User talk:A Man In Black: Difference between revisions

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. LINK THE PAGE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

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

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

• Miscellanous archive
• Random awards and other crap left on my talk page

File:Nixon.jpg

A Dick on my talk page

List of Advance Wars COs

Dear self:

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

Infobox CVG syntax guide

I began drafting a syntax guide to go along with aforementioned infobox and I'm inquiring if there's any interest in one being made. I suppose the reason is mainly to clarify certain fields and bring it closer in line with other projects such as films and books etc. Anyway, you'll find it at User:Combination/Sandbox. Thanks for your time. Combination 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD: Halo 2 Skulls

Greetings. I noticed you wanted Halo 2 Skulls deleted. Being the page's creator and primary contributor, I felt obliged to defend it. Originally, I created it to contribute to the then strong WikiProject: Halo. However, that seems to be a lost cause, especially for list pages such as the aforementioned one.

What I'll probably eventually end up doing is just creating a section in Halo 2 and linking to the High Impact Halo archive. Perhaps you wouldn't mind doing it? It is you, if I'm not mistaken, who would do desire to see the end of pages like this. --Cryptic C62 22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Linking HIH in Halo 2 would probably be the best bet, along with one or two sentences about the skulls. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AMIB. — Deckiller 22:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Relationships section of the Pokemon Anime article.

I noticed that you didn't touch them, considering I thought that section reeked as being fan-crufty like all of Cool Katt's Pokemon articles. 69.223.138.29 23:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yowch. I'll take care of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A Man In Black/CVG

Hello A Man In Black. I noticed that in your draft User:A Man In Black/CVG and A Man In Black/CVG/Tool you have the categories still activated, so it's showing up in Category:Esoteric templates and in several others. Could I suggest that you deactivate the category links (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per WP:CG, "If you copy an article to your user namespace you should decategorize it".) Cheers! Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for opinion: Talk:British Shorthair

Another user has added the NEDM/Happycat information into the British Shorthair "Famous British Shorthairs" subsection. In an effort to prevent another revert war over this, I have moved the debate into the Article's Talk Page.As you have made an impact on the issue at one point or another, your opinion and vote would be greatly appreciated. --Targetter 04:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility dispute

There've been some issues regarding User:Cshay which you've been involved in; I've raised the issue at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Just thought it would probably something that'd concern you. ----Emufarmers^(T/C) 07:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

He has not been in any dispute with me! What are you trying to achieve by saying things like this? Are you an AbsoluteDan sockpuppet? Cshay 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies; I meant to refer him to the Wikiquette alert I raised for User:Snake Liquid (I added both at similar times, and got them mixed up in this instance). However, please refrain from making baseless sockpuppet accusations, as they may be interpreted as attacks. ----Emufarmers^(T/C) 23:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

More character boxes

Can you work your voodoo on this as well? {{Infobox Street Fighter character}}

I'll be getting to it. I've been working on the SNK infobox, but the SF box was next on my list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Serious vandalism on the FHFIF main characters page.

There is a disgusting pic right at the top of List of main characters in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends at the moment. The vandalist may have attacked List of secondary characters in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends as well. (I haven't looked, because I'm just so shocked.) Please do something. The vandalist is most likely Drewdy, who has attacked the FHFIF pages before. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 18:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait...that's vandalism? It just looks like mass edits to me. — Deckiller 18:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

YIKES! It may have simply been the pic at the top of the Main Characters page that was hit before. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Happycat

Allow the users to create it as an article, then take it to AFD, and if the result is Delete, then WP:SALT applies. Probably the best way forward with the British Shorthair article. In my opinion, YTMND fads qualify for WP:BJAODN. --TheM62Manchester 09:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that YTMND fads actually qualify for WP:Fuck off you bunch of trolling wankers, but I understand this is a controversial opinion... Just zis Guy you know? 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD closure

