User talk:A Man In Black/Archive17

NFS series template

Hi! I'm new here so I'm trying to learn as much as I can. Why did you change Template:Need for Speed series? I think it looked good and the unreleased game + the cities are definitely Need for Speed-related. --MrStalker 09:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the unreleased game doesn't have any substance; no name, no release date, no playable form.

The cities aren't really necessary for understanding, and they're already linked in the articles where appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But maybe one would find some info about this upcoming title interesting anyway, the game is inofficially confirmed by EA representatives. Many other templates have links to games which aren't released yet, so why can't this one? The link can be changed as soon as there is a better official title.

With all respect, about the cities, I don't think people read here just because they want to understand, they want to now more about the subject they're reading about, and what better way is it then just put all articles together in one navigation box. That's the purpose of nav-boxes, right? And btw, many other series have different "unrelated" thing in the nav-boxes, ever checked out Warcraft and Half-Life? --MrStalker 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that's the purpose of categories.

As for those other navboxes, yeah, I know. I'm working on them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to template talk page. --MrStalker 09:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable Cards

I've suggested it to Benten and am waiting for his reply. If I site the aforementioned Beckett Yugioh Collector homepage as a site, could (or perhaps "should") I format the page to list the cards notable in the real game? Drake Clawfang 16:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Your Nixon image at the top seems to have been deleted

Please help

Hi,

On this page -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HRM96

I am being harassed. Due to this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Csuri

Which used to contain my website. I asked for my site and name to be removed from that page as I do not want my business associated with this man. I noticed an "editor" (who is actually this man's SIL)added my name to the history as the one who was causing all of the trouble. It really is long and very High School..but if there is any way at all you can remove my talk page and any reference to my website and name from his edited history I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you, HRM96

Jehu Eyre

Hi. I'm a relatively new contributer to Wikipedia, and recently stumbled across an article that interested me about the Revolutionary War. I looked up more sources on the subject and posted them, along with the facts stated in those sources. The article is now tagged as a possible hoax, and I am searching for objective analysis of it from multiple users. If you could please take a look, and urge others to take a look as well, I'd be very grateful.

SwedishConqueror 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

Removal of template link

I, and probebly some others, have noticed that you recently have been busy removing links from, what many others consider, perfectly good CVG-templates. What are your reasons to do so? As far as I know, there is no Wikipedia guideline or policy that supports your actions. The guidelines described here are only proposed at this moment, and should not be enforced, yet. --MrStalker 23:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There's the support of WP:CVG. I don't think the presence or absence of a technical tag invalidates a reasonable standard backed by the relevant project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the guidelines for navboxes, that you have made up, is only proposed at this moment, and I quote:

"The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'" --MrStalker 08:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Were you planning to cut and paste template wording to me, or discuss with me salient points you disagree with? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was the discussion page's purpose. I have already posted my salient points there. --MrStalker 09:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You did bring this up here. I assume you had a point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My points are very clearly stated here and here. --MrStalker 09:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The point in question seems to be "Well, I don't like what you're doing!" When I inquire why, I've recieved no answer clearer than "It's not what I want!" or "You're not listening to me!"

I am removing these links because they're speculative and unsourceable due to their predictive nature, or in-universe material not needed to understand the game articles. I understand that you disagree with this. You have failed to make it clear to me why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to make this as clear as possible. You are editing templates based on a set of rules that you made up, and are not yet approved by the Wikipedia community. I disagre with that because it's simply wrong to make up your own rules and enforce them without the support of the community. You think Need for Speed XI contains no relevant information. I disagre with that because the article describes the development and contains information about the next Need for Speed title, and is very much relevant to the Need for Speed series. --MrStalker 09:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The flip side of this coin is that my reasoning, that policy (or proposal, or whatever) page rests on a basic goal of expunging cluttering links, such as those to speculative/promotional articles and in-universe material. This is based in longstanding Wikipedia policy. The only way you get anything done on Wikipedia is to go ahead and do it, and the discussion (which is overwhelmingly in favor of cleaning out these navboxes) is in WP:CVG's archives.

Relevance is not at issue. I never brought up relevance. I instead have focused entirely on its speculative and promotional nature; you have not addressed this point, near as I can tell. Do you feel that these articles are not speculative/promotional, or that speculative/promotional material has a place in navboxes? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, you ain't going to listen to anyone, you killed this "discussion" long ago. I give up. Have it your fucking way. --MrStalker 10:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have lost interest in polite discussion. I will be about if you'd like to resume it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Okey, I am sorry for my rude behaviour. Bad sleep. I agree that many templates need cleanup. But, Template:Need for Speed series wasn't one of them, I think it looked perfectly good with both the location-links and the NFS XI-link. Speculative/promotional or not, I think any article with interesting information relevant to the series deserves a place in the template. (And that is my final argument) --MrStalker 16:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any objective way to define interesting. Such a definition might include every car licensed for a NFS game, everyone or every development team involved with its development, or other such sprawling scopes. (It has happened.) We need an objective and reasonable standard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see your point. But, as stated before, the standards or policies are guidelines rather then rules and don't have to be followed word by word. I would prefer a case-by-case basis. Or, as Scottie theNerd said: "As long as the article exists and details about the next game are confirmed, there's no reason not to include it in the template".

If the purpose of this standardization is to clean up large templates and make them nice and compact, I also think that it depends a bit on how much info there already is in the template. The NFS-template is relativly small so an extra tiny link won't hurt anyone. --MrStalker 01:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

One extra links eventually becomes many on many different templates; the problem is as much aggregate as singular. For example, Halo Wars was kept on the Halo template, because it was already so slim. The presence of Halo Wars was an argument to keep NFS XI on its template. That becomes an argument to keep the next speculative MK game on the massive Mortal Kombat template. Etc.

The basic principle that the links are to speculative/promotional articles applies to any template, so might as well remove them from all of them. Such links are not actually helping the reader, no matter what the size of the template is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okey, fair enough. But how about the locations? Other templates you edited still have links to character-guides and such, what is the difference? --MrStalker 08:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Umbrella articles vs. specific articles. Make an article that is "Locations in the NFS series" and that'd be the kind of thing that goes in the template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also wondering why not use nowrap (syntax: {{nowrap|text}}) in the template to prevent links being cut of when changing lines? --MrStalker 13:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Um. I dunno. We should do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okey, good. (Yey, I got right for once :P ) I'll fix that if I may. And I'll do that "Locations in the Need for Speed series" as well ASAP. --MrStalker 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Article created: Locations in the Need for Speed series. Link now plz? --MrStalker 22:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Added link. Hope it's okey :-] --MrStalker 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User name change

Mr. A Man In Black, I would appreciate if you make an effort to uderstand the nature of the change I'm doing. I will try explain again. I changed my user name because of privacy concerns. Now my old user page does not exists. Yet, it is listed in google's cache because of links from other pages that direct to it. I'm trying to remove all of them. Your archive page is the last one. My changes also relink to my new user page. In this way old ded links are changed to functional ones. So I think it is also useful. Now I will try to do this edit again in hope that you undestood me and will accept this. I really hope this small edit will not make big trouble for you, but will make big difference for me. Thank yu for your understanding.--Bryndza 15:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Time Crisis series

I really have to disagree with your stand on the appearance of the template. The reason for the itemization of the "things" (i.e. Games, TC, TC2, Spin-offs; CZ) was to make it presentable to the reader to know if it's a game, if it's a character-related article, or such. Also, there are three wikilinks you removed without seeing them and taking note of, so as much as I hate to do this, I am going to have to revert your edit unless you have a hard reason and/or Wikipedia says so. Otherwise, I have to restore three wikilinks at the template that you removed. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 19:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It also works well to just remove all the links that aren't games, like I did. I did look at each link before removing it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, there are three links that you appear to overlook: Wild Dog (Time Crisis), V.S.S.E., and List of minor Time Crisis characters. These were included in the template as a part of the series. While your views might be diffrent than mine, I appreciate if you place these three links back on the template for the least.

