I wasn't using my POV for the game. Many critics found it too short. Unless these sources are very unreliable. Frankyboy5 04:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, these reviewers may be saying that the game was too short for hardcore gamers. According to Nintendo Power issue#202, Takashi Tezuka intentionally made the game easier than others to encourage non-gamerS to play the game. Frankyboy5 03:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're so insistent on removing the image atop FN P90; when another copyrighted image is right below; and other similar articles are rife with them. At least replace it with the free image on the article. It is of much worse quality but it's better than having nothing atop the page. I understand the frustrations with pop culture but that doesn't mean you need to hold that article to a higher standard than others in terms of fair-use of images.-- Mmx1 22:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If your going to remove a picture that doesn't violate the rules (fairuse images most definately do NOT), then you are responsible for posting a replacement. Expend just a little extra effort if you find this issue that important. Alyeska 04:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. I was looking at your Poke-cruft pages at User:A Man In Black/Poketasks and User:A Man In Black/Poketasks/Merge and saw a lot of things that were taken care of, but they were pretty jumbled linkwise with the unfinished parts. So I crossed out all completed items and restructured these pages for you for better organization, complete with comments about how each completed item was completed, so now you should have an easier time prioritizing your Poketasks. Hope this helps. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 17:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You have been asked to participate in a mediation relating to the use images in articles detailing episodes of the Pokémon anime. If you wish to input into discussion, you can do so here, all help is welcomed towards a positive resolution. Cheers, H ig hway Daytrippers 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you look this page over? It looks pretty bad and speculative. Interrobamf 01:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, the Legendary Pokemon page looked fine to me, it's kinda ****ed now... Would you please revert it back?
Hey AMIB,
Question for you: You seem to be an admin who spends the majority of his time working on articles (rather than on purely administrative maintenance tasks), and I recall this comment preferring the former rather than the latter. I've thought intermittently about adminship as a way to help out with maintenance chores from time to time ( WP:AIV, CAT:CSD, and WP:RM can become backlogged), but I'm wondering how easy it is for you to keep a balance. Thanks! — TKD:: Talk 11:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, okay. As for backlogs, they need occupy no more time than you feel like spending on them. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 13:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Since your an admin and all, I was wondering if you would help me deal with a little problem occuring on this page since Wikipedia:AIV won't take the issue into consideration. 71.168.58.119 continually adds false information to the page, most frequently by posting supposed "dub names" for the tarot cards. Since Sartorius' debut episode already aired in the English version, it is already known that "The Fool"'s name was kept the same (though this user is keeps editing it to "The Jester"). By refusing to cooperate following multiple warnings, it is clear that this user has no intention of stopping. So I ask of you to please deal with him/her so the factual integrity of the article can be preserved. Thank you. -- Benten 00:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm very sorry about all that images crap I made you go through all last week http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20061003020148&limit=50&target=Bobabobabo . May you help with the episode summaries on the episode lists? Bobabobabo ( 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC))
Why did you edit all my changes? Metal gear ninty 15:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Your first two criticisms are reasonable however, in a heading titled "critical response" no criticisms were displayed. The point I made(eventhough I personally disagree with it) was what the majority of people think, I can show you various different references if neccesary. Also, my referance was completely relevant; it did not promote MGS2's story and praised MGS3's more simplistic story. Metal gear ninty 15:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The keyword is "initial" eventhough initial response was very positive; how the game has been regarded has deteoreated over the years. My referance was from a MGS3 review, and that reflected my point: "...with it's incessant codec conversations" "it was far from fun to watch a game eat itself" Here is Another example from a gamespy metal gear solid 3 review: "while there are good plot twists, kojima wisely reigns in the high-minded metababble that tarnished MGS2" I'm more then willing to show you more quotes. Metal gear ninty 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but you'll need to find something more than an offhand reference in a review of a different game. Maybe you could scrounge up a retrospective on MGS2 that isn't as glowing as the initial reviews? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 18:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
A retrospective from G4
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty raised the bar even higher for the tactical espionage action genre. The visuals were massively upgraded, and Snake had all kinds of fun new abilities. Yeah, Raiden was kind of hard to get used to and the story got a little wonky at times (i.e. "The La-li-lu-le-lo!"), but you could skip the cutscenes, and we've learned to love that blonde girly man.