You closed the debate prematurely, there was no consensus for deletion. Please be more careful in future. Guettarda 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW - if you see something as a "massive policy violation" please deal with the bigger issue in an appropriate venue. Not like that. Guettarda 14:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll raise the broader issue for discussion later today or tomorrow. Presumably WP:NOT is the place for this, with notification at AN/I, VP, etc. Guettarda 15:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It was an overt policy violation that nobody made any effort to mitigate. I'm not bound, as a closer, to count heads. I'm very annoyed that you just reverted my close instead of taking it to WP:DRV, if you felt it was inappropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm very annoyed that you just deleted the article without discussing it. Policy reflects what we do, so if policy is routinely ignored we need to figure out what the policy relaly is. There is one line in WP:NOT which may apply to this. Stop wikilawyering and try discussing things. Guettarda 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, change that longstanding policy and then the article can be restored, or take it to DRV. These are lists of definitions of words, and we even have a separate policy page explaining that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nobody even tried to argue that these weren't dictionary definitions, merely that these dictionary definitions should be an exception. I wasn't particularly moved that this page should be an exception to policy, and AFD closers are afforded enough discretion in closes to decide that a page violates policy even if the strict headcount isn't majority delete. Wikipedia still isn't a democracy, voting is still evil, and Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop being an ass about this, and stop your WP:POINT nonsense. If you don't feel like adhering the process, why do you insist that others must follow process, and then go on to ignore process some more? This is ridiculous. Guettarda 21:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Guide to deletion:

“ The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached. ”

If you don't like my close, WP:DRV, not reversal and a one-sentence snipe on my talk page, is the recourse. WP:DRV was created to resolve such disputes about the reasonableness of an AFD close. I exercised my discretion, decided that the article violated both the word and spirit of WP:NOT, noted that nobody had argued that WP:NOT didn't apply, and closed the discussion.

Now, why the FUCK are you reversing a close on an AFD you're clearly involved with? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I explained what I did, I explained the problem, and I informed you that, as soon as I got a chance, I would raise the underlying policy issue for discussion. But, to you that was a one-sentance snipe. You fetishise policy even as you ignore it. Stop being a hypocrite. As I mentioned above, I have raised this for discussion. I am reverting your nonsense. Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Lists_of_Words. Stop treating Wikipedia as your own private playground. I am disgusted with your bullshit. Guettarda 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Okay guys, here's a solution: let the AfD run its five day course, and then have a third party admin determine the result. Let's not escalate this into further uncharted territory. — Deckiller 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It has run its five day course, and I am the third-party admin. I don't really feel strongly about the issue, but Guettarda felt the need to reverse an AFD he is clearly involved with. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay then, sounds like there's nothing at fault here on your side. Guettarda, I recommend taking it to deletion review if you dislike the result. — Deckiller 22:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It had run 5 days, and attracted 3 opinions, 2 support. It was then relisted. But AMiB obviously believes that he is entitled to IAR, but fetishes process for everyone else. He seems to have no interest in solving the underlying problem - I raised the issue, but he called that a one-sentance snipe". His meltdown here is very telling. Anyone who challenges you gets a slew of obscenities in all caps. Interesting. Oh well, I should really be more understanding of things like that. Guettarda 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments blanking

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Rob 14:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think hes talking about the picture of Nixon again, but users should just be taking it as a joke —Minun ^Spiderman 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That was unnecessarily rude. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think {{test1}} is being overly polite. With one out-of-process deletion and *three* page blankings, I would say AMIB is up to {{test4}} at this stage. --Rob 19:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Replying to edits that are obviously not in bad faith with vandalism templates is a needless escalation of the dispute. Normal Wikipedia processes have for more than a year been successful in making sure that practically no useful school content is deleted. Please just allow them to work in this case rather than generating a pointless personal conflict. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:FR LG Pokédex.gif

I've found the primary source now, hope its good enough, cheers —Minun ^Spiderman 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Review me —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 15:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: User talk page copying

Someone has copied your user talk page. The page can be foundhere —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop mass speedy deleting schools out-of-process

Your actions are clearly out-of-process. I expect you to undelete these articles promptly, and not make us all waste time on DRV. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. Any admin, should feel free to promptly undo any of your out-of-process actions, such as this. A1 is very narrow in scope, and doesn't justify what you've been doing. You know that. --Rob 20:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Expect all you want. "Foo Elementary School is a school in Foo, Bar.{{navbox}}" is a valid A1, per WP:CSD, which sets down the rules for out-of-process deletion. (And I freely admit that they were out-of-process; CSD is there to allow deletion of junk without recourse to lengthy process.) Feel free to make articles for those redlinks, just don't repost a restatement of the title. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the thanks you get for being an admin. Great isn't it? --mboverload@ 20:23, 30 July 2006 (

Yeah well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Undeletion policy states:

If the page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately

You said "I freely admit that they were out-of-process". Hence, you have conceded, any admin may undelete these articlees immmedately. --Rob 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And then they'll be redeleted if they're still one sentence restating the title. Cut the wikilawyering crap; I don't think it's going to kill anyone to write two-sentence stubs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

AMiB, may I suggest you do nothing for 24 hours. You have a lot of support for removing this cruft, best to proceed with caution at this point while people think about it. Do not let the trolls provoke you into inadvisable excess. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is all fallout from stuff yesterday. Usually Thivierr is calmer than this, not usually flying into slapping {{test}} templates up for good-faith actions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW AMiB...what is the "A" in your signature supposed to be? All I see is a box... =( Christopher Parham (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A pawn. It's deliberately obscure, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's meant to indicate you live in a small box. The small box of Internet Explorer. --mboverload@ 21:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say the small box of 7-bit ASCII, but whatever makes you happy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, they are valid A1s and thus not out of process, but as contested speedies now need to be undeleted and put on AfD. Anf for the record, I find AMiB's behavior imminently reasonable. JoshuaZ 20:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Contested speedies don't go to AFD; you're thinking of contested prods. If someone wants to go and make articles for those redlinks, feel free! They're all still linked from a navbox, and the content was nothing but a restatement of the title.

In the time spent yelling at me for deleting a bunch of valid A1s, stubs with sufficient context for expansion could have been made for at least half of these (and I could have gone back to cleaning up RE and MGS cruft, like I was working on.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Then may I suggest that you leave the stubs alone, or list them at WP:EiC#Cleanup needed, and go back to cleaning up RE and MGS like you'd rather be doing. (I have no idea what RE and MGS means.) --Stephane Charette 21:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, so it appears AMiB is even more correct than I thought. As A1s these are fine. I really don't see what the issue is. Furthermore, this is a good thing for people who want articles on schools- they now have a nice bunch of obvious redlinks rather than deceptive blue links. JoshuaZ 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. A redlink might prompt someone to actually m ake a proper article, these were not even real stubs - and half of them were for elementary schools at that, there is not even an obdurate minority vetoing all attempts at consensus for elementary schools. I am more than ever convinced that we should have a separate project for schools so that we can go back to including in Wikpedia only those schools which are verifiably significant. Nobody has yet succeeded in explaining the essential difference between schools and hangouts in terms of significance within a community, the vast majority of school articles are functionally unverifiable to anyone outside the local area, after all. My suggested bar for inclusion is at least one alumnus who is, say, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, or Pope, or director of Four Weddings and a Funeral, or a composer of West End hits or some such. Maybe a minumum establishment of, say, 1,000 years? There may be a small amount of bias in the selections of these examples ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a topic issue. One sentence restating the title is not appropriate for an elementary school, a head of state, an internet meme, a million-selling novel, or anything. On this point, I'm not really interested in arguing about whether Foo Elementary School is a reasonable topic or not, just that "Foo Elementary School is a school in Foo, Bar" isn't even a stub. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Lets just stop. --mboverload@ 21:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be calm

It seems both you and Guettarda have gotten angry with one another, and both of you are violating WP:CIVIL, in your case with edits like this. Please try not to take the silly little disagreements inherent in wikipedia from getting to you. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree; AMIB made a decision, and now Guettarda has the right to put it on deletion review. I don't really see why this is being disputed on this talkpage. — Deckiller 22:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Email

Hey, I would like to send you an email but your email isn't enabled. JoshuaZ 23:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't much use e-mail for anything. If you need to talk to me off-wiki, I can give you my AIM name or see you on IRC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

AIM would probably be preferable. JoshuaZ 23:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black/Yeah. I'd rather not leave it laying around where I have to deal with...well, most Wikipedia business, really. Just delete it when you've seen it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, "most Wikipedia business" did not include whatever you wanted to talk to me about. I wouldn't have given my AIM name if I didn't want to talk about whatever you needed to talk to me about. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, since it is Wikipedia related, you may not want to here it over AIM. Would you prefer if I just said it here? JoshuaZ 00:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Whichever works for you. I just really don't want to be getting IMs from trolls whose vandalism I've deleted, nonsense like that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops

I didn't see that notice earlier. Sorry for the confusion. --AaronS 02:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fox

I recently re-wrote the Gray Fox article. I'm gonna need a second opinion on what i should do next and since you did Snake + Ocelot, I thought that you might know