Notwithstanding, I also believe that describing "Games", "Spinoffs", and "Game-related information" also helps alleviate any vagueness the potential first-time reader may have with the template. The reason in describing whether or not the link is either a game, character, or spin-off was to ensure that newcomers won't think that they are lost. You also should talk to Benten about this as I'm unsure about what his views are regarding about template presentability, as the links aren't all games. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 20:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC) (Reason for edit: Looked at the House of the Dead template—I really have to deduce the template as looking ugly with the standard appearance; King of Fighters template is OK, but in the case of Time Crisis and House of the Dead, it's IMO a different story)

I removed them consciously. Wild Dog and VSSE are already linked in the list of characters, and the minor characters could probably be replaced; I'm not a fan but I can't think of any good reason other than a gut judgement call to exclude them.

I don't think there's a great deal of likelihood for confusion because neither series is particularly noted for its story, so issues of continuity aren't terribly important, and (ideally) the template is directing readers to the parent series article that explains the differences between the main series and the spinoffs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be harsh, but apparently I'm going to have to ask for the template to be deleted since your standard formatting suggestion leaves the minor character article left out. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 20:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, dude, I just said you could stick the minor characters list link back on the template with no objections from me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WVNS-TV/WVBT-TV

I am wondering why you are deleting the "fair-use" logos that have been on the respective pages for awhile now. These logos are not in violation of any policy that I can find. I have reverted both pages back to previous until I know why you are deleting them. Thanks....SVRTVDude 05:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Because they fail WP:FUC #3 and #8. They are not significant subjects of commentary nor are they needed to identify the subject (since one logo, the current one, remains to serve that role). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

read both of those, and none of these pages fall under those rules, neither does the WUSA page. SVRTVDude 05:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a lengthy discussion on this subject in the archives of the talk page of WP:TVS. Short version: you have to make a specific case for every single fair-use image used on Wikipedia, or the images must be removed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not seeing this discussion, if you could give me a direct link, I would appericate it. Second, most of those images have been up, especially on the WUSA page, for awhile now. In the case of WUSA, they are logos through their WTOP, WDMV, and WUSA days, which is a long time. So, that is information that "contributes significantly to the article" (rule 8). If you want to take out the current image on the WVBT page, that is OK, but the "WB43" logo is again under rule 8....as is 3 of the 4 images on the WVNS page. I have put this before WP:AN, as I feel you are just deleting image galleries all "willy-nilly".

I am willing to work with you to find middle ground and keep as many of this images and logos as possible. Until WP:AN has a chance to look over the situation, I feel that the pages in question should be reverted to the previous state and left until a decision is made by WP:AN. - SVRTVDude 05:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations/Archive 4#Removal of logo galleries and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations/Archive 4#Removal of logo galleries redux. The upshot is that one image to identify the station is okay, more is not unless the article has sourced commentary on each additional image.

By the way, leaving non-free content up until it's definitively declared non-free is not how it works. It is actually the reverse of that; remove it ASAP then discuss. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can see you started this one yourself. I kinda doubt anything is going to be done, so you have yourself a good time screwing up all the pages you can find. Sheesh. - SVRTVDude 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a shame that so much time has been spent adding content to Wikipedia that we can't use, unfortunately. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a stop to the discussion on WP:AN, as no good can come from talking about it. Sadly this is the second time I have come in contact with situation like this and it is slowly making me re-think updating pages and trying my best to provide accurate information and images for a site that obviously doesn't want them. SVRTVDude 06:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You did that WWHC one on purpose. Sad. SVRTVDude 06:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tiny Kong

Could you please move Tiny (Kong) back to Tiny Kong please?

What would be approprieate to use a logo?

I'm asking you this simply because you deleted my KICU's image. fair use Criteria, Do you even care whether or not people contribute to the page at all? What would be a good way to keep images legitamate and be kept in an article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JD2635 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

WFTS-TV image gallery

Why did you remove the logo image gallery? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erik16 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

According to him, it fails WP:FUC #3 and #8. "They are not significant subjects of commentary nor are they needed to identify the subject". I too will be joining his ranks and deleting them too! If you wanna complain about what I do, at least I find ways to "legally" use the images like on WWOR-TV by spreading them out alongside the station history! ViperSnake151 13:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WUSA

I reverted the WUSA page, as I see no problem with just THREE extra logos that are discribed in the article itself. Just going by your rules. - SVRTVDude 06:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Three images that are minor variations on each other aren't necessary, sorry. It's okay to have a single picture of the historical logo with a discussion of the historic logo. It's not okay to have three images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I gotta ask....exactly who put you in change of logos? In DC, WUSA has went through some many logos it isn't even funny. I live near DC (get WUSA on cable) so, I know. Just because it isn't discussed doesn't mean they can't be there. Now you are just making up reasons. First it is "fair-use", then it is a "legal issue", now it isn't discussed. Come on, make up a reason and stick with it. Otherwise, leave the logos alone, dude. If Gannett, CBS, ABC, NBC, or any number of companies really cared about them, they would have sued Wikipedia years ago. Why don't you leave TV and Radio and their respective logos to people who know something about them and know what they are talking about. - SVRTVDude 06:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use is a misleading term. It means you've got a good enough reason to ignore the fact that you're normally not allowed to republish copyrighted material (say, an image). On Wikipedia, this term is misused by many users (myself included) to mean material under copyright not released under a free license. The problem is that many of these images are not fair use, since a sufficient fair-use claim cannot be made.

Wikipedia's standards for fair use are written to accomodate possible for-profit publishing by other republishers, so we set a very high bar for use of non-free material, essentially setting ourselves the standard of a commercial, non-educational publisher. (If you don't think we should do this, take it up with the Wikimedia Foundation.) As such, we very narrowly define allowable fair use.

While it's a strict standard, it's also an easy one. Ask yourself, "What's the least number of fair-use images do I need to illustrate this concept?" Usually, the answer is one, if it's at all a visual concept. If it's more than one, you have to answer the question, "Why more than one?" "Because we want to have all the images" is not and never has been enough.

There's pretty much one satisfactory answer to justify multiple images: "Because there are multiple subjects discussed in the text." Let's say a station for many years had multiple variations on a famous, influential logo, then recently replaced it with a standard logo for the network brand. It would be fine to have an example of the influential logo with the discussion of how and why the logo was famous and influential, as well as an example of the logo in the infobox. The historic logo is illustrating the discussion of the historic logo, and the current logo is illustrating the discussion of the article as a whole.

You need to be talking about the logo itself, though. Putting the 1960s logo next to the discussion about the station in the 1960s isn't enough, since the logo isn't the subject of commentary and it isn't needed to identify the subject of the article since we already have the image identifying the subject of the article.

Does this make sense? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, but still, I seriously doubt that a company is going to care if a logo is used on Wikipedia or not, especially if it is old. Most of those old logos are from tapes that people recorded from over-the-air....so, I think they are free. The WRIC ones you just deleted, also obviously recorded from the air. But if you want to use "fair-use" then you will have to take down even the most up-to-date logo as well...all of them to make it ia fair statement. Cause if you take 10 down and leave one, what's the point of taking the 10? Look, make ya feel better, I will give WJLA, WRC, WUSA and a couple others a call tomorrow and get permission for the logos to be up...they say "yes", then I don't think we have a "fair-use" issue. - SVRTVDude 06:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't free, though. Copyrights don't lapse because somebody doesn't defend them for a while. They're as copyrighted as the day they were published, unless they're so old that the copyright has expired.

We can easily make a good case to defend a single image; we're writing an article about the station. 10 (or 5, or 3, or 2) images, well, why do we need that many?