Metal gear ninty 18:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I am taliking specifically about the storyline, please be patient and i'll find something better. Metal gear ninty 18:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I did find this from wikipedia's metal gear solid 3 article:Fans, as well as some critics, who also found MGS2's lengthy dialogues and multitude of plot twists detrimental to the game experience[51] found MGS3's storyline a pleasing throwback to the original Metal Gear Solid, with less of the "philosophical babble"[8] present in Sons of Liberty.Besides I don't see why I can't use referances from other rewiews; what's the difference between that and a retrospective? It's still reflecting the reviewers opinion. Metal gear ninty 19:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
But you can't expect me to find a retrospective of a game that isn't even retro. Like I said, I don't know why references from other reviews are inadequete. Anyway, If it was good enough for an article that you yourself edited then why isn't it good enough for this one. Metal gear ninty 19:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
So do you want me to get quotes from actual MGS2 reviews now? Metal gear ninty 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The best I can give you is a reveiw from computerandvideogames.com:
The soap opera of a story can geta bit confusing – and tedious
It's unbeleivable how fickle the media are, they didn't dare to criticise the plot just because of all the hype it was getting. Apart from that I pretty much give up,anyway, thanks for baring with me, i'm off. Metal gear ninty 20:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What would you do with this article? -- Steel 20:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I just wanna tell ya that if you can seriously please leave the one at. Mario. Super Mario Bros. And( The history of computer and video games. I BEG YOU PLEASE LEAVE THEM. I have true proove about those anyway. Just leave them. Milos the man. ( begs for the changes to stay)
It's me again Milos the man.
Man look it IS helpful and like I have no other places to store them I serioulsy do beg you if you can just LEAVE them and move on. And how isn't that helpful now. If people wanted to know what the worlds most popular character is they can see it at Mario when they type it. Man it's the only way to make people see his most popular.
Man please leave them. If you want I won't even make more summaries anymore just leave those okay. PLEEEEEEEEASE. If you are atLEAST leave the Super Mario Bros one. Just god damn it leave it c'mon. I trying to make wikipedia better. If that was not gonna be good at the first place I never would of joined. Man please.
] Err dude that's all the truth I not posting up any opinion I don't even like Super Mario Bros or Mario much Im more of a sports fan and I like Kirby the best. It ain't opinions it's just I have real clear proof that I have in my favoutites.
Now dude just...LEAVE them.
Why does rejected fit better than {{ essay}} or no tag? What is the benefit in making the assumption that the page was formally proposed and formally rejected and then putting {{ rejected}} down? Ansell 12:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue is that there isn't a commonly-accepted definition, and we shouldn't leave a proposal to change current practice (using the nebulously defined term "notability" to deal with issues of importance and noteworthiness) in a place where it will be mistaken for a description of current practice.
Fresh's silly crusade is an effort to write new rules that will let him shoehorn his articles about personal mass transit into Wikipedia. Labelling hopelessly doomed policy efforts to that effect as such will, at the very least, contain him to talk pages nobody cares about, which are unlikely to affect the encyclopedia negatively. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so it is perceived that his articles cannot be entered with current practice about "notability" as there are people who object to the content, however, for the NN page to exist in its current form, using only policies to argue its points, kind of suggests that you can't delete the articles without refering to notability because it actually fulfils the other policies.
That doesn't make sense.
The problem is that this is a proposal to change current practice that doesn't even have majority support and is unlikely to ever have majority support, because the idea that we shouldn't ever worry about importance isn't very popular. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 17:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I made a request you may be interested in. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, hee. The infobox-for-every-incarnation-of-every-character-ever guy was a banned user's sock? I didn't know that. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 17:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hikari, Pochama, Pika-chan <_>
Hello, I'm asking you a question. Their are alot of Yu-Gi-OH/GX images that I/Mitsusama uploaded which are on one page, so should I make seperete pages for the iamges based on their seasons? Bobabobabo ( 19:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC))
I really appreciate your words on my RFA. I've learned a bit from watching you work, and it's nice to read something like that coming from you. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 19:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to clarify my position in regard to the "Amendment To Be" page. I believe it is worthy of its own page, and not simply a redirect, because more information can be given about it than would otherwise be possible. If the same amount of info were added to the "Day The Violence Died", it would take up too much space. Gabeb83 14:37 October 9, 2006.
It's actually True that he can transform either arm. I don't see why you reverted it. Ollie the Magic Skater
Since you requested deletion for the One Peice attacks, I thought you could help out here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Hydromasta231 04:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the link. Sorry to bother you MIB but I'm struggling to reconcile myself with the result of this particular AFD.
In particular: no solid secondary links were found by anyone during the AFD (including me, I was looking for them in the hope of adding another article to my list to tinker with) and almost all if not all keep votes were from contributors who have contributed to that page (sockpuppet/SPA or established Wikipedian alike). Also, the closing comment mentioned an approx. 50/50 split - but isn't that the point of discussing the issue?
I don't want to be munching sour grapes, to start bandying the AFD around the admin-discussion thingmy if I'm wrong in the first place or to relist an AFD in the 'pitch-till-you-win' style, but I'm really struggling to see where the effort went to argue the point when it came down to a 50/50 vote and zero evidence was produced.
I think I'm guilty of introducing a straw-man myself towards the tail-end of the discussion (about charities), but by that point I was extremely concerned about the nature of DT, the way it appeared to be a Lazarus-sanctioned advert (one of the posts on the talk page is signed by a DT forum uber-mod or somesuch nonsense) and the fact that nothing had any cites at all. My skin was crawling.