(The Bread 04:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

I replied there. It's looking a lot better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The outrage

How DARE you delete my home town just because it doesn't show up via satellite? Consider yourself objurgated.
brenneman ^{L} 06:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Arrrrgggghhhh... that's my home town too. Come on brenneman, let's undelete it, block A Man in Black indefinitely and get desysopped. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The cabal made me do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about Advance Wars now

As you have implied that you know perfectly well that there is massive dispute about school article speedy deleting a school article which had attracted several keep votes is a cynical abuse of your admin privileges, and shows that you cannot be trusted. Therefore I would like to ask you to request that your admin privileges be withdrawn to prevent you succumbing to tempatation again. Piccadilly 13:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The WP:CSD aren't up for a vote; they're designed that way. That is the classiest threat to have me de-adminned in a long time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoo boy, I see you're really getting flak for doing what Jimbo Wales might consider the right thing. Since I'm a natural pacifist, here's my advice; when concerning an article that some users are more attached to than others, it might be best to leave the dirty work to other admins and focus on less sensitive issues. Unless you like flak, of course (and no, I'm not talking about Flak from Advance Wars). I'm just not too keen on seeing you undergoing the same stress episodes that User:HighwayCello had been going through recently, and which I tried to calm down also. Erik the Appreciator 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday was a really bad day, with Guettarda wheelwarring with me, but today, like most of the time, this nonsense rolls right off. I appreciate the concern, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, no one likes Flak, Adder is a fake mosher, but at least he's a throwback to Maralyn Manson (whom I hate, but never mind). Lash is just the secks overall. Feel better AMIB. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I like Flak. Of course, I like what's-his-face, the robot, better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jugger? ;P Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 23:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

+30% versus -10%? I'd hit that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Secks as in sex, or secks as in sucks? Lots of connotations there. But Lash rocks. In AW2, the only reason why I won at 4P Leaf Haven was thanks to Lash's terrain bonuses. The battle was too short to use her SCOP, but I did enjoy much better protection in the forests than usual. Then again, I was also matched up against Colin, Flak, and Nell, all of whom have average or below-average units. Hbdragon88 03:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nell has below-average units? Nell is HELL ON WHEELS. Her luck is like a free offensive boost for all of her units. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Note the conjunction, average or below-average. Plus, luck is a side factor. Colin/Nell/Flak is compartively weak to, say, if I picked the likes of Kanbei, Sami, and Max. Now Sami is HELL ON WHEELS - her 150% capture rate nearly captured my HQ! I couldn't get enough direct units to destroy it. Luckily, Blue Moon on its next turn destroyed the infantry, saving me. Hbdragon88 04:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nell is top-tier; I'd take her over Kanbei, because her luck boost is almost as good as his offensive boost. Sami rocks, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Geez, who knew that my trying to relieve your stress would evolve into a discussion about Advance Wars!? Well, since you seem to be open for this forummish discussion, what with you changing the header and everything, allow me to conclude my part in this with a quintuple pun; The various Hawkes around Wikipedia will continually Lash you with Flak and the pain will Adder up unless you quit showing your Blue Moon to those who disagree with you. If you don't, your adminship may succumb into a Black Hole. ^_^ By the way, as a character I like Hawke the best (though I never played the DS game, cuz I don't have DS, shame on me). Erik the Appreciator 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Help with a move

Since you're the only admin I've really interacted with lately, I thought I'd ask you if you could help me out. Over at Talk:Borg (fictional aliens)#Requested move, we're trying to move the article, but we can because of an existing redirect. Can you do it for us? Thanks. EVula 21:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Take care of. Glad I could help! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. EVula 00:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Atomic Fire images

Hi. I just closed Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 July 19. While removing the images you nominated from articles, I noticed a number of other images from the same source. I did not include them as part of your deletion request, but I'm not sure if it makes sense for us to be republishing them. Thoughts? Jkelly 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Anything from Atomic-Fire not attributed to a specific primary source is copyvio, and the only user who could have sourced most of it recently left Wikipedia, so I think they all need to go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you able to identify them all? Jkelly 00:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Identify them how? List the images from AF, or identify where they came from? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant list the images from this website so that there is a list one could go through for deletion. Jkelly 01:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been tagging them with {{nsd}} whenever I see them, but I don't know any good way to list them other than going through Category:Mega Man media one by one (a laborious task on dial-up). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. That's not ideal. The thought of going through that cat is intimidating. By the way, given your comment here, would you mind repeating it? This is still going on, even after both of our comments on AN/I and a comment I made at the user in question's talkpage. Jkelly 19:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bridge Elementary School