If you want to ask permission, you need to have them release their image under a free license. Otherwise, it doesn't change a thing. The nice thing is that we have a standard legal release form for this, but they're unlikely to do it. (It'd be nice if they did, though; then you could use the images for anything you want.) Otherwise, republishers don't have permission to use the images, and republishers need to be able to republish Wikipedia. (It's part of what the "free" in "The Free Encyclopedia" means.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

$5 says I call them and say, "hey, I want to use some of the old logos on Wikipedia, will your legal dept have a problem with this" and after talking to them...I will get a big ol' "no". Cause TV stations don't care. As long as they aren't being used in a way that hurts the station or is in a negative way, and as long as no one is making any money off the use of them (this being "free"), they won't care. Probably ask why they were removed in the first place. Send me the release form and I will have signatures or at least verbal autharization (sp) to use them by tomorrow evening. - SVRTVDude 09:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that that permission isn't sufficient, because Wikipedia is republished by other people which are not Wikipedia. We need the issues released under a proper free license to treat them as anything but non-free content.

Let me scrounge up the form. I'll see if I can't find where it is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In a related subject, you've only been removing images THAT ARE ALL TOGETHER IN GALLERIES. Would arranging the old logos alongside the history of the station be "legal" enough for you? That way, it contributes and provides commentary notable to the article! ViperSnake151 13:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's just spreading around the same problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is just a "problem" for you. You and you alone. You started deleting this images...so it is your problem. Why not try making a couple articles, adding to some, instead of screwing them up. - SVRTVDude 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tomb Raider series template

Could you elaborate a little on your recent changes to this template because I don't see why the new version is an improvement over the previous one, on the contrary. The template is about more than just videogames, hence the pagename "Tomb Raider series", and the inclusion of Tomb Raider movies. I have the impression you changed the lay-out to conform to video game template standards, while in fact it isn't a video game template but a "franchise template". The current version gives the impression that all titles are video games. I don't think it's necessary to include subcategories for the games but at least make the distinction between the games and the movies. It looks confusing. What's wrong with for example this version that makes yours better? --Steerpike 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The bulk of the template is composed of games. The single line of non-games are already labeled "film", so there's no need to have a second, separate line pointing this out while not mentioning the fact that this is a game series in the title. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Strider template

Last I checked, there wasn't a problem with anyone about linking character articles in a series template as they too were part of the series (see:Devil May Cry template). As it stands there are only two character articles, but both could be rewritten with enough work to fit. The non-link was there for the direct point to show that one of the games lacked an article entirely, which omitting entirely is a good idea how? I would appreciate some form of discussion at least so reasoning behind matters could be discussed instead of nix-and-forget.--Kung Fu Man 04:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The characters are back in the DMC template? Argh.

It's a navbox. It's for navigating between articles in a interrelated series. Character articles are already linked in the articles where they're relevant, and don't need to be linked where they aren't relevant. Likewise, there's no need to cram things that aren't links into the template; it's a navigation tool, not an exhaustive list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay...while I think I see your point about the non-link, I still think characters should be included in the template somehow for easier navigation, maybe as a subsection. Reason I'm pushing for this is it makes it easier to see a list of relevant characters that may not be linked to in other articles, such as a character that appeared in two games out of three, but has significance to the mentioned character. Another factor is since in the Strider articles it would give some idea who the major or significant characters were without someone having to dig through a wikipedia article and click on ever tom, dick or hairy link: it just makes the transfer of information easier to the user. Either way what do you think about the subsection idea for characters, because apparently if you just removed stuff from teh DMC articles and someone put it back, it at least shows my opinion isn't the only one leaning towards this notion. :\--Kung Fu Man 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

When you're talking about a series four games long, where two of the games were arcade games, the characters just aren't that important. Hiryu is a ninja that fights Soviet robots. There's not much more to know. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You do have a knack for understating articles you know o_O As it stands though the character does have a lot of seemingly backstory, mainly because too he was a manga character beforehand. One could easily argue Ryu's just a guy going around beating people up because that's the main part of his story, so there isn't anything needed to know, but we both know that'd be just flat out silly. Not to mention we're also talking about characters that have appeared in crossover games too, but that's another fun matter.--Kung Fu Man 05:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap Strider Hiryu is awful. I thought it'd be a stub. Wow. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that article needs an overhaul, but there is plenty of info on the character at least even after all the junk is weeded out, which is the point I'm getting at.--Kung Fu Man 05:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minuite: you reverted someone's rubbish on that page just recently. How could you not notice it wasn't a stub? O_O--Kung Fu Man 05:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that was me?

Anyway, there's zero non-plot-summary, non-original-research info on the character in that article. That article hopelessly flunks WP:FICT and WP:WAF. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless other folks are using your account...as it stands btw the Ghosts 'n Goblins template was better off with the crappier french design: One of those games isn't part of the series canon but is still related, Maximo is based off the series heavily, and the Gargoyle's Quest games were their own offshoot. As it looks now everything's clumped tight into an atrocious body bag. At least fix the blasted template so it reflects this info a bit clearer since apparently I can't modify the template I cooked up without you jumping in.--Kung Fu Man 07:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right, I fixed that template.

Since when is canon the most important organizing factor in sorting the G&G series, of all things? This is not the fan encyclopedia for fans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not the most but it is something vital that can't be overlooked. You yourself know that. The storyline is just as necessary for encyclopedic purposes as the game itself.--Kung Fu Man 07:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose there's a single reliable source in the whole of the world that mentions canon in the context of G&G? It was hard enough finding some for Metal Gear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Knowing capcom there probably is somewhere: they tend to go into overdrive regarding storylines. The games themselves do seem to follow some timeline (i.e. Ghouls 'n Ghosts' ending refers to Ghosts 'n Goblins as having happened a few years before) which that one game doesn't seem to fit into anyway: it was more a "for fun" game featuring the GnG theme to sell it, like Alleyway features Mario.

Regardless I still think some hint of separation beyond a line break, given the games are related but their own series per se...anything along these lines you would be satisfied with so we can get this tended to and deal with more important issues elsewhere?--Kung Fu Man 15:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant reliable sources independent of Capcom, but whatever. What were we talking about again? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Animal Crossing series mediation update

TStein, AManInBlack, it looks like we've gotten all of the opinions from the RFC that we're likely to get. I've posted a wrap-up on the template talk page, together with some ideas on where you might like to go from here. Let me know if you have any thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 14:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

RE navbox

Why do you still reverting the new template (wich is the same thing as the standard template)? The only thing I've done is add a title for each line (Main series, Other series, etc).  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's considered to be meta-data and has been eliminated on all other similar userboxes. Hbdragon88 01:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, what's meta-data and why it must be deleted???.  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Answer or that reverts will count as vandalism.  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's anything that isn't itself a useful link, but is instead categorization, breaking things up, and suchlike. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What? I've repeated like 1000 times that I've just added the left titles, to avoid confusion!!! Some people that are just starting to know the RE series, may ask themselves why RE, RE2, RE3....are in another line than Outbreak, Outbreak 2...  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And they can read the articles to figure that out. If they don't already know about the series, how is breaking things up into series that fans pretty much invented solving that problem? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Omg, first you are not the owner of the template and you must stop being so selfish. If you know everything about RE it's ok! cool!, but not everyone does...Second...about that thing or series that fans pretty much invented, the template I created actually don't include the Umbrella Chronicles or the RE 5, even though this games have alredy been comfirmed. (see the references of each article).  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you answer??? Because I'm right and you are wrong??? You are not owner of the template!!!!!!!!!!!! Sh*t!!!!!!!!!!!!! Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Because you didn't answer my points, you just rambled a bit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What???I've alredy answered. Now, why are you deleting articles that have sources and citations from the template?? Are you blind or what??? And understand this: If you are a pro on RE series, we don't care...We care about everyone, not about you...People who don't know why some titles are separated, will know it thnx to the left titles. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 19:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting..the standard appearance can't be understood by newbie players. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What is there to understand? There are the numbered games, and the games with subtitles. This doesn't need to be labeled. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've alredy said, NO ONE CARES IF YOU ARE A PRO. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 14:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Big Question

