoting to which ban the titles do not exist, you have no leg to stand on, and yet you continue to the point where any sane person would read your argument and say "What is wrong with this guy?" The power of adminship has gone to your head and you have gotten to the point where you think you can push everyone around and mold Misplaced Pages to fit with your liking. Well guess what, all you have is WP:POV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a horrible case of sore-loserness.

And at the end of the day, I have still defeated your argument. kingdom2 (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not my rationale, it's simply me pointing out that policy doesn't cover inclusion or exclusion of every single thing. Policy is not bylaws and strictures, but instead principles and guidelines. WP:NOT excludes translation guides; how is it unreasonable to conclude from this that localization guides are also inappropriate for the same reason? It's trivial information of little use to an English-speaker, is already included in the interwiki links, and in this case isn't sourced to anything reliable save personal observation of the television shows themselves.

If you can't refrain from calling me a dick and telling me to shove it, I don't know what we're going to accomplish here. I'm especially baffled about you going on about being an admin; I've been an admin for a very long time, and it didn't in any practical sense change my views on how to organize and cover pop-culture articles. (Take a look at this, from nearly four years ago.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, WP:NOT does not cover translations guides. The word "translation" is not even on that page, and, once again, these are not translations. You still have not provided me with any concrete argument for banning this content not founded in POV or "I don't want it to look like that." I honestly cannot believe that you haven't seen your lack of argument. I will back off, though, if you copy and paste from WP:NOT the lines where what I am asking for is forbidden. The exact words, not "it is excluded, trust me on it". kingdom2 (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't address anything other than the the first half of the third sentence of what I said. Let me try again.

It's not my rationale, it's simply me pointing out that policy doesn't cover inclusion or exclusion of every single thing. Policy is not bylaws and strictures, but instead principles and guidelines. Localization guides are trivial information of little use to an English-speaker, are already included in the interwiki links, and in this case aren't sourced to anything reliable save personal observation of the television shows themselves. How does lawyering about the exact wording of policies address this?

If you need, I can emphasize the bit that's the unaddressed argument. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But you seem to be missing the point. You kept saying, again and again, that it is excluded according to WP:NOT - that is exactly what you have said since the beginning - but that simply isn't true. What it really comes down to is the fact that it is neither included or excluded, which means that a decision has to be reached which involves a consensus agreement, not the I-decree-it so-instant-delete-without-asking-anyone method that you have been using. This brings me all the way back to my original point, which is that you do not consult or talk to any other users before deleting entire sections of pages, in most cases over half of them. Axing the hard work of others without so much as an offer to discuss on how it can be improved is just downright dickishness. And act all offended at that comment you want, it doesn't make it any less true. kingdom2 (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Mwahaha! I've proven WP:NOT doesn't explicitly disallow what I want, and thus you have to allow it!" is not terribly moving. Localization guides are trivial information of little use to an English-speaker, are already included in the interwiki links, and in this case aren't sourced to anything reliable save personal observation of the television shows themselves. How does lawyering about the exact wording of policies address this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This time you only addressed the first part of my second sentence. My beef here is that you are exercising POV and IDONTLIKEIT (that is exactly what those italics say, just put into the kind of words that give it authority) and you are NOT discussing major alterations and deletions to articles. It's common courtesy. kingdom2 (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus agreement arrives by discussion, not by blandly asserting that you have more support thus you are right. Localization guides are trivial information of little use to an English-speaker, are already included in the interwiki links, and in this case aren't sourced to anything reliable save personal observation of the television shows themselves. How does lawyering about the exact wording of policies address this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's it. I give up. It is clear that you will never learn to be capable of playing well with others and that my attempt to bring some change is equal to screaming at a brick wall. You clearly are incapable of changing that everything that you wrote in bold is your words, not Misplaced Pages's, so they bear no weight whatsoever. I'm out. kingdom2 (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My words, and your words, are Misplaced Pages's. Rules aren't handed down from on high...they're written by users, based on recurring, effective arguments. If you're not willing to address my arguments or offer any of your own, how can any decision be reached? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

00 page lock

Since you locked the page, I was wondering if you could replace all instances of "Empress" with "Empruss" as per this months Hobby Japan. Tempest115 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest proposing it on talk, with the {{editprotected}} template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Mother 3

Yeah, I just wrote the plot very long so I can trim it down to the important content. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, cool. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I reduced it to four paragraphs, I think that that's acceptable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Splattered shit...

...sure that's what it it means. Not necessarily a reason to remove it, esp. not since it a. was featured in an academic publication and b. made the papers. Is your removal a matter of taste? Mind you, that the sociologist mentioned it in her book was not because it was so unusual, but because it says something about how the Dutch deal with physicality. Sure, you may not like it, and the man in black would never have said it to June--but I call my daughter 'poepje,' and that's not a 'one-off.' Drmies (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It was featured in an academic publication as a term of endearment used by exactly one person. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That said, "little shit" isn't an unheard of term of endearment in English either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Rinoa Heartilly

Delisted it, reduced it to C, modified the appropriate pages. Started a discussion here for it if you're interested.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose?

Your opinion on WP:FICT is unclear, do you oppose? If so, I suggest putting *'''Oppose''' thanks Ikip (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What's unclear about saying it doesn't solve the problems and is wrongheaded? I don't want this to be any more of a poll than it already is, and my comments are unambiguous. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we both see that, but will a closing admin? That was my only concern. But it is up to you. Ikip (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If the closing admin isn't reading that closely, we're all fucked anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor I directed those comments too on the RfC opened the door to personal conduct today. I attempted to delete those quoted comments twice, and the editor continued to revert.

only then did I brought up the deletion and the troll comment.

I don't see how your very public comments help anything.Ikip (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No. There is not an "opened door" to editor conduct. Don't personalize this, it's enough of a mess as it is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Should I refactor out the comments? Ikip (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I refactored the comments out, if you could remove your rfc conduct message, that would be divine. Ikip (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove my response. Digging through that mess gives me a migraine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I refactored out all of my comments regarding the editor. :) Ikip (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I had to refactor my own rebuke. Come on, vaguely-targeted accusations of elitism aren't much better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You simply can't please everyone, and some people you can never please. Ikip (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to make accusations? "Disagree does not automatically misunderstand. Excluding opinions is folly when this guideline would affect one quarter of Misplaced Pages articles." All you lose is doing the exact same thing you accuse other people of doing and calling people elitists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How would you word it? I would appreciate if you message me the criticisms in the future, instead of making your criticisms on the RfC. Outside observers read this, and it makes the position we both support look weaker. Yes, my accusations already make our position weaker, but rebukes from those who support my position make it look even worse. In addition, in the past, has criticizing those who support your position rally those editors or demoralize them? Please consider this. Ikip (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I refactored it. thanks. Ikip (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding and ...

Thanks! The IP, however, thinks your and DGG's warnings are "hilariously poorly formatted." I really wonder who's behind this one! Best, --A Nobody 20:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this on the grounds that, honestly, c'mon. --Kizor 21:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated. Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you archive my comment without responding to it? ~AH1 16:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I didn't see it. What did you need? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

• "...Inclusionist/Deletionist Bout #227585432: Now It's Personal..."

For giving me a good laugh today : ) - jc37 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And a laugh is about all WP:FICT is good for, amirite? :D

Man, people are taking this stuff too seriously. Me too sometimes, I fear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are times... : )

Personally, I think the solution that everyone could swallow would be just to follow WP:SIZE on all of this. Consider all information in a single article. Then imagine what sections would need to be split due to length/presentation and coverage. Lists and tables are usually the first to be split. Individual character/location/object/concept/volume/episode articles should only be subsequently split from lists when there is enough coverage to warrant a separate article, and even then a short summary (with template:main) should be retained on the list page.

No subject "deserves" it's own page (or category for that matter), but every subject "deserves" coverage in some fashion if the subject is verifiable for reliable sources (something else that can be argued ad infinitum).

The above would seem to be built upon the foundations that Misplaced Pages was created upon. Think that there's any chance that such a policy could be enacted? (And I don't just mean for fiction, but as a general rule for splitting pages.)

I dunno, but I'm hesitant to enter into another "discussion"/"survey"/whatever...

Anyway, I'm hoping that this finds you having a good day yourself : ) - jc37 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For everything? WP:N is about as good as it gets. I don't think WP:MERGEITYOUSILLYSODS is going to go very far as an overriding policy, much as I'd love for it to.

For fiction, though, with a big heaping helping of WP:WAF (or a WP:WAF that wasn't Wikipedese gibberish) and some version of WP:NOT#PLOT that actually had something to do with reality and not harsh pronouncements, maybe someday. But right now everyone's just dueling to the death over nothing. I privately hope this fails and is such a fiasco that it's allowed to lie fallow for a year or two, but I imagine it'll be a close no consensus so people will still be fighting the same dumb fight in 2010. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

SyberiaWinx / Akari Kanzaki is back already

Since you blocked her the last time around, I thought you might be interested. Erigu (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. Incidentally, chasing her around and antagonizing her is doing you no favors. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just that I don't like the idea of her wasting other users' time. Erigu (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

She won't waste much. I would recommend she not waste any more of yours, and that you disengage from this and work on the encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds... optimistic. I mean, it's been going on for years. ^^; Erigu (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

TheBrokenSky (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't generally tolerate messages not addressed to me on my talk page. You two have a rivalry, fine, take it off of Misplaced Pages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is harrassment, and I'm reporting the both of you. I'm also going to contact this SyberiaWinx and suggest she do the same. I won't tolerate a bunch of bullies trying to label me as some kind of sockpuppet. And that message was directed at you. You are claiming I am a sockpuppet and this Syberia person. Let's see some proof, otherwise, stop it. TheBrokenSky (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't care who you are, I just don't want you fighting with Erigu on my talk page. If you have something you need to discuss with me, fine, but I haven't accused you of anything, only noted that I was aware that you existed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your response would indicate that you are supporting what she is saying. A new user should not have to be harassed this way. And Erigu should not be permitted to carry out such harassing. Even he suspects someone of something, let him report it or whatever you do around here. I'm trying to have a discussion with another user about what an RfC is, and suddenly, Erigu is quoting everything I say to make rude responses and calling me a sockpuppet of various people, one of which is not even a member here. As an admin, shouldn't you be putting a stop to this? I'd like to edit Misplaced Pages without having to deal with him showing up everytime I try to talk to someone. TheBrokenSky (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, these are the first words I've exchanged with you, unless you are FOJ. Why would you have such a grudge against me, I'm forced to wonder.

