![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
And thanks... I've got time on my hands at the moment haha. :) StarSpangledKiwi ( talk) 00:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently made a GA review of Dragons of Despair, which you appear to be interested in based on your activity on the talk page. I raised some issues and would greatly appreciate it if you were to address them, so I can promote the article. Thanks, ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 04:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Hope it's off to a good start. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 01:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You know, I actually like this integrated version better — it integrates the in-universe changes with changes and evolution in the creative personnel, and just by its nature reduces a lot of biographical fancruft to pertinent, issue-cited specifics. And, as it happens, the official guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) now appears to be moving away from in-universe biography, such as WikiProject Comics' FCB.
Since you mention User:Hiding, whom I've always considered my role-model here, supports this, maybe it's time to make a formal Project proposal to do away with FCB, and do real-world-perspective PH's only. Thoughts? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
On this note, your input would be welcome here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abomination_(comics) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics
there's a degree of hostility from one user that may be able to be neutralised by several voices. I think he needs to grasp that I am open to change and that this new style is a work in progress. Asgardian ( talk) 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm promoting this article, what cateogory should it be under? ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 15:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I've been busy and thinking what may be the best way to answer your questions.
To be honest though, I really don't know how to answer you. Minsc is popular as a character for, well, being the character he is. That's pretty much the same case with almost any title; Ivy's popular for being Ivy, Squall Leonhart for being Squall and so forth. What makes him "worthy" of having his own article is above the rest of the cast there's viable reception to cite. If Sarevok, Imoen or others turn up with any then they should probably get their own articles but thus far Minsc is the standout from the crowd.
Best answer I can give. Minsc is just who people think of when they look at BioWare. Kinda like how characters like Morte or Annah from Planescape: Torment are icons for Black Isle Studios (heck, Annah actually has plenty to build an article with, I've just been busy with three character articles already sitting on GAN at the vg project).-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 12:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
The Socratic Barnstar is awarded to those editors who are extremely skilled and eloquent in their arguments. I REALLY loved your comments, Secondary_proposal:_AFDiscussion The picture you painted was so vivid! travb ( talk) 00:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC) |
Hi BOZ,
As you have been improving the Giff article, I though I would let you know that your good work on the D&D articles (especially this Spelljammer cornerstone of a monster) inspired me to put out a call for artwork on the Spelljammer forums over at The Piazza. (I wanted to add an infobox to match the Beholder article, but felt that I couldn't do that without getting hold of some fan art to fill the top.)
The thread where I requested the artwork is called: Wikipedia artwork request. I quickly got help from someone called Silverblade. He doesn't do wiki editing, but he is one of the best 3D D&D fan artists I have seen...as well as a big Spelljammer fan. So I was really glad to see him make a picture for me to upload.
There is someone over at The Piazza who has the user name BOZ. I don't know if it actually is you, but you might want to pop in and say hi to him.
As I said, Silverblade is a big Spelljammer fan, so if you have a list of Spelljammer related articles that could do with having art added, he might be able to help us get these articles improved.
Anyhoo, I've uploaded the image, and done my best to explain the fair use of this image on the image page. But, as I've had two images zapped before (and am not on Wikipedia as much as you) I would appreciate it if you could double-check my work.
BTW: I saw an interview on Dragonlance Nexus where Jeff Grubb was saying that he liked to add animal-headed humanoids to campaign settings and mentioned the giff. Is that something we should be using to add information about the giff's creative origins to the article? And would that sort of interview be enough to get rid of the 'notability' tag?
Thanks! Big Mac ( talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Haven't we previously discussed this somewhere like the Comics Project noticeboard? I was ill and had to let it drop but we threw around some good ideas that I can't find. ( Emperor ( talk) 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
Yes I saw - I reverted it twice because it was looking terrible and was left half-done. If there isn't enough material to do this or you can't do a decent job of it then really leave it to someone else to do.
Thanks for the comments I'll look them over in the next day or so. ( Emperor ( talk) 01:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
Indeed - I have actually mentioned something similar. I'll try and find the link. ( Emperor ( talk) 18:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
I've been away (and not sober), what happened? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
From this discussion, we get the box on the right - cool eh? Casliber ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Coding: {{WP:ARS/Tagged}}
Ikip ( talk) 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed it had gotten to GA. Good work! I just polished a few bits. Isle of Dread looks pretty good already. Truly Trivial ( talk) 04:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You probably have the best grasp on the depth and breadth of our Marvel characters articles so I'd appreciated your input on what I say at the end of this section. It has come up in AfDs before where I have voted weak keep because there must be better ways of dealing with comics characters badly failing notability (like the examples I give), and this seems the best solution. We get to keep the information and work on it and then split it off later if we can improve the quality. ( Emperor ( talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
Hi, I am reviewing your article, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, for GA and have left some commennts at Talk:Dwellers of the Forbidden City/GA1. I will do a quick copy edit of a few MoS issues I spied. The article is well written and referenced but I am concerned about its comprehensiveness and tried to leave you with a few quick ideas on directions to expand it a little. Please contact me if you have questions or concerns. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank for the notification. I'll take a look at the article a bit later. Cheers, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I have started the review of Spider-Man and have mentioned my main concerns at Talk:Spider-Man/GA1. It is quite a overwhelming article. Perhaps some reorganizing would help. Please feel free to contact me with comments and suggestions. — Mattisse ( Talk) 22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - I hadn't spotted recent developments. I'll leave some more thoughts on the talk page.
Also far-be-it for me to suggest anything about talk page management but you might want to think about archiving some of the threads here, it is a little unmanageable (you can lift the code needed from my talk page if you want to automate it). ( Emperor ( talk) 02:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC))
I think we're in agreement about what needs expansion and what needs cutting. My efforts to revamp the page weren't met with widespread approval by comics fans, so I decided to disengage (they hauled me over to ANI before over my disagreements with them before, so you can imagine why I'm hesitant to jump in on editing.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 02:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I think they eventually got the idea - great way to make monsters.... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
What's going on, exactly? I saw Mattisse said something about rewriting for clarity. Above, I see David being taken to AN/I. Is it close? What are the hardest parts? I've been hesitant to work on it becuase, like my Jackie Robinson GA, its such an important subject it looks like a crazy amount of work. How many more refs do think it needs, for example? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 03:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Tempest115 ( talk) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I did see some slight modifications that could be made, but it was usually just some reword/rephrase that wouldn't to anything to the content (e.g., is it really necessary to list 4 of spidey's foes in the intro? Wouldn't two or one suffice). I'll check the review page often to see if I could fix any of the issues that reviewer mentions. Good Luck! K im u 20:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you still working on Spider-Man? What concerns me now is the state of the footnotes. Do you want to try to clear this up or do you not care? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 01:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Dork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.44.212 ( talk) 03:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Seems to be going OK, although I'd leave the cultural impact section out unless you have something for it.
