You closed it the exact same way I would: suspend it and read all the arguments. Well done. (I would've participated in the closing, but apparently I've had prior involvement.) Good luck. Let's hope no one abuses Deletion Review because they disagree. (messedrocker • talk) 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope someone would take it to DRV if they don't feel I've arrived at the best conclusion for Wikipedia as a whole. I can't realistically hope to avoid DRV, only hope to forge a solution that will survive it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, Durova award A Man In Black the Editor's Barnstar for superb work in the Daniel Brandt WP:AFD. It isn't easy to approach a dilemma that has festered for so long and come up with something that makes the situation better. I think you did a better job of resolving that discussion than I did in opening it. You've earned my respect both for your courage in closing a very difficult AFD and for your excellent reasoning that balanced the needs and arguments of all sides. DurovaCharge!20:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see I'm not the first one to notice! You deserve a compliment for that wise, indeed Solomonic, decision on how to handle the Brandt AFD. Cheers, Antandrus (talk)01:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is slightly overdue, but great to have you back, Mr. Black. Now if HighwayCello returns anytime soon, I'll be REALLY surprised. Also, I was wondering if you or someone else who sees this might be interested in uploading a better console pic for the GameCube page? The one on there now really looks pretty sad IMO, what with the ugly orange 3rd-party memory card and the messy wire. I'd do it myself, but my digital camera sucks bigtime. Nintenboy0103:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question
With regards to your Archive links at the top of the page. Say I want to consider a new page, but want to see what it looks like before I create it and thus want it as like, an off-shoot of my user page. Like, under the magic discussion here, the one guy mentions a page "User: A Man In Black/Whatever" How would I do a page like that for me? The Clawed One19:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm leaving this here as I see you don't have e-mail enabled. I was wondering if you would agree to us having one article on Public Information Research, rather than four articles about its various projects. This would be in keeping with your closure decision, I think, to merge relevant material into title(s) about PIR's work, rather than a bio. I've written a draft, which you can see here; I've deleted it in the meantime, so as not to risk further chaos. :-) Could you let me know what you think about organizing things that way? SlimVirgin(talk)23:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any strong opinion about how to organize things, but that sounds reasonable to me. It seems like a good redirect target for the Brandt title, if that merge is done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was already one going, sorry, didn't see it. I really can't see why you think a "complex merge" is going to satisfy anything. - Ta bu shi da yu10:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Brandt (redirects here)
";Daniel Brandt (redirects here)" in the see also sectiom was a label, a title, a subsection heading. It is common and appropriate in see also sections. WAS 4.25016:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Tag it with {{subst:afd}}, click the "preloaded debate" link and fill that out, then go back to the article you want to delete and copy-paste the afd3 template into the day's list (which is linked right after that). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, are you still interested in pursuing standardized navbox appearances? I'm uncertain if the CVG project ever agreed on a standard appearance, so if you feel like chiming in on the recently updated {{Castlevania series}} template I would appreciate it. Cheers. Combination10:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your awards and saw the barnstar for vandalism that caused the giver to smile. What vandalism was it? I would love to see it. -- Jac roe20:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allo.
(I didn't know if you'd prefer this here, or on the article talk page; so I arbitrarily chose here. I'm more than happy to take it there if you prefer)
While although I don't think that reasons like, 'equal consideration', or representing specifically for the sake of european readers are at all relevant, I still think there may be reasonable logic behind including both boxarts in this case. In this case, it isn't just the different titles, but the combination of different titles, different colours, updated graphics (ie. DS Lite instead of DS), and the difference in flashiness (the graph-paper style background and subdued tone of the european cover, versus the overstated NA background that makes me expect a gong, and includes a much more pronounced sudoku mention), together, seem to present a more complete look than either could do alone.
(Also, the graph-paper background better illustrates the adult-audience/non-game-game titles that nintendo's pushing now) Bladestorm04:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we only need one image to identify this game. I don't really care which image is used, but there's no justification for using two images where one identifies the game. All of the things you just told me aren't actually mentioned in the article, and indeed shouldn't be, since no reliable source have seen fit to comment on either cover. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you have it on your watchlist or not, but further discussion has been added to the Brain Age talk page. Incidentally, in terms of whether or not anyone's directly commented on the cover, it still remains true that people have commented on the presentation of the game (specifically, how it related to a later title, "Big Brain Academy"). That is, people have commented on aspects of the game that's directly reflected by the cover. (Much in the same way that, if people were to talking about how wild-eyed and freaky looking John Doe was, a picture that perfectly illustrated this would qualify, even if people hadn't directly commented on that picture) If I'm wrong about something, then I'm always happy to be created (always nice to learn), but further explanation would be appreciated. Anyways, this was really just a notification that there's been a significant addition to the article's talk page, in case it isn't on your watchlist. :) Bladestorm03:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you've commented there. :) But more has been added, and your input is appreciated. (and, like I said, I don't know if it's on your watchlist or not) :) Bladestorm04:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brandt Courtesy blanking
The discussion page was blanked. The AfD was blanked. But the article history itself is still there (i.e. old versions of the article are alive). Any thoughts on purging that as well? --Tbeatty20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Civility concern
I am concered about the generally civility of the content you have pasted onto your talk page. I do not find what you have said about Richard Nixon amusing, and an admin should have better maturity than that. Francisco Tevez17:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lighten up. We're not here to socialize and goof around, but we're not limited to being tight asses. TTN18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A sense of humor is absolutely vital for an administrator, in my opinion. Any serious editor will burn themselves out rather quickly if they don't have a bit of an outlet (I've sure as hell got one of my own). EVula// talk // ☯ //18:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Francisco Tevez has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
this might do instead.