As for Erigu, I've told him to disengage from this. You shouting at me is only going to get me to take a closer look at you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about a grudge. But here is a user, Erigu, who is clearly going out of their way to harass me. They've come to you and labelled me as two different people. You tell them you are aware of this-you are saying that they are not wrong. I am upset about this, since I have only just become a member of this site, yet, just because I voiced an interest in fixing up an article, I'm being marked a sockpuppet without any proof. TheBrokenSky (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect, although I am not sufficiently sure, that you are FOJ. The exact same righteous indignation act as the last umpteen times FOJ came around is not really doing much for your case, nor is the fact that the RFC in question is the exact same incredibly dumb dispute over how to capitalize Wild Arms. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have every right to be offended, since I'm innocent! You can't expect me to take kindly to being treated like this. I know who I am, and I've been wrongly accused. It wouldn't surprise me if most of those allegedly duplicate accounts are exactly the same-innocent but banned without proof because Erigu thinks they're guilty and instigates them until they fight back and look guilty. If you deny this, just look at the facts. I joined, made some edits. Then, while hoping to clean up the WA pages, I noticed the RfC and took interest. All I did was ask the user who posted it what exactly it was. Nothing more or less. Suddenly, Erigu is very rudely calling me by someone else's name and giving me a hard time, even as I try to ignore him and continue my discussion with Jinnai. But that's a hard thing to do when every single post you make receives some kind of sarcastic, uncalled for commentary. You're an admin, right? So, you can probably do something about that if it were to happen to you. I'm just a newcomer learning the ropes. I can't ban Erigu, and I have no power to make them stop. Finally, I got fed up and defended myself. But doing so resulted in you thinking I'm a sock. It's hardly fair. I'm willing to bet it's the same with at least some of those other "sockpuppets" as well. Also, please note how, after each any account is banned, Erigu immediately tries to get the discussion dropped. Even though Jinnai and a number of other people were participating in the dispute, they gave Jinnai a hard time for posting the RfC, stating that it was over, because that user was gone. It seems to me like Erigu feels threatened whenever someone challenges his stance, and instead of taking part in an honest discussion like the one going on, he resorts to accusing the main supporter of the opposition of being a sockpuppet. Can you honestly say I'm wrong if you look at my first edit in regards to the issue and compare them with the ones Erigu made attacking me immediately afterwards? TheBrokenSky (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Now I'm sure you're FOJ. Same vague accusations, reusing my words to Akari, same locus of dispute, same mode of speech. Goodbye. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Han shot first

PROD isn't going to hold muster because of the previous AfDs. I closed the last AfD discussion 18 months or so ago as keep (which is why I still have the page on my watchlist), but no one's offered any good sources since then. Given this, and that quick searches of Google Books and Scholar turn up very little, my preference would be to merge (heavily condensed) and redirect to the existing mention in list of changes in Star Wars re-releases, but I have a feeling that it won't hold without an AfD to confirm that (even though technically an AfD isn't required, it seems that too many people will insist on one).

Thoughts? — TKD::Talk 05:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could try a quiet merge and redirect. It's not functionally different from a prod. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Argh. Among the mess of broken links and uncited statements, I'm finding nothing materially worth transferring over. — TKD::Talk 06:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's where I was a year and a half ago, heh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. — TKD::Talk 06:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

City of Thieves (novel)

Oof. Good catch regarding the copyvios. I feel like an idiot for not noticing them when I was fulfilling the G6 move request. I've notified the original article creator. — TKD::Talk 07:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed that when I was wondering what you were doing with the talk page moves on Han shot first. Something about it just seemed off. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, the talk page moving/archiving is my personal SOP for handling merged/redirected articles; anyone can undo it quickly if there are objections to the merge. Usually, I delete the talk page redirect left behind, but I figured that I'd leave it for a day or two. — TKD::Talk 08:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Mother 3 split

Can I get your thoughts on something? After adding references to the Story section, the Mother 3 article will likely increase in size to a level that's fairly excessive. And while I plan to do some trimming to fix this, do you think it'd be appropriate to create a Development history of Mother 3 article, covering the basic information in the article and the detailed information in this new one? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a better split would probably be Earthbound 64. This article gives a bit too much undue weight to the unreleased N64 Mother 3, IMO. Admittedly, it would be a much harder split. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an idea, too. Well, I guess I'll just make a discussion when a split is required. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I started a discussion on the Mother 3 talk page if you're interested in participating. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Angry Video Game Nerd

I've added the above article to my watchlist, after it was brought up on WP:ANI. Please know that your next revert will result in a block; a long one. I've advised Brad M. (talk · contribs) of the same. Use the talk page and request mediation if necessary. - auburnpilot talk 16:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You've been blocked for 1 week. - auburnpilot talk 19:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That edit isn't in dispute; the only user who disagreed about it agreed to it here. It was only reverted by Brad M. because he was reverting his preferred section into the article. I made a point of leaving his preferred section alone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits from the last two days: . In every single one, the same content is removed. After my above warning, you again removed the "International recognition" section. Edit warring is edit warring, whether you are disputed by two users or one. - auburnpilot talk 19:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I remove Brad M.'s pet section here. The international section is removed here, and stays out of the article for several days until here, where DevinCook replaces it. We discuss it on his talk, I undo DC's edit here, and Brad M. uses undo on that edit here. If Brad M. has any objection to removing that section to talk, it'd be news to me, as he never made any comment to that effect and didn't revert any edit I made to that section unless it was an undo restoring his preferred section below.

When I removed the Popularity section several days ago after talking to DevinCook, I probably should not have combined it with an edit I knew Brad M. disliked, but if you're blocking me for the edit war with Brad M., then what was the point of warning me? If your goal was to get me to disengage with Brad M, done. I was already doing that, I left his pet content alone and the discussion it can sit on talk and wait for input. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate that your intent was not to continue an edit war with Brad M, you still continued reverting content that Brad M and another editor had readded (numerous times). The intent of my warning was to stop edit warring, regardless of who you were edit warring with or what content was involved. In my opinion, it was a continuation of the previous days/weeks of reverting. - auburnpilot talk 19:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Then your intent wasn't clear, and I'd be happy to undo my edit and simply ask Brad M. if he had any objections or if it was collateral damage. I thought it was clear that it was an unrelated, uncontroversial edit caught up in the dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Please know that your next revert will result in a block..." I didn't say "please know the next time you revert something Brad M. disagrees with, you will be blocked". But let's not play semantics. I'm unwilling to unblock, as the edit warring over this article is quite extensive and your last revert was after a clear warning that a revert would result in a block. Sorry, - auburnpilot talk 20:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty figuring out what is accomplished here. If you want to stop an edit war, not only is that done, but I've outlined how I can and intend to show my good faith. If you want to punish me for inappropriately trying to force my preferred version, not only was the warning unnecessary, but I've been blocked to reverting to the wrong version. I am unclear on your intended goal, and can take little lesson from this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm unwilling to reverse the block but am happy to post on AN/I if you'd like further input. Good faith is one thing, evidence to the contrary is another, and my goal of preventing further reverts has been accomplished by the block. - auburnpilot talk 20:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is less about fighting about OMG UNBLOCK ME NAO and more about trying to better understand your intent. I don't think I should have been blocked for that edit, obviously, but I understand you do and I'd like to better understand why. {{unblock}} would get me an instant appeal but I'm more looking for a better understanding. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the nutshell. User posts to AN/I asking for somebody to review a situation. I reviewed it and issued two warnings stating that the next revert would result in a block. One of the two warned users reverted again. I blocked. I'm apparently unable to give you a better understanding, as you seem to want there to be a bigger and deeper reason for the block than exists. - auburnpilot talk 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of what happened; I'm more interested in understanding why you're unwilling to unblock. Not to fight over "OMG UNBLOCK ME," but more because I feel my reasons are sufficient and you clearly don't and I'd like to understand what I'm missing. I'm less interested in proving you're wrong and more interested in understanding why you're right. {{unblock}} and WP:ANI won't give me this, because it's deeper understanding of your reasons and not wider input (or an unblock) I'm looking for. Mostly for the sake of my own peace of mind. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• As you obviously know, you are free to use the unblock template to request a review. If you prefer, however, I'd be happy to post a summary on AN/I for wider input. - auburnpilot talk 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  I'd rather discuss it with you, rather than having to go through the whole explanation to a newcomer, nor can I ask a passerby your intent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is given to recognize particularly fine contributions to Misplaced Pages, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. This Barnstar is awarded to Man in black, for his efforts in helping new editors, making wikipedia a more welcome place for everyone. Thank you so much Ikip (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks again for your help, I revamped the page, let me know what you think. All that I removed was how to get in contact with the admin who deleted the page, first, it seemed overly complex, and 2nd, I wonder how helpful the admin would be. You are welcome to add it back. Ikip (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost every admin will be willing to tell you why they deleted a page, if they're available to do so. That said, your explanation of how to figure it out is probably simpler. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks again for the help, you are welcome to edit it as you wish. Ikip (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmkay. "RAAAR NEW USERS FLEE WHILE YOU STILL CAN, I'M GOING TO GOBBLE YOU UP". Now, do we have a good picture of an ogre? :D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, strange but funny response. Best wishes. Here is a good pic of not only an orge, but a dancing orge (orc)! Ikip (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that's on Commons, because it's blatantly ripped off of World of Warcraft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, I am glad you like it??? Ikip (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Image scheduled for baleetion. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

SyberiaWinx is back as WhiteKnightLeo

Hello,

Like the headline says... She wasn't gone for long, was she?

I'm not sure I understand how to deal with this now that the previous sockpuppet investigation has been archived. Do you know how I should edit the archive page to bring it back up, exactly? Erigu (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Kindly cease your harassment. I won't be threatened or bullied by the likes of you. Stop joining in discussions I'm part of solely to claim I'm someone who doesn't even appear to be an editor on this site. That is called slander, and it's quite rude. Where's an admin when you need one? WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop joining in discussions I'm part of

You're saying that as if it wasn't the first time. Erigu (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't really care. I was referring to my discussion on the Help Desk page, which you joined only to accuse me of something entirely false, with no proof, solely to try and instigate me. As I said on that page, I won't engage you. Keep posting your lies if you must, but don't expect me to respond to you. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Aaaand she's been blocked. Sorry about the mess.

That being said, I still don't know how to add an account or IP address to an existing SPI... Things used to be more intuituve, a couple of weeks ago, didn't they? I don't quite understand the recent changes to the archival process... Erigu (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that seemed to have sorted itself out while I wasn't paying attention. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Request some guidance.

