User:Jtrainor/Talk:Gundam Mk-II

By following the links, I finally discovered that this article concerns an anime series. Could someone who has the relevant knowledge add the requisite information? As it stands, the article reads like a drug-inspired (and semi-literate) ramble. I'll correct the literacy part, but I'm not qualified to do the rest. If no-one can do that, would it be best for the article to be deleted? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, and it should probably be part of a larger article, instead of a separate page. Not qualified for such things either alas (or luckily, depending on how you see these things). --fvw * 22:59, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Oops — tildes now doubled. We'll just have to wait for a Wikipedian fan, I suppose. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd have it fixed when I have the time... I created the references for the other mobile suits in the same anime series Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam (such as the MSZ-006 Zeta Gundam and MSN-00100 Hyaku Shiki). Please don't have it deleted. Thanks! -- Paolo Alexis Falcone 08:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This page should be called the 'RX-178 Gundam Mark-II', not Mk-II.

Inspiration in Car design

I know that the Mk-II have inspired a car design in real life, the car designer even took the time to draw a Mk-II next to the concept design notes and the notes is currently somewhere online. Anyone can get a hold of those and upload it as a source to prove the cultural significance of the unit? MythSearcher^talk 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would certainly go leaps and bounds to establishing further notability of the Mk. II. As a main Gundam unit I doubt it's in any danger of a WP:NOTE ruckus, but hey, the more the merrier. MalikCarr 10:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

~~::The problem here would be that picture I saw was at least 4~5 years old(that is when I saw it) and is extremely hard to find. MythSearcher^talk 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)~~

Somebody I know got a copy. Image:VX2.jpg MythSearcher^talk 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Cultural significance"? Bah, still sounds like it's pandering to deletionists... nevertheless, I guess that's a valid strategy, so I'm stuck with it for the time being. >_> MalikCarr 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, way back into the first mass deletion act for the CE Mobile weapons(when WP:GUNDAM was formed and WP:CE became a sub link) there is this deletionist who keep bashing about cultural significance is required to keep an article. Although this is not necessary for wikipedia's standards no matter how deletionists try to twist thw words, I have decided we should always take a step ahead and meet their requirements to shut their mouths so we do not have to explain to them that they are twisting the policies. MythSearcher^talk 06:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

War expands

Seems AMIB wants to continue the war on basically every Gundam article I've significantly contributed too. I ought to make like that other anonymous vandal and get some new accounts, this one seems to be a magnet for unwanted attention and edit warring... MalikCarr 00:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

MalikCarr, I must say, insisting the edit war is not something really helpful, placing them as plot sections have been done in a lot of fiction related articles and are commonly well accepted and are less stupid sounding than overly exerting out-of-universe stuff inside the paragraphs. MythSearcher^talk 05:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ConanmkII.jpg

Image:ConanmkII.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: "spelling and header fixes", WP:WAF

So, on a whim, I decided I'd actually thoroughly digest the policies A Man In Black keeps citing to keep up his revert warring. See, here's what amuses me about the whole thing. There's nothing in Infobox and Succession boxes to substantiate this change - A Man In Black has decided that armaments of a fictional war machine are trivia, thus unnecessary under the policy. Additionally, I haven't found anything pertinent to the so-called "header fixes" in any policy or the manual of style/writing good articles guide, and reviewing the revert history, have not found any spelling errors either.

Shockingly, it would seem that we're looking purely at a content dispute, as I have always claimed it to be. MalikCarr (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, WP:MOS is really poorly laid out recently. It used to make it a lot clearer to not link things in section headers, but it's buried under WP:MOS#Article titles. Don't link things in section headers, don't remove cleanup tags in articles without doing anything about them, and infoboxes about fictional entities should avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it was hidden in there. Very well, I'll remove the links in the headers. As for the rest, no dice - your cleanup tags are disputed by just about everyone except GundamsRus, and the weapons are only mentioned in supplementals? It is to laugh. MalikCarr (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Just about everyone" is...you and Jtrainor. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Except L-Zwei and Mythsearcher, of course. They don't count. MalikCarr (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you link to where L-Zwei or Mythsearcher have said, "Oh, no, we don't need to write in an out-of-universe fashion in Gundam articles, they're an exception"? I'm not seeing it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They contribute to this article, add sourced content and try to help make it better. You'll note, these edits do not include blanket reverting my edits. If Jtrainor and I were the only editors who supported this version, wouldn't they be reverting to yours? MalikCarr (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