Sorry to ask this of you, but could you cast an eye over the AFD and give me your opinion of whether or not I'm right to think it isn't a satisfactory result? I have tried to just get on with it and look at it as another article to fix, but exactly the same concerns arise as when I first stumbled across the AFD. If you're busy then tell me to pee-off and I'll look at the admin-consultation AFD-naughty thing (yet another thing to get my head around). Cheers. QuagmireDog 12:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems like you have a difference of opinion about the close. I'd try DRV, but it seems like the best bet would be to wait a few months then try again, with a nom that hammers home that nothing here is verifiable. If you don't bring up any points but verifiability (or hammer home WP:V then bring up aggravating factors) you're probably better off. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serebii.net and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serebii.net (2nd nomination). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 18:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, and for the comparison (good point well made). I needed an opinion before starting to waste peoples' time with the DRV process etc., if it isn't clear-cut then I'm satisfied and will keep an eye on the article instead. QuagmireDog 21:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This User: Interrobamf is continuing vandalizing the Hikari page by removing the Image:PokeDP02.jpg. This image has Pochama (Hikari's first pokemon) in it, which it has some siginifcence in the article. I asked him to stop. He editted the page four times already [1]. Bobabobabo ( 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
A Japanese poster of a movie is not a pointless image ( Bobabobabo 20:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
So. It is a Poster, it should be on the image, the english one is a DVD cover ( Bobabobabo 20:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
Then remove the orphan tags when you actually put the images in articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
User talk:Bobabobabo/works has fair use images again. Interrobamf 12:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't exactly reply on that imnage page...
Anyways a quick google image search shows it's not on that, but it is definitely a promotional image for the game. It may have been taken using a digital camera on an instruction booklet or magazine, which could explain the "screenshot" titling... Logical2u 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Does this image 230px and this image thumb|Sartorius freed from the Light of Ruin|150px does Saiou look the same are their difference? I'm asking this because User: Interrobamf is removing this image claiming its similarities. Are you a Yu-Gi-Oh fan? I am and I can see the difference ( Bobabobabo 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
Awesome, awesome work. Your edits have allowed for expansion of the topic, and I think that's in the spirit of Wikipedia. My heartfelt thanks, especially in the light of our most recent, difficult communications. PT ( s-s-s-s) 21:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Now I admit you and I have had our disagreements in the past, and in recent hours too. My personal feelings aside, there's a thought in the back of my mind that I'd like to bring to your attention. You have said on several occasions you don't watch Yugioh. Do you feel, despite this, that you can make reliable edits to Yugioh related pages with little to no knowledge of the topics? In my own personal opinion, if you don't have at least an average knowledge of the page's topics, your edits will have questionable integrity. Drake
What is your age?? ( Bobabobabo 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
I don't use select words from Japanese; I think it's an annoying habit, and I don't speak Japanese anyway. I have been known to use select words from German, but not so much as my fluency in German is long-decayed from disuse. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you a Pokemon fan? If you are you would be aware of the Pokemon Sunday and Pokemon Hoso. Should we include the live action episodes of Pokemon? Pokemon Research (Pokemon Sunday) and Pokemon Rating (Pokemon Hoso) episodes?
Examples: 週刊ポケモン放送局
ポケモン☆サンデー
Peripherally aware. I don't know enough about them to comment, and I can't read Japanese script. I'd ask over at WP:PCP. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
What is your problem? If you read the rules, you will see that fair use pics are OK until they can be replaced by free pics. Please stop vandalizing the page. TJ Spyke 22:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, anything under WP:ICT#Free licenses will be good. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 00:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to gain a better understanding of fair use rational. To further that effort, can you expand on your reason for this [2] edit? CovenantD 01:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I do not like 207.218.218.50's vandalism on the talk page, I do think the logo gallery for KRIV-TV should stay there. First, those images do have a purpose. They show the history of KRIV-TV. Second, every other major TV station has them. Just check some and you're bound to find some. As for the source info, they are obviously screenshots of a TV, probably taken with a computer hooked up to a VHS. Does the exact source really matter? I don't think so. - Some Person 03:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'd better get started, then. I'll get ed g2s ( talk · contribs)'s help. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 04:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think you should have alerted the Wikipedia television community of your intentions to remove the logo galleries from these articles, and see what the general feeling was among us BEFORE you went ahead and started removing them? Rollosmokes 22:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I've replied at WP:TVS. I think centralizing this discussion would be best. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 09:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I can only assume that your intentions are ment well but like I have stated all over wikipedia these images are allowed under Fair use. They have been stated as such many times and you still keep on reverting back to a page that for one thing has an incorrect image added to it that I keep on having to remove. One can use images of items not currently avalable and of images that are not found publicly or easily. There is a place that one should go to help wikipedia to upload free images and that is {{ Template:Fair use replace}}. Please also undelete the images mantioned earlier in the past conversation I want to be on the phone with the Bose rep and show them the images I am requesting for use. I have come back only 1 day to wikipedia I left a few months ago because of people bashing this particular page because they dont like Bose. Please dont Harass this page because this is the only reason I contribute to wikipedia. -- UKPhoenix79 05:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Show Bose an old version of the page. Do not under any circumstances replace fair-use images on that page until you've managed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of users other than yourself that a reasonable fair-use rationale can be written. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 19:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Show them an older version from the history. We wouldn't be using the dancing people images for anything anyway.
