User talk:A Man In Black/Archive3

List of agnostics

I've pruned List of agnostics significantly, retaining only verified agnostics. Could I persuade you to change your vote from "delete" to "keep"? Rohirok 07:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I still don't think it's a good list. Such lists tend to accumulate increasingly less-relevant entries, and a number of these people died before the term "agnostic" was even coined. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Style on "trainer's Pokémon" sections

I noticed you added a table to Ash Ketchum#Ash's Pokémon, and, while I like the idea of reforming those horrid bulleted lists of Pokémon, I'm not sure a table is really that much better, visually. Have you seen what A Link to the Past was doing in Team Rocket#Jessie and James' Pokémon? Something about that style of chronological paragraphs with alternating anchor images seems to me to be somehow more encyclopedic than bulleted lists or tables.

I'm still of two minds on this one, though; any thoughts? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Paragraphs are more encyclopedic, but the Pokémon that they own needs to be made clear. My idea has the same goal, to be more encyclopedic, but the only difference is that the text is just in a table. It's an improvement on before, and it looks nicer than my earlier work, such as on Brock's article. Team Rocket certainly looks good, but my main issue is that it fails to make all the Pokémon clear at a glance - something that the unencyclopedic lists did do right.

I think I'll put this on Talk:Team Rocket. Sonic Mew | talk to me 06:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, an congrats on becoming a sysop! Sonic Mew | talk to me 06:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:A Man In Black/Archive3/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin|talk|popups 14:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choco Orta

Since I noticed you closing afds anyway on recent changes, could I trouble you to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choco Orta? It got forgotten on the October 6 page. —Cryptic (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That looks to me to be a candidate for relisting instead of closing, but I'd be happy to take care of it. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:CVG character

Template:CVG character is an experiment I'm doing, to see how it would work. Each CVG character has a debut, and at least one debut game, and the vast majority have a signature technique. I was wondering if you would try it out a bit. >.> - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• How about one or two customizable fields, where you can fill in both the name of the row and the value for the row?
• It's sort of plain.
• It doesn't allow for a caption other than the character's name.
• You can't customize the image size.
• Age, height, and weight aren't going to apply to many, many characters, and in general it's not important information.
• The title is outside the box, not inside it, which bugs me.
• If you're going to show it off, you might want to make a temp page with some examples (I suggest Mario, Solid Snake, Cloud from FFVII, and Andy from Advance Wars, for a good variety.)
• It's awfully big for use in lists, limiting its utility to standalone articles.

Right now, it's a start, but I don't think it's ready for primetime. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's see...

Customizable fields - I have no problem with that, if you wish to add it, then you can.

Yes, I based it off of the contents of the FFVI templates. This would be my first template, IIRC.

Well, is there a way to fix that?

Read above.

There are a lot of eastern characters that have age, height and weight available, especially in games like Castlevania. Also, that's why the info should be there - better to the side than right in the middle, right?

Well, that's how FFVI's was, so that could be changed.

Okay, I'll do Wario, Simon Belmont, Cloud (Final Fantasy VII), Phoenix Wright and Andy (Advance Wars) (after all, I like Wario and Phoenix Wright lots). Thanks for the input.

On an unrelated note, I've been told that Nell and Caroline (of SFC) are unrelated, outside of appearance. Apparently, Caroline (of SFC) is a mistranslation, or something. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Return/reattempt.

I have returned from my short self-imposed exile and am feeling quite refreshed. I appreciated your comments on IRC greatly. Could you please review my contributions to the Suicide articles and templates and tell me what you think of my approach this go around? Thank you very much for your time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Great to see you're back! I saw your edits on Suicide methods, and I think that this is definitely the way to go. Stay cool, don't rise to attacks, and stick to pushing for verifiability, readability, and accuracy, and I think things should go well. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please review Template:Suicide and Template talk:Suicide. I continue to appreciate your input. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Anything in particular you want me to look at? I think the protection is a valid one, as it's not really appropriate for you and Philwelch to be edit warring. :/ Sn0wflake protected the version he/she didn't like, so that's, IMO, the right call in this situation. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you consider me and Mr. Welch to be in an edit war? I believe we were discussing things on talk. I would have been happy for him to attempt to reach consensus with me on the template. I believe I had made serious consessions before even beginning discussions, and made substantial consessions after. I guess I was wrong to come back, as I feel exactly the same way again. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I personally would call what I see in the history of Template:Suicide an edit war, but it would not be inappropriate to describe it as one. I don't see any problems now, though; the discussion on the talk page is vehement but healthy (and personal-attack free, as far as I can see), and this seems like it will be resolved with as little mess as possible. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that the other side of the disagreement will disapear for the duration of the protection, only to return when it is removed, else they will stand fast an unmoving to their initial offer (I get nothing, while I continually adress objection after objection) and then continue to stonewall when the page protection is removed. I am eager to be proven wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If you feel that way, have you considered taking this to the Medcom or the Mediation Cabal, to resolve this? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I intend to when the protection is removed if my predections turn out to be correct. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

con't
Sounds like a good plan. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Splitting edits

