Hello there. If you're going to leave me a comment (or yell at me, which is seeming increasingly common lately), please start a new header at the bottom of the page (or add to an old one), and sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of them.
If you're here about a specific page, be it an article, talk page, user talk page, AFD page, or whatever, PLEASE LINK THAT PAGE. Odds are I'm going to have to check back to it anyway to reply, and more than once someone has left a comment about an unspecified page and gotten no help from me because I had no idea what they were talking about.
LINK THE PAGE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IF YOU'RE COMING HERE TO REPLY TO A COMMENT I MADE ON ANOTHER PAGE, STOP, GO BACK TO THAT PAGE, AND REPLY THERE. For example, if I made a comment on your talk page and expect a reply, your talk page is on my watchlist. I'm not interested in starting parallel discussions on my talk page.
I wanted to thank you for helping with the SOCOM II article. I was prevented from editing on the article again, and that guy kept on adding OR. Thank you!
Actually, Lets put some truth on the Socom II Subject.
This guy, right above me went bouncing from moderator to moderator to get his way. They ended up talking to me and thought I was correct. So he obviously kept on going until he could find someone to do his bidding for him. Law of averages/large numbers, you know?
Anyways, here is the REAL deal on that article and on the topic. This guy is involved in one of the later cheat devices made for this game.
He is completely unhappy that he is not the first cheat device, or the best cheat device, or whatever he wants reality to be for him. So in his quest, he gets you guys to delete the true, relevant information. Now even though even his is no longer listed on the topic, he can still tell people that he made "The First, The Best and the Only Cheat Device that would work online for the Playstation 2 or Socom Game Series". Then if people go to look it up on Wiki, there is nothing there.
Please understand that I have sources and proof for the information I posted on the topic.
Also understand that these devices were invented FOR the Socom series, mainly Socom II, and they spread from that point forward.
They are of major historical importance to home console gaming.
Also, other information on the article, that I had nothing to do with writing whatsoever, was informative and followed Wikipedia's guidelines.
I don't understand this type of malicious editing. It seems that whoever gets to you first, has more "wiki-friends", or spends there entire day on this site, somehow has more "wiki-clout" and gets their way. What about just looking at the situation and judging it fairly? Maybe offering ways to fix the submissions. If there was anything wrong with my submissions, I have no problem at all at hearing about what needs to be corrected, so I could learn exactly how to post content on the site properly. Cached Entity (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't play SOCOM anymore. I don't even know what online cheat devices, nor do I care. You just assume what you want so you can advertise your cheat device. SOCOM II is not your advertisement, and considering that the damn Video game project reviews that article and pretty much pwne dit, they agreed. This is not an advertising site. This is an encyclopedia. You love the unsourced information and OR. this is not the site for that.
So, before you try passing off your fucking conspiracy theories, use your brain.
- Shane
Hey dumb dumb, Can you please show me an advertisement? ANYWHERE, in ANYTHING. If you want to use that tactic to remove content you do not like, then technically, the entire article is an advertisement for Socom II, or the Sony Playstation. On top of that, I personally have nothing to do with Code Majic. Code Majic is also NOT FOR SALE. Can you read that? Code Majic is NOT FOR SALE, maybe that will help you. However, Socom 2 IS for sale! OH NOS BAN TA ARTICAL!!! :rolleyes: Cached Entity (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I removed from the SOCOM 2 article was unsourced, mostly game-guide, and highly opinionated.
If you two want to fight, don't do it on my talk page. CE, I don't intend to address baseless and rather idiotic accusations. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how you look down on people and insult their intelligence on every post where someone has a legitimate issue with things that were deleted that should not have been deleted.
Lets make this clear, "We" were not fighting. I have nothing to do with the guy. My post has been there WAY before he came along and defaced it. He wants to be given credit for something he had nothing to do with.
MY content was/is sourced. There is also plenty of video and images to back it up. There are well over 100,000 people that have downloaded the final version of "Code Majic", and "Code Majic" even had it's own team of people working within Sony to help find ways around the device. The device is well known.
As far as your insult on my intelligence, the basis of my statements or arguments, or "Idiotic accusations", I didn't see anyone make any "Idiotic Accusations". Be kind and point one out for me.
Just for future reference, "unsourced" is not a word. You might want to make note of that.
Maybe you need to learn how to deal with things by being polite and kind but firm, however you are not going to intimidate me, as you really have no power over someone on a site like this. Can you ban this name? Sure you can. I.P.s can be changed and things can be done. Obviously it has already escaped you that it is an anagram in the first place.
As far as addressing the insulting of everyone's intelligence, I don't feel I need to do that directly, as it has already been dealt with in my previous statement.