And, no, I'm not going to apologize for blocking you when you reverted nine times to readd copyvio images over objections on four different pages from three different users. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 02:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No. I'm not. Nine reverts to replace copyvio content are not appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 03:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not convey misinformation in a proposal for deletion. It's fine that you made the deletion proposal, but it's a blatant lie that the only sources are "the author's site and a speed-run archive he submitted it to". First off, "the author's site" is the largest and most notable tool-assisted speedrun site. It was submitted for inclusion via the normal means and was accepted with 69 yes votes to 2 no/indifference votes. Secondly, the author himself did not submit it to that "speedrun site" (which is really the Internet Archive); this was done by a member of the community, independently. I find it terrible that you are able to list something for deletion without even knowing the most basic of information about it. You also listed Image:Megaman1610 fireman.ogg for deletion before; you didn't even bother to download the file before doing so. Do not propose deletions without first getting your facts straight. This is related to your activities on Wikipedia as a whole, not just to my article which you listed for deletion. — msikma < user_talk:msikma> 18:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Since nobody else cares about pointless articles about characters in an obscure cartoon film, I have to ask for your opinion in Talk:Madame Medusa. Specifically, [4]. I have kept requsting for sources, but to no avail, and the user is under the impression that Wikipedia policy is on his side, that it's perfectly okay to list "possiblities". Mostly, I'm just tired of fighting a one-man war on this article. Interrobamf 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I have started the first 52 episodes of THe Pokemon Sunday. I hope you think its professional. Also how do be apart of the Pokémon Collaborative Project, because I want to be apart of that. Bobabobabo ( 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_episodes#Pok.C3.A9mon_Sunday
Is it O.K? Bobabobabo ( 14:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC))
Also was it good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_episodes#Pok.C3.A9mon_Sunday??? Bobabobabo ( 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)~)
Decided to {{ prod}} this, any objections? Combination 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep deleting my entry on General Pepper being linked to Sgt Pepper?? I think it's a valid entry, considering there are pop culture links to other characters, like Independence Day. - Richiekim
Might I ask what are you doing??? -- WIKISCRIPPS 07 THU OCT 12 2006 10:08 PM EDT
What's your problem with the article?
I think the way it's put it's pretty neutral, but I said you could reword if you don't like it.
Removing the entire piece of information is, sorry to say, bogus.
JackSparrow Ninja
02:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Articles which are blatant ads should be deleted on sight; this was recently added to the criteria for speedy deletion. That was a blatant ad. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 02:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but can you explain why you removed my edits? There seems to be no reason why. Chieftain Rosewater 03:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zelda64DD
Look at this user page is it appropriate??? Bobabobabo ( 03:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC))
Your welcome... http://pokeani.com/cbbs/icon/i_pikacyuu_pikadaruma.gif
I am really starting to tire of those merger proposals. And I personally reckon there are many others. Exiledone 10:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, WP:NOT and WP:FICT and WP:WAF all make it clear: plot summary material - material that is nothing more than describing the world or story or setting of a fictional work - is only appropriate when lending context to material about the real world, like critical reception of a work, controversy, the development process, stuff like that. Fictional "facts" that are nothing more than story details are empty calories. If an article is nothing but those empty calories, I try to merge it somewhere where there will be real-world content, so it can lend context to that real-world content. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 10:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Enough AMIB, stop with these fiction purges, RIGHT NOW! Wikipedia is already taking damage from a flamer in another article - Dynamo_ace Talk
Could you please not revert the edits about material plagiarism or at least participate in the discussion about that section?-- Trypsin 12:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You can't have a fair use image on your talk/user page.