Thanks for the advice. Copperchair 21:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Naruto Revert

Hey, just wanted to let you know I reverted your revert on the Naruto page. JadziaLover removed an out-of-place link to an external Naruto image, so I'm not quite sure why you reverted his edit. Let me know if you want to discuss it on my talk page. Thanks! --mdd4696 01:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably by mistake; the servers have been acting up all day, and I thought I was the one who deleted that out-of-place link. Weird. Well, anyway, I don't want it there either. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Intense frisbee

Hello: Please do not edit my comments on AfD pages, such as by removing the strike-throughs that I have put in place. Thank you.—Gaff ^ταλκ 03:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Um? I thought all I did is fix the fact that you broke the formatting when you struck your old votes. <s> tags need to go in between the intent/bullet Wikimarkup and the text, or else you break the indent/bulleted list. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Warhammer

Holy mother of God! I had no idea there was *that* much Warhammer on Wiki! It defies all sense. Any alien visiting would be forced to conclude from the volume of text that Warhammer was the planet's dominant religion and foremost recreational activity! - Just zis Guy, you know? 18:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Pokémon, Star Wars, Gundam, the Simpsons, even Series of Unfortunate Events. I've been merging all sorts of fictional people, places, and things into lists, but there's always more that needs to be done. I was just adding illustrations to List of Advance Wars COs, which once was a series of about a half-dozen articles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hindu_rajputs

Why did you delete the hindu_rajputs page? And being an admin why are you not worried that people are not providing citiations for there edits and those who do provide them are being labelled as POV pushers and other adjectives.

-- Shivraj Singh 18:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm comfortable that Goethean will be able to mediate this dispute. I feel no need to intervene save to limit the spread of this particular dispute. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me. Goethean has a provable anti hindu bias and yet Zora/Gothean etc have not pointed out a single statement of mine which has a anti-muslim bias or proves I am pushing POV or hindutva agenda. They have been talking generalizations "shades of grey/black and white" etc but no precise quotations from my writings to prove there point. If you don the robes of an admin and decide to take an action, like deleting a very well researched article, you need to make sure you have enough knowledge on the subject to not appear a partisan.

Shivraj Singh 12:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

monobook

Sorry - it seems that it prefers Firefox! --Celestianpower ^háblame 19:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Pic uploads

Hi,

Could you add source URLs for the Advance Wars headshot pics you've uploaded? That'll make it more clear that the Promo tag applies.

Thanks - Tempshill 19:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I would, but these are off of a press CD-ROM I was given at E3 earlier this year, not from any website. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy closing of the AfD Marianne (1996 song)

I know how a merge is supposed to happen, thanks. I was soliciting input from the community about whether or not a merge was a better solution than a delete. Maybe I should have made that more clear. Sorry. --Jacqui ^★ 01:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Page remerge

A user did a cut-and-paste move for PUCK_MAN form Puck-man. Request your assistane in remerging the page histories, or hell, killing the page altogether. I did a redirect move for Puck-Man to Pac-Man but was overruled again. Hbdragon88 05:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how to fix this mess. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

But...but...you're the ADMINISTRATOR!!!shift-one!!! *runs around in circles* Hbdragon88 03:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Block of User:12.75.252.17

Regarding the block of User:12.75.252.17, it's very likely based on the IP range that this is one of the admins from the Prussian Blue forums, who was also responsible for causing the Prussian Blue (American duo) article to be locked. Unfortunately his IP seems to be relatively dynamic so I'm not sure how useful the block will be useful for :( chowells 12:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's something, at least. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Immovable Celt

"Celtic1 is inexhaustible and immobile. I fear your efforts may be in vain. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)2

I fear you are right; its like trying to get the Orange Order not to march down the Garvaghy Road (my apoligies to the O.O.). But I take a very Roman/Oscar Wilde view of things like this, and being smart is my way at getting back at bullys like him. Plus, I am actually trying to teach him something. Throw enough mud and some will stick, et al ... Thanks anyway, mate, its appreicated. Tune in soon for the next exciting episode!Fergananim 12:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Later: His response proved you right (again). Its always highly amuseing to see the way people of a certain calibre deal with facts. Guess that's why so many of them turn to voilence, be it domestic or political. Easier to beat someone up rather than win via superior logic. Some things never change ...Fergananim 17:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you were right. Somehow, he convinced himself that he destroyed my argument point-by-point without manageing to assemble a single factual peice of evidence (must have spent at lotta time at 1600 Pen. Avenue recently ...). I willingly concede that I used tempermental language while doing so, but only because his nasty remarks set me off. I know, I still should have chilled. And I did'nt even start out like that; I genuinely asked an honest question to begin with.

People who say history is boreing are as dumb as posts; look at the passions it unearths. Thanks for your time. Fergananim 13:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No cabal?