I've been having some issues with another user, Sha-Sanio (talk · contribs), primarily with the Smallville articles and I don't really know how exactly to handle the situation. The main issue is that he has been uploading countless images to Misplaced Pages (all typically fail the fair use criteria), and replacing the images on the Smallville pages with his own. Every time a discussion is started he basically says "these images are boring", and then goes ahead and places his images back onto the page. When other editors disagree, he ignores them. I even had to do a sock puppet request, because it became clear that he created another account just to promote his view point with the image discussions. I have a new IP that just showed up today also backing his image choice (which happens to be a fan made image in this particular case). Other than the potential sock puppet issue (that's still underway), he hasn't done anything "wrong" that I can find. It's like he's skating the edge of disruptive behavior. Also, I've been noticing that he's created large quantities of sandboxes which he uses to copy portions of the articles that he has edited. They appear to serve no other purpose than that. I'm at a loss of what I should/could do about all this. I'd really appreciate some advice about how to handle this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not really sure how to deal with this. Perhaps WP:AN can help? This seems like something an admin should handle, but I don't really know how. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be the recurring theme as I've been asking around, that most aren't sure how to handle it. If it escalates then I might just go to WP:AN. His actions just confuse me. Every time he has uploaded an image it has been with the rationale that it was "the most recent", yet just a couple hours ago he came to the Friday the 13th page (which, he oddly seems to be tracking the pages I edit and create sandboxes for all of them) and proposed a change of the poster. Only this time, he wanted to change the theatrical poster back to the teaser poster that was issued out almost a year ago. I have trouble finding any method to his madness, because right when you think you've got it he pulls a 180 on you. Recently, another admin warned him about changing the image at the Clark Kent article without discussing it, and that seems to be have at least curbed some of his actions to the article main space (i.e. he went to the Friday talk page first, even though he uploaded the image to Wiki already). I'm hoping that that is all that is necessary, though I'm still waiting for admin review of his sock puppet investigation. We'll see what comes of it all, and I'll keep WP:AN in the back of my mind if his actions become disruptive again. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of Misplaced Pages:Wikistory

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Department of Fun and explain why you deleted the page. Thank you, and be funny. ;) Simon 03:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikistory

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikistory. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ragesoss (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Horta (Star Trek)

I am not going to edit war with you over the template and won't revert you any further; however, please note that I am not merely trying to save it from deletion, but from some kind of delete and redirect. It gets a tremendous number of Google News and Google Books hits and if one were to really put forth a serious effort sifting through the hundreds of hits, I truly believe that he/she could put together decent out of universe sections on development and reception, i.e. I think actually in this particular case better than what I usually attempt with these things. So, while it might not necessarily be in danger of outright deletion, I am requesting help with the rescue template for others to try to see if they can go beyond what I did and maybe produce a respectable stand alone article. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's suggesting that it go back into the list it was separated from. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments

Raizen1984 has been adding non-notable composers into the Infobox for Project Sylpheed. I have reverted his edits with appropriate summaries, informing him why such changes are not desired; the second revert also directed him to the Talk page. Said editor reverted my reverts the first time without comments, and the second revert's comments seem to show that he did not read or understand the linked discussion. Could you help to intervene in or appraise this situation? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Star Wars invitation

I have noticed that you are listed as a member of the Star Wars WikiProject, which has been defunct for a long time. I would like to inform you that I am attempting to revitalize it. As such, I would officially like to invite you to participate in the project once again. If you are interested, please sign your name at Misplaced Pages Talk:WikiProject Star Wars#February 2009 Roll Call. Hope to see you soon! Firestorm (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your really thoughtful answer to Power corrupts question on my talk page. One thing that wikipedia has taught me, is that first impressions are sometimes wrong. I have to apologize because I at first pigeon holed you in a certain category, as I did wrongly with User:Collect. But as time goes on, and I get to know you better, I learn to respect your intellect and your honest desire to help other editors. I really commend much of your work here on wikipedia, and I look forward to working with you more in the future. Ikip (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good answer, thanks Power.corrupts (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Rolling Stone 100 Greatest Guitarists of All-Time article

Did you not read the protracted dialogue with Scorpion over re-working the article to parallel other articles on Misplaced Pages which are not deleted so, including two on Rolling Stone best-of lists that appear free-standing and are referenced on the main R.S. page? http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Scorpion0422#Rolling_Stone.27s_100_Greatest_Guitarists_of_All_Time_article Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Should I have? I don't see anything particularly compelling there, but it's kind of a jumble. Is there an executive summary? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ivan_Teodorovich

Have you? You might notice there were none when I reported it, and there are now four: the three books mention him only once or twice in passing. --Carbon Rodney 13:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You put it on AFD 10 minutes after it was posted, so you're the one who's stuck with defending the argument to delete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stuck doing anything. If the AfD discussion produces some good reasons to keep (instead of move) then why would I continue to argue to move it? --Carbon Rodney 15:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

RE: Ikip and WP:ARS

There is a seperate post on AN/I from another user about this very subject. It might be helpful to combine the two posts (AN and AN/I) into one so you don't have two conversations going on at once about the same thing. Just a heads up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 23, 2009 @ 06:44

Spellcheck?

Harrumph. So my mental spellcheck is on the blink. Its early here. 2:30 AM. Thanks, though. Schmidt, 10:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We're all tired, heh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary oversight

Hi there, Mr. In Black. Someone wants to oversight an edit summary you made. It won't be, since it doesn't meet the criteria, but I thought you might want to know about it anyway. -kotra (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Man, that's silly. (And I like Mr. In Black. :D) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Resident Evil 5

I have to wonder whether you actually read into the issue, or that you just cried foul at seeing "1Up" and "dubious" in the same context. The regular editors of the RE5 article have come to the consensus, that the 1Up preview (apparently borrowed from a British magazine) is outdated (May 2008) and unreliable. The lack of any more recent sources claiming Sherry Birkin is in the game, even though the game is now complete and full review versions have been sent out, only re-enforces this argument. Cheers, --Atlan (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I read it. I'm not surprised that there aren't a wealth of sources mentioning that a supporting character from a 10-year-old game makes an appearance, but there is one and there's no particular reason to find it dubious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you have read the last thread of the talk page, which is not at all what I was referring to. I find your reasoning quite flawed ("supporting character is originally from an old game, so few recent sources available for her appearance in a new game"??), but whatever. It's also rather ironic that you make light of my argument that the source is old, while using age to get your own point across as well. Ignore consensus as you wish. I don't feel like revert warring over this. The game is almost out anyways.--Atlan (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the "LINK WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT" banner at the top of my talk page. If there's a talk consensus established somewhere, link it instead of going on about ignoring consensus. I cannot read minds and I am uninterested in detective work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned "ignoring consensus" exactly once. Sorry if you feel that's "going on about it". I'll try to say things in zero attempts in the future. If the consensus was conveniently displayed in one talk page thread, I would have linked to it. It's a bit more spread out than that, I'm afraid. Anyway, I can't really be bothered with doing this detective work for you. It's not really a big deal and the game is almost out. I'll give you "verifiablility, not truth" and concede the point. ;-) Cheers, --Atlan (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Do you have an interest in opening a user conduct RfC on Ikip, per Rootology's closing comment on the AN/I discussion? I think a draft should be written in someone's user space to help refine the relevant scope. I am hesitant to certify, as I was not directly involved with the most recent instance of mass posting, but I will endorse, at least. I have also contacted Themfromspace. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. I'm not sure what good that would do. The basis for an RfC is cooperation with the subject. I think it is far more likely that Ikip will just refuse to accept criticism from "deletionists" as legitimate and the usual suspects will chime in saying that we are attacking "inclusionism." Or he could just avoid the RfC entirely. Take a look at the Pixelface RfC for a sign of how that went (though pixel was marginally involved in it). Protonk (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If an RFC needs to be opened on Ikip, then Ikip, the community, and the RFC would be best served if I was not involved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually thought about doing some such thing, but I don't have the time at the moment to root through his edits (of which there are a lot) in order to find adequate evidence against him. Apart of the canvassing, I believe he displays a general battleground attitude that needs looked at, but it takes quite a bit of evidence in order to properly accuse one of doing this in order to comply with WP:AGF. Perhaps in a few days I'll be more free. I've never really partipated in conduct RfC's before so I don't think I'd be the right one to set up a draft. Themfromspace (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be hard to imagine it not descending into yet another inclusionist versus deletionist battleground that only succeeds at raising tensions and animosity and does nothing toward actually improving any articles, which is after all what we're supposed to be here for. Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be unfortunate, but it should be considered. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not try a proactive approach instead, i.e. work together to rescue an article and by working together come to a more collegial understanding that can allow for an exchange of suggestions that won't come off as aggresive? Best, --A Nobody 05:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Because I tried that, with WP:PRESERVE. Ikip described my attempt to ask for his input on how to rewrite that page without changing its meaning as an attempt to demote it to a guideline (which I had even argued against). He has a tendency to edit or misremember anyone who criticizes him as a long-time enemy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not with a policy page, but with an article. I usually take suggestions from editors more seriously when they come from those who I know also try to improve articles or how approach me in a friendly manner. Consider Saber's RfA. Those who reacted aggresively failed to persuade me to change my stance; when the candidate approached me in a mature manner, that was enough for me to switch out of the oppose camp. And I recalled in part that Saber and I did try to improve some article some time back. Best, --A Nobody 06:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a thought. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that the user RfC process functions best with mutual cooperation and has no teeth, but it is a required dispute resolution step – if there's no RfC now, the next AN/I discussion will ask for one. I was surprised at how much good faith apparently uninvolved editors were willing to assume, in the face of what I thought was substantial evidence and markedly defensive behavior. I'm willing to put in the time for research and step up to second certifier, but I think we need an RfC-experienced editor to oversee our draft. AMIB, would you prefer that we move this discussion elsewhere, maybe to Themfromspace's talk page? Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is fine. I'd be happy to comment, but the perception I had written it would be damaging, and as you can probably see from that ANI post I'm not very good at disengaging once I get involved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(De-dent and multiple ECs later...) - I've been reading about this today (catching up, somewhat).

Best I can tell, Ikip probably could have phrased his project solicitation banner, better.

But besides that, AFAIK, we canvass like that all the time. And it's supposedly a main way in which Wikipedian categories are supposed to be used: To facilitate collaboration among editors to edit/enhance articles.

That said, the ARS definitely walks a fine line as a project. And the posting clearly crossed the line of neutrality. Which "may" be ok for a project to do, except that in this case, where it crossed involved the headache of wikiphilosophies. (The neverending constant turmoil of which, we've discussed before : )

So anyway, now that I've put my thoughts out there, let me ask: what're your specific concerns in all of this. There have been so many accusations, and guessess hurled around, that somehow, in the midst of it, I haven't been able to ascertain it.

And rather than join the guessing game (and definitely avoid the accusation hurling game), I thought I'd merely ask : ) - jc37 05:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For an RfC, I want to avoid the quagmire of the partisan canvassing issue, and focus on more general problematic behavior, e.g. mass posting (hundreds of notices, twice in the past month), defensive behavior when brought to a noticeboard, and going on the counterattack with unsupported allegations of bad faith. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) - Though in truth I was asking MiB his thoughts (and still am...), thank you for clarifying yours : ) - jc37 05:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't yet have a clear idea of how to articulate of my qualms. Flatscan's probably got the best idea for an RFC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. As an aside, I wonder how much of this current set of discussions might have been diffused somewhat if people spoke with rather than past each other...

And just to clarify for any other potential lurkers out there...

Perhaps my experience is unique, but I've always found MiB to have a reason for his thoughts/actions beyond "I want it because I want it". (Something which, unfortunately, I can't say of all editors...) And imo, his response above is another indication of his thoughtfulness (full of thoughts).