How about some adult cooperation, instead of a bunch of childish banter.
(BTW, this post has been saved via FireFox "ScrapBook".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cached Entity (talk • contribs) 06:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listen man, I don't even want to talk to this guy. I came here to talk to you to begin with. I have tried talking to him, and he is just a power hungry freak. So I am here to talk to you, to deal with the situation, I will no longer respond to him and his comments on your page, period. Cached Entity (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced is a word. It is that which is not sourced. I'm sorry you've had a rough time in your introduction to Wikipedia, but accusing me of colluding with people isn't going to make it any smoother. I suggest reading WP:V to get an idea of how we source factual claims on Wikipedia.
By the by, I don't recall threatening you. I haven't blocked anyone in over a year. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I for one, was not talking to you about threatening me, I was talking about his attitude(This is one reason I said I will no longer talk to him or respond to him on this page.). Second off, "unsourced" is not a word, instead of assuming things, try looking it up. I DO know what is considered a source. Therefore, my source was correct and acceptable. I am not sure exactly what you are reading differently then I am. Cached Entity (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Code-Majic-Info-Sourced.pngCodeMajic Info Source @ TheCyndicate.com No, that would be YOU, being an IDIOT. Let me help you out, I will give you both a screen-print of the page, but I will paste the text as well.
So here is the image & here is the text,
Code Majic
The same unsourced faff pasted on my talk page removed for my sanity
Why did you redirect this page only a month after an AfD was closed with a "keep" result without prior discussion? Yes, the article is a mess. However, I do not feel that it was appropriate to delete this article without any discussion. I have put the article back in place, in all of its lack of glory, for however much it matters. I feel that this warrants further discussion before making a decision on your own about the article. Λύκος 04:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because honestly man, this guy likes to go around and destroy work related to Sony and the Playstation section. You know, the Socom II section had a section about Code Majic in it. The people that made "Code Majic" went on to make the first PSP Homebrew cheat device as well. It seems that this guy goes around attacking Playstation information. Maybe we could contact some SCEA people, get Wikipedia blocked from the PSP and PS3 browsers because of their abusive stance on Sony products. These people are obviously Microsoft FanBoys or something. This is supposed to be about legit, true information, NOT popularity. Cached Entity (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without drastic action, nothing will happen. I went to stub it because it was awful, and it ended up being exactly the same as the stub description in the PSP article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the talk page before doing that? In the last day I removed inappropriate sources and found 7 reliable sources which discuss the subject at length, as well as discussing how to rewrite the article. As it is apparent that more than one editor disagreed with your redirection and there was just an AFD discussion about this article perhaps you should have joined the discussion instead of trying to force the redirection through.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw them after redirecting, but we'd still be better off starting building it as a subsection in the PSP article until we have sufficient sourced info to justify a split. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stub on main psp article is hardly any better. Forums, self-hosted images and websites all fail WP:V (I'm in the process of seeing if the 7 sources I've found can source that paragraph but those unreliable sources are being removed)--221.143.25.19 (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This needs far more than a trim. Little of the current content can be sourced beyond self-hosted websites, forums and blogs all of which fail WP:V. The fact of the matter is that reliable sources don't tend to cover scene releases of hacked firmwares. So while some people may have envisioned this article as a repository of everything that is ever known about every single iteration of hacked firmware for the PSP, the reliable sources won't support that.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you said it required drastic action. I took that drastic action and I'd welcome your comments.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is degrading, derogatory and insulting personal attacks not against the rules here at Wikipedia? I thought making negative personal attacks on a living person was causing MANY legal issues with Wikipedia, therefore it became a rule NOT to do it. Last time I checked, I AM alive. Cached Entity (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't even aware the page had been blanked (I saw my edit on the page and thought everything was alright). Thanks for the revert. -Jéské(v^_^vMrrph-mph!) 07:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey MIB, I've suggested to Le Grand Roi that we ask for editor assistance to get new opinions and, hopefully, a consensus. Otherwise this will probably fizzle out to a default keep for lack of a clear consensus. You OK with that? ReykYO! 04:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity who asked you to protect the page
Out of curiosity who asked you to protect the Rescue page? Inclusionist (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw an edit war, I intervened. I don't watch the request for protection page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK buddy you got me in a knot seems as though I can't prove to you anything regarding Madonna or Honey the cat yet it's there...
I know they exist! I know they do! But all the sources or evidence or proof I find doesn't fit into anything... according to you...
So I'm asking you cause you seem to know the wiki like a book inside out please help me find something to prove they exist without having a steel chair hit my head...
