User talk:A Man In Black

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 9

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image:FR LG Pokédex.gif

I've found the primary source now, hope its good enough, cheers —M in un ^Spiderman 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review me —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 15:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until you find the primary source that this image was scanned from, it's unsourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Therefore I would like to ask you to request that your admin privileges be withdrawn to prevent you succumbing to tempatation again.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree with you, AMIB. I would like nothing more than to see consensus on this controversial topic, but in the past three days it looks like editors have become so entrenched in their positions that they are unwilling or unable to work toward compromise if it means reconsidering their previously-held beliefs. I know that the whole debacle has made me give more thought to how I feel is the appropriate way to handle certain things, and I only wish that the same could be said of all editors. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 01:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa

I'll take my licks for my part in fanning the flames. I'll promise to be good, but please don't just throw in the towel. There's a whole spectrum of opinons out there other than "keep all schools" and we're doing a diservice to the "delete/merge/redirect/case-by-case" editors if the vociferating few stop all discussion. Wait, I'm doing it again, aren't I? - brenneman ^{L} 05:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a productive use of my effort at the moment, honestly. It's going straight down the personalization-factionalization-sniping nonsense, even when users start trying to do something else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Fire*ball

Thank you for shutting down this vandal. CPAScott 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Let me know if it comes back; I've seen that image before. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert's talk page

I was wondering, if I am not allowed to actually comment on his talk page, then where am I allowed to talk to him on? My comments on the page were understandably deleted, but I would appriciate it if there was a place I WAS allowed to post comments on in re;ation to his account.

There isn't any such place on Wikipedia. Please don't post on that talk page until we establish if it's Colbert or an imitator. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright apologies, apparently I have misunderstood the point of the discussion pages. Further apolgies for not adding my name to the last comment. --Cosmic Larva 03:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I don't mean to sound so harsh, but the high visibility of that page makes it a special case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stress

Hi Man in Black, I saw on the Esperanza Alerts page that you were stressed out, so I wanted to come here and lend my support to you, one of wikipedia's best cruft fighters! Your work doesn't go unnoticed by the people who like to see wikipedia clean and in a good shape, nor does your continued efforts in fighting it. I only hope that things settle down a bit, and that all your stress goes away soon. Warm regards, Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really stressed, but frustrated with that I can't change. Things have been a bit better lately, though, and thanks for the encouragement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tantive IV on Darth Vader page

I edited the description of picture of Vader entering the Tantive IV (the ship's name also not being mentioned in any movie) in Darth Vader's page to say that it was the 501st accompanying him onto the ship. You said it wasn't mentioned in any movie and only in video games; it also is mentioned in the EU however. It is also said on the page of the 501st under the section Rise of the Empire that they did this, and it is mentioned that they make an appearance in Star Wars IV. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501st_Legion_%28Star_Wars%29#The_Rise_of_the_Empire) I feel that based on that this is mentioned on the article on the 501st and based on that other things that were not mentioned in the movie show up in that same description that it should be mentioned that it is the 501st. User:Alofferman 19:59, 03 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That part of the article isn't a history; it's a plot summary of ANH. We shouldn't include details that don't actually appear in ANH. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Stephencolbert

Howdy! Just a heads up, I posted a quick summary at WP:AN#User_talk:Stephencolbert. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war

There're two reports I've filed regarding violations of the 3RR at Joe Lieberman; there are scores and scores of reverts by the same two people there. I notified each user on his talk page, but your intervention may still be required if it doesn't stop right now. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 06:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected it. I'm faily sure the mediator will be or will know an admin, to take care of it once his dispute is resolved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fellow liberal admin comes to my rescue

Hey thanks: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US history of exporting democracy

i base my liberal accusation on the nixon image.

As I mentioned to Tmopkisn on his user page:

This is the third time someone has attempted to delete US history of exporting democracy ever since I wrote this a few months ago:

First: speedy deletion Talk:US_history_of_exporting_democracy#Please_explain_your_reasoning [1]

Then this: Talk:US_history_of_exporting_democracy#Adding_a_deletion_tag [2]

...and now the deletion tag today. I have argued again and again that the most veteran wikipedia editors use wikipolicy to push their own POV.Travb (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whut? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confused? What about?Travb (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed that because it seemed like a merge was agreed upon. I'm not sure where this liberalism thing comes from (the Nixon thing is just because it's a PD image and a pun), and I'm not sure if you're sarcastic or not. I stay far away from political articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not being sacrastic. I am a proud liberal myself. Thanks again. Travb (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have fun liberalling it up, or whatever it is you political people do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD advice

I listed an article for AfD and the employees of the service that is the subject of the article have taken the whole thing very personally and now have relatiated with an AfD against an article I wrote and have already defended against an AfD within the past month. I don't believe the reasons given are suitable for a deletion, but I was wondering if you could take a look at the notice and suggest how to approach this. I'm annoyed, but I want to handle this appropriately. Thanks. --Chris Griswold 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting Objection!

Why did you do that. It was a good article about a popular website.--72.49.183.241 19:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't any proof it was a popular website, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? Me? Oh, just this. Thanks. I love irony... 204.215.207.40 05:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)The Lord Massacre[reply]

Trust me, nothing personal is meant by the use of "meatpuppets." It's not intented as an insulting term, just as a word that means "someone brought to the discussion to create the illusion of consensus." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]