This is not to say I have any negative thoughts about Ikip (I don't know if I know the user, outside of a few interactions recently), or anyone else, just that I've known MiB quite awhile here, and while we've disagreed perhaps as much (if not more) than we've agreed, it's mostly been collegiate, a definitely civil.

Anyway, at this point, I guess I'll exheunt the field, and watch as the play commences, I suppose... - jc37 05:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what to do. At this point, all I can really do is go on what I know is unproductive. AN is right that we can't have another RFC like Gavin's or Pixel's. (Well, we can, but it won't help anyone.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand (been there myself in some different, perhaps juxtaposed, situations).

That's part of why I asked your concerns. If we can identify the substantive concerns (rather than just the poking each other back and forth), "maybe" we might find some middle ground.

Perhaps I rely to heavily on WP:AGF, but I'd like to think that those editors enmeshed in this really aren't just spoiling for a fight, and that this is really just a set of misunderstandings and mistakes which have compounded through further less-than-positive interaction.

From what I can tell (pardon me for guessing at this point, if I'm in anyway misrepresenting you, please clarify and/or set me straight : )

Anyway, from what I can tell, you (et al) are not happy with what can appear to be inappropriate mass canvassing through the use of templates that may or may not have been "neutral" due to the usage of postentially contentious words like "inclusion".

Was there anything else besides that? - jc37 06:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That bothers me. There's also something that bothers me about Ikip's manner of interaction with other users, but I can't yet untangle it from other things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the cross posting is (I believe) probably resolvable. Simply defining what it means to be a project, and therefore be allowed to cross post such invitations, and further some discussion as to what sort of wording in the invitations might be acceptable (or at least tolerable), should help.

As for your other concern, interpretation of how others present themselves, or even just the experience of it can be difficult to convey or at least (as you note) to disentangle. If Ikip's interactions are lacking in wikiquette (to put the fairest face on it), then if you feel they are open to discussing them, then that's a route. But if not, at this point, I think a mediator could be helpful to resolve this. As has been noted, a "mass" discussion at this point (an RfC) would likely just heighten the confusion and entanglements, rather than resolve them.

What do you think? - jc37 06:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't know how to approach Ikip in a way that won't degenerate into accusations of bad faith. An RFC may be productive, but I know my involvement won't be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(re flatscan) Seconded. As posted at ANI, I'd also like to avoid bringing the form and function of the ARS into this as much as possible. The RfC should be an examination of the user's behaviour and not his beliefs and opinions. Everytime Ikip's actions have come into question the discussion has devolved into partisan politcs and name calling, and this has happened on both sides of the fence, so it should be a point to prevent this from the outset. (edit conflict) As I typed this up I see that the partisan politics has started already. How unfortunate. Themfromspace (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Which of course is pretty much unpreventable as seen with the one on Gavin Collins on the deletion side and Pixelface on the inclusion side. If there's a problem here, then it's the massive assumption of bad faith regarding a user making proactive efforts to reach out to colleagues in the hopes of improving articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In which case I wont reply to you anymore since it is obvious that you're posting here only to disrupt the discussion that we are having. None of your arguments thus far have made the slightest sense and you appear to be defending somebody only because they are on "your side". You aren't examing his behaviour at all, only his views and opinions. As such, it is apparant that you haven't understood a single thing I've said or you willfully disregard them. Themfromspace (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mass posting hundreds of good faith and constructive notices is hardly problematic, who isn't defensive when brought to a noticeboard especially when it's someone who was once named "inclusionist" brought by a someone with a deletionist userbox, and I can't blame Ikip for thinking there's bad faith, when seriously, now, Ikip just tried to notify editors about a project that they might be interested in with the end result hopefully being editors working together to improve articles, which again, is after all what we're supposed to be doing here. He did so enthusiastically, sure, but of the many things editors have done problematically here, extending a courtesy to fellow editors with the goal being either kindness and/or an end result of improving articles should not be regarded problematically. I would be hard pressed to not regard an RfC on him as frivolous (not surprising most editors at ANI didn't see a problem after all) and would urge him to ignore it. I doubt anything worthwhile would come out of one; it would just be more time spent doing something other than actually building an encyclopedia. Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a preview of the obstacles any such RFC faces. Expect immediate accusations of bad faith, such as "especially when it's someone who was once named "inclusionist" brought by a someone with a deletionist userbox". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how else to describe the mischaracterization of Ikip's edits at ANI and here. This strikes me as an effort to stifle a good faith editor's attempts to make his colleagues feel appreciated and to better our project. If anything I would urge Ikip and anyone else whose goals are to improve the project to avoid such discussions altogether and instead focus on improving articles. That way, we can work to better the encyclopedia, while those who have other ... are at least not spending time trying to delete things. I pretty much said as much to Ikip on his talk page (see below). Best, --A Nobody 05:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ikip#Heads up is relevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That way he won't be blind-sided. Best, --A Nobody 05:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be busy doing my best to improve articles but would appreciate a "heads up" if this goes anywhere!--Buster7 (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to not see any mention of whateverism unless it is of how to best avoid degenerating into accusations of same, and no accusations of bad faith save possibly positing bad faith for accusations that would be made in an RFC (if and only if there is substantial evidence of bad faith). Nobody is to accuse anyone of bad faith here unless they're planning to write an RFC.

I will cheerfully revert any comment that runs afoul of this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As much to myself as anything, this is what troubles me. The juxtaposition of decrying "a caustic, dismissive tone" with the tone of his own message is especially shocking. It was provoked, but it bothers me, not least because seeing that causes me to wonder if I am equally unaware of how I come off. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has run into you in a heated discussion, I'd agree with this assessment. You sometimes (often?) are a bitch to work with and I'm glad I don't run into you very often when I am working on articles. (I'm assuming you don't mind me being frank. I mean no disrespect nor is this an attack, just giving you feedback.) This is good at times, when dealing with vandals, trolls and heavily POV-ed editors but sometimes it makes working on an article which you have stumbled upon terribly difficult. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Definite food for thought. It's always easier to see other peoples' flaws than your own, you know? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I second that. I know for damn sure I'm a bitch to deal with as well. :P (I spend too much time in Palestine-Israel articles and its made me very unhappy and unpleasant at times. I'm currently disengaging from pretty much everything. Or trying to. And failing more often than not.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is troubling as well; is he joking about Wikiprojects being nemeses? It doesn't seem like a joke. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This problem hasn't gone away. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WT:ARS

separated from the above section

I mentioned this conversation here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Proposed_invitation_template_for_the_ARS Ikip (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC) later removed by Ikip - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And I unmentioned it. WT:ARS is not the venue to discuss user conduct. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And I undid your change... AMiB, reply to people's comments, no matter how incorrect or misplaced you think they are, or ask them to withdraw or strike them, but please don't edit anyone else's comments again (excluding blatant personal attacks and the like, which this wasn't). Fram (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The comment was intended to bait people into arguing with him in an unrelated venue and topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So? You may feel that he uses underhanded tactics, but that does not give you the right to go against the Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Reply, or ignore, but don't redact. Fram (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec x2) Way to be the diplomat Fram, nice job :)

Fram, on this page you only restored my own deletion, which I wrote myself, not the deletions of my comments by AMIB. AMIB can delete my comments here, I don't care. If you really don't want to be involved in this AMIB, delete this entire section, or archive the discussion, AMIB is within his rights, then we can go our seperate ways, except for the occasional AfD.

I will refactor out those comments on WT:ARS. Sorry AMIB!Ikip (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So do I. But I don't understand what you mean with "on this page you only restored my own deletion, which I wrote myself, not the deletions of my comments by AMIB". I did not restore anything on this page, and I only restored your comments that AMiB deleted on the ARS talk page. Could you provide a diff of what you mean? It's not that important, but I am puzzled now. Fram (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I restored his comment above, because the rest of this didn't make any sense without it. He may be under the impression you did that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Message received and responded to fyi. :) Have a good one. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick note

Hi AMiB. I've been running into you a lot recently and I just wanted to say that I feel your interactions with those you disagree with have really been outstanding in the last month (or perhaps longer I've not been watching longer). I think the content/direction of your comments have largely stayed the same, but the interactions are among the most civil I've seen in the various inclusionist/deletionist debates (DGG fits in there too). I sense you've been working at that and I wanted to say that it was noticed. Best of luck, I'm off to vacation! Hobit (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Corrupted Blood Peer Review

I noticed that you seem interested in WoW-related articles, could you comment on it here? Thanks. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also

Lol. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just a question, was the zombie plague during or before Lich King? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Before. It was the same time as the pre-patch that patched in much of the new functionality unlocked in the expansion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy gonzales...

wow that was fast... i forgot you keep hours like me... -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 10:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

i wanted to point out that I never claimed Mewtwo was a "shining example", and it was only meant to illustrate how editors are forced to promote a pokemon from list entry into article in one huge step, bypassing the collaborative aspect of the encycopedia. -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 14:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It has repeatedly been used as an example of a perfectly good article, though, when it's not, and the reasons that it is not are systemic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

that's fine, and we can discuss the problems with that article on the appropriate page. You and i both know that disc. at that project tend to wander, and i'd like to return staying on topic (i can be verbose anyways). Since we both agree that the merge-all solution didn't work, we need to try and find a new compromise. I remembered you had your misgivings about WP:POKE/Layout, but it was at one time an acceptable compromise. if you don't think that's the way to go i'm very open to suggestions. These mass-deletion-mergers are produing worse articles, not better ones, b/c they end up being filled with only the most basic in-game info and devoid of context which decreases accessibility. content which is sourced to verifiable, reliable sources (whether you prefer the source or not) is often removed. and i don't believe that you really feel an article with 0% real-world context is better than an article with 5% real-world context sourced from a review. -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 05:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The mass merges are producing equally bad articles. Shuffling things around again is not an improvement. Characterizing my qualms with sources which are not substantially about the subject as not liking the sources is a mischaracterization, as well.

We have an elephant in the room. Why bother listing all of the Pokemon in this way at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry, for some reason i didn't catch that you responded.... I take it to mean you are asking why we should even be thinking about listing all the pokemon in the first place? simple enough, our first pillar - that we should be both a general encyclopedia and a specialized encyclopdia (i beleive that might remind you of some very old discussions at the project). i think you can agree that this fundamental aspect of wikipedia at least provides for considering it an option.

Characterizing my qualms with sources which are not substantially about the subject as not liking the sources is a mischaracterization, as well.

— AMIB

in reference to

...(whether you prefer the source or not)...