Why did you leave WWOR images/logos as is, but delete WUSA's? You leave the images alone (unless you have finally given that up...if so, congrats) or you are just deleting what you feel like. Explaination needed. - SVRTVDude 02:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Because sometimes I like doing things other than getting yelled at. >:( - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are deleting what you feel like. You can't delete some pages (WUSA) and go to others (WWOR) and leave them be. Either delete all or none-at-all. - SVRTVDude 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed the bit where this is a volunteer project. I work on fair-use image gallery patrol when I'm up to being yelled at. I'm not at the moment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude....who's yelling? You will know when I am yelling...but at this moment, I am not. Just posing a question. A thought, if you don't like being yelled at and this is a "volunteer project"...then don't do it. - SVRTVDude 06:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe we're done here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

When you stop messing with the logos and images and stop citing any rule you can think of, then we are done. Until then, I am just getting started. - SVRTVDude 07:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUC and WP:V are the only rules I've cited, and if you're not already familiar with them, I suggest you make yourself familiar with them. WP:FUC is very important for anyone using non-free content on Wikipedia, and WP:V (along with WP:NPOV and WP:NOT and WP:CIVIL) is one of the basic and important principles Wikipedia is built on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You have cited more than that, but that is not what this is about. It is your poor interpretation of those rules, your "taking it upon yourself" to delete images that are do not fall under those rules, your lack of understanding that these images have been up for months, your lack of understanding that companies do NOT care about their logo from 1960 being on Wiki, and your lack of caring for the people who worked long and hard to find those images. You have over-stepped the bounds as an admin and as an editor, people are obviously afraid to stand up to you and they have let you do pretty much what you please. I am not one of those people. I worked long and damned hard on these articles and I am not about to let someone who can't cite me one rule that ACTUALLY has to do with these images and PROVE to me that they ARE fair-use and not free images. No where on the images does it say fair-use...I believe most say "logo". If you take down the old logos, take down the up-to-date ones too...you can't have it both ways. - SVRTVDude 07:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long the images have been up, and it doesn't matter if the companies aren't complaining at the moment. I do care that people went to the effort to find and upload these images, but the fact remains that despite the fact that they were uploaded in good faith, they aren't allowed on this project.

It's not as though I'm on some solitary crusade; this is just a smelly job that makes a handful of misguided goodfaith contributors unhappy, so most admins do more rewarding work. (I spend a lot of time doing template hackery when I'm not working on image patrol, for example.) You don't have to take my word that this is necessary; go back and look at what Hbdragon or Chris Griswold or Carnildo or any of the other admins were telling you at WP:AN#Continued Problem. You got your outside admin input. The fact that you don't like it doesn't particularly move me to discontinue removing images that violate Wikipedia's policies. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I ask again, WHO says they aren't allowed. HBDragon and Chris Griswold, while giving their input, gave varying reasons (like you) on why they should go...these images didn't fall under any. Read the comment made by DHowell at the bottom of that section. You will find it quite enlighting. But still, with the comments you make on the edit summary (on your contrib page), you could give a damn less about the people uploading these images in good faith. What you don't seem to understand, these images were NOT a problem before you started this "smelly job" and still are not. I have offered to get you releases from these TV stations, that doesn't seem to satisfy you. You want them gone and will not be told differently.

Just to let you know, there are more than a "handful" of "goodfaith contributors unhappy", there are a crapload....and we are not the ones who are "misguided", it is you. You are misguided on the rules you claim to be upholding and you still have not proven that these images are fair-use and not free.

AMIB, even if the admins told you to knock it off, you would continue to do it. We all know it...and we all know that no one is going to tell an admin, especially you, to stop doing anything. You will continue to delete all the older images and only older images, but leave the current image....if the old ones are fair-use, isn't that fair-use too? I think so, so let's takes those down. What about any logo for any sports team? Under your logic, that is fair-use too...those go. What about any picture of any city in the world...again, under your logic, most of those are fair-use too...those go. So, get to work, you have ALOT of images to delete....and if you don't delete them all, you, sir, are a hypocrite. - SVRTVDude 08:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read DHowell's arguments many times, and they're arguments to change the rules, not arguments about whether such-and-such images are currently allowed under the existing rules. Most policies and guidelines are subject to discussion and change, and one of the best way to do so is to just ignore the ones you don't like, argue why you're doing so, and see if anyone backs you up. That doesn't work with legal issues, however, like WP:BLP or WP:FUC, since they're handed down from Brad Patrick, Jimmy Wales, and the Board. If you willfully ignore them, you just get blocked for exposing the project to legal liability. If people made arguments from the existing policy (instead of what they think the policy should be), I'd give them due consideration. DHowell's arguments are compelling, but they only compel me to regret that this is necessary.

"Free" means "released under a free license." That includes exactly zero images involved in this discussion. I'm fairly sure you still haven't carefully read WP:FUC, since you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of even the difference between free and non-free images. Until you've done so, this is no longer productive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, did you just insult me? Are we in third grade? Dude! I read, carefully, the rules and I believe that I understand them. Like I said earlier, you will continue to do what you want, no one will tell you different, you always have a reason why you should do this.

But you didn't answer my one question....why delete the old images, but leave the new and current? Wouldn't that also classify as fair-use? If so, why leave them? Why not delete them? Aren't you by doing that "exposing the project to legal liability"? Again, why delete the old images and leave the new....that is the question. - SVRTVDude 09:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You are misguided on the rules you claim to be upholding and you still have not proven that these images are fair-use and not free.

This demonstrates a lack of understanding of what free means in this context.

As for the answer to your one question:

"Ask yourself, 'What's the least number of fair-use images do I need to illustrate this concept?' Usually, the answer is one, if it's at all a visual concept. If it's more than one, you have to answer the question, 'Why more than one?' 'Because we want to have all the images' is not and never has been enough." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But according to you in your words, they are fair-use and should be deleted. If 10 should be deleted you can't leave one and call it fair. Delete them ALL or Leave the ALL....you can't have it both ways. I am just using your words against ya now.

You actually haven't proven that they are free use and not fair to me or anyone else for that matter. But, I RE-READ them...and I seen this "If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense."....can ANY of these picture be transformed into free material? If so, HOW? If they can, hell, I'll be glad to do it....and once they are up to #1, then they can go back up, cause they are FREE material.

Til then, I will be going by the pages you have so nicely chose and will be deleting the logo(s) in the infobox, as they are too "fair-use" until they can be made free-use. Just going by your logic and using your words. - SVRTVDude 10:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this. You don't violate WP:POINT and instead go back and carefully read both WP:FUC and what I've said, and I don't block you for violating WP:POINT. Consider this your warning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You are a piece of work....someone stands up to you...you threaten to block them. I read WP:POINT and I have not done any disruptive editing on any page, but this one and last I checked this is a talk page. You want me to go away, fine, I go away. You can go back to destroying the TV section of Wiki. You keep up the good work. - SVRTVDude 10:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men

I disagree with your stance that RevolutionSF is not a reliable source. Rotten Tomatoes, a movie review aggregator site that I've never seen contested in terms of reliability, has drawn movie reviews from RevolutionSF in the past. While there is not currently a Children of Men review from RevolutionSF listed, this could be for any number of reasons, so speculation should not take place here on its absence. What matters is that the Children of Men review was written by someone who has written other film reviews that have been presented on Rotten Tomatoes, shaping its film ratings. In case you're not aware, Rotten Tomatoes doesn't accept random movie review sites but instead tests them for credibility, and RevolutionSF has clearly been accepted in the past. Is this reason enough to qualify as a reliable source for the piece of information in question? I would not use it over a newspaper review in regard to the reception of the film, but the source is authentic enough for a neutrally observational purpose. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Erik on your talk page? What are the chances!!! XD
Ahem. Continue. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Better he than Eric the Half-a-Bee...I would like to add my voice to the first Erik (Erikster) here. The cite, while atypical, is both accessible and accurate as well in its contextual usage withint he movie itself (which is to be considered a bonus). Further citation research discovered at least two other RS- and V-friendly citations for the usage of the word Shantih in TS Eliot's "Wastelands" | here and |here. Arcayne 19:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll cop to being wrong on that one, but bear in mind that not everything Rotten Tomatoes aggregates is a reliable source. Just, please, don't cram it into #Trivia, okay? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

10-4. I recognize the general disdain for trivia sections. Article's just being re-structured, and hopefully the information can go somewhere other than that dumping ground. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I noted you reverted statements regarding use of the XM8 rifle. I am pretty sure I can find the necessary citation for the inclusion of the item (likely production notes, there are not that many companies that do weapon mock-ups for films in the UK); allow me to check with them and tighten up the citation. Putting images in an article is a headache; can it be left for a bit, so I won't have to start from scratch? I am pretty sure that Viriditas brought you into this, and I proposed the same thing to him.Arcayne 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not proving that it's an XM8; it's that it isn't particularly important. Without some sort of reference that makes note of this, you're just adding something you noticed, the most inane sort of original research.