Seriously I don't know what to do... Wolly da wanderer (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I knew where to go I'd just do it. A frustrating truth about Wikipedia is that you can know for a fact that something is true, yet lack the decent sources to prove it is so. I don't doubt that this character was in the game at some point, but we lack the sources to make the claim. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking etc
Just a quick q, since you seem a lot more familiar with the whole admin side of things than I am. Im having some issues with a random IP on Floorball reverting my reverts of his external links. I was reminded of your work on Leeroy Jenkins, and thought you might know how to get him blocked? He hasnt violated 3RR yet, unfortunately, so Im not really sure what to do. Thanks. Metao (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that you cant do it. I was more hoping for a link to how to make it happen... If you can't help, thats fine. Metao (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean't since it had been built up with new out-of-world info. It has since became on of the best Sonic characters articles. If you have any issues still you know where to discuss them.Super Badnik —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Look, don't just add it back on unless you give some good reason why you still think Rouge should be merged. No one has objected to it being taken of the merge list, if you read the article you will see that we have made some major improvments: It now has a mechandise section, a development section, a more detailed voice actor section, reception and shortened the In other media Section so it has alot less in-world info, it's now alot better than Shadow's, Amys's and Knuckles' articles. If you or no one else says anything about this again soon i'll take the merge back off.Super Badnik —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
The discussion is not closed. Do not remove that tag while the discussion is ongoing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)
10:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Then go to that discussion and say why this should still be open for debate, as you seem to be the only one at this time that is still intrested in merging her.Super Badnik
Kuro and RobJ have both said that they want to give the article a little time and work before deciding how they feel about merging it. I feel similarly. Have some patience, and let them take the time to do that work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one seems to be arqueing for the merge or suggesting how the article could be imporved further. Unless we have some kind of new discussions on this soon i'll move to get rid of the merge, as the article really dosen't need to be merged now. If you want to reply to me please do so one my talk page and if you really want to keep arqueing against this merge you know where to do that.Super Badnik —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Hey, not that I disagree with what you're doing on "Future Stock", quite the contrary actually, but perhaps you could try copying the info to the talk page and explaining what needs to happen for it to be put back in the article? I've met with some success doing that on the other Futurama episode articles. If you like you could also link to the relevant discussion at the Wikiproject Futurama talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama#A new proposal for episode articles I only bring it up because I'm tired of watching the back and forth without any progress. I guess I could try to explain it to JQF on his talk but it would be easier if the discussion was on the article talk page. Just my 2 cents, you're welcome to completely ignore me if you prefer. Happy editing. Stardust8212 01:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. If I get involved, it's going to become a giant project, and I just don't have the energy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd throw it out there since the two of you reverting each other was going nowhere pretty quickly. I understand not really wanting to get involved in it, best of luck! Stardust8212 00:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove the {{rescue}} tag, it's unhelpful and unneeded as it will be removed when the AfD is complete within a few days. Banjeboi 10:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may have been a mistake then. There is currently a lengthy discussion about removing the tag from articles people feel it shouldn't have been added to. Banjeboi 11:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why must you cut everything
During your complete demolition of the Buffy episode articles, you axed everything without a source, yet left the Nazi section of Witch (Buffy episode) intact with the "This article does not cite any references or sources." template above it. Why not just put that template on the top of the page, leave the rest of it intact, and let the rest of us come up with the sources, because, once someone comes through and cuts out everything, it is extremely difficult and time consuming to put everything back, even if we have the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdom2 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article (any many like it) were tagged for months and months with no action taken but removing the tags. At some point, you have to take a careful look at the stuff someone heard somewhere and eliminate all of the unreferenced dross. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about "stuff someone heard somewhere"?Kingdom2 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The general "This is true, you gotta believe me!" sort of original research. For example, your insistence that by watching an episode and reading an issue of a comic, I'll come to the same conclusion as you that a certain character is Very Important. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are asking for is something that cannot be referenced but is incredibly obvious to anyone who takes the time to look at any buffy related website, primary source, or the thousands of wikipedia articles that say the same thing. Oh, and if it was the word "important" that was the issue, why did you not just remove that word rather than the whole bullet, leaving it simply saying "This episode marks so and so's first appearance". Finesse is far more helpful than blanket deletion.