Well, that's a nice (but non-existent) idea and I wish you best of luck with it (if it existed in the first palce). However I should note that its (hallucinatory) membership roster already contains some people well-known for doing the exact opposite of what the (illusory) cabal stands for. FYI. Radiant_>|< 01:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

MIB, I'm not sure if we've "met", but I do monitor a lot of video game-related pages. In doing so, I've noticed that you are consistently one of the more level-headed and good-intentioned editors in such articles. For that, I've been intending to offer you this a Barnstar, but have, alas, been too busy. Well, I found a spare moment; so, here. You deserve it! BrianSmithson 02:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Postcode articles

The UK postcode articles are partly a navigation thing. See the London areas for a fully completed example. If you link in from a town page then the information will not seem like a big expansion (section of the town you've been reading about, or in rural areas a group of communities).

The template covering the postcode region (e.g. CM, RM etc.) allows investigation of the postal structure for adjacent areas. Users can also end up following through to information having started with the postcode instead of the town.

As a particular example, redirecting CM4 to Ingatestone is not appropriate because it neglects sizable communities such as Blackmore (some distance away) or Margaretting (in a different borough). Although the number of words was low the information was significant.

Mauls 23:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so those were supposed to be disambig pages to all the communities those postcodes cover? Then I suggest you recreate them as proper disambiguation pages, rather than as standalone articles. Just redirect the ones that only apply to one place, then dismbig the ones that cover multiple. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but no... it was also a form of navigation structure: the template allowing sideways jumps through the postcode structure - I didn't originate the postcode structure, but I expanded it a bit, and linked it to the town and village articles (and vice-versa) to make it more useful. It's more than just disambiguation. Mauls 20:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not make the postcode entries dab/redirects, and add the postcode navbox to the articles for the cities? That way, you don't have contentless, unexpandable stubs, but the navigation works just as well. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion

Hi there MiB, your comments about Yakov Liebermann made me think a little about these things. The reason that I voted keep for the bus stop and the dorm, is that I do not believe that these issues need to come to AFD, not necessarily that I believe that we need articles about on these things. The dorm should definiately be merged into an article on archetecture of whatever university it was, with a redirect, unless there is so much verifiable material that splitting it out makes sense, but that is better done in a different forum. Likeise the bus stop should definately be redirected to whatever the next level article is, until it outgrows it with verifiable information. I think most public buildings have relatively little information about them that is not original research, so most of them will appear, if at all, as part of a higher level article. Since WP is not a repository of sources, I wouldn't see the point in listing every public building if the only information we have about them is that they exist. The amount of verifiable material about each building will determine whether an article can be written, or whether it should be merged. Does that help? It isn't that I want endless stubs about un-interesting places, although I don't think factual articles about places in which I am not interested do any harm. Trollderella 15:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Usually when someone votes keep, they intend that the article be kept as a standalone article, unless specifically mentioned otherwise. I understand better what you mean, now. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage... Too bad they didn't finish the AfD, heh heh heh.--Isotope23 18:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hee, yeah. I had to stop someone from AFDing an AFD page, too, the same day. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If you have a second

Could you take a look at the links added by anon IP 69.201.181.152 to Knot theory, Topology, and Knot? User added links to Rosa Parks and some other articles where the referenced papers from the external link had only an ancillary mention of the topics. THose other three might be on topic though... I don't think so, but before I remove the links, I thought I'd get an outside opinion from a couple of people (you and User:Jacqui M Schedler). If you have a chance at some point, could you take a look and let me know what you think? Thanks!--Isotope23 16:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why you're asking my opinion, as I'm totally clueless on the subject. Sorry about that... - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What I told the Wookieepedian

What I told him was NOT to continue edit warring; rather, I told him something along the lines of "continue to restore to the consensus version*, but do NOT blindly revert every single edit" since Copperchair occasionally makes useful grammar and spelling corrections. He took this advice as carte blanche to continue blind reverts, which I already chastised him for twice.

• Yes, I firmly believe there is at least an ad hoc consensus on this issue. WP:WIN a democracy and all, but there are four users in favour of the credits with Wedge, and one in favour of them without. I'd say that counts for something, at least.--chris.lawson 02:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

irc channel pages removal

regarding your decision to select irc pages for removal, the page you've put for deletion refers to, and got the original idea from another irc channel page that started shortly before #scripture page. I think all irc channel pages should share the same fate if it is deemed that they are not worthy of their own pages without some sort of stronger defining reason for their existance? 81.132.36.120 03:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, okay. I'll make sure to nominate that one, too, when I get around to it. I can't imagine any Undernet channel being an encyclopedic topic unto itself. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Schools

Hi, would you please consider reviewing and adding proposed ideas, on how to deal with school articles. I'm hoping there's some renewed interest, that's not a fight. Rather than start with arguements, I would like to start with people laying out some proposals they think might work. Even if you're sure I, and other will oppose it, please do put forward your ideas. I'm hoping we can put out a bunch of ideas, and move on any where agreement exists (without letting disagreements on other points, stand in the way). --rob 11:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Gothic Metal And Accusation of Sock Puppets

I am fine with the banning of both me and user Dante until this is sorted, as i have mentioned to Dante to pool our knowledge. I am however offended by the accusation of using Sock Puppets as i have no connection to these users other than user Porkchop who i have worked with on an international basis concerning various projects and have contact with through the program Soulseek. I resent the accusation of using Sock Puppets in all forms and ask for this accusation to be striken. ~~Leyasu

Wha? I'm not accusing anyone of anything but revert warring, and nobody's going to be blocked from editing Wikipedia (by me, anyway). I just protected the article so people would stop revert warring. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops)

To liven up your talk page

A member of — Phil Welch 's pack of wild wolverines

I sent one of my wolverines to liven up your talk page since you mentioned on IRC that it was boring. Enjoy! — Phil Welch 22:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh

Why did you "Reverted edits by Prodego to last version by 70.84.51.234" and revert to vandalism? Or did I do something wrong?