Okay. I will find a suitable reference. Thanks for the comments.Arcayne 06:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Who's Viriditas? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

okay. It just seemed odd that after I changed back the edits he had reverted twice, you stepped in and did what would have caused a 3RR violation for him. WP:TINC aside, it just seemed rather coincidental. I guess it was just a coincidence...Arcayne 06:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A coincindence yet again.

Of course I am not going to rv a reference simply because it is from an non-online resource. If I may be so bold, might I ask that you actually read the low-grade edit war that Viri kept stoking for over a day? He said that CoM was an allegorical film (a statement which is OR unless it can be verified), and yet I could not find a single resource to support that, and I took the time to look. I had looked at all the other sources cited on the reference page and at least 20 more reviews, and not one of them called it an allegorical film. Not one, MIB. Suddenly, he has a resource but oh, we can't check the content. Please tell me that isn't cause for just a wee bit of a cynical eye. Hey, if I am wrong for thinking this, please say so. I do want to learn.Arcayne 04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In general, I tend to assume good faith regarding sources unless I catch someone passing off bad ones. Why not go to the library and verify this for yourself? Hollywood Reporter is widely distributed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why you changed the edit in CoM's plot synopsis regarding: "Kee goes into labour as they arrive. Miriam distracts a guard from taking note of Kee's condition" constitutes original research? It seems to observational that Miriam did what she did to distract the guard - not from taking Kee - but from even noticing her. Had the guard paid closer attention to Kee, no amount of distraction by Kee would have kept him from taking her. However, that wasn't the observation. Before he paid closer attention, Miriam faked her mania, distracting the guard from Kee. No conclusions drawn from that; just observation.Arcayne 08:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember making that change, and I don't know why I did if I did. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a Note

Dude, I just want you to know, that the encounter I have had with you has made me rethink my being here on Wiki. I have encounted many people who want to help, want to meet in the middle on things, are willing to talk things through and even take the other person's side on an idea on conversation even if they don't like it. You have been nothing but rude, argumentive, and just an all around ass****. Sorry for the language, but that is how I feel. I am going back to updating pages, adding articles and pages, and tiding things up on pages. Because of you, I am just going to stop doing anything that requires any contact with wiki members because my encounters with you have completely turned my off on the whole wiki admin here. I have tried to maintain pages so that all can enjoy, help keep vandals from screwing things up, help newbies as needed, help others with articles...but just trying to save a couple logos has been nothing but a pissing match with you and you will do what you want, you will throw a rule out to defend what you are doing, so it is pointless. I will go back behind-the-scenes and you can continue to do whatever it is you do here. Just remember you and your actions have pushed away an editor who really wanted to help around here and I really did. I really wanted to help out more, but dealing with you, it just ain't worth the migraines. - SVRTVDude 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, as such, I am deleting the 3RR post, as like it would do any good. - SVRTVDude 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this has been so dismaying. Unfortunately, you've fallen afoul of some fairly unpopular but still necessary policy that has been poorly enforced in the past, and I'm sorry that this has been so difficult. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Children of Men question

I have a question regarding a phrase occurring at the very end of the movie, where the words, "Shantih, shantih, shantih" appear. There is an ongoing| discussion as to whether this is part of the story. As you have been adding your input, I would appreciate your thoughtful take on the matter.Arcayne 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Contribs

Hey, stick to Pokemon and images and stay out of my contribs. Let me handle the TV and Radio pages that you are not messing with. - SVRTVDude 03:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know....I handle the ins and outs of the TV and Radio pages. Let me handle them, I'll leave the logos and images to you. - SVRTVDude 04:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:OWN? Nobody on Wikipedia owns any pages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I said I "owned" any pages. You handle the images and pokemon, you let me handle the TV and Radio pages....you obviously haven't done enough research (according to your last comments on KXGN), so you don't know enough about them...I and others do. Let us handle them, you handle the images and Pokemon. - SVRTVDude 04:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Stop fooling with this page, I'll handle it" is pretty much declaring ownership.

Schedules do change often; at least yearly. You've got the process for sourcing things backwards; just like with the gallery of images, you're using the subject itself as a source for your claims (in this case, the raw schedule instead of the logo images), instead of using a reliable source that has previously made your claims as the source for your claims. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, what the hell is your problem? Why are you continuing to delete parts of articles that I write? I took several hours to make this article look right and you fuck it up. Now if you can't tell, you are seriously starting to annoying me. I leave the image debate alone, but you follow to an article I am working on and mess with it knowing I am going to comment. Are you trying to pick a fight? Grow the hell up Dude! - SVRTVDude 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I do my best to remove inappropriate content from Wikipedia, while identifying sections where proper sourcing is needed. The only time I've looked at your contribs was the first time you reverted my logo cleanup, as I usually do when someone reverts one page (since I don't necessarily watchlist every article I edit). The only reason our edits have overlapped is because we've both been editing in the same circles of articles.

In any event, when you are interested in civil discourse, I will be here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I would quote TVGuide, BackChannel Media, and Tribune....then put the guide back up....and it only changes 3 times a year. I think I can keep up with that. - SVRTVDude 04:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You should reference those instead of putting up the station's schedule. That's my point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What am I referencing if there is nothing to reference to? You have something and a reference to that something. I will readd the schedule WITH references to TV Guide, TitanTV, BackChannel Media and Tribune. That should work. - SVRTVDude 04:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. You said we need the schedule because KXGN has two different networks' programming. We don't need the schedule to establish that; instead, we need a reference noting that KXGN does this and that it is the only station doing this. It'd be like claiming that KXGN has a building painted bright pink and putting a picture next to that claim in the article; while it establishes that this claim is true, it doesn't establish that the claim is also noteworthy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but we say they have dual-affiliation and we say they carry shows from two seperate networks, but the schedule gives the information of WHAT NBC shows they carry. They don't just carry the 10pm(9pm MST) shows, but different shows across their schedule and "My Name is Earl" and "The Office" on Saturdays, two days after they are originally broadcast. This information would make for a rambling entry, hence the schedule...which is produced with information from TitanTV and BackChannel Media. - SVRTVDude 04:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is the schedule important, though? Who has felt the need to comment on the schedule, other than sources that publish every schedule? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually only you have made a big deal over the schedule, I feel it gives more information than what a simple sentence or three can give....and it doesn't send the viewer outside of Wiki.

I gave sources for it, you didn't like em....so make up my mind, do you want sources or do you just want sources so you have another reason to delete it? You are just about impossible to work with. - SVRTVDude 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources that publish every schedule don't establish importance. Again, who felt that the schedule was important? Who has felt the need to comment on the schedule, other than sources that publish every schedule? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not completely understanding what you are asking....you are the only person that has commented on it. It was put up there to go hand-in-hand with the article that establishes the dual-affiliation and gives more information. You can't ask for more of a reference or source than the people who actually publish the schedule. - SVRTVDude 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an analogy might help.