L-Zwei probably didn't look past the infobox, since he reverted a ton of header fixes and new cleanup tags without commenting on them. It's an easy mistake to make. Can you find him ever saying that the articles don't need to be sourced and don't need to be well-organized and don't need to be written from an out-of-universe perspective? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked and I see OR tag in section with several ref. May be bad excuse but that's what make me decide to revert. For WAF, it note that infobox shouldn't include info that doesn't help reader to understand subject. And as I said, as fictional weapon, method to dispose enemy is important character of weapon. L-Zwei (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh! The OR tag is just for the following paragraph, which was previously its own section.

That section claims that such-and-such appearance is the first appearance. The cited reference doesn't claim that this is the first appearance and doesn't claim that the appearance "sparked significant interest in the then-fledgling North American fan community". However, it is an archive of a fan mailing list on a fanpage. That is vastly insufficient sourcing. I could've slapped four {{fact}} tags and a {{rs}} tag on that paragraph alone, but I figured that'd be annoying. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Fact: Zeta Gundam was not officially available in North American distribution until 2004.

2. Fact: The Mk. II appeared on the Conan O'Brien show in 2000.

3. Fact: The Gundam Mailing List was the single largest online fan community in existence during those days that can still be referenced.

No information is unsourced in that paragraph. I apologize for not being able to find a reference in TV Guide (is that a reliable enough source for you, anyway?) from seven years ago about the appearance of the Mk. II (assuming one even exists) - an image and the above facts was the best evidence I could provide. If stating the above is original research, I'm really not sure how I could begin to make note of the article's cultural significance in that regard.

Of course, you could be proactive for a change and actually try to improve an article instead of sticking a template in every section and letting it collect dust, but that would just ruin the moment, yeah? MalikCarr (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeta Gundam was not officially available in North American distribution until 2004.^{[citation needed]}

The Mk. II appeared on the Conan O'Brien show in 2000.^{[citation needed]}

As for #3, being a really big fan community doesn't make it a reliable source. I would suggest reading WP:ATT, WP:RS, and WP:V for a bit of understanding what a reliable source is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeta Gundam was released in North America in 2004. You can read this on the GundamOfficial page, which has been handily linked at the bottom of the page.

The image is right there, what more do you want?

The claim is that there was interest in the fan community. I have demonstrated interest in the fan community. Claim proven. MalikCarr (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under some misapprehension that I think these claims are wrong. Allow me to emphasize the problem.

THE FACTUAL CLAIMS IN THESE ARTICLES NEED TO BE CITED TO RELIABLE THIRD-PARTY SOURCES THAT ARE NOT THEMSELVES THE SUBJECT.

You have demonstrated one person's interest in the subject. Not "community interest". You have inferred that this sparked interest in the community from this post, presuming that interest did not previously exist and that this was the first widespread appearance of this design in American media. Again, emphasis:

THIS ISN'T JUST ORIGINAL RESEARCH, IT'S BAD RESEARCH.

Please, please, please, please, PLEASE do NOT make evaluative claims without a source that also makes those evaluative claims! That's what WP:V and WP:OR and WP:NPOV mean. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, after the page is unprotected I'll discard the reference to "fan community" and refer to the GML specifically. Honestly, they were one and the same at the time, but whatever - this point was only added to help emphasize the cultural impact, and it's not like the article is lacking in that department anyway. MalikCarr (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Argh. That link is insufficient source for any kind of claim. It's something one person posted on a mailing list. "Some guy thought this was important!" is not sufficient sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The new claim would say that there was interest in the GML, which is clearly shown (read the replies, there's quite a few) - really, there's nothing that absurd about it... MalikCarr (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So what? The Gumdan Mailing List was interested in a Gundam reference? Reeeeeeeeeeeally?

The point is that you need to come up with a reliable source to support the factual claims made (This happened, it happened on this show, it happened at this time) as well as to show that it's important enough to be worth mentioning. If no reliable source has ever seen fit to comment on a subject, Wikipedia shouldn't comment either (and no, a fansite archive of a fan mailing list is a long-ass way from a reliable source). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I somehow doubt there's a "Late Night with Conan O'Brien Bump Compendium" out there - in absence of the former, an image to show it happened is the best solution to indicate that this is truth. MalikCarr (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This image is an odd Photoshopped image. It does not by itself constitute a reference that that image was used on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, let alone when or what reaction it got.