Prodego ^talk 23:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What, you didn't know Doc G wants a dozen pictures of a scrotum on his user page? ¬_¬

Error on my part; I was too hasty, and thought you vandalized instead of unvandalized. Sorry 'bout that. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem, (I know becouse the user did it to me 3 times) RANGE BLOCKING TIME

Prodego ^talk 23:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking

Well, Robchurch's blocking of me actually caused the blocking of my other bots... oh well... --AllyUnion (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, okay. If you want me to fix the problem, I need to know what's going on. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

The following deletion to the Scripture-channel article is considered vandalism. Blanking large portions of an article under discussion violates Wikipedia guidelines.

19:06, 8 November 2005 A Man In Black (→Regulars - removing unecyclopedic vanity list) 

Endomion 19:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like you to point me to a policy or guideline that indicates that deleting unencyclopedic content from an article is "vandalism." In the meantime, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Vanity. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting 80% of an article that is being considered for deletion before the prescribed five day lag time amounts to a one-man "speedy deletion" action without a consensus for such. Whether the article or portions thereof are encyclopedic or unencyclopedic is precisely the verdict that is being hashed out over those five days.
Endomion 20:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A list of channel users is transient and wholly unencyclopedic. You're going to find having that list there makes the article only more likely to be deleted.

Likewise, there's no rule against editing an article on AFD, and in the exceedingly unlikely event this article is kept, that list will need to be removed anyway, as transient (and thus unencyclopedic) and vanity. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with deleting that list. There may be a general guideline about not deleting large portions of content from disputed articles, but A Man In Black is definitely acting in good faith and may reserve the right to ignore all rules. If the proponents of the Scripture-channel article don't want a large portion of the article to be deleted, then they should add some significant content instead of a vanity list. --TantalumTelluride 04:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, upon further review, I've found no such guideline at all. Reverting vandalism and correcting other violations of Wikipedia guidlines, such as Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, is nearly always acceptable. --TantalumTelluride 05:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Brandt AfD2

Thanks for your help in setting up the second AfD (though I guess we disagree on the merits of the issue)FRS 23:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, we don't disagree on the merits so much as you have an opinion and I'm indifferent. As for fixing the AFD, no problem. AFD can be intimidating, I know, and I try to make it less so. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Blue screen of death

Hey. Just wanted to thank you for jumping in an injecting a little impartial rationality into that discussion. It was getting downright ugly in there. I just hope you've got time to see this thing through to the end (ALWAYS a good day on the wiki when cooler heads prevail). Anyway, in the hopes that you are still involved, I'd just like to forward you the suggestion that I proposed there. I propose that, for the moment, we just talk about merging the RSoD and the XB360SoD ANYWHERE (you already saw my proposal to narrow this down to just those to, which seems to have been well recieved), since this insanity seems to be over whether they should be merged at all or not. Although that would require future discussion, I think it would at least quash the worst arguing here. Anyway, thanks again! --InShaneee 21:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Robotech

To me it seems that the phrasing of "a continuity nightmare" is relatively subjective, and does not carry the proper objective tone to the readers.

Yeah, I was going to rewrite that, but I got pulled away. I reverted, though, because the rewrite I saw implied that the "continuity nightmare" was the reason the game was cancelled, which is not true by any means. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking back I see what you mean. I changed it around in a way that I think will more accurately reflect the state of the game, without being as misleading as my previous alteration.--Alfador 05:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Cutting myself off at the pass

Any chance that I will ever learn to restrain myself? Every time I get drawn in participate in one of these stupid arguments I think I've learned my lesson. Boo to me. - brenneman^(t)(c) 08:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I know, and dealing with Nicodemus is the worst. He responds to civility with incivility and incivility with incivility. I'd file an RFC, but it would be seen as or would degenerate into partisan nonsense. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Still, no excuse for calling someone a jerk. I don't feel very partisan. Do you? - brenneman^(t)(c) 08:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* I don't know what to do. Nobody will come to debate at WP:SCH, and there doesn't seem to be a working compromise that makes anyone happy. The only position with a plurality of support is the most extreme one (keep all schools no matter what). The majority position doesn't seem to be that (but who knows, because the incivility in school AFDs has scared away everyone who doesn't have elephant-tough skin), but there's no other unified position.
WP:SCH isn't forming a compromise because it'd hard to form a compromise even if nobody at all was arguing that we should keep all schools.
I just don't know what to do. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I was and still am tempted to do some statistical analysis that shows that what's happening isn't consesus and isn't healthy, or even to show it is consesus so I'd feel ok about letting it go. But if I did get that first result, so what? I don't suppose that would make the hypothetical non-representative sample any more inclined to compromise. It just seems wrong, and I don't even have any special feeling about schools. To me, they are just the same as any other article. Hence the problem, I guess.
I don't suppose you have any propellor head skill that would help me strip the data off AfD, do you?
brenneman^(t)(c) 08:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

None whatsoever. Liberal arts major, here.