Let's say Wikipedia had a policy stating "Wikipedia is not for listing the colors of buildings," but KXGN had an unusual building, painted with blue and orange stripes. You want to note the building's color in the article, so it prevails upon you to find references making note of the color of the building as unusual or noteworthy, not references that simply list the color of every building ever. If you look at the references that list every building ever and draw your own conclusion that orange and blue stripes are unusual, that's original research.

That example is orthagonal to this one, if you replace "building color" with "television schedule". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted with FURTHER references from the CBS and NBC websites stating that KXGN is a dual-affiliation station. Good enough for you? Probably not. - SVRTVDude 05:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We need a reference that says "This station has an unusual blue and orange building." Linking to a list of blue buildings and a list of orange buildings doesn't establish importance either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I just added a 7th reference. - SVRTVDude 05:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That reference is a good start. Now we need a reference for the claim that this is unusual; once we've done so, it may be worth devoting a section to that unusual fact, depending on those references. Until then, all we have is the supported claim in passing that the station carries programming from two networks, so we shouldn't be embroidering it with original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a WikiLink? The WAGM article states that. - SVRTVDude 05:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is going to sound silly, but Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. The main reason is because someone could make or edit two articles to support each other, with no real source other than their say-so. Besides, Wikipedia draws its authority entirely from other reliable sources; if the article you want to reference is any good, it will make reference to other sources, which you could then use as your references instead of the Wikipedia article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

TVWiki? It is not Wikipedia owned, just has it in it's name and looks like the original Wiki. - SVRTVDude 05:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

or http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/kxgn/ <Not sure about that one. - SVRTVDude 05:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

http://bojack.org/2006/10/emilie_boyles_sighting_1.html#comment-29615 Quotes Wiki, but it seperate - SVRTVDude 05:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

TVWiki has the same problem as Wikipedia as a source; Wikis aren't really peer-reviewed or accountable for mistakes. Similarly, comments to blogs by anonymous users aren't peer-reviewed or accountable for mistakes. Spiritus Temporis (whether or not it is a reliable source) only claims that KXGN broadcasts content from both networks, not that it is the only station to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Found one!....http://wikimapia.org/1588317/ <actually says "Glendive's KXGN-TV is the last of it's kind"...it says in the little "blurb" that it is CBS and NBC affiliated. - SVRTVDude 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikimapia is another wiki, though, and has the same problems as Wikipedia and TVWiki. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Figured as much, but was worth a shot.....would there be a alterative reference that would do just as good, as I am having a hard time finding that information other than in Wiki or a spinoff of Wiki or that one article (note: it was from the AP, went cross-country...kinda cool). I have tried about every combo on a Google search I can think of. - SVRTVDude 07:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have a link...it is a post on Radio-Info.com, probably not as good of a source as we would like, but it is a source outside of Wiki. Link: http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=42794.0

I continue to look for something a tad more concrete. - SVRTVDude 14:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you say otherwise. - SVRTVDude 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a forum. Basically, if it's somewhere anyone can post to whenever they want, it's not a good source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought so, but thought I would throw it out there. User:Transent checked 100000watts.com and it says that only WAGM-TV Presque Isle, Maine and KXGN are the only dual-affiliation stations. WAGM is solely CBS, so he sent in a correction (so the site would be accurate), when that correction is made, since 100000watts.com is owned by M Street Journal and Inside Radio, would that be a proper source? Scott Fybush is the editor of 100KWatts, so the change shouldn't take long. - SVRTVDude 07:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking me if a source that is wrong is a reliable source, I'm pretty sure the answer is no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I was asking if 100000watts.com would be an acceptable source for reference. I figured since it was owned by two known companies and is readily updated with accurate information from those companies, that it would be. I don't want to link to a reference until you say, "yeah, that'll work". I am clearing it through you before adding it. - SVRTVDude 09:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about that site. I'd say it'd be best for you to carefully read this guideline on what constitutes a reliable source and decide for yourself. My initial reaction is poor, but if you think it's a reliable source to cite, then do so. If you want more input, I'd ask at the TV station Wikiproject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked a few members of WP:TVS to get their consensus on if they think 100000watts.com would be a good source to use for a reference. I will let you know what they tell me, will probably not be til tomorrow til I get an answer....so I PM tomorrow. Stay warm (and enjoy the snow if you are getting it)....SVRTVDude 10:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

EX Holon Phantoms

Let me guess. Not enough sources?

Look, just tell me what needs sourcing and I will do everything I can to source them. I just really want to keep these pages. I'vealready sourced Power Keepers. Cipher ^(Yell) 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You sourced it to two fansites and a press release. That doesn't establish importance; those aren't even really reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to move the set pages to their own wiki. That way, I get to keep my pages and you get to do what's right by Wikipedia. Saves all the hassle for both of us, too. Cipher ^(Yell) 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. There's a lot of possibility for commentary on the metagame impact of each set and how it fits in historically, but it doesn't fit on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, honestly, I think it's a system for a Wikipedia online kingdom where Wikipedia itself should be the general encyclopedia with all subjects appealing to casual readers, while the various Wikis are the fan-made databases and resources that appeal strictly to the fans. If every user had this in mind, I think there'd be a lot less attempts at "cruft" in many gaming articles for this general encyclopedia. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot summeries

While I admit all that about Bass's history in the EXE series was a bit wordy, by taking it out you also make it so that anyone who wants to know what Bass has been doing in the games won't be finding to find it on Wikipedia, that information DOES belong on wikipedia. BassxForte 20:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not information; it's story. The place for people to learn what happens in a story is to play the game with that story. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh

Okay, our disagreements aside, I have something I want to share:

{{KND}}

Hopefully you'll finish convulsing sometime before the end of the year. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've known about that godawful mess for a long time now. The Resident Evil template used to look like that, too, and the Series of Unfortunate Events template still does. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

RE didn't look that bad. {{Yu-Gi-Oh! Directory}} is worse, sans the humongous war templates. Hbdragon88 02:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Time Question/HD Logo Question

Is there anyway to make the time that shows up on your talk page or any page come up as 12 hour time and not 24 hour or military time? My Dad was in the Navy for 14 years and I still don't understand military time.

Also, I have a question from another user asking if the HD logo used on a few pages (like WVAQ andKROQ) is acceptable under fair-use or if that should go? The stations are HD (I only added the HD logo to WVAQ) so it might go with the current logo, but I suck with fair-use. Speaking of fair-use, I spoke with my friend, she is a lawyer, and she went through the fair-use rules (she can read legalize and not get a headache) and read it in a couple lawbooks too....and you were right (trust me that is hard to say). The logos are fair-use, even though I don't agree with it, you were right on that and I was stubborn and....wrong. Rock on...SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the HD logo, I honestly have no idea, and something tells me it's a case-by-case thing that takes specific calls. Basically, you need to ask, "Which logo is going to be most recognizable to the largest number of people?" Seems like this'd be the analog logo most of the time, but stations may have significant split audiences. Ideally, though, there should only be one image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you can adjust how times appear at Special:Preferences. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

On Reverting Skeletor

Good on ye, then. I always thought he was a wee pert bastidge, what with that skull and all, bragging that he had finally conquered acne. And that fashion sense? Gah! Granted, his only competition was a blue lobsteroid, some leather-clad butch who liked electricity and pain a bit too much (his brother's name was Fisto - need we say any more?) and a steroid freak with a bad haircut who thought that fur, a battle harness and a shiny big sword were appropriate expressions of minimalism and combat readiness.Arcayne 02:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Abs & 3RR

In case you don't know about this, I thought you deserved a heads-up. As I was reporting Phunbot for possible 3RR violation, I saw that Abs Like Jesus has reported you. [1] Wryspy 08:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for breach of WP:3RR on Internet Relay Chat

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Internet Relay Chat. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Internet Relay Chat).