I also left some notes on One More Day at WT:CMC and given it a quick once over. Should be an easy one. ( Emperor ( talk) 03:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
[1] :) - Drilnoth ( talk) 14:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey; I was wondering if you could take a look at the proposed template in User:Drilnoth/Sandbox 5 before I ask for further comments at the appropriate pages, to even out anything that still isn't working quite right. Thanks! - Drilnoth ( talk) 03:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem - there's no rush. It strikes me that this'll be easier to make get up to standard than the FF just on the size front. I've left some thoughts on the talk page and will have a thorough read through of the article later and see if I can tweak anything.
I should be ready to propose Alex Raymond soon. I also spoke to | about Pride & Joy (comics) and left some notes on the talk page and when they're computer problems are fixed we should be able to get some more eyes on it and then we can renominate that one too. We should be able to have one or two on the go at any one time. ( Emperor ( talk) 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
thanks. been so busy with things lately, havent really had time for any wikipedia stuff. hope you guys were able to make some good use of what i started, and apologize if i was needed for it by the community, or for anything and havent been able to participate in my abscence. shadzar- talk 04:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
My time has been limited this week and I seem to have got waylaid with other issues, but hopefully I can get some time aside to help out next week. Sorry. Hiding T 11:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I reviewed your GAN for Spider-Man: One More Day. As I said on the review page, it's really in excellent shape; I only have two minor things and then I'm looking forward to getting it up to GA status. Nice job! -- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, I have added your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Coordinators' working group as a co-coordinator of the D&D project, since you're pretty helpful and get a lot of the stuff organized. If you'd rather not be listed there, feel free to remove your name. - Drilnoth ( talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 05:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You're probably feeling fairly paranoid around right now, but Raul has scheduled thru March 6, March 7 he said he might bump March 6's article to if Tony's Saxbe Fix article passes FAC, and March 8 is almost certainly gonna be Tubman. Can't you find something for late March?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 06:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I honestly feel Fantastic Four needs a lot of work before it can be considered for a GA nomination. WesleyDodds ( talk) 05:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 07:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I've undeleted Chattur and temporarily redirected it to Spelljammer. All yours! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! That's awesome. Thanks for also finding that edit; I've re-added the information to the lead, which should be growing. I agree - the article is obsessively overdetailed, and I'm planning on trimming it. Since Ms. Marvel is an old character, I should be able to dig up a million sources about her. I guarantee the article will look brilliant. -- A talk/ contribs 21:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
Great work on getting Planescape: Torment to GA! — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 10:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC) |
Fred Gallagher has just replied to me to let me know he's going to try and do an original illustration, using Megatokyo characters, in time for the 13th. He's got to have a look at the contract issues regarding copyright, but he's hopeful it's possible. Hiding T 14:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jc,
Just to prove I'm not a total layabout, I finally got to having a look at Peanuts and added a note on the talk page. :) I have to say, I don't know what the sourcing looked like two years ago, but this one still needs a tonne of citation work and is not going to pass GA without it. You might want to get together with folks like Peregrine Fisher, Hiding, and Emperor and see what they can come up with; the sources have to exist somewhere, I'm sure, even if we're talking about primary sources in some places. The article itself seems pretty good, and if we can nail that after a few hours of work, then it can move on to FA as the next step without a doubt. BOZ ( talk) 19:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Comics Star | |
For your recent work at helping organise the raw resources that are WikiProject Comics editors into the humming GA/FA machine currently underway : ) - jc37 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
Boz, do you not have super-powers? Do you want super-powers? I'll gladly nominate you for super-powers. What do you think? Hiding T 10:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Great work on those "critical reception" sections! – Drilnoth ( T • C) 02:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Good Article Medal of Merit | |
BOZ, on behalf of Wikipedians everywhere, I award you this GA Medal of Merit for your consistent contributions to articles that result in successful GA nominations, one of the most recent being Planescape: Torment. Congratulations and keep up the good work! — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 12:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks! I wish I could have done more! BOZ ( talk) 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
yeah, that is why i said someone needs to look at the site quick, and do some work to make sure the article states the truth where the Dille Family Trust website lies through its teeth. shadzar- talk 04:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 15:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, BOZ. I've been cleaning up the WikiProject Comics/Participants list right now (which has gone completely out of hand), and I've noticed your not on the list. I was going to add you while I'm cleaning the list, but out of curiousity is there a reason why you don't want to join? I'm just asking for your permission before I add you. -- A talk/ contribs 17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I get where you are coming from. I tend to use the tools the same way Emperor does, although occasionally I go on a deletion spree. My motive in asking was just that you're a good editor whom I would trust with the tools, and I think that should be enough. I don't care what you do with the tools. To be honest, I'm kind of half of the mind that we need a lot of editing admins to balance out the average. But I'm not sure how an rfa would go, I haven't visited the bear pit in a long time. I think at the end of the day, being an admin is all about judgement. I trust your judgement. I don;t know if being an admin changes people's perception; although it used to be true that if you were here long enough people assumed you were an admin, and were surprised if you weren't, I don't know if that holds up any more. What I think would be useful, is that you'd achieve more editing ambitions with the tools. I know I do. It would just mean that, on those occasions when you needed an admin, you wouldn't have to run to them, unless you needed someone neutral. But I think, looking at the thread of this conversation, that maybe you just don't see the need. Which is cool too. Sometimes I wished I'd never stepped up. The only reason I don't step down is that I know what I'd lose. Never having had them, you may well be better off. Hiding T 13:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, good adds! :) I wonder if it would make sense to use that link to source more things in articles like Pool of Radiance and Gold Box? BOZ ( talk) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I know it's been quite a while, but thanks for letting me know and for your hard work in improving the article. D dc c 06:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on the articles you mentioned - they are good quality articles now, lots of references, great stuff! Who is "we"? ··gracefool ☺ 06:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've got around to it. Apologies for the delay, I got caught up in the BLP issue. I think Drilnoth wants to co-nom, so we need to wait for him before we submit it to RFA live. Best, & good luck, Hiding T 13:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the Q's - those are some good ones, and definitely more up my alley than concerns of BLPs or how I would mishandle AFDs. ;) I won't be able to get to them quickly, as there are a few and I will need to think some of them through, but I do appreciate it! BOZ ( talk) 12:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, got it. :)
|
Looking through your contributions I found LGBT themes in comics, (which is excellent, by the way), and it gave me this idea for a userbox. I don't think it'll catch on though. :D All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 02:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that; looks like AWB has a bug! – Drilnoth ( T • C) 02:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - I don't think I've managed to look at my watchlist today and missed it. ( Emperor ( talk) 02:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
Just in case you haven't been keeping an eye on things, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). – Drilnoth ( T • C) 16:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The article
Hergé you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Hergé for eventual comments about the article. Well done!
Pmlinediter
Talk
11:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Good Article Medal of Merit | |
For all of your work in bringing articles up to GA quality, I hereby award you this medal! Great work! –
Drilnoth (
T •
C)
14:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
|
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 06:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations. Now don't go chopping off anybody's hand... BusterD ( talk) 12:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear BOZ,
I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and are aware of the items on the Administrators' reading list. Best of luck in your new position! — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I was browsing through my favorite weirdo-blogs today, and I found this image. Fitting! Now that you're an admin, you're cool enough to wear those shades. :D – Quadell ( talk) 14:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi BOZ,
A while ago I posted a call for formal cooperation between the D&D WikiProject Forgotten Realms work team and Forgotten Realms Wiki. I also posted the same call for cooperation over at Forgotten Realms Wiki.