I'd like to see some sort of discussion that isn't AFD. I just don't know how to make one work. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did put forward an idea... I'd love to hear feedback and commentary on it in the hopes that maybe we can make some progress and break through a few walls. --Martin Osterman 18:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Poke 'em on!

It's been suggested that Hour hand should be kept because the subject is "more significant than Koga (Pokémon). Is there any good reason why these individual minor Pokemon shuld not be merged into either the main article or a collected article? I'd be bold, but I think passions run high... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Commented. Koga (Pokémon) is, for what it's worth, not a Pokémon but a fictional person. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I just tried to leave a message and everything got all screwy. Had to rollback. Think it will work this time. Anyway, thanks, but unfortuntely with the heading that big the entire article falls into the one section, putting me back where i started. could you add another = to either side? thanks. Sorry about this. -R. fiend 16:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

D'oh. Well, I can do that right now, no sweat. (And don't worry about the weirdness onn my talk page; the servers are a bit wonky at the moment. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Schools

I'll take a look - I value being able to disagree vigorously sometimes and maintain a respectful and, I hope, constructive, dialogue, see you around, I like your work! Trollderella 19:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad you're interested in discussion. It was starting to degenerate into "Well, we win all the AFDs, so we don't have to justify anything to anyone;" and I was just at a loss responses when that was even the response to no-content-lost merge proposals. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Related, Afd and WP:BIO

You might be interested in the proposed change to WP:BIO to allow election hopefuls as well as office holders. That change has beenr everted, by the way. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"Kwsn" block

Yup, you got it right. The reason I blocked that guy was because his very first edit was a reposting of a frequently deleted nonsense article. BTW, if at any time you feel a block of mine is out of order, by all means feel free to revert it. You won't hurt my feelings.  :) - Lucky 6.9 01:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocking of anonymous vandal

Just FYI I placed a temporary block on the anon user 210.100.226.249 who placed the material below on several user talk pages. (I'll let you decide whether to delete it or not). As per Wikipedia rules, however, the block can only be for 15 minutes so this anon may strike again. 23skidoo 15:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering what was up. Whatever it is, I've got enough on my plate as it is. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Language dispute

Dear anon interested in Romanian/Moldovian/whatever:

I'm not interested in mediating this dispute. Please don't cut and paste any more massive textdumps on my talk page. Thank you. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned2Tz

Hey, was Unsigned2Tz supposed to be a template? Why is this in the article namespace? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

oops! Thanks. Yes I was starting a template. I have moved it to the template namespace. DES ^(talk) 17:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Help wanted!

I have a problem over at Simon Wessley. UserL84.9.60.246 and user:The One Click Group, a name linked with the content of the page, are insistent on inserting POV and defamatory text. I reverted to a stub a couple of times but was accused of vandalism so I spent osme coniderable time fixing some of the worst excesses. The user is still reinserting the disputed text, thoguh by copy & paste not reversion. I have now reverted it more than three times over the history (though to different versions), and they are still doing it.

An example of their "improved" version: "Professor Wessely has stretched the meaning of the English language while attempting to explain that ME although a ‘real’ illness, is often first imagined. He has trodden the tightrope of confusing semantics with the balance of Blondel and the focus of a train spotter."

As I said to the guy who accused me of vandalism, in Wikipedia terms, a stub is better than a defamatory rant, IMO, but as I say I have tried to clean it up and this user (I think they are almost certainly one and the same) is still adding what I can only describe as shit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Wessely&diff=28338748&oldid=28338274 - this is a paragraph-level copy & paste reversion. The user will not seem to allow anything other than the "authorised version" (i.e. their view). I don't want to get nto an edit war over an issue on which I hold no strong opinion, but I'm stuffed if I'm going to let a soapbox get past! What next? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. The user who called "vandalism" id user:Pobidoq. Guess what? No edit history outside this one article. Isn't that a funny coincidence? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm the man to help you with this one, I don't think, plus I've got some other stuff going on. Sorry about this. :/ - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Any suggestions? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 08:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Go on IRC and bother someone into taking it off your hands? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't even have an irc client, I don't use IM either, but never mind - someone saw this discussion and stepped in (thanks, Martin Osterman - and no less than Jimbo, we are not worthy!) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

St John's Church AFD

Hi there. I was the 'odd-man-out' vote to merge on this AFD, so I suppose I was the only one to get what I wanted. So thanks, I guess. Perodicticus 11:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful close (and M&D). :) encephalon 11:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair's back at it