— Zappernapper

i apologize if i came across as reducing your concerns about the sources to an issue of "liking the source", that wasn't the goal of my arguement. the premise was that some sources and relevant prose are removed/excluded from articles based on questionable assertions that there is something wrong with the said sources. I did go on to discuss a source that you had written off as sketchy and not "substantially about ", a source which spent a large bulk of the review discussing just Mewtwo. Mewtwo, the character.

you claim that shuffling things around will not improve the encyclopedia. I disagree on the grounds that people's work habits are influenced by the structure they are given. We gave free-reign article-status to any fictional element in the pokemon world, then we imposed a strict list-only format that only allowed articles that were already up to par. you and i have both seen how people have worked within these systems, and the kinds of edits that have been made. so i am suggesting that we try a new system. I am not trying to force WP:POKE/Layout down anyone's throat and would love to hear a novel idea. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 16:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Round and Round

To prevent a ForestFire, please see the discussion on my talk page. This seems like a trivial matter to start spinning the WHEEL over... — xaosflux 01:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Erigu

haha, you are totally lost mate :p, I would have posted at User talk:Erigu, but the disscussion seemed to serious for fooling around, which is why I came here, plus, why have you got a picture of me at the top of your page? ^^ Spitfire 07:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You died 15 years ago? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm just sad she didn't agree to drop the entire issue, meh, also, she was to familar with editing and what a source or reference (etc) is to be a new user. Anyway, looks like she trying for a unblock. Spitfire 07:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

She always does. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

AN discussion

You might find this interesting: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Remember_WP:BLOCKME.3F Toddst1 (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Notablility (populated places)

I would like to draw your attention to this discussion. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 14:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My perspective may surprise you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this...

...I think it can be reconstructed in a manner that only includes the citable ones from such sources as this. Best, --A Nobody 20:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Coincidental arrangement of two words. It's talking about prog rock, and some of the examples are inspired by epic science fiction. It's not naming a genre. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Homelands

Your repeated deletion of certain sections in the Homelands article is borderline ridiculous and as I can see from the size of your talk page you're not a stranger to controversy. Let me first talk about the Notable Cards section. Your opinion is that WotC's articles are promotional and biased so "notable" to them is not necessarily "notable" in your view. What is not a product of bias is the decklist and the players who participated in the 2008 Vintage Championship. Think about the card Timetwister as a benchmark for "notable" - while just 2 out of 8 decks used Timetwister in the tournament final, 7 of 8 used Merchant Scroll. Unless you think the Vintage championship tournament is just another tournament that you can blow off, any serious player would think that the inclusion of the card in nearly every deck signifies the importance of this card. BGRT (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Cite sources that comment on this card. Do not make personal evalutations from data, nor should you cite WOTC's promotion of their own game. I'm perfectly aware of how "notable" Merchant Scroll is; it's Just Another Tutor that happens to be aggressively costed and in a color that doesn't require fixing to use it.

Find sources that saw fit to comment on this card, not promotional stuff that mentions the card in a glancing way.

BTW, your standard makes Island the most notable card ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can make a page commenting on a specific card. If I went and made a page dedicated to Merchant Scroll, to you I suppose this would be a higher quality source and a better standard than something you can easily infer from top level tournament decklists. Your analogy saying that my standards qualify Island as the most notable card is silly for anyone who has played one game. The fact that you're limited to 4x of any one card but basic lands, the restriction of fast non-land mana sources, and the drawbacks that come with most non-basic lands make the inclusion of the basic land of the color you're playing practically a requirement. BGRT (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Character Deaths

Hi you closed the AFD of this article as delete earlier today. However, I think you forgot to delete it. --DFS454 (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Epic fail. Dealt with. Thank you! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Could you take care of this redirect too? CHARACTER DEATHS Thanks --DFS454 (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I give in....

.....and I bet a lot of newbies to wiki do too. What did you mean when you wrote "The result was SOMEWHAT ROUGE DELETION OF COPYVIO" at the AfD for Greatest Hits (Jennifer Lopez album) which has been deleted.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. a ROUGE ADMIN is a tongue-in-cheek way of referring to administrative actions that ignore the rules for the sake of improving the project. Technically, that was neither an advertisement nor blatant copyvio, so by the rules I really shouldn't have speedied it. But it was mostly copyvio and mostly promotional and the AFD was bordering on a snowball delete, so I made a delete that couldn't really be G4ed so there wouldn't be any obstacle to making the article when the album is confirmed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your redirect of Johnny Bravo (character)

Please note your redirect of Johnny Bravo (character) to Johnny Bravo was against consensus (I personally have no opinion). Both the AfD and DRV pointed to keep. You can however help expand and cite the article. :)

Wait you engaged in the AfD. Is this bad faith? Valoem 04:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I said in the AFD? Are you prepared to address it, or toss legalisms around? (The legalisms are baseless in any event, as an AFD doesn't prevent normal editorial action.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ok you are right. I'm not gonna argue against its keep as its was a relatively meaningless article (I'm an inclusionist and I saw no reason for that article). But I am a huge supportor of wikipedia policy as it is the only way to truely get thing done. Sorry about the bad faith comment I never accused you of it just asked you as it seem to contradict policy. Valoem 13:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A discussion involving this edit has been started by the user at the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, I do actually object to the bold redirection, I have reverted, and that discussion is on the talk p. for the character article. -- see DGG (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Concering Captain Obvious

Hello Man in Black,

I hope you're having a wonderful day! :) I see you re-userfied Captain Obvious to my userspace LinguistAtLarge/Captain Obvious-- thank you. I do have a question though. In your edit summary, you mention that you don't feel it meets G4. I assume you are referring to the G4 CSD, recreation of deleted material. According to my reading, and unless I'm misunderstanding something, that criterion only applies to material that is "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". My first contact with the article was when I ran across it on AfD, when the article was in this state. I started referencing the article, when you correctly userfied it for being recreation of material deleted per deletion discussion. Since I had already started, I continued to reference the article to support a claim of notability. After completion, I felt it met notability requirements. Thus, after waiting a week to fully consider it, and per what I have read on WP:DRV and WP:BOLD, particularly, "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so", I created the new article. In retrospect, this quote is probably not really applicable, because your original userfication of this was not only for lack of content, it was because the article had previously been deleted. So in that respect I must have been wrong in simply re-creating the article. Concerning your last userfication of this article per G4, if you compare the version when I started editing the page to the version I used to re-create the article, I don't think G4 applies. I don't think it applies because the two articles are "substantially different" and (in my opinion) the AfD issues-- namely notability-- have been addressed. So where should we go from here? I'd like to ask you to restore the article to the mainspace, and then, if you don't agree with the claims to notability, send it to AfD again. I think the article is different enough and referenced enough to at least deserve a(nother) deletion discussion or a deletion review or something. If consensus concerning this referenced article again suggests deletion, I have absolutely no problem with that; indeed I have no special attachment to this article. My concern is that this current iteration of the article is substantially different from previous versions. In my opinion it is encyclopedic, notable, and referenced, and as such should not be considered a recreation of previously deleted material. If you have another option as to how to proceed from here, please do let me know. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and have a wonderful day! :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem isn't really notability, it's cohesion of topic. Your article was substantially similar to the original AFDed article at Captain Obvious; the sources were different in exactitudes but alike in form, and the article was different only in that it was rearranged. The problem from the original AFD is that none of the sources dealt with this save in a glancing way, covering things which are not article-worthy on their own that happen to all reference this single sarcastic response. All of the sources are either simply uses of the sarcastic response or second-order treatments. These second-order treatments assume that the reader is familiar with the sarcastic response, make glancing or no mention of it, and proceed to discuss something that is related to the sarcastic response.

We need a cohesive topic. The obvious cohesive topic is "Thank you, Captain Obvious," but there aren't any sources about the origin or spread or popularity or anything about this response other than that people like to name things Captain Obvious after it. Without solving this problem, we are still at the original AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here, lemme make a quick comparison for you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at User:A Man In Black/Yeah. See how I came to the conclusion that these are the same article arranged differently? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comparison, I appreciate that. I hadn't seen that version of the article before now. While I see some resemblance in content (kinda creepy too, given that I hadn't seen the other article), I still think the two versions are different enough to have a new discussion. "My" version has many (~20) additional references and is not a duplicate or rearranged version, even though there is some overlap in content.

I'm having a hard time addressing the "cohesion of topic" argument, because I'm not really sure what you are referring to. I think the current article I have worked on is a cohesive, encyclopedic article. Can you point to a policy or guideline that talks about "cohesion of topic"?

In conclusion: Since I'm not quite understanding how the article is not "cohesive", and since I feel the subject is notable and the article encyclopedic and referenced, I'd ask that we get some input from additional parties. Again, I have no problem at all with accepting consensus when reached. Thanks again! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that say "Captain Obvious is a recurring pop culture fictional superhero who announces already self-evident truths." There are no sources that describe all of the disparate characters named "Captain Obvious" as one superhero. There are no sources that say "The term Captain Obvious is commonly used in the form of "thank you, Captain Obvious" in response to an overly obvious statement."

The core factual claims that tie all of your random "Here's a time someone uses the name Captain Obvious" together are critically unsourced, and the rest of the article is just a pile of random unrelated things without this cohesion. It's not about one notable thing; it's about many, many non-notable things that all reference one single joke.

The old article had this problem. Your article has this problem. It was the problem that got it deleted at AFD in the first place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I will consider carefully what you have said. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The way I would see the AFD's problems as resolved is if the article were chiefly about one single notable thing. The obvious subject, to me, is the expression "Thank you, Captain Obvious" and variations on same, but one of the specific Captains Obvious would also work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will give it some thought and see if I can start over and write it from the perspective of the phrase "Thank you, Captain Obvious". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback abuse

Don't abuse rollback as you did at Template:Internet memes.--Otterathome (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's advertising. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it advertising compared to every other person in that template?--Otterathome (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of that template is advertising, yes. Make sure you're only adding memes to the template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then deal with the template, every youtube user is on there the case is no different with my addition.--Otterathome (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the other YouTube celebrities (sigh) on there are in some way memes or makers of viral videos. This guy made one controversial(ish) video. What does he have to do with memes? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The template is a big WP:NPOV violation, see Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 14 and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 30. Also for your convenience - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/TheAmazingAtheist.--Otterathome (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that TFD. The AmazinAtheist AFD you're trying to list doesn't seem to exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I put it there because I knew you were going to make it.--Otterathome (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Was there anything else I could help you with? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

While removing things on Template:Internet memes you need to explain why for every case, but then again removing anything from it for any reason would probably be violating WP:NPOV. You're welcome to list it for deletion.--Otterathome (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand what NPOV means. The articles are awful, both the ones retained and the ones removed, but I'm utterly indifferent to the article topics. The reason I'm deleting them is the same for all: they aren't memes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether something qualifies as a meme is a matter of opinion, you are using your opinion to decide whether things are meme's or not thus violating WP:NPOV.--Otterathome (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am limiting it to subjects, creators, or other people involved with the creation of catchphrases or concepts that spreads quickly from person to person via the Internet, in support of our internet meme article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

I created an article named List of Dayton inventions. After creating the article, I found that I could not cite all of my information and after creating it, I found that the article was really unecessary. I have maked the article for speedy deletion. If you could delete it for me, that would be great! Thanks.Texas141 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on proposal

Hi, as you participated in the village pump discussion, I'd like to draw your attention to this proposal. Further input is welcome. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Misplaced Pages:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Misplaced Pages:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Power Pack ages