If it's incredibly obvious, a reliable source will have mentioned it. If it isn't, it wasn't important enough to be worth mentioning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer the second part of my question.Kingdom2 (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's worth noting, a reliable source will have mentioned it. If it isn't, it wasn't important enough to be worth mentioning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still did not answer it, and that link you put up says that primary sources can be used in a purely descriptive sense, which is exactly like the situation that I described.Kingdom2 (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a trivial fact that can be noted in context in the plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is that it serves as a quick bullet reference so that the reader does not have to go through the whole summary to find an important fact from it.Kingdom2 (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first appearance of a major recurring character in a tv series is generally considered important.Kingdom2 (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't using weasel words, I was being sarcastic. Of course the first appearance of a major recurring character in a tv series is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdom2 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, now your being difficult. I'm not talking in "wikipedia-everything-needs-a-reference" speak. It should be worth noting in the episode article if it is the first appearance of a recurring character that spans over multiple episodes and seasons, it's just how it is. And by the way, how exacly is it that you manage to butcher more episode articles while keeping up this conversation?Kingdom2 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You want to make an evaluative claim. Find a reference.
Seeing this article reminded me what a dreadful state episode articles in general are in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then fix them yourself! Don't just delete everything tons of other wikipedians have worked hard on, and by the way, that was not an evaluative claim, it was a statement of fact that does not analyze anything. Also, for some reason I get the feeling that, had I not antagonized you, you would not be working over as many Buffy episode articles.Kingdom2 (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that so many people put so much effort into writing so much material that violates Wikipedia's policies of WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF, but the fact remains that it needs to be cleaned up.
Your edits were a reminder that these articles were in dire need of cleanup, but not the reason for the cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where I'm at it is 5:30 in the morning and talking to you is giving me a headache. I'm going to bed.Kingdom2 (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have axed dozens of articles, including Battle of Klendathu, Battle of Sector 001, List of Space Marine Chapters, and Fall of London (War of the Worlds), with nothing on the talk pages. Not only that, but you have made no effort to move the articles in condensed form to what you consider an appropriate page, nor have you tried to make them better. Wikipedia is not about removing everything that's not right. Editors should modify articles in constructive ways to make them better, so that the information is still there. In many cases, you were right to make a redirect. The reason I protest is that you don't put the articles into the page you redirect them to. If you place a condensed version of the article into the one you redirect to, and make a note of it on talk pages, you won't end up in more revert wars.
Furthermore, you should try adding to articles. Modify them somehow. Don't just remove what you consider inappropriate content. A quick look at your contributions shows that the vast majority of your recent edits are removals of content. How about a change of pace? Instead of undoing what's been done, try to make it better, while keeping the good content. I'm starting to get redundant, but I can't say it enough, Wikipedia is about making it better. Tealwisp 07:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The thing that I always thought was weirdest about the Federation in Star Trek was that if everyone had the freedom to do as they wished for a living, it would be exceedingly unlikely that there would be enough garbage collectors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you have redundant or wholly excessive content, the only thing you can do with it is to redirect it to somewhere appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you made an error in closing this AfD as a speedy delete. The press coverage of the tour, not to mention its place in current pop culture, should have resulted in a keep, not a delete. --Winger84 (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it had been previously deleted, and nobody had resolved the issues from the previous AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it had previously been deleted when a new AfD shows that the current consensus is lacking for it to stay deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People were talking about potential to improve the article. That's all well and good, but in the meantime, we had an unreferenced article written in promotional tone when we already had an overwhelming AFD that deleted it.
Again, no prejudice against a better article, but making a WORSE article than the one which was previously deleted means it's G4 time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting it eliminates the basis of what can be improved upon. It is good to have the skeleton to put the muscle on rather than removing the skeleton and saying start over. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested in rehashing the AFD a third time on my user talk. If you'd like the article in your userspace, I can do that. If you're going to go to DRV, let me know. Otherwise, we have little to discuss. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if someone else takes it to DRV, but if nothing else you have given me a new argument and precedent to use, because if an article in a second AFD that had no consensus can be speedy deleted because the earlier AfD closed as delete then a renomination of articles for which earlier AfDs closed as keep must also be closed as keep regardless of whatever consensus is in the current discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 11:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus to delete in the AfD and your action was improper. The past AfD is superseded by the more recent one and is therefore irrelevant. Please reverse. Everyking (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just like it's improper to keep AFDing something until it's deleted, it's improper to keep recreating an article until it passes an AFD. Would you like a userfied version to properly source and then move back to articlespace? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am only doing what you seemed to approve of at Arathi. I am clearly not persuading anyone that the Warhammer stuff is notable, so, why not begin writing the article on the topic that is notable? Why shouldn't we consider all possibilities? Why would you or anyone possibly be opposed to trying to write an encyclopedic article that has actually been covered in reliable secondary sources? If you want to cut the Warhammer stuff from the article, go ahead, but how it could it possibly be a bad thing to at this point just go ahead and start writing the other article? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