If you hadn't noticed, as soon as the block expired, Copperchair immediately began reverting all changes to the various Star Wars articles that he disagreed with. I don't know if he's been re-blocked, but if not, it's probably time for a month off. The week break didn't teach him anything, obviously. I was putting together a list of diffs to add to the RfAr, but accidentally closed the window. Quite honestly, he's not worth my time. I have better ways to improve Wikipedia than proving to the ArbCom one problem user should be blocked.--chris.lawson 22:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do cover at least one day of reverts; it helps show that this isn't a content dispute, but a one-man disruptive crusade set against a group of people who oppose it. I didn't know he was back at it; I'm going to review the history and block if necessary (and it will be necessary if what you say is true). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you double-check your edit on Wikipedia talk:Schools

Could you review this rollback/revert. I think you might have accidently reverted more than you intended. --Rob 22:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Why on EARTH did I revert that? Yikes! I'll restore those comments ASAP! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish lists

Hi, Jewish people are a diaspora and ethnicity just like African Americans. If you do not think that African American lists should be deleted then please change your vote on these lists. Arniep 18:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel "Lists of (religion/ethnicity) (profession)" are useful navigation tools. I believe I've said this before, repeatedly, and I'm not inclined to change how I feel about this without an actual effort to refute that statement or convince me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm having some problems dealing with immaturity on list of Jewish jurists - wonder if you can help? Antidote 23:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can really mediate with that particular editor, and I stay away from ethicity/religion/nationality disputes, since they're inevitably vicious. Goethean is evenheaded and knowledgeable; I'd suggest talking to him. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Internet sites

Hi, you recently stated that you speedy deleted this page, yet it is still there. How does that happen? --Bob 17:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I reread the article, and realized that it wasn't a CSD A3 candidate, so I quickly restored it. I got an error page when I closed the AFD, so I didn't realize the closing of the AFD had actually gone through. Thank you for letting me know; I've fixed my mistake. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you read this

Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy. It's an informal guideline, two-and-a-half years old, and never cited in my experience. But it's a good guideline and I see no reason not to cite it. In sum, where there is no obvious reason to delete, keep redundant material.

This springs from the Temperance organizations vote. There is no rule which states redundance in a category demands an article of the same name's deletion. Yes, WP:DP suggests merging, but this case isn't one of A article duplicates B article. That temperance organizations has become a cat actually demands, to my mind, that the main article be expanded, not deleted or merged. We don't delete Mars, JFK or Oman based on redundancy in the cat. Of course, one can argue redundant but also useful material should be kept, as your note suggests. But AfD isn't about clean up. Temperance organizations in-itself could be an eminently useful page.

I'm not an inclusionist at all (if you've look at my votes) but this is the one delete criterion that I disagree with and that I believe policy and guidelines are less than straightforward about. I only note this to you because I noted something similar on the AfD sub-page after your comment and because I've seen you at AfD. Have to start somewhere if you want to revive an old guideline. Marskell 20:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colins performing arts school

I think when you made your vote to delete, you were quite right (due to lack of verifiability mainly). Now, there's some verificaiton, I hope you would support resetting the clock on the AFD for Colin's Performing Arts School. I saw this earlier, and dismissed as a minor peronal vanity article. Rather than just vote now, I'm asking people to wait and reconsider. At a minimum, there's clearly a basis for expansion, but how much, or what value, isn't yet clear to me. --Rob 20:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that the previous, useless article was speedily redirected (out of process, but WP:IAR) to a stub of some (albeit, IMO, little, but enough to render my previous reasoning moot) value. As such, the AFD should probably be closed, so I'll do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I object to your premature closure. The standard AfD notice encourages editing of the article while the discussion is in progress. Improving an article during AfD does not automatically result in a "speedy keep." The fact that in this case the article was improved by moving it to a better title doesn't change this. I request that you revert the closure edits which you made in the AfD discussions and allow the discussion to continue. I feel that I've been taken advantage of, and that in effect you've punished me for finding additional information about the school. I wouldn't object to delaying closure, but I do object to accelerating it. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No content from the previous version of the article was used. The title is different. The arguments on the previous article are moot. If you want to re-AFD this article, be my guest, but for all intents and purposes it's a different article.

That said, I will elaborate a little more on my reasoning for closing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Grumble. Grumble. Seethe. No, nothing there is really worth fussing about. It's just the (grumble) principle of the (mutter) thing. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC) (Grumble, grumble).

Eh. Any close on an AFD after I left that open would be a clusterfuck. Might as well close it now before it turns into a no consensus someone decides to call precedent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You're [clenching teeth] absolutely right. Grumble. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I do sympathize, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat

Ah yes - you're right - the listing didn't state that it was completely fictional fictional character, so to speak. I voted merge because I thought it was a real mortal kombat character... I'll change it - thanks! Trollderella 21:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)== Geocities sites are no acceptable sources ==

...Discrimination against geocities users????