Thanks for tackling that mess. Please note you'll find more of the same OR you see at Julie Power#Publication history at places like Katie Power#Publication history, Jack Power#Publication history, and Alex Power#Publication history. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Man, those articles are depressingly awful. I'll see what I can do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki request

Hello! Could you please transwiki the following articles:

• Character Deaths to wikia:annex:Character Deaths, wikia:heroes:Character Deaths, wikia:lostpedia:Character Deaths, wikia:starwars:Character Deaths, and wikia:x-men:Character Deaths
• Heroes Deaths to wikia:annex:Heroes Deaths and wikia:heroes:Heroes Deaths
• X-men (deaths) to wikia:annex:X-men (deaths) and wikia:x-men:X-men (deaths)

Thanks for your time and help! Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Normally I would be interested in doing so, but those articles would be completely redundant on any of those wikis, and would be quickly disposed of. Lostpedia would be especially inappropriate, as there's no info on Lost in those articles whatsoever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed Mansford said in the AfD about transwikiying to Lostpedia. Being unable to view the article myself, I just took that to mean it had some kind of Lost relevance. Best, --A Nobody 19:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Some help please

A couple days ago you redirected Odd Della Robbia and Aelita Hopper. The one who restored them in the first place has decided to reverse that, and I simply cannot reason with him. Could you provide some input on the talk page? — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Code Lyoko characters 2

Errrm, your speedy keep at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Code Lyoko characters 2 is hard to understand. Can you please expand your ratioanle, there? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The nom wanted a merge, not a deletion. I try to make a practice of nipping those nominations in the bud, before we get a lot of empty noise about the purpose of AFD distracting from improving articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the redirect wasn't part of the AFD close. It was an independent decision I made a few days later. Would you mind if I reverted the articles back to article form, to better discuss their merits on talk? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus

Just to drop you a note that Dream Focus (talk · contribs) appears to be going through the AFDs of articles tagged for {{rescue}} and !voting to keep in most of them without doing anything to improve or source the articles. You may want to keep an eye on him and maybe even give him a warning if you think it warrants one. --Farix (Talk) 21:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine that accomplishing anything productive, unfortunately. It's something I've noticed and even called out, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is this nonsense? I go through a lot of articles up for deletion, and if I spot something I think should be kept, I state my opinion. And I have voted delete on several articles tagged for Rescue. Dream Focus 11:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent llama-related escapades

Regarding this edit to WP:Notability (fiction).

While your notice was somewhat amusing, it was certainly inappropriate in tone for what is a serious page.

If you wish to discuss llamas, please do so elsewhere, such as on one of the WP:HUMOUR pages or an off-site forum.

I would expect better self-restraint from an administrator - whether you like it or not, n00bs like me look up to you admins and are liable to copy your actions.

While I'm here, may I suggest that you tone down the notice at the top of your talk page - that massive text is ugly, distracting, hard to read, and offputting.

Thank you for your time, Dendodge Talk 22:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is serious business, indeed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

ARGH THE SANCTITY OF MY PRECIOUS TAGS NOOOO :( Jtrainor (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I briefly stole your idea and put it up on my userpage. :-) It's a really great idea. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me none. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FICT

After two years....and all the intense debate that I foolishly sparked....it gets a mere essay tag? Not a single compromise could be reached? A real pity; I'm glad I bowed out of the debate(s) by mid-2007! Anyway, how have you been? — Deckiller 17:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, ignore me ;) — Deckiller 15:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I AM THE GRAND GALACTIC INQUISITOR! GO ABOUT YOUR DAILY LIVES AS IF I WERE NOT PRESENT! IGNORE ME!

Um.

I'm doing fine I guess. Been trying to extricate myself from dumb policy fights of late. How have you been doing? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty good. — Deckiller 16:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A 3RR report

Hello AMIB. You've been reported at WP:AN3. Only three reverts are listed, but since you're an admin this is a good opportunity to say something diplomatic, and add it to the report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Japanese porn bios

I've started looking at some of these things, and they are pretty crappy. I tried to edit Kaoru Kuroki yesterday to try to eliminate the claim that Kaoru Kuroki means "fragrant black tree". It does mean that, in the same sense that "Kevin Williams" meets "honorable helmet" ... the characters can certainly be translated that way, but I can promise you that people "named" that don't think their name means that. I was reverted with a reference to a book by Bornoff. Have you got access to a physical copy of that thing? I'm curious as to whether it gives a mechanical translation of all Japanese names, or if it makes that claim that stinky black trees were actually a significant factor in her choice of a stage name.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not. I'll have to do some investigating. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Bring_back_the_history

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Bring_back_the_history Pretty incredible that Galvin and I agree on something, which says a lot. Please consider this request. Ikip (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is just begging for something to get lost, deleted, or something. Please undo the move or preform a hist-merge. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And feel free to keep the current version as another page, but moving the history around like that just doesn't sit well with most of us. I've gone ahead and just requested a histmerge, since there's obvious objections and it's so out of the norm for such a page. -- Ned Scott 03:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars

I re-nominated the Star Wars article and thought you might want to take a look. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 07:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

Hello again. I genuinely feel that WP:ILIKEIT is being applied by some people at this AFD. Let's just hope that the closing admin realises that its a debate, not a vote-count, eh? Thanks, Dalejenkins | 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC).

I think that particular section of WP:ATA is seriously overused to cast aspersions on the good faith of others. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability (fiction) draft

It's been a while since I've paid any attention to the discussions at WP:FICT because it keep going it in endless circles. Just looking at the talk page, much else actually reading it, made my head spin. As such I'm going to take an entirely fresh take and essentially ignore the quagmire of a discussion entirely. I've attempted to write a new draft that is modeled on some of the other subject-specific notability guidelines, but also acknowledging and describe the controversial nature of notability in relation to fictional subjects. While acknowledging the controversy does water the draft down in comparison to the other guidelines, I believe that is the only way to compromise and still have a simple, workable guideline.

I would like you to look it over and give your thought. I'll be away for the next couple of days, so I will not be able to respond immediately. However, I am looking for some good feedback. --Farix (Talk) 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Criteria #3 troubles me. Regardless of whether the bar is set at Les Mis/Citizen Kane/Beowulf or at Buffy/Star Wars, you're setting a high standard for subtopic inclusion for most fiction, and then completely throwing the doors open to any little aspect for other fiction. I don't think that's a good idea, especially when the bar is so vaguely defined. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not happy with #3 as worded, essentially for the same reason as AMIB. "All aspects" is too inclusive. and not permitting some, like the main characters, for things that fall just under that is too restrictive. It's a scale, not a division line. MASEM's formulation was best, that the importance of the fictional work and the importance of the item within the work are both factors, with a strong bias to combination articles. Even I would not include separate articles for all named and unnamed characters in, say, War and Peace, or every place mentioned in it. Perhaps all of the named non-background characters, & a few background ones, and some places, is what would make more sense, and a paragraph or a line in a list for the others, depending on what there is to say. As a practical matter, if its black/white there's no room to compromise over individual cases; if there's a scale, there is--we can do more or fewer as appropriate, and adjust till we reach consensus. DGG (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So for the time being, strike #3 until there is more discussion. Personally, I don't like the "importance formulation" as it is far too ambiguous to be of any use. --Farix (Talk) 01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

do you dislike the formulation, or the concept? How else could we decide on how much detail is warranted? Given that a primary source is acceptable for basic description, sourcing is not a limitation for this sort of materialDGG (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP Notice

Updates here. Kind regards. — R 19:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim Brandstatter

I'd like to go trough and fix the refs. Schmidt, 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm done fiddling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Angry Video Game Nerd

Kudos for the removal of the Nostalgia Critic section, which I've wanted to see removed for a while. I was afraid of being harassed by fanboys, though. Have a good day! CarpetCrawler 17:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ban me

Please ban me. I am a sockpuppet of Goth and Throbb99. I apologize for the sockpuppetry and promise it will neve happen again. Again, please ban me.Clover08 (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Just so you know, I wasn't ignoring your responses to my comments in the chronology discussion. I just thought that, with others inter-threading in the discussion (and really, the particular forum itself), any chance of you and I actually being able to "discuss", with the goal for mutual understanding (regardless of whether we may or may not agree), was starting to seem less than likely.

The key question(s) I have for you, which may (or may not, who knows) get at the heart of your opinion is: Where do you draw the line on what's "acceptable"? And semi-related (due to context), where do you draw the line between what you may determine as "fancruft", and that which you may determine is "encyclopedic"?

And further, are you opposed to the idea that Misplaced Pages, due to being "not paper", may act as a compendium of cyclopedias? - jc37 05:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem. I don't draw any line on what's "acceptable" or "encyclopedic" or "fancruft". We can fight forever about what those mean and what they include. Feel free to dig through the many essays on the topic. Instead, the standard is "According to whom?" According to whom does any given topic merit comment? If there isn't anything we can verify in a reliable source, we cannot write an article on a subject.

In the case of fiction, we also run the risk of mistaking the author's or publisher's commentary on their own work as a reliable source, or even using the work itself. In this case, articles risk falling afoul of one (or more) of three traps. The first trap is simply repeating the plot of a work, in ever-increasing detail. We don't do this because Misplaced Pages is not simply an archive of every story ever written (or even every story a Misplaced Pages editor felt the need to cover in detail). We don't do this because it's a huge, sprawling task that when taken to its logical extreme runs afoul of copyvio. The second trap is writing original research, in the form of fannish conjecture. This is obviously inappropriate publication of original theories. The third trap is republishing original research, in the form of the self-published theories of authors (or, more often, companies in the business of franchise management). The Star Wars Encyclopedia and its various successors and descendants are a chief example of this: they can be taken as original, synthetic works of fiction, fitting previous stories together (falling into this trap), or they can be taken as Lucasfilm's self-published comments on their own work, falling into this trap.

In the case of Chronology of Star Wars, we have all three problems, which is part of why the AFD discussion is so sprawling and tangled. The article is composed chiefly fragments of plot, already present in other plot summaries (if in a more-appropriate level of detail), divorced of any sort of context in the real world. It is also full of fannish conjecture, rationalizing away conflicts and "doing the math" to figure out when things must've happened. And, lastly, it is chiefly based on Lucasfilm's own timeline, for sale at any nicer bookstore near you.

I think there's probably hope for an article that covers the Star Wars timeline. Lucasfilm's management of their franchise and the continuity has been the subject of a fair amount of commentary, and the timeline (the pre-original trilogy EU blackout, the introduction of eras as sub-franchises). That article may not be an entire standalone article at all (but rather a section in Star Wars canon or a franchise article), it wouldn't include every canon event ever(!), and it most certainly would be absolutely nothing like Chronology of Star Wars.

As for your question of cyclopedias, Misplaced Pages can serve the role of both a general and a specialist encyclopedia. This does not include licensed readers' guides written with an encyclopedic conceit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"According to whom?" - I agree. Which is a concern. Calling something "trivia" is so subjective (even the definition of trivia itself, which can be positive or perjorative), that can we call any application of that term to be "reliable"?