Why are users vandalizing my user page?? Bobabobabo ( 16:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC))
User:Bobabobabuckboba. Is there no way to simply block the IP address? Interrobamf 17:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
If having to delete that same image over and over again seems bothersome, why not salt it with {{ deletedpage}}? 17:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[5] Block the girl, already, as it's evident that she doesn't care for rules. Interrobamf 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi AMIB,
First off, thanks for your recent efforts in trying to maintain Wikipedia's policies on the use of Fair Use images. No one ever wants to be the bearer of bad news, so thanks for assuming a difficult position. However, you recently also made this edit on Wikipedia's article on The CW. Removing large amounts of material from TV station articles when you're also removing tons of images will only warrant a poor reaction from the WikiProject TV Station editors. I have reverted this edit for now, because each of the major TV networks contains current national scheduling information, and in fact there are also entire articles devoted to historic TV schedules (1946 to present) which certainly have some historic precedent, which is why they have been retained on Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me for discussion of this issue, or you can of course leave a note on the talk page of the article or on WT:TVS. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please note, I just delisted an entry for you on WP:AIV by User:Dynamo_ace, and left a note on their talk page. You may want to follow up personally. — xaosflux Talk 22:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't using my POV for the game. Many critics found it too short. Unless these sources are very unreliable. Frankyboy5 04:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, these reviewers may be saying that the game was too short for hardcore gamers. According to Nintendo Power issue#202, Takashi Tezuka intentionally made the game easier than others to encourage non-gamerS to play the game. Frankyboy5 03:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're so insistent on removing the image atop FN P90; when another copyrighted image is right below; and other similar articles are rife with them. At least replace it with the free image on the article. It is of much worse quality but it's better than having nothing atop the page. I understand the frustrations with pop culture but that doesn't mean you need to hold that article to a higher standard than others in terms of fair-use of images.-- Mmx1 22:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If your going to remove a picture that doesn't violate the rules (fairuse images most definately do NOT), then you are responsible for posting a replacement. Expend just a little extra effort if you find this issue that important. Alyeska 04:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. I was looking at your Poke-cruft pages at User:A Man In Black/Poketasks and User:A Man In Black/Poketasks/Merge and saw a lot of things that were taken care of, but they were pretty jumbled linkwise with the unfinished parts. So I crossed out all completed items and restructured these pages for you for better organization, complete with comments about how each completed item was completed, so now you should have an easier time prioritizing your Poketasks. Hope this helps. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 17:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You have been asked to participate in a mediation relating to the use images in articles detailing episodes of the Pokémon anime. If you wish to input into discussion, you can do so here, all help is welcomed towards a positive resolution. Cheers, H ig hway Daytrippers 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you look this page over? It looks pretty bad and speculative. Interrobamf 01:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, the Legendary Pokemon page looked fine to me, it's kinda ****ed now... Would you please revert it back?
Hey AMIB,
Question for you: You seem to be an admin who spends the majority of his time working on articles (rather than on purely administrative maintenance tasks), and I recall this comment preferring the former rather than the latter. I've thought intermittently about adminship as a way to help out with maintenance chores from time to time ( WP:AIV, CAT:CSD, and WP:RM can become backlogged), but I'm wondering how easy it is for you to keep a balance. Thanks! — TKD:: Talk 11:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, okay. As for backlogs, they need occupy no more time than you feel like spending on them. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 13:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Since your an admin and all, I was wondering if you would help me deal with a little problem occuring on this page since Wikipedia:AIV won't take the issue into consideration. 71.168.58.119 continually adds false information to the page, most frequently by posting supposed "dub names" for the tarot cards. Since Sartorius' debut episode already aired in the English version, it is already known that "The Fool"'s name was kept the same (though this user is keeps editing it to "The Jester"). By refusing to cooperate following multiple warnings, it is clear that this user has no intention of stopping. So I ask of you to please deal with him/her so the factual integrity of the article can be preserved. Thank you. -- Benten 00:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm very sorry about all that images crap I made you go through all last week http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20061003020148&limit=50&target=Bobabobabo . May you help with the episode summaries on the episode lists? Bobabobabo ( 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC))
Why did you edit all my changes? Metal gear ninty 15:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Your first two criticisms are reasonable however, in a heading titled "critical response" no criticisms were displayed. The point I made(eventhough I personally disagree with it) was what the majority of people think, I can show you various different references if neccesary. Also, my referance was completely relevant; it did not promote MGS2's story and praised MGS3's more simplistic story. Metal gear ninty 15:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The keyword is "initial" eventhough initial response was very positive; how the game has been regarded has deteoreated over the years. My referance was from a MGS3 review, and that reflected my point: "...with it's incessant codec conversations" "it was far from fun to watch a game eat itself" Here is Another example from a gamespy metal gear solid 3 review: "while there are good plot twists, kojima wisely reigns in the high-minded metababble that tarnished MGS2" I'm more then willing to show you more quotes. Metal gear ninty 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but you'll need to find something more than an offhand reference in a review of a different game. Maybe you could scrounge up a retrospective on MGS2 that isn't as glowing as the initial reviews? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 18:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
A retrospective from G4
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty raised the bar even higher for the tactical espionage action genre. The visuals were massively upgraded, and Snake had all kinds of fun new abilities. Yeah, Raiden was kind of hard to get used to and the story got a little wonky at times (i.e. "The La-li-lu-le-lo!"), but you could skip the cutscenes, and we've learned to love that blonde girly man.