The duration of the block is 12 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Computer and video games was renamed to video game

Just as an FYI, the root article was renamed to video game a few days back (See Talk:Video game#Requested move). That means that your reversion in Template:Need for Speed series [2] recreated a link that passes a redirect page. The link in question has been redirected to video game.

Could you also explain the reason for undoing the use of console game and personal computer game in the box? ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 16:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC) ╫

Russian Categories/English Wiki Problem

There is a user, User:Nk, who is added Russian categories to pages. That, in and of itself itself, is not a problem, but they are coming up in Russian and not working with the page as the Russian language, I guess, doesn't work on English Wiki...so we have a ton of them all over. Is there a Wiki-user that you know of who can translate these category entries into English so that they will work? If not, I would be happy to go through and remove them. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I was bluntly told that they were "interwikis", whatever those are, so I guess I messed something up....again. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are interwiki links. They automatically come up in the left-hand sidebar, as links to the same article in other languages. We use them to interlink the different-language Wikipedias. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mario Theme Song

If there's no verifiable sources then what's the point of having it redirect to the main article about SMB? People looking specifically for that information will not find it in the redirected page; it's better for them to not find it at all than to be redirected with the hope of finding it and being proven wrong. --LoganK 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There are sources, I'm sure, but the info from those sources belongs in Super Mario Bros. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

KXGN Reference/100000watts.com

3 of the 6 people I asked from WP:TVS responded back to my messages on their talk pages. Of those 3, all said that it was a "reputable source". Once problem....the site requires a membership. So, with the help of a user to the site (used his password with permission), I went to 100000watts.com and went to the Montana page and got a screenshot of the Glendive page. Now, I know what you are going to say....since you can't verify it yourself it ain't going to work. Hence why, until a better reference comes along, I am putting this search on hiatus. I have added some programming information on the KXGN page, but not in the massive form that I had previous.

If the screenshot will work, please let me know and I will upload it for you to see or email it. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

About the Fictional Spaniards . . . some are, some aren't ... I'll go through and clean it up manually. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! EspanaViva 07:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re.: A civil word in your ear

Well, in hindsight, the summaries do sound harsh, but, well, when you've kind been misguided-edit-fighting for a long, long, long time, it begins to affect most people's tones. And you'll notice I said 99.99%, I have found helpful anons, but they're way, way outnumbered. As for the redlinked usernames--- you'll see that the creation of my userpage was the first registered edit I'd made. And I never hindered Wikipedia, I waited, watched, and learned before making an account. I was the anon who first introduced the PokéTables (as per the prevailing style) to the team Rocket article. At the same time, it is true that I added a huge chunk of POV to Misty (Pokémon)..... that wasn't removed till I did it myself, as a registered user, ages and ages later. So, while I do think that helpful anons ought to be guided, labelling an image showing Tracey as one showing Brock is plain idiotic. However, yes, I'll concede that the second summary was unprovoked. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice^{(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 08:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Metal Gear (series)

I'm thinking of improving that article to a reasonable condition. Are you willing to help out? -- Steel 13:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, fuck that idea. I'm beginning to remember why I quit writing articles. -- Steel 14:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fourth wall section

So how exactly would you go about sourcing fourth wall information for the Metal Gear games? Gamer Junkie 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

With reliable sources, not direct observation of the games themselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you being a smart-arse or did you misunderstand my question? I'm asking you if you're aware of any of said "reliable sources" or if it's even possible to find your idea of a reliable source for such information. Gamer Junkie 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, my suggestion would be to go and find some reliable sources that talk about the Metal Gear series, then structure the article based on what they state as important, rather than deciding this and that and that are important on your own. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Information regarding the Metal Gear series is already the bulk of the article. I'm speaking specifically of Kojima's affection for fourth wall humour and where such information could be found. Gamer Junkie 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know where you can find that specific fact. If I did, I would have added it to the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Rival Schools characters

Why'd you delete this template? I recreated it mostly to have separate character and series templates, per the usual policy for most CVG series articles. I understand the basis for deleting the main series article since it was a nav template to only two articles, but I don't get why you would delete the other. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I deleted as a recreation of a deleted article. Thing is, it was deleted because it was merged.

I'd like it deleted, because this sort of thing is what categories are for, but I don'ty have any good reason to be speedying it. Would you like me to restore it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, maybe. I was thinking of just recreating Template:Rival Schools as a combo template having both the games and the characters as it was before instead, unless there really is a consensus at the (C)VG project to have separate game and character navigation templates. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's consensus at WP:CVG to leave big lists of stuff to list articles or categories, and use navboxes for linking tightly-integrated groups of things. I'm not sure we need any Rival Schools template at all, since we have one big group that fits neatly into a category, and two other things that already link each other. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll drop the subject then. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

color in episode infoboxes

Hi Man In Black, you contributed actively to a discussion of the use of colors in Infoboxes for television episodes. In a drive towards limiting the amount of spin-offs of Template:Infobox Television episode, this issue has again come up, and I was wondering if you would care to comment on my ideas to come to a "best effort solution". Thank you for your time. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Q (Street Fighter)

Hi. About your Q page redirecting, I know someone somehow voted to delete and merge it. However, the page was badly developed at that time. Q's information is deep enough to have his own page. It needs to be rebuilt. Please stop deleting and redirecting the page, thank you. Kaiteng316 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are the sources? You're just recreating the same old fancrufty page sourced to nothing but direct observation of the single game in which he appears. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, I don't have much accesses to those sources used for the other minor-like Street Fighter III: Third Strike characters, such as Twelve or Makoto. However, it has to restart somewhere so people who are able to access those sources can rebuilt. If there is a fancruft, why don't we just fix it. Kaiteng316 20:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's ALL fancruft. The games themselves are not reasonable sources for Wikipedia; we don't write this encyclopedia based on direct observation of the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

About template of Metroid

Let me ask you a favor,please. I showed my opinion at the time I editted the template many times. This time I'd like to do so here. I saw the page you had shown me, but I was not satisfied. There are not only game series but also other links such as characters on that standard, and there is no reason that unreleased game should not be added, which you said many times. In short I suggest that Corruption should be added. Additionally, articles of Metroid on Wikipedia don't have template about links except series title like those of other games. If you follow that standard, you should make another template about other terms which there had been on the temprate such as character, area and item before you editted it. You are too irresponsible without doing so. I also don't think that we should follow the common rules every time. In order to make a template which is easy to use we should be equal to the occation.--Lachsha 07:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand what you're saying. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

He wants to put the characters back into the Metroid navbox or to create a separate navbox for the chracaters. Hbdragon88 08:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh. How about we don't do that? That's what categories are for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I was just making sense of what he was saying. Hbdragon88 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my English was inadequate, sorry. In any case, I think that you, not others, have to do what I said in order to make it sufficient to use if you change the navbox which had included links of characters for long time by your own view. How do we go to the articles such as characters or items without those links? Please think more deeply, or you look superficial.--Lachsha 09:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

KTLA#Logo gallery

Why do you not like fair-use images? They're fit for use on wikipedia. Many other stations' articles (like WNBC-TV and WDIV-TV) have logo galleries.... RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 16:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better if a third party answered your question in AMIB's place this time, because while AMIB really is correct in what he does, he never does a great job in being affectionate for other editors while justifying his reverts: WP:FUC (Wikipedia:Fair use criteria) is Wikipedia's official policy concerning fair use images, and here's what it states: As a free encyclopedia, Wikipedia's content should be freely distributable and not violate any copyright, and in the ideal world, there would be no fair-use content on Wikipedia whatsoever, because fair-use images on a purportedly free encyclopedia contradicts with Wikipedia's first mission to be a free resource, and having a lot of copyrighted images is akin to piracy in some respects. Heh, one sentence in WP:FUC says exactly this in its introductory paragraph: Most popular non-English Wikipedias do not permit unfree images at all.