That said, if the text manages to avoid the "traps" through good writing, and through fixing such edits which do fall into those traps, then do you still oppose the inclusion?

And further do you oppose the usage of primary sources (when avoiding the traps noted above, and others noted at WP:OR)?

Also, I'm honestly not understanding your opposition to "duplicative information". If a small part of let's say 12 different articles would make a good article of it's own, wouldn't we present that information together? As I noted elsewhere, there are many many articles which do this. ANd not just under the heading of fiction. Mathematics and science-related articles leading the way.

As for WT:NOT#PLOT - I think I noticed you comments at that talk page. But there is now a poll over whether or not that should even be part of that policy page. (As an aside, and more related to this discussion, if this is a subjective choice of whether to include such information, or not, then it probably shouldn't be policy, but rather a guideline.)

As for the article under discussion, AfD is not cleanup. If the article fell into the traps of WP:OR, then fixit. If someone opposes the fix, then discuss on the talk page. This isn't a BLP, so AFAIK, there's no harm waiting while discussion takes place. (And as you note, this is a topic that should probably be covered.)

Cyclopedia: An assistive guide (reference) for readers is pretty much what a cyclopedia (or even an encyclopedia) would seem to be?

I'm trying to find the "spots" where we diverge in opinion, and the irony for me is that we seem to mostly agree, yet, we're coming to different conclusions. So there's obviously something we're both probably missing. Or maybe I'm just confused : ) - jc37 00:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No amount of craft can fix a lack of independent sources. There is a difference between unsourced and unsourcable. The three traps are all various consequences of having no independent, reliable sources. You either write an ever-more-detailed plot summary, make up things on the spot, or use sources that are not reliable or independent. None of these are good encyclopedia writing, even if the article's craft is exemplary.

As for duplicative information, it's a matter of organization. If a detail is so important it is essential to understanding of a topic, it belongs in the article on the topic. If the detail is not essential to understanding the topic, then it doesn't bear mentioning at all. If you have a pile of details with no topic, then there is no article, merely a list of trivial facts. Redundancy isn't an evil on its own, but when an article is merely redundant, creating new topics from details about topics that already have articles, you're merely rearranging things, not writing new articles.

We can argue up and down about whether a particular fact is trivial; that's an editorial decision. But the nontrivial facts belong with the topic they are essential to understand, and the trivial facts belong nowhere. Ask someone who spends a lot of time editing mathematics articles about their struggles with people wanting to write articles about every single number ever, or people who write science articles about new "topics" explaining self-evident things covered elsewhere.

As for Chronology of Star Wars, I feel there should be a completely different article under a different name that uses none of the content in the current article. That's not a cleanup issue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph 1: Let's not confuse writing with sourcing. Though the two can be intertwined, since we're trying to establish fundamentals, I'd like to try to stay aware of pitfalls of potential confusion. : )

Potentially, anything is sourceable, I suppose. Depends on whether our disposition is "innocent until proven guilty", or "guilty until proven innocent". (With "innocence" being "sourceability".)

Paragraph 2: That all is opinion, and is very changeable, falling under editorial discretion. And is contrary to no policy I can think of.

Paragraph 3: If it's "editorial decision", then it doesn't fall askew of WP:V. It's not a case of whether it is "sourceable", but merely that one or more editors don't want it here, for whatever their reasons are. It's subjective. Which may be fine, as that's how quite a bit of XfD works. That said, it seems to me that having such a subjective demarcation for inclusion just seems arbitrary, and may possibly be contrary to our mission statement.

Paragraph 4: Personally I think the idea of chronologies is very encyclopedic. And can offer examples of such in quite a few reference works. That said, unfortunately, here on Misplaced Pages, editors often fall into WP:OR "traps", as you note. Perhaps a guideline would be worthwhile? - jc37 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's guilty until proven innocent; the burden of proof is on those who would add a claim to an article. That some chronologies are appropriate doesn't mean that all are appropriate. Beyond that, if all you have for a response is "Well, that's your opinion,", I don't think this is a productive discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol.

Though I think you miss my meaning.

What we're talking about is subjective. WHether something is included or not has essentially two boundaries to pass. Does it pass immutable "rules"? Things like: copy vio, or that something should presumably be verifiable. (Noting that there is a difference between verifiable and verified.) And then does it pass subjective "rules".

And we have several "steps" of subjectivity.

The first step is a group of things at that have long time consensus that is not likely to change. (WP:OR tops this list. As does, ironically, WP:CON.)

Then we get into the real tangle of subjectivity. How do we define "indiscriminate"? How do we define "dictionary definition". Etc. And (as we both know) anything related to fiction is a regular mine field.

And so when we start to look at the parts and pieces, the aspects and so on, at what point in this subjective morass do we state: This stays, and this goes. Which of us is an expert to decide tht a certain type of writing is "unencyclopedic"?

So this very much is about opinion.

Where do we draw the line on what we're going to present.

And if we accept WP:OR as the core policy (and I do), then why should we claim that primary sources indicate bad or unencyclopedic writing?

The whole point of this being a wiki is that something can be added by one person, and "eventually", expanded upon by another. (The whole point of template:sofixit.)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia may be our overriding principle, but when there is subjective opinion on what an encyclopedia should consist of, then perhaps that is something that can be productively discussed?

In this case, for example, I look at how many people are conflating definitions of plot summaries. Some talk about a whole page that is merely plot summary, and some are only talking about a section.

If a chronology notes the primary sources, at that moment it's no longer "in-universe". So no one can truly say that the whole page only consists of plot summary.

There's all sorts of ways to look at this, discuss it, and try to figure out what is meant. And thus far, to quote Hiding, there are a lot of people talking past each other.

Perhaps some do it intentionally. (After all, confusion is a great way to get a no consensus result, and sometimes even a "pushed for" result.) But I tend to allow myself be blinded a bit by WP:AGF, so I try to discuss regardless. Perhaps that makes me foolish. At least it makes me idealistic : )

So anyway, I'm still trying to discern where you draw your lines. At what point do you decide that something should be deleted. What are your personal criteria. Even if it's "I don't want this here", then why don't you want it here? What's your reasoning? - jc37 07:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When the topic has had no substantial commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. When reasonable efforts to find such commentary fail, then it's time to dispose of the article. Incoherent or idiosyncratic non-topics rarely have such commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, I honestly don't think I disagree.

But to be sure, what do you mean by "independent of the subject"? - jc37 08:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In what context? If you're talking about a fictional franchise, then not the works comprising the franchise or the creator of the franchise or the owner of the franchise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So if the "topic" has such commentary/coverage, then information concerning the topic, including in-universe information (if talking about a fictional work), would be acceptable, right?

For example, if the topic of Star wars has such commentary/coverage, then in-universe information should be acceptable. Yes? - jc37 08:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the in-universe information necessary to understanding the content sourced to reliable sources. And keep in mind that coverage of Star Wars is not necessarily coverage of every single Star Wars-related subtopic.

If you want to write Chronology of Star Wars, it's going to need (reliable, indepndent, substantial) sources that actually talk about the Star Wars timeline. Not only that, but it's going to need to chiefly be based on them, rather than having, say, two paragraphs of commentary and 100K of conjecture-laden plot detail. Otherwise we'll probably see a substantial cut-down-and-merge or another AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether there are such sources aside for a moment, why do you think that a chronology of Star Wars is inappropriate in an article about Star Wars? Why do you suggest a requirement of "additional" sources for this? We dont require additional sources about Star Wars character lists to place a character list in the article. (There are obviously other such examples.) So why this? - jc37 08:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've described the difference between a list and a pile before, but a quick version: lists have (at least an implicit) topic, piles do not. Character lists have as their implicit topic the characterization of such-and-such work. The chronology is "List of things that happened in Star Wars licensed works or which were implied by Star Wars licensed works." What's the topic, there? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(de-dent) - Not sure what you mean by "pile" (though I have a guess...), but that aside...

To answer your question, the topic is Star Wars.

How is a list of events any different than a list of characters? Persons, places, objects, events, concepts: they're ALL fictional constructs. Are you suggesting that any has a "greater" requirement than any other? - jc37 09:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars has a fairly decent article that is at no risk of deletion. Articles need to be about subjects in their own right, though. This is the requirement: articles must be about subjects which are blahdy blah the GNG. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So the chronology's fine as long as it's on the same "page" as the Star Wars article?

(This will come across poorly, but it's honestly not meant sarcastically) - So essentially, due to WP:SIZE, we're deleting articles? The technology we use automatically places a title at the top of a page, and so we presume that to be the start of an article. Why need we make that presumption? We have series of pages (such as long lists which are split alphabteically on separate pages).

So if I were to list the events in Star Wars at Star Wars, they can stay. But if I split them to a separate page, they must be deleted? No other encyclopedia I can think of works that way. Do you think that Misplaced Pages should? - jc37 23:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

They'd probably be edited out of that article as excessive plot summary. The rules for what gets its own article don't apply to intra-article content, but other rules and principles limit that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but limited only due to SIZE and readability concerns.

As for "what gets its own article", I would presume that that should absolutely never be an issue in a content discussion, since the topic is content, not how we at Misplaced Pages may decide to present that content for our readers.

Which brings us back to: How should we define "excessive"? Is it only based on SIZE? - jc37 04:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If a detail is so important it is essential to understanding of a topic, it belongs in the article on the topic. If the detail is not essential to understanding the topic, then it doesn't bear mentioning. These are just principles of effective writing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Experts tend to disagree about whether Faulkner or Hemmingway was a better writer : )

Information "not essential"? How do we define that now? "not essential", "excessive", and so on, all seem to (roughly) be synonyms, at least in this context. Is this definable, or is it a case of "I know it when I see it", and so, varies by individual? - jc37 05:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. You're not going to get a universal definition of "brevity" or "essential" for all articles from me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And so, coming back to the statement higher up, the dividing line would then seem to be directly subjective (based upon editor's discretionary opinion). I-DONT-WANT-IT-HERE, for such-n-such reasons. Which I suppose is fine if a consensus based upon that can be gained. But it doesn't sound like something which immutable policy can be based upon, but rather merely guidelines determined through consensus.

Do you disagree? - jc37 05:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we come back to "no more plot summary than is necessary to understand the topic." Which means you'll need to justify why we need Obi-Wan's birthdate to understand a topic, and what topic that is, and why that topic is notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"...than is necessary to understand the topic."