I have seen you running around forums trying to mobilise people to help improve specific wiki articles. But only a small percentage of forum users even know how to edit a wiki.
There are a number of frustrated ex-Wikipedians who have moved to more D&D friendly wikis (like Forgotten Realms Wiki). These people all have the skills that Wikipedia needs and they all care about Forgotten Realms. I think that it would be a good idea to try to build links between wikis like Forgotten Realms Wiki and the D&D WikiProject.
I think that we could argue that Forgotten Realms Wiki's best articles function as a secondary source of Forgotten Realms information. So I think that improvements in encyclopedic information over there could possibly help underpin some of the related articles over here (against Notability claims).
But we can't save every D&D article. So I as well as trying to mobilise these FR experts to help get FR articles improved (on both wikis), I also think that we ought to ask for Wikipedia to agree to a "graceful exit" strategy for articles that are cited for deletion and can't be saved. Forgotten Realms Wiki wants to host a high level of detail of content about Forgotten Realms and I think that Wikipedia should have a "no FR article gets deleted without FR Wiki being offered a copy" policy.
I believe that you have managed to get articles temporarily undeleted, so that content could be moved elsewhere. That sort of thing could also be done for any Forgotten Realms articles that have already been deleted.
I think that if we could get this sort of cooperation going, wiki editors could help improve the FR content on both websites. And I think that given that Wikipedia doesn't want to have articles for all things D&D, that finding good D&D related wikis to act as caretakers for the "unwanted stuff" would help Wikipedia ensure that non-noteworthy, but good content wasn't wasted.
I realise that Forgotten Realms Wiki is only a tiny fish, compared with Wikipedia, but if the deltionists are going to argue that certain types of content should be taken off of Wikipedia and "left to other wikis", then I think that Wikipedia has got a duty to forge relationships with the wikis that have a similar care for detail to Wikipedia itself.
I think that this FR Wiki is the best organised independent D&D wiki I've seen. I hope you can help make some suggestions as to how the FR fans could move forward in a cooperative strategy. I think that if we can get this sorted with one campaign setting, we could then use that as a model for getting cooperation started up with the second biggest independent D&D wiki community.
Please drop by on both of the discussion pages I've linked to above and let people know how they can help without their edits getting trampled by the delitionists. Big Mac ( talk) 01:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, i'll fix up as much as I can on the page. The Jay Experience 08:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
i was just so shocked i went into comment mode and posted the smilie without realizing where i was doing so. you do so much work, you are good for the position. but guess it even adds more work for you huh? shadzar- talk 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Is undeleting Arcane magic (Dungeons & Dragons) a good idea? It looks to me, looking through the page history and the AFD, that it was mainly copied (maybe not word-for-word, but pretty close) from the SRD; if that's the case, it would probably be considered a copyvio. A lot of your undeletions so far have been well chosen, but I'm just wondering if this one is a good idea. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 03:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
CONGRATULATIONS! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Oh, no, if you're coming here to complain about RfA thankspam, I can assure you that you received none from me. ;) First of all, I'm not going to thank everyone who participated, and second of all if I did get you, then I've given some thought to what I wanted to say to you personally. :)
But hey, thanks for dropping by! ;) BOZ ( talk) 02:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You earned it. It is people like yourself that keep this place going. :) — neuro (talk) (review) 02:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I have affixed "You're Welcome" spam to the top of this section. – Quadell ( talk) 02:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy the mop... for there is always more messes to clean up than anyone might wish. Try to not let it get in the way of continued fine editing. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Just remember to use your powers wisely. ( Emperor ( talk) 03:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
Nice work! I've been feeling like I'd like to work on some more D&D related topics, but it's hard to know where to drop in. I'll probably end up joining in on those collaborations; thanks for the note! J Milburn ( talk) 11:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
As I posted on your talk page, Hergé has recently been promoted to a GA. Right now, we all should work to attempt to lift it to FA or at least A-class. I will work with you to help you in this job (will try to make at least an edit a day). And on another note, I would advise you to archive this talk page, it is taking a long time to load (over 3 seconds), though by judging the size of your previous archive, it isn't even half yet. :-) Pmlinediter Talk 12:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on becoming an admin. I don't generally participate in RFAs, but I knew you'd be a great one because of your ability to build consensus and hear other people out. We all have our preferences on Wikipedia. But I'm impressed that you haven't become jaded, and shifted into a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Keep your head up, and let me know if you ever need any help with anything. Randomran ( talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem - it's really lucky I stumbled onto that thread; I was (pleasently) surprised to hear your request. :) -- A talk/ contribs 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Boz, I don't see how I will ever doubt my decision to nominate you for rfa. You are the editor I think I most wish to be like. I'm sorry I haven't been much help with comics articles lately, I've found myself sidetracked. I think I once commented to Jc something about how "no sooner do you get it all straight, have a few drinks to celebrate, put the chairs on the table and start mopping up than a whole new crowd walks in ready to get it all straight again". I'm kind of putting my priority on the BLP issue right this second, as best I can, and keeping an eye on a few meta debates you do well to ignore. Anytime you need me, you know where I am. And you'll do fine, I promise. :) Hiding T 19:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It's looking good Boz, thanks for your work, it's a very tidy article. Someone another 13:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
On your adminship! Things are looking brighter for D&D!-- Robbstrd ( talk) 18:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Great news! I'm very happy for you, and for Wikipedia. Cheers and keep up the good work! Freederick ( talk) 20:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Allan Varney has been discussing his Dungeons and Dragons work in a thread called Allen Varney here. You might want to keep an eye on his comments, just in case any of them are useful for adding information to any D&D articles. (He might even be able to give you specific confirmation of uncitated D&D facts).
You will find a list of other D&D authors (and any threads they are answering questions about their work in) in the Celebrities on the Piazza thread.
I hope that some of this helps you get the information to back up some endangered articles and also helps you provide some more background information about D&D. Big Mac ( talk) 20:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the friendly head's up and congrats. I can now bother you too about silly Wiki-questions instead of just Emperor. What's the official Wiki-page-policy on describing fictional events in the past tense? I need a URL. No, seriously. 8-) Lots42 ( talk) 00:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
On the RFA pass. I never noticed you were up for it, but I certainly would have gone support if I had. McJeff ( talk) 05:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello BOZ, I need to ask you a question, Can I add Fictional boxers and Fictional soldiers to Dukes. It's because he is stated to be a former soldier from Team X, and a boxer along with Wraith in Wolverine. In case you're wondering I'm JoeLoeb. Hi. ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 01:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
Hello BOZ! I was just thinking maybe you and me could rally a group of comics fans and start a new fictional categories (Fictional characters with telekinesis). What do you think? ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 05:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC))
(moved from user talk:Ikip)
Now what did I say about not getting yourself into trouble over all the drama? ;) BOZ ( talk) 18:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK that User:Boz is a Conspiracy theorist? I thought it was you at first, then realized it was a different editor. Ikip ( talk) 06:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK that membership in D&D Wikiproject = "anti-Christian censorship of communist type"? lol Hekerui ( talk) 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if you want these...