Leave the tag saying that the section appears to be original research (conclusions inferred from observation of the subject) and go do some research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit to protected page

{{editprotected}}

The article appears to have been protected mid-edit by L-Zwei (talk · contribs) - the infobox favored by consensus still appears, while the templates and page layout that A Man In Black (talk · contribs) feels are more important than the three revert rule are there as well. This has caused a lot of jumble; among other things, the fair-use image RX-178S.W.GIF appears twice (once in the infobox, and again in a small caption that A Man In Black prefers). As is, consensus favors the previous version that A Man In Black has been reverting - I believe the edit history will show as much. This is the second time this article has been protected after A Man In Black's violation of the 3RR in the same version. MalikCarr (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not really sure there is evidence to support the 'consensus' that MalikCarr keeps making about Gundam articles that have histories of serious differences of opinion and continual editing.GundamsRus (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask the editors who have contributed to this article. I've already asked L-Zwei, and he agrees - I imagine Mythsearcher would as well, as would Jtrainor. You and A Man In Black obviously wouldn't (it is written in the scriptures that we must never agree on anything, ever). Sounds like a consensus to me. MalikCarr (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary: MalikCarr feels that this has been protected on the wrong version and would like someone to correct this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Cute, AMIB. For the record I already headed off the "wrong version" joke at the pass when asking the protecting administrator directly.

You should be pleased I didn't whine about it sooner, like the last time the page was protected after you violated 3RR. But that doesn't matter because I'm a terrible obstructionist/troll/fanboy, yeah? MalikCarr (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I just can't take this seriously. This whole header is epic lulz.

You can have the last word, MC, then I'm marking this resolved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'll put it right back up again, because there's an obvious conflict of interest. Why don't you just unprotect the page while you're at it, remove L-Zwei's partial edit, then protect it again? They're morally equivalent. MalikCarr (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? This is a page about a fictional robot. My involvement in the dispute is pretty much limited to me clicking buttons a few times daily when my cleanup is reverted. If you're worried about conflicts of interest or moral equivalence on this article, please go outside for a picnic with some loved ones. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? The fact that you've been reverting just about anyone that edits these articles since June (save for GundamsRus/Mr. Anonymous IP, since he supports your edits anyway) indicates you've got a vested interest in your version remaining the current one, just as Jtrainor or L-Zwei or I have vested interests in making your version NOT be the current one. The difference is that we are not sysops - we can only revert an article a few times per day, and can't block editors we disagree with.

Incidentally, I think we've debunked the notion of "cleanup" rather succinctly - I made a passage about this on my talk page a few months ago, you should review it (since you ceased discussion afterwards anyway). If you think the page needs more reliable sources, why don't you help find some? If a section is written from a perspective you don't like, why don't you propose a rewrite? You know, like civil and polite editors who don't like warring all day do? I mean, you could go onto the talk page and say something like:

"This section sounds kinda fancrufty because of <X> <Y> <Z>; I would rewrite it so it reads more like <1> <2> <3> and it would be formatted like so..."

and we could discuss and debate the finer points of each others' versions and maybe come to a damned consensus on something that's ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTIVE AND HEALTHY TO WIKIPEDIA AS A WHOLE.

Instead, you'd rather put a template in every section, delete sourced content and add unsourced junk, then threaten to cut me off from prescribed channels of response when such a dispute emerges between normal editors? Goddammit, man, have you ever considered the fact that I keep grandstanding about Orwell and cabals and Dick Cheney and all kinds of other garbage like that because you act like them sometimes????

There is no cabal! - or is there???'GundamsRus (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like edit warring all day and night when I could be doing more productive things, but you're not giving me any choice in the matter! Proclaiming your word as truth and never giving up an inch from that position does not build consensus! MalikCarr (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

tl;dr - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You're an administrator, you're supposed to be capable of enduring massive spams like that. What do they pay you for, anyway? MalikCarr (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I disabled the {{editprotected}} tag because it is not clear which edit is requested to what page. Sandstein (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)