Metal gear ninty 18:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I am taliking specifically about the storyline, please be patient and i'll find something better. Metal gear ninty 18:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I did find this from wikipedia's metal gear solid 3 article:Fans, as well as some critics, who also found MGS2's lengthy dialogues and multitude of plot twists detrimental to the game experience[51] found MGS3's storyline a pleasing throwback to the original Metal Gear Solid, with less of the "philosophical babble"[8] present in Sons of Liberty.Besides I don't see why I can't use referances from other rewiews; what's the difference between that and a retrospective? It's still reflecting the reviewers opinion. Metal gear ninty 19:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
But you can't expect me to find a retrospective of a game that isn't even retro. Like I said, I don't know why references from other reviews are inadequete. Anyway, If it was good enough for an article that you yourself edited then why isn't it good enough for this one. Metal gear ninty 19:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
So do you want me to get quotes from actual MGS2 reviews now? Metal gear ninty 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The best I can give you is a reveiw from computerandvideogames.com:
The soap opera of a story can geta bit confusing – and tedious
It's unbeleivable how fickle the media are, they didn't dare to criticise the plot just because of all the hype it was getting. Apart from that I pretty much give up,anyway, thanks for baring with me, i'm off. Metal gear ninty 20:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What would you do with this article? -- Steel 20:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I just wanna tell ya that if you can seriously please leave the one at. Mario. Super Mario Bros. And( The history of computer and video games. I BEG YOU PLEASE LEAVE THEM. I have true proove about those anyway. Just leave them. Milos the man. ( begs for the changes to stay)
It's me again Milos the man.
Man look it IS helpful and like I have no other places to store them I serioulsy do beg you if you can just LEAVE them and move on. And how isn't that helpful now. If people wanted to know what the worlds most popular character is they can see it at Mario when they type it. Man it's the only way to make people see his most popular.
Man please leave them. If you want I won't even make more summaries anymore just leave those okay. PLEEEEEEEEASE. If you are atLEAST leave the Super Mario Bros one. Just god damn it leave it c'mon. I trying to make wikipedia better. If that was not gonna be good at the first place I never would of joined. Man please.
] Err dude that's all the truth I not posting up any opinion I don't even like Super Mario Bros or Mario much Im more of a sports fan and I like Kirby the best. It ain't opinions it's just I have real clear proof that I have in my favoutites.
Now dude just...LEAVE them.
Why does rejected fit better than {{ essay}} or no tag? What is the benefit in making the assumption that the page was formally proposed and formally rejected and then putting {{ rejected}} down? Ansell 12:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue is that there isn't a commonly-accepted definition, and we shouldn't leave a proposal to change current practice (using the nebulously defined term "notability" to deal with issues of importance and noteworthiness) in a place where it will be mistaken for a description of current practice.
Fresh's silly crusade is an effort to write new rules that will let him shoehorn his articles about personal mass transit into Wikipedia. Labelling hopelessly doomed policy efforts to that effect as such will, at the very least, contain him to talk pages nobody cares about, which are unlikely to affect the encyclopedia negatively. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so it is perceived that his articles cannot be entered with current practice about "notability" as there are people who object to the content, however, for the NN page to exist in its current form, using only policies to argue its points, kind of suggests that you can't delete the articles without refering to notability because it actually fulfils the other policies.
That doesn't make sense.
The problem is that this is a proposal to change current practice that doesn't even have majority support and is unlikely to ever have majority support, because the idea that we shouldn't ever worry about importance isn't very popular. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 17:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I made a request you may be interested in. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, hee. The infobox-for-every-incarnation-of-every-character-ever guy was a banned user's sock? I didn't know that. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 17:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hikari, Pochama, Pika-chan <_>
Hello, I'm asking you a question. Their are alot of Yu-Gi-OH/GX images that I/Mitsusama uploaded which are on one page, so should I make seperete pages for the iamges based on their seasons? Bobabobabo ( 19:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC))
I really appreciate your words on my RFA. I've learned a bit from watching you work, and it's nice to read something like that coming from you. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 19:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to clarify my position in regard to the "Amendment To Be" page. I believe it is worthy of its own page, and not simply a redirect, because more information can be given about it than would otherwise be possible. If the same amount of info were added to the "Day The Violence Died", it would take up too much space. Gabeb83 14:37 October 9, 2006.
It's actually True that he can transform either arm. I don't see why you reverted it. Ollie the Magic Skater
Since you requested deletion for the One Peice attacks, I thought you could help out here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Hydromasta231 04:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the link. Sorry to bother you MIB but I'm struggling to reconcile myself with the result of this particular AFD.
In particular: no solid secondary links were found by anyone during the AFD (including me, I was looking for them in the hope of adding another article to my list to tinker with) and almost all if not all keep votes were from contributors who have contributed to that page (sockpuppet/SPA or established Wikipedian alike). Also, the closing comment mentioned an approx. 50/50 split - but isn't that the point of discussing the issue?
I don't want to be munching sour grapes, to start bandying the AFD around the admin-discussion thingmy if I'm wrong in the first place or to relist an AFD in the 'pitch-till-you-win' style, but I'm really struggling to see where the effort went to argue the point when it came down to a 50/50 vote and zero evidence was produced.
I think I'm guilty of introducing a straw-man myself towards the tail-end of the discussion (about charities), but by that point I was extremely concerned about the nature of DT, the way it appeared to be a Lazarus-sanctioned advert (one of the posts on the talk page is signed by a DT forum uber-mod or somesuch nonsense) and the fact that nothing had any cites at all. My skin was crawling.