The main reason Wikipedia has FUC to allow a limited amount of copyrighted images in its articles is to get a good deal closer to our secondary objective to making a quality encyclopedia. FUC is essentially a copyright compromise that states that we editors can use, to the barest minimum degree, fair-use copyrighted images to illustrate extremely important parts of an article that cannot be illustrated by a similar image that is free-use, simply because there has not been a free-use image created by anyone and is therefore unavailable for the free encyclopedia.

The fair use criteria section of WP:FUC is the exhaustive list of ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY conditions that ALL MUST BE MET in order for official policy to allow the presence of a fair-use image in a Wikipedia article that is supposed to be free-use. If any fair-use image fails to meet even one of the ten mandatory criteria on the page, it has to be removed to quite literally save Wikipedia from legal trouble. The ten criteria, reworded by myself for this discussion but remain on WP:FUC in its original for everyone to read, are as follows:

• 1: There isn't a free-use image anywhere that can be uploaded and used in the fair-use image's place.
• 2: Don't put up images that are likely to affect the money income of whoever the article talk about; if an article about a photographer shows all his photos on the article, people won't bother buying his products anymore because they can look at them on Wikipedia for free, which is piracy.
• 3: The amount of copyrighted images used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should always be used in the place of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy), and the rule states loudly and clearly, "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." In the case of fair-use image galleries, having multiple logos on there when you need only the most recent logo at the top of the article really does flunk this immovable rule horribly, as AMIB seems to have been saying so many times.
• 4: The material must have previously been published. Not too sure what the implication of this is...
• 5: The material must be encyclopedic and otherwise meet general Wikipedia content requirements (things like no game guide, no cruftiness, etc).
• 6: The material must meet the media-specific policy requirements (which themselves state stuff like upload giant-sized versions of free images and small-sized fair-use images, use JPEG for photographic images, use copyright tags, etc.)
• 7: The material must be used in at least one article; obviously we don't want copyrighted work lying around, so that should be deleted if it is not usable in any page.
• 8: Perhaps the point AMIB drives home the most, and rightly so: The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. In the case of the fair-use gallery, the fair-use logo at the top succeeds this rule but none of the additional logos at the bottom gallery do, since they're depicting logos for the same company being talked about in the article.
• 9: Use fair-use images only in the relevant articles themselves and not on any talk pages or templates.
• 10: Put fair-use tags and fair-use rationales on the pages of the fair-use images themselves.

So really, if everyone who edits Wikipedia would read WP:FUC closely and actually care about following it, there would be so many less fair-use images, so many more free-use images in their place, and so much less conflict between editors over this. Minimum fair-use and free-use in fair-use's place is the way the Free Encyclopedia Wikipedia is supposed to work, and is pretty much the will of Jimbo Wales himself, not to mention the result of a lot of consensus among experienced editors. So when AMIB removes fair-use logo galleries, he is quite literally saving the site from legal trouble, and the reason other station articles still have galleries is because neither AMIB nor any other admins who follow fair-use image policy like User:ReyBrujo have removed them yet. (I'm not an admin, but I probably should remove some galleries myself to show I care for the site.) You said above that fair-use images are fit for Wikipedia, but in fact, as proven by WP:FUC and everything I've shown about it above, galleries are very bad for the site and that only the minimum requirement of fair-use images, like the logo on the top of the page, are fit for the site. Many of us have a lot to learn about copyright in relation to images, and I myself learned a lot about fair-use criteria in typing out this essay of a response here, so it's my hope that you can walk away from this having learned how to become a better visual contributor all-around. It's also my hope that AMIB learns how to soften up a bit in his replies to questions posted on his talk page. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. I wasn't trying to tear him a new one or anything. I was just confused about his actions, that's all. If they were truly invalid licenses, then i'll make sure they are not re-added to another page. I do appreciate AMIB's work and i know it's hard to be an admin. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 03:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

To RingtailedFox: You're welcome! I see a lot of users coming to this talk page to complain about AMIB's rather heavy-handed crusadership with fair-use images, and most of them were certainly more interested in "tearing him a new one", and the way AMIB usually gives short answers to weighty issues usually does not answer users' opinions as much as my essay above apparently does.
To AMIB: Since so many people come up to you to confront your actions and you have to explain so many times on your talk page why your actions totally follow the policy, I really would suggest using the body of your userpage to post detailed accounts of what you do as a Wikipedian, why you do it, and how Wikipedia's policy supports what you do, so that other users won't be as likely to confront you about it on your talk page because they'll have read the answers on your user page already. I think that's a great use for your page, personally, and it might save you some grief. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 18:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Street Fighter character articles' name

Someone made a mediation cabal case based on how articles covering Street Fighter characters should be named. Basically people are arguing whether characters with surnames should be referred by their full names on their title or by their more common single name (i.e:Dan Hibiki or Dan (Street Fighter), Sakura Kasugano or Sakura (Street Fighter)). I would like to see your input on the issue, so please go to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-21_Street_Fighter_character_articles and tell us what you think. Jonny2x4 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. template

Smashing Live isn't a video game. The template is wrong. Why did you change it? It's like classifying the Resident Evil movies as a game: incorrect. RobJ1981 06:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware it isn't a game. To be honest, I can't even figure out why we need it in the template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The template is to list the games in the series. Smashing Live! is the soundtrack that goes with SSB: Melee. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon merges

After having done alright with merging Kanto towns into a list and turning their articles into redirects, I was wondering if you'd like to help me do the same with Johto and Hoenn.

Also, I was curious, has there ever been an attempt to merge such articles as, for instance, Pidgeotto and Pidgeot into Pidgey? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sympathetic and will work on them when I think of it, but I've got a backlog of half-done merges I need to finish before I start new ones.

As for merging by evo line, it has been suggested, but it leaves us with 200-something articles with sourcing/notability issues instead of 400-some articles. Not a significant improvement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there were some rollercoaster discussions at WP:PCP about merging Pokemon pages, check this mega-sized multi-sectioned discussion at the start of November, and check this and this at the end of November. I suggested and still stand by the concept of mega-merging all of the Pokemon into a series of list articles that cover about 15 or 20 Pokemon each, and a very rough mock-up of what I had in mind is still posted in my sandbox, but other users felt we couldn't do it because there would be too much backlash and controversy from many users and readers who like Pokemon and like having so many articles about the franchise, so in a sense I think we're trapped. My general view of how the Pokemon franchise should be covered on this general encyclopedia is reflected here in this pondering session of mine. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Having a problem with Akuma (Street Fighter) and others

Akuma and other "shoto"s have their martial art given as Ansatsuken in official statistics (or in Sean's case, not given at all), but there is a push for listing it as "Gouken-style assassination arts" or some other cruft. Could you help me out here? JuJube 06:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Help you out where? Where's the discussion? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Something resembling a discussion is at User talk:Jonny2x4, but it's mostly an attempted revert war. I stopped it, though. JuJube 07:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do is "state your source" in the first place. Instead of quoting "Tiamat" all the time, give me an official source (i.e: a Capcom-endorsed sourcebook). Does the Eternal Challenge or any other book list Ansatsuken as his style?Jonny2x4 17:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Resident Evil video games template

Why do you insist on a wrong template? Even if the films are labelled: the template is still named Resident Evil video games. Films aren't games, period. They are related: but the films aren't games. Inaccurate things like this shouldn't be in templates. RobJ1981 12:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, there is a new DK game coming out.

I truly hate it when people delete things that are real. You deleted the Banana Kingdom from the DK Series template without doing any research on it. It was just announced yesterday. I'm adding it back, and if you delete it agian, I would like to know why.

--Bentendo24 15:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

MG series template situation

There appears to have been no interest in the Metal Gear template for some weeks, I believe it's about time we reached some kind of concensus on this one and put it to bed. See relevant Template Talk for discussion. Hyperspacey 01:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I LOVE IT!

I love your username, dude!----Invader Soap^{Evil Jokes}_{Gir's Dog}February 13^th, 2007 (UTC)