Notability for Queen of Blades
You shoved up a notability for the StarCraft: Queen of Blades article. Whilst I agree with it at the moment, please don't take it further to a vote for deletion. It's on the to do list, but be advised, it's a rather long to do list. I'm working on a lot of StarCraft pages at the moment, so it may take some time. -- S@bre
I don't get it. Very few advocates of encyclopedic treatment of fiction are commenting. Yourself included, which is rather surprising. Busy? — Deckiller05:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that I just committed political suicide on the mailing list (which will be my last e-mail on that list, since I unsubscribed), I think I'll call it a night. Long road ahead. — Deckiller07:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiEN-l has ever been a massive, useless, clusterfuck, existing only for people to argue with banned trolls and get into retarded flamewars. I don't see any reason to worry about or reply to any post there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will never use that jokefest of a mailing list ever again, and I have little respect for the people who were "arguing" against me, except for one or two people. The insulting by several users in particular were enough to make me vomit, especially considering I was only intending a one-way ADVERTISEMENT of the rewrite. Such armchair immaturity, if it were to spill over to Wikipedia, would indeed cause the project to fail rapidly. I unsubscribed. — Deckiller13:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm contacting you to find out why you deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nenolod&action=edit . You say that it had unnecessary personal attacks, but rather than rectifying that, you outright deleted the entire RfC, which clearly had merit due to policy violations. As to your question of certification, I personally contacting Nenolod on his talk page, AND linked to the diffs on the RfC. The initiator of the RfC, if I recall correctly, said he contacted Nenolod via IRC, and perhaps he could have clarified that had he been asked to. Instead, the page was deleted perhaps an hour after it was created. I request that you reinstate the RfC and let whatever clarification that may occur, occur, at least for a few of the 48 hours given. Regards, cacophony◄►10:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I'm contacting you because you have experience in dealing with our non-free content policy as it pertains to images. A so-far unresolved issue deals with "crowning moments" for beauty pageant contestants. This specific issue is heated because of previous disputes between the aptly named User:PageantUpdater and the obscurely named User:Abu badali, but the same issue could apply to many other classes of images as well. All parties have made their cases adequately, but consensus is still elusive, so the issue remains open long after other problems have been resolved. Could you go to Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_18#Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg and give your opinion? It would really help us to finish this issue and move on. Thanks! – Quadell(talk) (random)18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] (This message was copied to several other image-wonks at the same time.)
Hello.
I was wondering if you could reconsider your blocks of Link and DrSturm.
There's obviously no question that they absolutely violated 3RR, both in letter and in spirit. I acknowledge that (and am rather irritated by it). However, blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive. By the time they were blocked, they'd already stopped edit-warring. As such, the blocks didn't actually achieve anything.
I'd already left warnings on both of their talk pages (as well as telling them that'd I'd report them for 3RR myself if they didn't take it to the article's discussion page). Heck, in link's case, he was blocked a full eight hours after his last revert.
I mean absolutely no disrespect. Believe me, I'm getting tired of his crap. However, I still believe that blocks should only be used preventively, and blocking someone eight hours after the fact doesn't seem to prevent anything.
In any event, I will, of course, accept your decision, whether it's to unblock, or let the block stand. You'll not face any argument from me. :) It's simply a request. Bladestorm16:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fairly safe that both would simply come back and resume edit warring when they came back online. Hopefully, this way, DrSturm will know better next time and...well, I don't know if ALTTP will ever stop edit warring, but maybe a block will get him on the right track. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are the first administrator in Wiki list and I seek your advice. I have been encountering for a long time a serious problem of edit reversion, often irrational and unreasonable, by a group of four people. I have a strong feeling that these four people have been colluding with each other and preventing others to make rational edits with proper citations. Their arguments defy logic. Today (June 30th) I made a couple of edits in Chalukya dynasty. Within a period of one hour, three users simultaneously pounced on me. One reverted my edits without discussion. The other made false allegations that I am in touch with some banned user. The third threatened to block me. Is it not a clear evidence of collusion? Is there any way out in Wiki to this madness?