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
BOZ, after you see Wolverine, can I still talk to you about soldiers and boxers for Blob? ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 05:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC))
Can you create one, BOZ. With Blind Al, Bob, Agent of HYDRA, Taskmaster, Cable, Siryn, Weapon X, Wolverine, etc. :)( JoeLoeb ( talk) 01:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC))
Yeah, I could imagine myself being disappointed on how some of the characters were altered for the Wolverine movie... I got that sense more and more as the X-Men series progressed. I did enjoy the Spider-Man series immensely though, and everyone who has seen Iron Man really enjoyed it. (I know I'm a Marvel boy at heart, but I really enjoyed The Dark Knight and Watchmen a ton.) I did take a look at your Deadpool template and I thought it looked fine. What specifically do you think needs work? BOZ ( talk) 02:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you consider adding this line to the text above new articles? there seems like small but unanimous support for it.
(I will watch your page) Thanks. Ikip ( talk) 04:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Ah - ya caught me right before bedtime, but I did comment in that thread. :) BOZ ( talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
WOW! Awesome work on that article. :) I'd do the GA review but I'm a wee bit of a Kirby fan. :) Great work, and good luck at the GAR! CarpetCrawler message me 03:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Doing the GA review as I speak. Hopefully I'll have it completed sometime today. Reading it right now, it looks pretty good, so far. I'll make my assessment at Talk:Neverwinter Nights 2/GA1. MuZemike 16:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've never played NWN2, so I won't be contributing. When you're working on NWN, BG, or BG2, I'd be glad to help out. Thanks. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation to the Wikiproject, it motivated me. When they killed all the deities it was a little weird - what makes a better story than a prophecy? I listed the article on the Assessment page for reassessment, it's probably C by now (it's mostly in universe info but I don't know any extra-universe info, an article like the one on Minsc at least has had some coverage through the video game). Thanks again. Hekerui ( talk) 00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. I have another question, does Jimmy Olsen know that Clark is Superman? ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 05:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC))
I don't know why I missed that. I'll look over the articles I assessed. :) Hekerui ( talk) 17:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasum, but if you were aware of the defects in the article, you should not have put it up in the GA queue. It takes away time that the reviewer could be using to review other GA candiates. GAC should not be used to garner help for editing an article. I suggest delisting it for now. WesleyDodds ( talk) 06:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm trying to mediate an edit war over the Galactus article here. Can you chime in with your two cents? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 00:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to get too explanatory for WP:BEANS reasons (though I'll try to clarify further if this doesn't explain well enough).
But basically I think I've learned my lesson from long past when Hiding was trying to work through WP:DR levels concerning Asgardian. Indefinite protection sometimes may not be the tool to use, especially if further follow-up action may be required.
Also, there are those who really get upset if pages are protected for too great a length of time. ("The encyclopedia that anyone can edit.) I almost made it a week, but after re-reading the talk page, decided that 3 days+a warning should be enough.
If the dispute continues, we have other options. For example, removing the entire disputed section to the talk page, to not be re-added until there is consensus.
Anyway, I hope this helps. - jc37 11:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Just making sure that you knew about this. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 13:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
i am not sure if i register account name ‘georgezhao’ before, i want to Manage my global account, but find this user name 'georgezhao' used different password, i cannot remember which one to use. i faided to merge my english account and chinese account. could you please help me to figure out why?
it seems no people is using this account‘georgezhao’ , please help me to change my user-name 'gzhao' to georgezhao? thank you very much。 Gzhao ( talk) 20:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thank you for your quick reply, but i even not sure which email account was used for that account. i did not get any email from my current gmail account. i asked at Wikipedia:Changing username. please support me to change to that account, i merged every accounts on Chinese, french and other English project, en is the last one. i really want to get it done. thanks again.
Gzhao ( talk) 22:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
BOZ, been a while. 5 days. Can you help me, I'm trying to add The Red and Blue Blur to Superman's aliases, and with your pull It can happen. Can you assist me? ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 05:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC))
Thanks, but I've tried and nobody ever responds. It's been a month, and zip. :) I'll try. ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 16:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC))
Did you three choose to bring Planescape: Torment to FA because it has its 10 year release anniversary in December? That's a good idea to boost a main page proposal I must say! Hekerui ( talk) 00:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep works for me - I've thought this was a good idea for quite a while. ;) ( Emperor ( talk) 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC))
The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). You nominated FOUR in one day. While the rules say that three of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Boz, I noticed your good work on the Alex Raymond article, so this to invite you to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Al_Williamson/archive1
Cheers,
-- Scott Free ( talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey cool, thanks for spreading the word - I'll see if I can do some editing on Mr. Valiant, if that's all right.
Cheers,
-- Scott Free ( talk) 02:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
On 6 June you placed four requests for articles to be peer reviewed: Alan Moore, Jack Kirby, Peanuts and Fantastic Four. The rules clearly state that editors are limited to one nomination per day. At present we have a long backlog of articles awaiting review, and a desperate shortage of reviewers. Please decide which of these four you most want to be reviewed, then withdraw the others and reintroduce them at intervals of a few days. And, if you really want to help the process along, why not stop by and review another article youself? Brianboulton ( talk) 23:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
BOZ,
If you've got access to 'em, could you check File:Dormammu.jpg against the various OHOTMU?
It feels like the image is from there, but the sourcing is woefully lacking.
- J Greb ( talk) 00:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems like every time I make a suggestion at a Wikiproject I get ignored. Do you have any suggestions as to where to find sources for FoxTrot? It's very hard to Google, and it's been tagged as needing secondary sources since July 2007. Clearly I'm the only person on the whole project who gives a rip about it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yup, it's moi from the good ol' Creature Catalog. I figured I could give a hand with the highly debated Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) page, like re-writing it publication history style like the Cloaker. I am willing to take on that huge task. You know me, a dragon junkie. Ravin' Ray ( talk) 13:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, sorry about the (incredibly) late reply - I got rather bogged down with my work (and a relationship, oy), and didn't have much time to do much other than occasional anonymous Wikipedia edits. I apologise for not being able to have an involvement with the Gavin.collins RFC - did anything happen with that, by the way?
Oh, and are there any articles I might be able to help with currently? -- Muna ( talk) 03:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I quit contributing to Wikipedia back in 2007 because of Gavin Collins nominating every single GURPS page that I created and/or worked on for deletion. So has Gavin been banned from Wikipedia yet? Seanr451 ( talk) 10:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to do this, but I think Abomination may need locking for a good fortnight. I tried to make a case for why some of the fairly poor additions couldn't stay, and even removed tags (which I added) and asked two questions. In response I got another attack. I think we have here a case of two rather immature editors (take a look at their Talk pages) who can't see where they are going wrong. Anyway, you can read my comments on the Talk page.