Sorry to ask this of you, but could you cast an eye over the AFD and give me your opinion of whether or not I'm right to think it isn't a satisfactory result? I have tried to just get on with it and look at it as another article to fix, but exactly the same concerns arise as when I first stumbled across the AFD. If you're busy then tell me to pee-off and I'll look at the admin-consultation AFD-naughty thing (yet another thing to get my head around). Cheers. QuagmireDog 12:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems like you have a difference of opinion about the close. I'd try DRV, but it seems like the best bet would be to wait a few months then try again, with a nom that hammers home that nothing here is verifiable. If you don't bring up any points but verifiability (or hammer home WP:V then bring up aggravating factors) you're probably better off. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serebii.net and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serebii.net (2nd nomination). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 18:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, and for the comparison (good point well made). I needed an opinion before starting to waste peoples' time with the DRV process etc., if it isn't clear-cut then I'm satisfied and will keep an eye on the article instead. QuagmireDog 21:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This User: Interrobamf is continuing vandalizing the Hikari page by removing the Image:PokeDP02.jpg. This image has Pochama (Hikari's first pokemon) in it, which it has some siginifcence in the article. I asked him to stop. He editted the page four times already [1]. Bobabobabo ( 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
A Japanese poster of a movie is not a pointless image ( Bobabobabo 20:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
So. It is a Poster, it should be on the image, the english one is a DVD cover ( Bobabobabo 20:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
Then remove the orphan tags when you actually put the images in articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
User talk:Bobabobabo/works has fair use images again. Interrobamf 12:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't exactly reply on that imnage page...
Anyways a quick google image search shows it's not on that, but it is definitely a promotional image for the game. It may have been taken using a digital camera on an instruction booklet or magazine, which could explain the "screenshot" titling... Logical2u 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Does this image 230px and this image thumb|Sartorius freed from the Light of Ruin|150px does Saiou look the same are their difference? I'm asking this because User: Interrobamf is removing this image claiming its similarities. Are you a Yu-Gi-Oh fan? I am and I can see the difference ( Bobabobabo 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
Awesome, awesome work. Your edits have allowed for expansion of the topic, and I think that's in the spirit of Wikipedia. My heartfelt thanks, especially in the light of our most recent, difficult communications. PT ( s-s-s-s) 21:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Now I admit you and I have had our disagreements in the past, and in recent hours too. My personal feelings aside, there's a thought in the back of my mind that I'd like to bring to your attention. You have said on several occasions you don't watch Yugioh. Do you feel, despite this, that you can make reliable edits to Yugioh related pages with little to no knowledge of the topics? In my own personal opinion, if you don't have at least an average knowledge of the page's topics, your edits will have questionable integrity. Drake
What is your age?? ( Bobabobabo 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
I don't use select words from Japanese; I think it's an annoying habit, and I don't speak Japanese anyway. I have been known to use select words from German, but not so much as my fluency in German is long-decayed from disuse. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you a Pokemon fan? If you are you would be aware of the Pokemon Sunday and Pokemon Hoso. Should we include the live action episodes of Pokemon? Pokemon Research (Pokemon Sunday) and Pokemon Rating (Pokemon Hoso) episodes?
Examples: 週刊ポケモン放送局
ポケモン☆サンデー
Peripherally aware. I don't know enough about them to comment, and I can't read Japanese script. I'd ask over at WP:PCP. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
What is your problem? If you read the rules, you will see that fair use pics are OK until they can be replaced by free pics. Please stop vandalizing the page. TJ Spyke 22:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, anything under WP:ICT#Free licenses will be good. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 00:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to gain a better understanding of fair use rational. To further that effort, can you expand on your reason for this [2] edit? CovenantD 01:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I do not like 207.218.218.50's vandalism on the talk page, I do think the logo gallery for KRIV-TV should stay there. First, those images do have a purpose. They show the history of KRIV-TV. Second, every other major TV station has them. Just check some and you're bound to find some. As for the source info, they are obviously screenshots of a TV, probably taken with a computer hooked up to a VHS. Does the exact source really matter? I don't think so. - Some Person 03:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'd better get started, then. I'll get ed g2s ( talk · contribs)'s help. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 04:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think you should have alerted the Wikipedia television community of your intentions to remove the logo galleries from these articles, and see what the general feeling was among us BEFORE you went ahead and started removing them? Rollosmokes 22:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I've replied at WP:TVS. I think centralizing this discussion would be best. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 09:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I can only assume that your intentions are ment well but like I have stated all over wikipedia these images are allowed under Fair use. They have been stated as such many times and you still keep on reverting back to a page that for one thing has an incorrect image added to it that I keep on having to remove. One can use images of items not currently avalable and of images that are not found publicly or easily. There is a place that one should go to help wikipedia to upload free images and that is {{ Template:Fair use replace}}. Please also undelete the images mantioned earlier in the past conversation I want to be on the phone with the Bose rep and show them the images I am requesting for use. I have come back only 1 day to wikipedia I left a few months ago because of people bashing this particular page because they dont like Bose. Please dont Harass this page because this is the only reason I contribute to wikipedia. -- UKPhoenix79 05:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Show Bose an old version of the page. Do not under any circumstances replace fair-use images on that page until you've managed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of users other than yourself that a reasonable fair-use rationale can be written. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 19:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Show them an older version from the history. We wouldn't be using the dancing people images for anything anyway.