Okay, so I was probably ultimately arguing the wrong points yesterday. If we can put that to one side, what's your take on what to do with something like Blue Space? My first instinct is to merge it, but I can't for the life of me work out where. My next instinct is to prod, but that seems so final. Thoughts? HidingTalk22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tag it with {{Notability}}, I suppose, and ask the creator (who seems to be an active editor) for some more info and references. There's just such a shortage of editors working on European comics series. That said, I'm personally more willing to give more slack to things that exist in the real world (e.g. comic series) more slack than things that don't (e.g. comic characters). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the Kerrigan bit, why remove the DT Saga info? It's not OR or anything, the author herself hints that he might appear. In the interview she is asked if familiar heroes (the interviewer explicitly mentions Zeratul) will appear, and she replies "yes". The Clawed One02:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. That begs the question, "Why mention it at all?" After all, Orgrim Doomhammer may or may not appear in the next StarCraft story. King Arthur may or may not appear in the next SC story. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A troll, am I?
You brought out the "troll" card a lot more quickly than I'd imagine. What trollery is there? I'm simply trying to point out inconsistencies in your deletionist rhetoric, since you have proclaimed there are none. Would you infer otherwise? Or would you just label those who disagree with you to be "trolls" as so many deletionists have before?
You accused me of conspiring to get a whole class of articles deleted, as well as being part of a deletionist cabal. You were trolling for sympathy and attention.
I don't believe you are a troll; the bulk of your edits are good faith efforts to improve this encyclopedia.
Just because he makes an accusation toward you doesn't mean it's an act of trolling. A general rule of thumb is that it's only trolling if the accusation is false, and he knows it's false. The latter clearly does not apply here, and I don't know whether the former does. — Red XIV(talk)06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But just because an action is found to be obnoxious doesn't mean it was intended to annoy or anger. And intent is key to trolling. — Red XIV(talk)07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being obnoxious isn't trolling; it's just being obnoxious. Trolling is being obnoxious to get attention, and since MalikCarr's stated purpose was a call to action to oppose an (imaginary) cabal, and I assume that was what he meant to do.
WP:AGF doesn't mean "assume everyone is nice and happy and good." AGF means, "If someone says they're doing something for a reason, believe them. If they don't say why they're doing it, assume it's to improve the encyclopedia as long as possible." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's called "providing information", Buckwheat -- the identity you first tried to hide when you returned before your self-control problems almost immediately manifested themselves again. And I only "show up" when your monthly conniption fit crosses my particular radar screen -- such as your most recent lack of understanding, regarding Days of the year standards on September 1. --Calton | Talk17:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to hide? I never tried to hide that I am SVRTVDude. In fact, I have it posted on my userpage. But speaking of self-control, of your edits today, 4 of the 8 have been about me? Now, what is that about self control? If you are a more important editor than I am (or so your claim) you should also be a more mature editor and have better self-control than I have. With my "conniptions" every month, you should be able to easily avoid them. So, where is that self-control I keep hearing soooo much about, hmm? - NeutralHomerT:C17:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. 'Sup? I don't recall ever even accusing you of anything; you want a bunch of non-free images because they were relevant to the articles, but I had to remove them because we couldn't use them. The problem was that you were making a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia that conflicted with fair-use policy. If you hadn't wanted to improve the articles, there never would have been a problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...and even though I didn't agree, I understood that it could be bad if someone decided to sue Wiki. I have actually removed other fair-use images (see the AMS and NWA seals) just this past week. So, I am trying:) - NeutralHomerT:C02:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, fuck me, I'm dumb. This is all about Malik linking a whole bunch of other problematic articles and telling me to go work on those (with the implied message to stay the hell away from his articles), not me removing his similarly obnoxious post from WT:GUNDAM.
It's a common refrain; "these other articles are also bad, so why don't you go work on them instead?" The answer is, usually, "Because I don't care about those articles' subjects," and I deleted it as trolling because it was highly obnoxious and I don't really feel like dealing with a needlessly antagonistic and accusing message on my talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you didn't remove his comment from just YOUR talk page. You removed it from the WP:GUNDAM page against WP:VAND. You should know better. And as an admin, you should know better than making personal attacks in your edit summaries. Kyaa the Catlord07:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it as unconstructive trolling (and as it was being obnoxious for attention, it was trolling), as I've done on many talk pages. As many admins and users in good standing do on many pages. Being civil is also policy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read WP:FUC #3b more carefully before citing it. It doesn't, as you seem to believe, say that the image has to be the same size in the Image: namespace as in the article where it's used. It just says that the Image: namespace version shouldn't be high-resolution. And the notion that 400x400px is high resolution is just silly. — Red XIV(talk)07:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason whatsoever to keep a copy of a non-free image at a higher resolution than is used in the article. The only reason we have non-free images is to use them in articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not policy, that's your personal preference. But if it's so important to you, why not upload the lower resolution images yourself? — Red XIV(talk)07:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy enforced minimal use, including the lowest practical resolution. I don't downscale them because I lack the means on my laptop.
{{fairusereduce}}, unlike the other templates, is a "fix it when you get around to it" template, not a "resolve this or the image will be deleted." A number of users go through the queue and take care of such images, so there's no need for you to worry about it if you don't want to. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