You said on the AfD discussion that you speedily deleted it, yet the article is still there. What gives? --Phoenix Hacker 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The speedy deletion was nonbinding. I deleted it as a WP:CSD A1: insufficient context to expand. Now it has sufficient context, so it's no longer a CSD candidate. If you want to reopen the AFD, be my guest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Hello: There is an RfC on Snake Liquid which you may wish to comment on. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 05:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I think I'm going to decline comment, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephencolbert

MIB, I notice you're blanking all the comments to User_talk:Stephencolbert so I thought I'd make my suggestion to you directly, rather than adding it myself. I notice that the blogosphere has picked up the "Stephencolbert blocked for encouraging Wikipedia vandalism" story-- but if I read the page correctly, we're actually doing no such thing.

Blocking someone to protect the real Colbert is one thing-- blocking someone for their speech on a TV Show is another. Given that we're not doing the latter, could we put up something in big letters explicitly saying point blank that "If this is really Stephen Colbert's account, it will be unblocked".

Probably overcautiousness, but man... I really don't want to wake up and see a story about Wikipedia censoring people who criticize/satarize it on their show. --Alecmconroy 10:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the comment there does the job just fine, and it was made as the result of a great deal of discussion on the admin IRC channel (admittedly not the most visible place, but a unified front is useful in this case). It makes it clear that this isn't a punitive block (as the digg story seems to imply), but instead a preventative one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to rein in Tawker then, since saying "I admit it, appear it was him - in either case we could have vandal blocked him - vandalism is a pain the ass you know" [1] makes it sound like punishment was a factor. 70.179.203.73 11:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

All I can handle is what people do on Wikipedia, unfortunately. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing comments on AFD

Sorry. I didn't want mutliple votes by the same person to be counted. (When someone on the "Keep" side also voted twice--he later informed me that he didn't know it was a one man-one vote thing), I deleted his too a few days ago as well. Just out of curiosity, what is the procedure here? Nightscream 13:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally misunderstood what was going on. Basically, the procedure is to do what you did plus what I did; strike or otherwise remove the "vote" and add a note explaining what you did and why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The pur... Rouge Barnstar

For your vandalism which made me smile, have a Rouge Barnstar. But if you try it again, the Highway will evolve into a woop ass machine. ;) Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 15:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, Torchic blows until it gets fighting STAB. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And then it turns into a woop ass machine! Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 16:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

I recently noticed that regarding an article that the user Kappa deprodded (the Metal Gear Sneaking suit article), you asked him on his talk page if he was interested in improving the article, citing sources or otherwise contributing to the information there. I just wanted to let you know I have had some trouble with the behavior of this user before (primarily the same thing, in that he deprods articles constantly, probably 75% of which I object to). He does not appear to actually exhibit an interest in seeing the articles or the Wikipedia project itself improve, which I find objectionable. I once overstepped my bounds in criticising him in AFDs to articles he had deprodded, and soon learned my lesson. My question for you is, is there any way (other than toughing it out) to deal with the hours of work he takes racks up for other editors after he spends only a couple minutes removing prod tags from pages? If I recall correctly, the last time I brought this issue up an editor directed me to bring it up at PROD talk. If I had any confidence that would achieve anything, I would have done so. Any opinions you have on the matter would be appreciated. Happy editing. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a prime RFC candidate, although I'd caution against personalizing it against Kappa. I'd certify. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

SHBs

You are among the editors who participated in the discussion of relevent fields at Template talk:Superherobox; please add some thoughts to the similar discussions at Template talk:Supersupportingbox and Template talk:Superteambox. More editors means a better actual concensus, and that will help us decide what to do about the fields in question. --Chris Griswold 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Schools Examples

Do you have examples of school articles you've made which meet your prosposed criteria, especially #1? I want to see that this item is practically attainable. --Rob 05:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I made this guideline using the reverse process; I identified the problem (directory entries and advertisements), looked at other similar solutions to that problem, then modified it to make sure it defended non-problematic articles. I largely used WP:EiC's content, since they had a handful of excellent cases of problematic, borderline, and clearly-non-problematic articles.