So minimalistic? Or merely trying to stay within what is "needed", due to possible fair use concerns? Or both? - jc37 06:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Brevity, with an emphasis on overview or summary. Like an encyclopedia. We have "we do not include plot summary for plot summary's sake," so plot summary needs specific justification. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, from some reading I've been doing, if an encyclopedia can get permission from an author, they provide as much as they possibly can : )

We still may not yet have an article on it, but the Masterplots cyclopedic series, is one such. And I suppose we could consider cliff notes to be another, though it's a bit different. - jc37 22:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Protonk's questions

TPS here. I've been watching this thread for a little while. I'm not sure what you're trying to drag out of AMiB. In my opinion, the line is subjective, unless we limit ourselves to third party commentary only. Doing so is a pretty easy solution but would make it very difficult to provide a meaningful summary of fictional works. In that sense, our editing policies should have formed out of a balance between third party sourcing and meaningful depiction of the topic. Instead, they have developed out of a conflict between editors who feel that "meaningful" means exhaustive and editors who feel that meaningful means sparse. We can't ignore the elephant in the room here. Most of our fiction articles are written by people interested in the subject (hell, most of our articles on any subject period are written that way), which for some subjects lends itself to an article style (e.g. Horus Heresy) which an editor may call excessive. That decision doesn't stem immutably from first principles. It can't. It is a balance between what one set of editors perceives as the needs of the reader or perceives as "what an encyclopedia is" and what another editor perceives as meaningful and good work. I just don't know what you could hope to extract here that might prove a point. Protonk (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The goal isn't to prove a point, or a "gotcha" moment. It's an attempt to garner mutual understanding. (As I at least tried to say from the start.)

And so many words have been thrown around with each editor defining them differently. The latest couple of AfDs in particular, it just seemed to me that everyone was talking past each other.

So here, on a talk page, with no deadline, I thought and think that we can try to actually figure out what is actually meant and not what we may presume each other mean.

And my experience with MiB is one where I have no doubt that the two of us can do this civilly. Something not always possible, such as with other more, let's say, "enthusiastic" editors, or those who see Misplaced Pages as a personal crusade rather than a collaborative project.

Does that clarify? - jc37 06:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. sorry it came off as combative. What I really meant to say was that we can go in circles over notions of subjectivity with respect to editing policy and where judgment comes and goes. Protonk (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think potentially only if you get more than two editors talking at the same time : )

When you have a single editor, that person has a sense of where their own dividing line it, though they may not have personally evaluated it.

When you have two editors, it's possible for them both to convey their personal dividing lines, and by so communicating, several possible things can happen, many of which lead to some sort of understanding, either of one's self, another person, or both.

There are few better ways to find out how solid the foundation of something is than to test it through explanation.

And so right now, I'm learning not only some of MiB's perspecitive, but also, conveying some of my own.

And if nothing else may come of this, I think we both may both be at least equal if not better collaborators/editors due to this. It is through discussion that we learn how to discuss, after all : )

So anyway, as for subjectivity, that's something that not everyone understands. It took User:Hiding repeatedly hitting me with a 2x4 to finally start to see how truly widespread it was. (A myriad of examples - Such as we once had a lengthy discussion about genres - but seriously, don't ask : )

So we attempt to determine what type of subjectivity each policy and guideline requires, both in existence, and in implementation. It's part of why we shouldn't lean too hard on "rules", since applicability may be in the eye of the beholder, and of course, WP:CCC... - jc37 06:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Most people do not use the word "subjective" the way you're using it. It does not mean vague, or "has lots of leeway." "Only the information necessary to understanding the topic" is a subjective standard (and so is "substantial coverage" and "reliable source" and "undue weight" but let's not get into those), but it doesn't call for "Yes it's necessary" "No it's not" "Yuh-huh" "Nuh-uh" gainsaying bullshit. A subjective standard frames the discussion. "This piece of information is necessary because..." "I understand that, but it's merely an example of the group discussed here, and we have ample examples already." "Yes, but it also illustrates this, and..." etc.

Deciding what's necessary for understanding a topic is the hard part of encyclopedic editing and writing. You want to inform but not overwhelm, and break down the topic in logical ways without giving an overview that is uselessly vague. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Subjective", as in something (abstract) which is "subject" to the whim (decision) of an individual or group, and not based upon empirical (concrete) results.

To make a somewhat humourous aside (with apologies to The Matrix): "The problem is choice."

So just because something may be incredibly obvious to one individual, that doesn't necessarily make it obvious to everyone. And two people can be fully within the mission here, and yet have different perspectives on implementation, or even just simply where the dividing line between "acceptable" and "excessive" are.

And further, the solution to "excessive", I would presume, would be pruning (editing), not deletion (removal)? And that can go for anything from a sentence, to a paragraph, to a page, to a group of pages.

So, for example, the case of Obi-Wan's birthday. That may not seem important by itself, but as a part of a larger work, it may be. For a reader to understand the scope and the years involved in the story, for example. A generational saga. And while one individual event may not be necessarily important in and of itself, it helps serve as a guidepost for those tying to comapre, to understand the time frames involved.

To use a real-world example, The Roman empire was around for over a thousand years. Most people don't really understand that. "Rome was back then sometime." But to compare Rome to the reign of Alexander (great though he may have been), doesn't put the information into perspective. So chronologies are excellent ways to be overviews of a work. Use of a chronolgy can actually help concatenate the text even further. It's an important presentation tool, regardless of whether it's used for "real" history, or an fictional history.

But whether the use of one is "useful" in any particular case, is a "subjective" choice. (Hence why it can be debated at AfD.)

But trying to explain historicity and the effects of epic storytelling, and skaldic literature, and so forth, at AfD, isn't likely going to break through the back-n-forth shouts of IWANTIT/IDONTWANTIT : )

That and of course, the question of the applicability of WP:USEFUL tends to come up : )

Even though part of our mission is to be "useful" to our readers...

So anyway, as I said above, I think we pretty much agree. What seems to be coming out is (possibly) a difference of opinion on where the dividing line may be, and upon what tools may be acceptable to facilitate presentation.

Though I'm honestly not certain about that.

What do you think? - jc37 22:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, interjecting. I think that there is a substantive difference between a chronology of the roman empire and a chronology of the Old Republic (BTW, a chronology of that scale might make the exact date of Obi-wan's birth irrelevant). There are hundreds of reliable sources for both dates in a hypothetical chronology of the Roman empire and hundreds of published chronologies alone. The upper bound for detail that we can achieve without plagarism or original research is quite high for rome (this is distinct from the editorial issue of presentation of detail). Not so for star wars. Arguably the Star Wars franchise has a great deal of published material about it (from an out-of-universe standpoint) and a considerable amount of in-universe detail as well (if we grant that licensed 'histories' are reliable sources...a stance that I'm lukewarm toward)--this comparison gets easier if we talk about the chronology of Firefly or Photon. But the point remains. Chronologies (or any in-universe heavy description) trends toward original research, non-neutral presentation and sometimes close plagiarism simply due to the nature of sourcing (arguably there is an element editor decisionmaking here. I have learned from fans of Warhammer 40,000 that my rewrite of the article was a hack-job that left out everything "important". In that case I would view their stance as a predilection toward exhaustive detail). How do I stitch together a chronology of World of Warcraft (assuming for a moment that licensed histories don't exist) without a close reading and interpretation of material presented in game? We try to thread the needle over at WP:PSTS (and do a poor job, IMO), but PLOT (and N) give us an easy way to sidestep that whole issue. I don't think we have to get into a discussion of "real" history versus "fictional" history. That's a canard (no offense intended). going down that path only raises hackles over perceived biases and unfair treatment. Protonk (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You just missed (and conceivably made) my point in my last comments above rather spectacularly.

For one: "But whether the use of one is "useful" in any particular case, is a "subjective" choice. (Hence why it can be debated at AfD.)"

I merely used the obi-wan example (weak, admittedly though it was), because MiB used it above : )

Let's not get lost in the examples, and miss the broader topic under discussion.

For another: "But trying to explain at AfD, isn't likely going to break through the back-n-forth shouts of IWANTIT/IDONTWANTIT : )"

Which is much of what I think you're describing (such as your WH 40K example). As an aside, I think part of it is that you're very used to having to discuss/debate with others at that level.

This isn't AfD, so you don't have to convince me (or MiB, for that matter) whether chronologies should stay or go.

(Though if you would like my opinion, I think that a chronology, like any type of list, is a tool. And like any tool, should be used appropriately, and not be used inappropriately. And of course, how we define the difference between appropriate and inappropriate, is (wait for it) subjective : )

Which was/is the import of this discussion. Learning where each other stand, and by taking a moment to put thought to word, learning where we ourselves may stand, is a helpful part of development, especially in a consensus-driven environment, such as this one.

I'm fairly certain that MiB isn't a raving deletionist, and I'm fairly sure I'm not a mindless inclusionist. And I would hope that others grow beyond merely "IWANTIT", and come up with well-founded reasons "why" something should be kept or deleted.

THAT is, in my opinion, the main problem with XfD. Almost all the arguments are weak anymore. The great debates would seem to be gone. And when one starts, someone invariably wants to move it to the talk page, since it interferes with "voting". Anyway, I digress.

For now, I'll point MiB to my comments above, since it has a question yet : ) - jc37 11:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have much to add, other than I continue to be baffled by the obsession with the difference between removing some inappropriate content from an article and removing an article composed entirely of inappropriate content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant, I said something above, and then asked you a question. (Right above "Again interjecting".) - jc37 13:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Without wanting to be too harsh, I cannot find any coherent thesis to address or question to answer in that comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Which I guess means you disagree? Or perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the comments, and need to clarify? - jc37 00:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarify please. Ideally briefly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That Guy with the Glasses

Hello! I only recently discovered that The Nostalgia Critic has his own article on this site, via here. Honestly, I don't think he is all that notable enough for inclusion on this encyclopedia, as most of the references are from his own website, as well as some from unreliable sources. I also don't think he's all that notable. I think a problem is that according to the the last AFD, almost all of the keep votes came from I.P.'s and new accounts, and one keep vote came from Brad M, so the result of the discussion was "No consensus." Do you agree that the user is not notable? If so, do you think I should go for a Prod or an AFD? I ask you because we both had similar viewpoints on the removal of the Nostalgia Critic section in the Angry Video Game Nerd article. CarpetCrawler 00:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we have the sort of sourcing we need for a proper article, but the Times and the Guardian both wrote articles about him. I've been fooling with drafts of an AFD, and anything I can come up with would be rightly torn to pieces. I'm uncomfortable with this as a BLP, but I can't organize a proper argument to delete it.

Sometimes it's worth picking a losing fight in order to say something that needs to be said, but I don't think this is one of those times. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

While I agree with your revert here, rollback wasn't warranted. The edit wasn't vandalism, and it probably would have been better to do a manual revert with an informative edit summary. Thanks, Artichoker 00:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Torchic Pokemon

If you are going to revert my changes, at least tell me why.... Why does that talk page redirect? That makes no sense at all. Talk pages of redirects could tell WHY it was redirected. (Not that I need to know) --'''Blake''' (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip

A man once said "Sometimes it's worth picking a losing fight in order to say something that needs to be said, but I don't think this is one of those times". I think this is a case where that advice applies. Ikip certainly does everything he can to make sure that people inclined to keep an article see that an AFD is in progress, and makes no effort to discuss it with people that are inclined to delete. In this particular instance, he didn't cross the lines laid down by WP:CANVASS, though. You won't get far with the argument that a related article's talk page is a non-neutral location, even though it certainly is in practice.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)