On an unrelated note, I'm glad you also like Tomb of Horrors - it's my favourite module. Just a tad unfair, perhaps, as there are something like three scenarios where there is no saving throw. I once spent quite a bit of time coming up with ways to beat the killer scenarios...ah, the good old days. Asgardian ( talk) 01:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
as I was tired of the insults. Hopefully we can get back on an even keel. I've clashed with editors in the past and since resolved our differences, so hopefully that will also be the case here.
On another note, could you comment on the article Doctor Strange? I reworked this, and there seems to be an issue for J Greb. I broke down the edits as requested, but that still doesn't seem enough. I find this a shame given that no one (as far as I know) is doing these badly needed rewrites that take quite some time. The article is certainly much improved, and I don't believe anyone could dispute this. If it needs some minor changes, so be it. I don't wish to make a complaint about him, but to judge by recent comments he's being rather snide. Over to you. Asgardian ( talk) 01:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep looks good. I'll need to go through previous discussions and make some notes, then I'll look into adding to it. ( Emperor ( talk) 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
Its not speculation its what we know based on the trailers it should be their its proven fact and source The Movie Master 1 ( talk)
You were around when the whole thing was going on more (IIRC)... I'm suspicious that Artemis56 may be another Grawp sock based on the username and immediate interest in editing D&D articles. Any thoughts? Should we just keep an eye on him? – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
In some form or another, probably. It happens, though - hence the vandalism counter on my userpage. ;-) Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It's probably way beyond the scope of DnD, but I'm not a fan of Infobox VG and the way it floats the title above the rest of the infobox (I think book infoboxes do it the same way). Do you have an opinion on it? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 06:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions are very much appreciated Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 08:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks BOZ! Appreciate the lookout. :) Luminum ( talk) 01:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks BOZ! You're a sweetheart. ;) Luminum ( talk) 05:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 21:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I just made a comment at an AfD, and I want you to know that I consider you "one of the good guys". The comment isn't really directed at you. Abductive ( talk) 22:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
For an additional reference, you could use the review in Computer Gaming World, Issue 49, pp. 20-21. There is also some mention in Computer Gaming World, Issue 63, pp. 8-9, 49. it would probably be best not to link to the URLs, however, per their notice.— RJH ( talk) 17:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It would help tremendously. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 12:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Boz, wanted to drop you a note thanking you for your work in citing old game articles with RPG magazine cites, it's the sort of thing regular VG editors would not be able to get their hands on. After the Amiga Magazine Rack proved useful I wanted to discuss it further and a couple of other sources with you in case they might come in handy.
The AMR is even more useful than it first seems. As well as scanning amiga reviews the contributors there scan entire multiformat magazines and enter them into the database, it would be easier for them to just stick to amiga but they've taken the harder option, to their credit. This makes the rack an excellent wildcard if you're looking for sources on games from other systems which were released during the amiga's lifetime, such as SNES/PC/Megadrive etc.
World of Spectrum offers a similar service, amongst other things, for the ZX Spectrum computer. This is mainly focused on British gaming at the time. A lot of games released multi-format during the spectrum's lifetime will have appeared on the Amstrad, Commodore 64 and Spectrum, meaning it should be possible to get sources for any such game (as well as Spectrum games in general of course).
Allgame is a database of games, largely US-centric, but it covers older systems as well. The writers randomly write overviews and reviews for games listed there. It is very random; there might be nothing more than a few technical details, or a very short overview, or a very long overview or even a review as well. Like the AMR it's another wildcard for older games.
Just thought I'd pass those along, since you might be interested in further video games which are related to RPGs outside of the D&D universe (though at least some of the D&D games will be covered by those above). Keep smiling :D Someone another 15:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey BOZ,
Back on an old version of my userpage, I had a short essay on my views of deletionism. But, I had my userpage deleted because there was personal stuff (age, location) on it, and lost the essay along with all that stuff. I don't want to have the entire page restored, but would it be possible for you to copy/paste the text of that section onto my talk page or userpage? Now that you're an admin you should be able to view the deleted revisions. Thanks in advance. Mc JEFF (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I just looked over WP:PR and "From Hell" caught my eye. I thought of the movie of course. Pity I don't know anything about comics or else I would have helped find sources etc. I don't like horror stuff and that movie was not exactly a fairy tale, but it had an interesting conclusion. On the other hand, the good fairy in my favourite childhood fairy tale (Frau Holle) is said to be a leftover from the goddess Hel after which hell was named (possibly). Anyway, I meant to say: Someone gave me a PR on Ram Narayan and asked me to do one for someone else. If you start another PR sometime or find one you think I can help with, tell me and I'll hopefully be able to contribute. Hekerui ( talk) 20:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you switch Girlosophy (book) and Girlosophy? It's unnecessary dab'ing, and I think that means an admin needs to do...stuff. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 05:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand about the lead. It does need to total rewrite, though. Gameplay, like I said, needs a few more drafts before it's in really good shape. As for Plot, a game guide isn't totally necessary; for example, I just found a reference that you can use for the ending: [3]. When there's no other choice, sometimes you have to get by on the barest minimum for plot cites. Plus, it can be used as a citation in Legacy. Which, by the way, is definitely necessary if you're looking to take this to GAN. An article about an influential game that doesn't have a section discussing its influence is not comprehensive. Plus, I've always found that Release sections in articles where they aren't completely necessary, as they are for stuff like Halo 3, are a waste. Most of the information in them is better off other places, or not included at all.
As for Reception, I've put in a query at the WPVG "Reference library" to see if anyone has the ACE review. You have a fair amount of reviews already, but not enough to really be called comprehensive, particularly if you're going for FA. If all else fails, I did manage to find a loophole while writing Ultima Underworld that probably contributed to the article's current FA status: foreign reviews. All you need is a decent internet translator and even languages like Swedish can be cracked. It's a slow, laborious process, but it worked for me. For some reason, it was easier to track down foreign publications than English ones; who knows. Finally, you are still going to need to deal with that Dragon magazine review. And try to cut down on its use in the article; where possible, replace it with a different source that displays similar information. This keeps the article from looking like it wasn't researched, which is something you don't want at FAC or even GAN. As for its use specifically in Reception, I'd say that the second and third paragraphs can be axed entirely. Merge a few details from four about random monster encounters into Gameplay; if I remember correctly, you don't really detail that in there. Paragraph five can be condensed into two sentences that you can tack on to paragraph one: The reviewers criticized the performance of the C64/128 version, but believed that the MS-DOS version was far superior in this regard. However, they found the latter's lengthy installation to be an annoyance. Something like that.