This compromise is strongly based on something you said in the last debate, that you were worried that a standard would result in the destruction of work spent improving school articles. With that in mind, I've been trying to hone it to affect only promotional and directory-style entries. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. But have you written a school article that meets your own standard? --Rob 06:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My interest is in dealing with an issue that is causing harm to the encyclopedia; to wit, the lack of a useful framework for which to discuss schools, and the allowal of advertisement and vanity.

I'm relying heavily on the experience of editor who know specifically about schools to help create a guideline that doesn't do anything to impair articles, while making it clear that WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM aren't suspended because there's "school" in the title. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Communicating, would be easier, if you could have just said "No, I haven't made such an article" (if that's the answer). For example, I readily admit to never making Pokemon articles. That doesn't stop me from partaking in inclusion/deletion discussion of Pokemon. But, it limits the level/nature/effectiveness of my involvement. Much of your proposal seems based on a radical lack of understanding of the editing and research process. You seem to want instantly complete articles. You think all available information can always be found in the 5-day AFD window. You say you want expandable articles, but seem to want only fully expanded articles. If you wish to continue to spend lots of time involved on school articles, consider simply making some school articles that illustrate what you think a school article should be. When people see what you're for, they'll be less focussed on what you're against. --Rob 07:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't made such an article. Forgive my defensiveness; I'm used to that being used as a rhetorical feint. I need to be less paranoid. -_-

I want to bring an end to the AFD nonsense, by explicitly defending a brand-new stub (with specific instruction to tag it for what's needed and refer it to the relevant project), then, failing that, give us structure for discussing whether an apparently moribund stub is expandable.

Something I noticed about every single article (as opposed to stub) is that it expanded upon a non-trivial mention of the school (be it a national award, a well-documented rivalry, a historical role, etc.) This guideline would protect anything that has the reference that is the germ of an article, while discouraging what I see as essentially misguided plans to make directories of schools in the hopes that those directories can be turned into actual Wikipedia content.

You're right that an example would be good, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For an example of exactly where I propose drawing the line:

This is bad. It offers nothing but duplication of directory entries, and is itself a directory entry. It offers negligable context with which to expand the article.

This, while not yet ideal (it's not a WP:FA, after all ;D) passes. It not only offers some fact that could be investigated and followed up on, but it also offers a lead on finding other info, in the form of the local paper. It's a start.

This sort of addition was once commonplace on AFD articles, and I'd like to encourage the good work that was being inadvertantly accomplished by the AFDs while chucking the confrontation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Hi. You've been reported at WP:AN/3RR, and it looks like a real violation. I strongly recommend self-reverting to avoid a block. Jkelly 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: AN/I

I will express an opinion if i wish, it is not disallowed. Now please stop messaging me unless you can provide a policy stating i can not express an opinion. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 12:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I have mentioned you in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton. You qualify as someone who can make the second endorsement. Jkelly 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Silensor

Hello, AMIB. I just wanted to let you know that the user Silensor has taken a very dim view of your conduct as an administrator. I asked him about his complaining and accusations of abuse of administrative privileges on his talk page, to which he said that he did not think it was "time to report". If you have any opinion on the matter you might ask him as well. I felt it necessary to let you know the fact that you were being discussed there, as it would any other editor. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Something for you

The Barnstar of Good Humor For adding such funny stuff to others' user pages, you arw awarded this barnstar. I got it by evolving the original; barnstar into this barnstar :P Happy editing —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 18:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOLS

Good idea but doomed to fail. The usual suspects are already sabotaging it while simultaneously asserting that they will never accept it. Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about bad faith. And to think I just joined Wikipedia a few months ago, and already people like myself and over a dozen new people who signed up at WP:EiC in the last few months are being lumped into "the usual suspects". I understand you guys may have been here since the dawn of time (in terms of Wikipedia), but give everyone a fair chance, will you? --Stephane Charette 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hence my retirement from the discussion. Nothing productive is going to come of it because of this useless character assassination, and I'm sorry I reopened it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thunderbolts (comics)

When a name is available for a title or character, we should use that rather than add "(comics)", right? Thunderbolts redirects to Thunderbolts (comics), and I'm not really sure why that's necessary. I tried to move it, but it was blocked because that article space, the article's former location, was already created. So I intitiated a discussion which has pretty much amounted to, "Does this need to be done?" and "Something else may eventually need to use that title sometime in the future," neither of which come across to me like strong opposition. Would you mind taking a look at the discussion? Thanks. --Chris Griswold 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)