And, no, I'm not going to apologize for blocking you when you reverted nine times to readd copyvio images over objections on four different pages from three different users. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 02:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No. I'm not. Nine reverts to replace copyvio content are not appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 03:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not convey misinformation in a proposal for deletion. It's fine that you made the deletion proposal, but it's a blatant lie that the only sources are "the author's site and a speed-run archive he submitted it to". First off, "the author's site" is the largest and most notable tool-assisted speedrun site. It was submitted for inclusion via the normal means and was accepted with 69 yes votes to 2 no/indifference votes. Secondly, the author himself did not submit it to that "speedrun site" (which is really the Internet Archive); this was done by a member of the community, independently. I find it terrible that you are able to list something for deletion without even knowing the most basic of information about it. You also listed Image:Megaman1610 fireman.ogg for deletion before; you didn't even bother to download the file before doing so. Do not propose deletions without first getting your facts straight. This is related to your activities on Wikipedia as a whole, not just to my article which you listed for deletion. — msikma < user_talk:msikma> 18:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Since nobody else cares about pointless articles about characters in an obscure cartoon film, I have to ask for your opinion in Talk:Madame Medusa. Specifically, [4]. I have kept requsting for sources, but to no avail, and the user is under the impression that Wikipedia policy is on his side, that it's perfectly okay to list "possiblities". Mostly, I'm just tired of fighting a one-man war on this article. Interrobamf 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I have started the first 52 episodes of THe Pokemon Sunday. I hope you think its professional. Also how do be apart of the Pokémon Collaborative Project, because I want to be apart of that. Bobabobabo ( 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_episodes#Pok.C3.A9mon_Sunday
Is it O.K? Bobabobabo ( 14:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC))
Also was it good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_episodes#Pok.C3.A9mon_Sunday??? Bobabobabo ( 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)~)
Decided to {{ prod}} this, any objections? Combination 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep deleting my entry on General Pepper being linked to Sgt Pepper?? I think it's a valid entry, considering there are pop culture links to other characters, like Independence Day. - Richiekim
Might I ask what are you doing??? -- WIKISCRIPPS 07 THU OCT 12 2006 10:08 PM EDT
What's your problem with the article?
I think the way it's put it's pretty neutral, but I said you could reword if you don't like it.
Removing the entire piece of information is, sorry to say, bogus.
JackSparrow Ninja
02:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Articles which are blatant ads should be deleted on sight; this was recently added to the criteria for speedy deletion. That was a blatant ad. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 02:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but can you explain why you removed my edits? There seems to be no reason why. Chieftain Rosewater 03:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zelda64DD
Look at this user page is it appropriate??? Bobabobabo ( 03:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC))
Your welcome... http://pokeani.com/cbbs/icon/i_pikacyuu_pikadaruma.gif
I am really starting to tire of those merger proposals. And I personally reckon there are many others. Exiledone 10:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, WP:NOT and WP:FICT and WP:WAF all make it clear: plot summary material - material that is nothing more than describing the world or story or setting of a fictional work - is only appropriate when lending context to material about the real world, like critical reception of a work, controversy, the development process, stuff like that. Fictional "facts" that are nothing more than story details are empty calories. If an article is nothing but those empty calories, I try to merge it somewhere where there will be real-world content, so it can lend context to that real-world content. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 10:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Enough AMIB, stop with these fiction purges, RIGHT NOW! Wikipedia is already taking damage from a flamer in another article - Dynamo_ace Talk
Could you please not revert the edits about material plagiarism or at least participate in the discussion about that section?-- Trypsin 12:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You can't have a fair use image on your talk/user page.
Why are users vandalizing my user page?? Bobabobabo ( 16:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC))
User:Bobabobabuckboba. Is there no way to simply block the IP address? Interrobamf 17:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
If having to delete that same image over and over again seems bothersome, why not salt it with {{ deletedpage}}? 17:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[5] Block the girl, already, as it's evident that she doesn't care for rules. Interrobamf 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi AMIB,
First off, thanks for your recent efforts in trying to maintain Wikipedia's policies on the use of Fair Use images. No one ever wants to be the bearer of bad news, so thanks for assuming a difficult position. However, you recently also made this edit on Wikipedia's article on The CW. Removing large amounts of material from TV station articles when you're also removing tons of images will only warrant a poor reaction from the WikiProject TV Station editors. I have reverted this edit for now, because each of the major TV networks contains current national scheduling information, and in fact there are also entire articles devoted to historic TV schedules (1946 to present) which certainly have some historic precedent, which is why they have been retained on Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me for discussion of this issue, or you can of course leave a note on the talk page of the article or on WT:TVS. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please note, I just delisted an entry for you on WP:AIV by User:Dynamo_ace, and left a note on their talk page. You may want to follow up personally. — xaosflux Talk 22:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)