Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:27, 3 June 2007

It wasn't this argument, or this argument. Arguments only draw me in, not drive me away.

I just don't care any more.

Future Sight Notable Cards

I realize that content on Misplaced Pages is supposed to be sourced by "reliable" sources, however, it is nigh impossible to find such sources for notable Magic cards. I have replaced the cards on the list that DO have sources (almost all of them from MTG.com, about as reliable as you can get for this stuff) and believe that removing this part of the list is tantamount to vandalism (I will report it as such, should you find it nessecary to remove the section again). If you still feel that the list is not up to your standards, try improving it instead of deleting it. That said, happy editing. --Lifebaka 23:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Try the discussion at WP:MTG, where three months ago I asked for independent, reliable sources and none were forthcoming. (BTW, the promotional website of the publisher of the game is about as far from independent as possible.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Much as I dislike it, I can't fault your reasoning there (besides, WP policy is in your favor). I'll be keeping all of Time Spiral block and Lorwyn block at least clean of unsourced notable cards, but I won't remove any sourced cards from the lists. I'm gonna' leave that one to you, and won't try to undo any of that. --Lifebaka 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiberium

Would you please help the article by rewording the current work to an encyclopedic article instead of reverting the article which serves nothing. -- Warfreak 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of wording. It's a matter of content and sources; that entire section is original synthesis based on playing the games, with an eye on describing a fictional universe to the exclusion of our own. Deleting it is fixing it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You fail to listen to other users, because if you do, a combination of the to is far more informative than your little article alone. I fail to see how this reverting is helping anyone. Anyone except yourself probably. -- Warfreak 22:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Piling unsourced original research written in a way that takes a fictional universe as real makes for an entertaining fanpage, but a poor encyclopedia article. I suggest doing this sort of writing on Encyclopedia Gamia, where it is welcomed, instead of Misplaced Pages, where it is barely tolerated until deleted or completely rewritten. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have written a third opinion on this issue, to help solve the dispute. It can be found here --User:Krator (t c) 00:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Muslim athletes

Ignore me if you already knew this, but if you want to salt an article so that it stays a redlink (but can only be recreated by an admin), you can list in this month's list at Misplaced Pages:Protected titles. WjBscribe 01:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Knew you couldn't stay away

Welcome back. I knew that, eventually, the fact that nobody else was editing like you do would force you to return. You believe so strongly that what you're doing is right that seeing people work on the articles differently (or not work on them, in the case of the Magic ones which, from my view, are already being reverted) irritates you to no end.

I am a little upset you returned when you did, because I had 10 bucks on the fact that you'd make it to July. :) Scumbag 02:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay! You are back! :-D Miranda 00:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Need Help

I know you are an administrator, and I need help with an image. I have no idea how to upload images with the copyright data, etc, so I was wondering how I would go about upload this omage (http://www.starcraft2.com/art.xml?16). If you cannot help me, please tell me who can. The Clawed One 00:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we're stealing images from the Starcraft 2 website. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, on the Zeratul page (Zeratul being the being depicted in the link), currently, an outdated picture is being used, and I would like to use an up-to-date one, seeing as how the current one if a decade old from '98. Also, if it helps with discerning the copyright data, there is a wallpaper download of the same image. If that means it is fair-use or not I am not sure. The Clawed One 00:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The image on the Zeratul page reflects the multiple million-selling game in which he appears, instead of the unreleased and far-off game in which promotional materials imply that he might. Why not use the far more recognizable image? Why is newer better? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best to use the most up-to-date photograph of any person? And even then, it should still be noted (and demonstrated) in the article that his appearance differs greatly between the two games. The Clawed One 00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a person, it's a character. This is important to bear in mind; the dominant depiction, not the most recent one, should be used. (For example, Spider-Man retained the red-and-blue costume in the lead image despite the occasional temporary appearance change.)

Additionally, the image you linked isn't a promotional image; it's just a picture ripped off the official site. That's not okay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the official site alright, believe me, you go the Blizzard page, go the SCII site link, it takes you there.

Also, that's different, if Spiderman went AWOL in comics for ten years then showed up with an entirely different costume, wouldn't it be important to show both? I see exactly that on his page. Look, if you don't want to help me, just say so. The Clawed One 00:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got help. If I couldn't upload the image at all, you should have just told me that. The Clawed One 00:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you add all those tags? The article makes it clear he is fictional, I looked at the Misplaced Pages policies on such. Also, there are several references. The overly-long plot summary tag is the only appropriate one. The Clawed One 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• The lead is the only place Zeratul is treated as a fictional character; the rest of the article is largely "History of the StarCraft Universe."
• The references are all the games themselves or Blizzard summarizing their own games, which are generally insufficient due to a lack of objectivity or distance from the subject.
• The original research is the originaly synthesis; this is the StarCraft storyline, edited to cover points important to a specific character (without any sources to show importance in general).
• The overly lengthy plot summary is the entire article; there are two factual claims (Zeratul is a character in StarCraft, Gamespot said such-and-such about it) and the rest is recapping SC's plot in explicit detail.

Each tag explained. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Welcome back and all, but the TV pages have been just fine in your absence...and have been just fine with me taking care of them....especially KXGN. Now, a brand spanking new schedule is up (for the week of June 4), for which I will update weekly. References... Trust me, there are plenty of people who have the TV stations section well taken care of. - NeutralHomer 21:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)