I just think that as soon as that page has the relevant information, the host shouldn't matter. Judging a website simply by its host is as lame as judging a person merely by his/her looks! Oh oh oh, perhaps you think I made up everything that goes on my site? Than what about stuff like serebii.net and psypoke? They make stuff out! The "SARS" thing about "The Ice Cave" was completely made up, and the mods in wiki tried so hard to maintain that info on he "banned episode" page. But anyway, seriously, do you think I could have just made those whole composition out?? You know that my English is not that good, and for goodness sake who would make up stuff like that?

Please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Psypoke and Serebii aren't much better that Geocities, and your site fails to conclusively show that that is the reason the epside wasn't run. (If it did, we wouldn't cite your site but instead the reliable sources you cited.) The current wording specifically states that it hasn't been conclusively shown why the episode wasn't run, and mentions several common speculative reasons why that might be the case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Since they are not much better, why do their links appear on the palette?
• 2. No Original research--"so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication." I have not made it up/ it is not a rumour/ it cannot be controversial, not uninformed/ not misled/not pushing an agenda/not sloppy/not relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane----because it was EXACTLY what CBW had wrote.
• 3. "and as primary sources only with great caution"<--This means, personal sites are NOT 100% disallowed in wikipedia.
• 4. The official reason for The ICe Cave was indeed released, accoarding to http://pkmn.co.uk (in the episode guide) which was the reason from UK. "SARS" was indeed made up by serebii.net because they did not recieve the information.
• 5. I agree that http://hk.geocities.com/poke124mon282 is sloppy and insane, but I am not putting this particular link on the page. 2 of the 3 links I put were EXACTLY what CBW wrote, and that the remaining one was a translated Japanese version of one of the articles, and the translation was done by COMPUTER, instead of by hand. THere will NOT be biased or extreme opinions or personal opinions or personal alteration in the translated page, as I said before, is done by COMPUTER.

jynx 18:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's an old saw, I know, but the first paragraph of WP:RS says specifically "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy". I don't disagree with your point here, I'm all for standards in sources, but I feel like calling something policy when it's not isn't somewhere I want to go. Trollderella 20:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The site in question is the personal site of this user, and doesn't do a very good job of conclusively proving the claims this user is trying to add to the article. {{guideline}} isn't license to ignore the guideline in egregious cases by any means; it means only that any rules or advice contained therein may have grey areas. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - my sole comment was that it is not policy. That doesn't mean that guidelines should be ignored. Trollderella 21:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation in Xbox

For your excellent work in Blue screen of death, I request from you the Mediation in the Xbox article. User:GoldDragon just started a edit war with me in Market share section. He delete the Wikinews tag/link and Forbes/CNET sources. It's a authentic dispute. Thanks for all. --Brazil4Linux 18:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, protect the Xbox article. GoldDragon made another revert today, He ignore the discuss and delete my edition/Wikinews tag, and sources. A crazy edit war. --Brazil4Linux 11:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I request attention in the article Ken Kutaragi also because lots of no-sourced fake informations are being added. ----Brazil4Linux 15:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Case assigned for MentCom

You've been assigned. Now show up in #wikipedia-probation. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedrun

Hi, you don't think adding the speedruns to the external links is relevant? I'm asking because you reverted one page, but I've added these kind of links to a number of articles. Jacoplane 20:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, probably shouldn't have used rollback for that. The link is useful, but it's already up the page under a speedrun header. The link you added was redundant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't notice that section before. No prob. Jacoplane 20:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Votes needed

If you haven't already, we need votes on several Jewish and Catholic lists up for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish chess players
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Members of the National Academy of Engineering
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Technology
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Catholic authors
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Catholic composers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Catholic directors and producers

Thanks. StabRule 19:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Can you check a Wikipedia:Sock puppet suspect? User:Dionyseus and User:GoldDragon are atacking me by the same way, same arguments, same discuss motivations and agreeding with himself. References: Talk:Xbox, Talk:Kameo: Elements of Power, Talk:Ken Kutaragi. --Brazil4Linux 15:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal. I'll work on those disputes one at a time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Pictures I uploaded

You wrote: "I'm afraid you can't just upload images other people own (like Image:FrostWorm.jpg, owned by Wizards of the Coast) or copy text verbatim (like the text you pasted into Bullette, which was copied from the AD&D Monster Manual, 1977 version). It's just not allowed here at Wikipedia, because it violates copyright law.

By doing this, not only do you make a lot of work that other people have to fix, but you subject Wikipedia to legal liability and don't improve the encyclopedia, as the copyright violations have to be deleted.