As a side note, this might contain some interesting information. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 01:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, arrgh! Sorry, Boz. Mea culpa. It was late in the evening, and I rushed to judgment. I will strike my erroneous comment from the top of the PR, add a mea culpa there, and continue with the review. Thanks for your patience and kind note, which, amazingly, showed no hint of anger. Finetooth ( talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 21:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Man, I love that adventure, I played it when I was about 12. Nice to see there are other D&D'ers here. Ikip ( talk) 01:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. You added a review about the game Phantasie from Dragon magazine and said the mag gave it four stars. Could you provide more context (i.e. was that 4/5 stars or 4/4 stars)? Thanks! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 10:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I think they did an artilce on Ravenloft, but they're links aren't working. [4] I saw your edit to AtheG. Do you know how to fix it. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Boz. I know this may seem random, but since you seem to know a lot about D&D, I figured you might be able to give me a tip. I'm in a campaign that's gone in a direction that no one, not even the DM, had expected; one of the PCs is about to be tried for treason. But the thing is, we don't really know how to go about it. Are there any sources on how the judicial system works in D&D (3.5) or is it just kinda make it up as you go? Minaker ( talk) 06:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, Boz! :) Minaker ( talk) 05:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
[Check this http://www.myjones.com/code/limited.php?campaign=wizards]! Hekerui ( talk) 22:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Boz - 'sup - FYI - the Al Williamson article that I've been pimping has been nommed for GA (see 'Miscellaneous' section) -- Scott Free ( talk) 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI. You contributed the most to this article. Ikip ( talk) 23:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, BOZ. That sounds good, I'll contact you again when I'm ready. 70.106.205.159 ( talk) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd say hello and advise that I've been cleaning up a lot of the little articles with no images and little info of late. I have a laundry list of these non-entities I'm working through, but please advise if anything stands out. Regards. Asgardian ( talk) 08:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S - don't go near those curtains! If they are ripped they turn to green slime!
Well, I kind of started the project over two years ago, and haven't worked on it for a variety of reasons (grad school), so a second pass will be kind of desirable once I get through the first pass (which, at the current rate, will easily take another year or so). Thanks for the tip, though. Nifboy ( talk) 04:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Please be assured that I haven't forgotten the review. It normally takes me a few days to return to an FAC, especially when a large backlog of planned reviews is combined with attending college full-time. I'll take a look at the changes either tonight or tomorrow (probably the latter). Giants2008 ( 17–14) 22:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I have archived the Graphic novel PR request due to the current cleanup banner. The nature of a peer review is clearly outlined in the introductory paragraph of the WP:Peer review page. The essence is in the wording: "...is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." Lower down, in bolded print, is the stipulation about cleanp banners. Although there is currently no formal rule, it is reasonable that PR nominations should be limited to those from editors who have themselves done substantial work on the article being nominated. Please remember that peer reviewing is done voluntarily by ordinary editors, some of whom are prepared to sacrifice a lot of their online time helping to improve articles. I am sure that your efforts to bring articles to PR have been in good faith, but for the future it is as well that you should be clear as to how the system works. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
'lo guys,
I'm cross posting this to BOZ, Doczilla, Emperor, Hiding, and Jc37 because I'd like some additional admin-level input on something that ThuranX dropped on my talk page.
What he posted is at User talk:J Greb#I'm not saying I told you so... and it deals with information that' come up at Talk:Red Hulk#Dates while describing the plot. ThuranX's post provides a direct link to the touch off edit/confession.
Frankly, I find the information more than a little frustrating. But before moving forward I would like some input from other admins that have had to deal with these two. Admins other' than the one (Nightscream) currently involved in the edit war on Red Hulk.
Just try and keep this in one place I've set up a subhead under ThuranX's post to mey talk.
Thanks in advance for any input you have to offer.
- J Greb ( talk) 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Boz. I have never asked you for anything, but you came to mind for some reason.
I am a little concerned by this personal attack, [5] and was hoping a non-involved admin could drop a short line on this editors page, as I feel any further contact will be meet negatively.
Thank you sir in advance. Ikip ( talk) 16:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't really need one. The pub hist needs some reffing care (mostly primary), and then the whole article needs a couple for c/e sweeps, and it's an FA. Or else, there's you PR. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 02:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, BOZ! Sorry for not responding sooner; as you probably surmised from my contribution history, I've been away for several months. I plan to return to Wiki-editing regularly (if not often), and it's good to see some of my old and treasured colleagues still here fighting the good fight. With kudos and regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, -- A Nobody My talk 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I know this was discussed this past February, but after we had an edit dispute on Red Hulk, Asgardian and Peregrine Fisher requested that we have another one, so I'm going to try and contact as many people as I can to hopefully hash it out once and for all. Can you participate in the discussion here? Thank you very much. It is most appreciated. Nightscream ( talk) 05:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't, er, noticed it (ho ho ho!), but I've got it bookmarked now — it's a good idea to have a page like that. I made a couple of copy edits (following Strunk & White's advice to go on a "which" hunt) and added a couple of important comics creators whose pages need attention. Nice add, BOZzie! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I was tad suprised and disappointed to see this comment [6] added to the discussion here [7]. It was a legitimate reversion as the changes had several flaws, which I pointed out to the editor here: [8]. As a result, there has been no more revision of that section in the article.
I respect your input, so if in doubt about any of my edits, please just ask. Asgardian ( talk) 03:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
One perhaps for your good article drive, Lívia Rusz? Don't look at me, never heard of her. Hiding T 21:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
So, you gonna take it to FAC? I think my next FA is going to be White Plume Mountain after I finish Jackie Robinson. You should do AtG. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 03:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I mean...c'mon man. Gavin.Collins was an appropriate subject for an RfC but A Nobody's is a partisan witch hunt? I don't want to pull the whole "you have to agree w/ X if you agreed with Y" but gavin's was another case that could have ended with the same old shit (as it were) but didn't because people were determined to find some resolution. I don't want to hassle but that hurt a little. Protonk ( talk) 02:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
As an editor who I respect greatly, I would love your opinion of the RFC off wiki, but I see you don't have email :( No need to provide your opinion here. You are welcome to email me though. Ikip ( talk) 05:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Per your edit summary comment, I would like to know more about the Marble Madness review in Dragon #131.
PS- I haven't gotten a chance to say this yet, but I think it's great you're taking the time to offer your magazine resources. I've already spotted a few other games I would like to work on in the future. Thanks for all your hard work. ( Guyinblack25 talk 14:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC))
Hi, BOZ. I promise I'll pitch in on the Spider-Man peer review. In the meantime, would you mind taking a look here. You might remember some time back an Arbitration that went against User:Asgardian for, among other things, his edits at Awesome Android. He's not making similarly wholesale edits that contradict Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars / Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance. If you get a chance, would you mind taking a look in your capacity as admin? I fear a repeat of an edit war I thought was long settled. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 05:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I will endeavor to get there. By coincidence, I was touching up some things there this morning! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The VG Barnstar | |
In recognition of all your efforts to improve Wikipedia's older game articles, one review at a time, I award you this. Keep on truckin'! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 01:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC) |
Just wanted to let you know that you have two new peer reviews for spider-man here. // Gbern3 ( talk) 20:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Please you can digitalize the review of sokoban: Lesser, Hartley, Patricia, and Kirk (April 1988). "The Role of Computers". Dragon (132): 80-85.