Please be more careful in the future, and read Wikipedia:Copyright. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)"

OK I didn't know how to post you a message. I'll try to be more carefull next time. Also these are the other pic I uploaded, so if you have the time you can see if they are copyrighted: Image:Belphegor.gif downloaded from Oculltopedia; Image:Ent.jpg can't remember where I got this one though. Belphegor 666 21:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Judeofascism

I will block you for disruption if you create that again. Why on earth do you suppose there is a vote if in fact you can just come along and recreate it? This was NOT speedied. It was deleted after a vote. Please respect that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Where, exactly, in the deletion policy? You're threatening at least two people with a block, so the burden is on you to justify your actions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read the policy. You might also want to read my posts to SPUI because I really can't keep explaining everything two or three times. The other thing I want to say is that I'm surprised that you, as an admin, are restoring an article that's been through an AfD without waiting for the review results, and also that you're willing to undo another admin's deletion. Neither of these things is exactly conducive to good relations. If Ta bu had felt it was within the deletion policy simply to restore the page as a redirect, he wouldn't have nominated it for review. AfD does not control content. It simply controls which pages i.e. titles exist and people voted that this one should not. If you are voting to delete pages based on the current content, then you have seriously misunderstood the deletion policy. If the current content is the only problem, but otherwise there are good sources available, the title's not inherently POV, and it could in principle be encyclopedic, then the content should be rewritten, but the title shouldn't be deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I HAVE read the policy, many times, both quickly and carefully, and I have arrived at the conclusion that you are dead wrong. This redirect has not been through AFD, and AFD doesn't prevent creation of something different from the deleted content at the same title as a deleted article. So far, you've threatened two different users with blocks for "disruption," without explaining why their good-faith actions are disruptive.

AFD doesn't prevent a deleted article from being replaced with a redirect, and AFD is not and never has been a debate about the validity about an article title.

I'm not restoring an article that has been through AFD; I'm recreating a redirect you have wrongly speedied, to Wikipedia's coverage of the term "Judeofascism". I don't appreciate your bullying for doing so, especially given that three different users have expressed support for recreating this redirect, and nobody but you thinks what you're doing is right. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that a redirect has to go through a separate process? Read the policy: "Deleted pages can be restored, by administrators, if and only if there is support on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, or the page was speedily deleted out-of-process." What you are trying to argue is that (a) a page goes through AfD and people vote to delete it, (b) it is deleted, then (c) someone comes along and re-creates it the next day as a redirect, and so therefore (d) there has to be a second vote at RfD? No, that is not how it works. I did not speedy any redirect. I re-deleted a page that SPUI recreated against consensus. Ta bu is an experienced admin, and would not have nominated the page for deletion review had be been able simply to recreate it as a redirect. So he agrees with me that there needs to be a vote. As for who is the bully here, I am having to respond to posts from you and SPUI on your talk page, his talk page, and on the review page. I don't think you're being fair. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I see Ryan Norton enthusiastically supported your adminship nomination last month. You may want to wait to discuss this with him, if he is someone whose views you respect. As he put it recently, AfD has "precisely nothing" to do with the contents of a page, but is a vote on whether the title should exist. I don't have time to look for the diff now, but I remember him saying it, and I'm sure he'll confirm if you contact him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It has now been protected blank; I have put in an unprotection request. --SPUI (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, I protected this as deleted, see my reasoning at the above 'requests' discussion. --Doc ^ask? 22:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Shadow

Shadow the Hedgehog (video game features)

why does this article needs deletion?

>x<ino 00:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Because it's all how-to advice on how to perform Shadow's different moves, and what guns and vehicles can be found. That sort of thing really belongs more on GameFAQs than Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

alrght then, what if i list only the moves, without mentioning how it can be preformed

and the weapons & vehicles has to stay, why do you think this article exist? to explain and talk about the game features, differences between other Sonic titles and new game concept bough by SEGA

>x<ino 02:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Banned user Lightbringer, sockpuppets and freemasonery

Hi. I'm given to understand you have been tasked to enfore the desicions of the arb-com in regard to User:Lightbringer and his army of sockpuppets. I do believe that User:Systemworks is a new sockpuppet of his, since the edits is as close as possible to edits made by Lightbringer in the past. Thank you. WegianWarrior 08:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation needed

Ken Kutaragi have same problem of the Xbox article: GoldDragon inserting lot of non-sourced POV infos and reverting article everyday. I ask for your help. --Brazil4Linux 11:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape cheats

Could you review your close on this article? I know you closed it "No consensus," but 9 of 13 users expressed a desire to see the article deleted or transwikied, by my count.

Note that at least two votes that begin with "merge" are indeed support for transwiking the article and removing it from Wikipedia, albeit saving some of the info as a merge into another article. (I know how this can be done and can do it myself, but I obviously don't want to make the final judgement on an AFD I nominated.)

Let me know what you decide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As I am new to closing AfD discussions, I felt it prudent to err on the side of caution. Merging is an issue of editing, and requires no AfD discussion. And my perception (perhaps incorrect) is that Transwiki-ing requires Admin access, of which I am in short supply. Thus, I interpreted the "merge/transwiki" votes as "keep" votes since the article cannot (so far as I'm aware, though I could certainly be wrong) be merged and transwikied without being "kept", however briefly. If this is an erroneous approach to take, please let me know. I am certainly open to revising my decision if I've made it in error. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 00:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I can perform the close if you endorse JIFish's merge/transwiki/delete suggestion as the closing decision. It is possible to merge and delete, through a handful of methods. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Done and done. Sorry for the trouble. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 00:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)