Hey, just wanted to drop by and tell you: I think what you're doing is fantastic. Having quicker access to Dragon's reviews will make people's lives a lot easier, when they start working on those articles. I had to dig long and hard to find Dragon's review of Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss; once I did, getting it involved several days worth of downloading. Interested parties now know when the magazine reviewed a game, and can just check the history to see who added said review. It's great; keep up the good work. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 10:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
National Cartoon Museum looks like it could be worth pursuing. Hiding T 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC) See also: No-Prize, should be up your street? Hiding T 13:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
My latest FA has finished. Do you want to do a co nom on Against the Giants? It seems like it's prett ready. Maybe cut down on the plot per the PR. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I had no idea there was such a thing :) Hekerui ( talk) 14:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about the Signpost article about the D&D WikiProject. I found it interesting. I understand the problems the three of you discussed; they stress me out as well. On all too many occasions I wonder why I bother; knowing editors like you are out there fighting the good fight helps keep my morale up. I'm glad you're pushing forward with thr project. I prefer to stick where I am: randomly striking when and where the mood takes me, so I probably won't ever formally join the project, but I support you. Best of luck in your future editing! — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you watch pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation? The fiction ones are deader than I've ever seen them. I think we may have run out of delitionists (you know the editing numbers are declining). - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 06:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Just drawing your attention to my statement on the matter.— Kww( talk) 17:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, would you like to chime in on this discussion? I'm trying to explain to someone why characters from other lines (Sgt. Savage, Extreme, etc.) don't belong on the List of G.I. Joe ARAH characters, but can't seem to get through to him.-- Ridge Runner ( talk) 06:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll try to fix it. I have a widescreen monitor didnt realize it ran so wide.- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 23:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, BOZ! I've got the new '70s-horror-comics issue of Back Issue, and there was a recent Alter Ego with some Werewolf and Man-Thing material, so that might not be a bad idea. I recently found about a dozen 1970s issues of The Comics Journal a couple of 1980s Comics Features, and a copy each of the truly obscure Whizzard (with Chaykin and Steranko interviews) and Graphic Story Magazine, so I've been combing through them for usable historical material. Now if only the latest round with Agardian doesn't chase me away again for a few months to recover...! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi BOZ, thanks for the Dragon citation at Savage (video game) - there's a few bits of information I think should go in: Which platform did the reviewer use (I'm guessing it wasn't the Spectrum), and briefly what their main priases and criticisms were. Thanks! Marasmusine ( talk) 09:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
Heh - thanks, and I said it before, but I do mean it - I hope it goes better for you next time! BOZ ( talk) 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, to be completely honest, I did not know of the WikiProject Dungeons and Dragons. I am in the process of reading the interview between you and the other two editors now, though. And thanks for your approval on my additions to the Ruins of Adventure article. Macai ( talk) 23:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't suppose any of them have anything on Dragon Warrior or other Dragon Quest series? 陣 内 Jinnai 06:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there more stuff in that review? If so, I could certainly would like to see more from that review to expand on the article a little more.
Also, they didn't happen to review The Guardian Legend by chance, did they? (Such a review would have been somewhere in early 1989 which was when the game was released in North America.) MuZemike 04:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. Let me know if there's anything I need do. I admire your wherewithal. This isn't easy. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Kiki Kaikai - I am doing the GAR on this and will likely fail it if it does not get some print sources (or electronic copies of such, ie like the CD-ROM) as it was obviously a popular game given the number of ports and yet the reviews, which are from a more recent look, are all negative and therefore it almost certainly fails WP:NPOV since companies don't port unpopular games. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Nutiketaiel ( talk) 15:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 01:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
How likely do you think it is Thagomizer would pass a GA? Hiding T 14:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
See what you think about Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy as well. I don't know how things stand with this sort of article. Hiding T 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Am in the middle of a mess right now, but I think I have a desired outcome for Asgardian RFC. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, I think the desired outcome would be to instigate the old arbitration restrictions indefinitely, restricting Asgardian to one revert per week, or possibly topic banning if an administrator feels Asgardian has been disruptive. Hiding T 10:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it seems that User:Scott Free has been blocked by User:Brandon apparently relating to User talk:BOZ/RFCU Asgardian draft. It might be useful if you could sort out the lead. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello BOZ, this is 70.106.212.170. I can't believe Icewind Dale II passed GAN. A ton of thanks for nominating it for me. 70.106.200.51 ( talk) 02:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
A lot of editors point to this deleted article as everything that is bad with inclusionism. I would be interested why: Telepathy and war to User:Ikip/Telepathy and war thank you in advance. Ikip ( talk) 17:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
At Juggernaut (comics) today, he removed another editor's "Fictional character biography" subhead to mash together PH and FCB. I also wrote about this Juggernaut-like unstoppable tendency a moment ago at Talk:Adam Warlock, if you'd like more detail of the problem as demonstrated on that page. I can't believe after all the discussion and all the editorial consensus not to mash up those two sections, he's still doing it. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
hes also doing it to rhino (comics) Ghidorah ( talk) 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Hiding's effort failed should tell you that everything that is being offered up is opinion. There are no rules against bold edits, and as I've stated, the Guidelines are tinged with grey. Recheck the discussion here: [13]
Also, this comment what with all the complaints I've seen from numerous people is somewhat farcical. Who? An editor who suffers from a medical condition and makes irrational statements? A blind reverter who was exposed as a sockpuppet? Another editor who is either very young; has a medical condition or is a sockpuppet? The fans who insist on huge summaries of games and TV shows? I can offer evidence of attempting to reason with all these people.
In short, I think there is an overreaction by a very small group of editors who are perhaps not open to discussion of new ideas. Please also note - and this is important - that these repeated attempts at comment/sanctions can undermine your own credibility and may imply that this is a grudge. Asgardian ( talk) 03:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The structures suggested in this section are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article; they are not meant to enforce a single, binding structure on all articles, nor to limit the topics a fully developed article will discuss.
Many thanks. Asgardian ( talk) 03:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
See, you notice that what I’m saying is merely my own personal opinion – or in some cases merely exasperated sighing – rather than any actual intended statement of fact. "Not wanting to come down hard on you" is exactly right – block ‘em and book ‘em is not my style, and I prefer to reserve that sort of treatment for vandals and legitimate troublemakers. Besides, as I said, that would bring about from you accusations of things such as "secret cabals" with a "grudge" out to get you, coupled with "but I didn't even do anything wrong" – so basically, a heavy handed approach would only make you upset, make me look bad, and solve nothing – I think JGreb and Hiding for example have tried that with you and gotten only contempt. I say that talking to you doesn't accomplish much, because you seem to then go on your merry way as if to stick your fingers in your ears and say "I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you" when someone tells you something you don’t want to hear. Not to say that you never listen, but only when you choose to be receptive.
As to the theory of a small group of people on a witchhunt against you, well that’s one good reason to have an RFC. If it turns out that a small group of people are persecuting you for no good reason, then the community at large will recognize this and the people involved will look pretty bad, wouldn’t you say? If as you say, there is some secret cabal that think they have ownership rights over comic-related articles, then wouldn’t it be in your favor to have this exposed to the community for what it is? Or if, instead, you fear that there is something about you which will be exposed, then maybe you really do have something to worry about? An RFC cannot impose any sanctions that its subject does not willingly agree to – look at the recent one on A Nobody. Nor is it necessarily, and properly, a prelude to ArbCom – unless the community at large agrees that the person is very much in the wrong, and the person continues in what the RFC determined to be wrong behavior. Complaints I’ve seen against you, Asgardian, stretch back years and from many people – this is not a new thing, not recent by any means, and not from as small a group as you seem to think. I was hoping that by now, and still am, that you will see how much difficulty other editors find in working with you and that you will learn to work better with those who are willing to be collaborative so that we can all work together to build something good. I would rather see that any day than to see some actual sanctions be forced on you – which is the main reason I argued to go with an RFC over another ArbCom. See it how you will, say of me what you will, but to me RFC is the best thing for this situation at this time. BOZ ( talk) 04:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Will add more. This is a start. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
First of all i think this pages needs some archiving :). Secondly thanks for the support and for the offer of Drilnoths help it greatly appreciated. Salavat ( talk) 04:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I added a section in the Bombuzal talk page for you to check out. InternetMeme ( talk) 08:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please add more info from this review? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 06:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please. The more reviews the merrier, though there's no point merely having the information that its been reviewed without any of the points made by the review.-- Sabre ( talk) 12:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I think you've probably been on Wikipedia a lot longer than me, so apologies if I've sounded condescending in that conversation at Project Video Games talk page. AirRaidPatrol 84 ( talk) 20:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | |
For taking the time to rescue Sword of Aragon from foundational copyright violations. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC) |
First off, a big thank you for all your work going through those old reviews, I love seeing your progress updates on the VG project talk page. As per your edit summary on Final Fantasy II, I would like to ask for any more detail you might have from that review (November 1993, issue 199). Thank you! -- Pres N 16:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your incredible, long-running work on finding reviews for classic games in Dragon magazine, updating and creating articles as needed through 15 years of reviews, I hereby award you this barnstar! -- Pres N 16:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC) |
Woohoo! :) BOZ ( talk) 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You've been here since early 2006 and not come across a Crat before? I tip my hat to you. Wikipedia's built on content contributors like you, so it's lovely to pop in and say hello. From a Crat. Oops. Don't click that link, it'll sully you :-) -- Dweller ( talk) 12:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
OIC, but I think the full title of the board game is 1830: The Game of Railroads and Robber Barons. See this page. MrKIA11 ( talk) 14:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 18:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, but it was your finding of Dragon reviews (though not this one, it was the earlier Alisia Dragoon addition) that inspired me to look for Dragon and other reliable sources to revamp this page; so take some credit for yourself too. Jappalang ( talk) 22:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving, BOZ!
Do you think the Asgardian RFCU is ready to go to the next step? His edit warring hasn't abated, and I've just added information on his latest attempt at circumventing mediation at Juggernaut (comics). You have to read it to believe it. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Now, I like the way you have handled yourself to date, and you haven't been petty in any shape or form (something I unfortunately can't say of everyone), and took your advice on board. Recent edits will tell you as much (it was two things actually: one was your advice, the second the fact that on close examination none of the featured comic articles really passed muster. If we don't work together they never will).
As to my "latest attempt", I'll throw the matter over to Jc37, as he's now involved and we (as another editor supports the revised version and there's been no debate otherwise) are dealing with what I can only assume is an immature and probably obstinate editor.
Regards Asgardian ( talk) 04:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I think over this coming week I'll have a lot more free time than I was expecting to have; I think I can finally look into getting everything in order to get the RFC/U up and running. It will take me a little while to look at everything thus far involved. BOZ ( talk) 06:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, BOZ. I'm handling a GAN on which the reviewers are no longer around (
Boys' Ranch), and the original nominator has stepped back as no longer inclined to work on it.
As you might remember, you worked on getting a couple of articles while I was reviewer to GA previously (
Dragonlance &
Winnie Winkle), and everything went well. I wondered, if you had time, if you might be able to lend a hand with the article under review? I'll leave a note at the relevant WikiProject, too; it'd be a pleasure to have you on board if your time allows though. Thanks, and have a good weekend. –
Whitehorse1
13:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment. I had a twange of nostalgia (having fanatically played the game long ago) and decided to check if the project has an article on it, thereby seeing the copyviolation instantly. Since you have pointed out Dragon's review, I decided to search for more sources (surprisingly there were) and flesh the article out. Jappalang ( talk) 01:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe this protection is unneeded. The anon, unexplained reverts were over, one revert with an explanation was made, and it was then already taken to Talk and tagged appropriately before the protection was levied. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 20:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hiya again! Got the photo OK'd (as was prerequisite) and tightened up a bit here-and-here with thorough checking twice by Jaquays himself for facts, etc. Amusing to see http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/days-of-high-adventure/6847-Gamings-Renaissance-Man online, too: Paul did mention that was forthcoming and was going to note there was nothing for him on Wiki'(!)... just after I mentioned to him that I was looking to finish the edit I'd started nine months before. Good timing, or what? ;) Could you have a check through vs. the quality standards, please, aiming for B-ish or thereabouts (slightly shorter, more factually correct and about equally referenced compared with Dave Arneson's article at that point). Many thanks, David. Harami2000 ( talk) 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry; I /was/ going to add "time permitting"... oops! ;) +thx for forwarding for checking. Nice of the Escapist article to give me the DYK refhook I was looking for (not just curriculum creator but also co-founder for The Guildhall at SMU) as was known but couldn't obtain a definitive reference for. Cheers, David. Harami2000 ( talk) 01:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see more info from the review in Dragon. And the one on the Atari Lynx too, if you could.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 14:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
BOZ, yes. What a difference. The book itself is actually a very interesting read, and unlike some comic efforts Mike Conroy actually knows what he is talking about. This will help with dozens of characters. I also have a few favourite DC villains and will tackle them in coming weeks. This is definately going to help the standard of a great many articles.
Regards Asgardian ( talk) 00:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It's your birthday! All the best for your day of honor and much health for the next life-year :) Congrats on the feature today, too! Hekerui ( talk) 23:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on making the front page. I remember how hard the D&D taskforce worked on that article. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 07:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I hear you.
Might it be possible for you, as an admin, to protect the article once again? There's edit-warring going on, which began a single day after the last protection was lifted.
Courage. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 04:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll talk with you re: matters, but be careful who you listen to. Regards. Asgardian ( talk) 11:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The draft Asgardian RFCU has been cited in WQA [ [17]]. I know nothing about the past history of any editor involved here but it strikes me as odd -- it's a draft so it's none of my business but it's cited on WQA so it is?? Gerardw ( talk) 03:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Other matters aside, I'm actually going to tackle four DC villians that are favourites of mine as there is some good 3rd party stuff. Let me know if there are any out there you like that need a touch up. Regards. Asgardian ( talk) 07:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
On another note, I've made some fairly solid additions to Galactus, adding another lead paragraph for context, a great 3rd party quote and tidied up some language and an incorrect source. Also occurs to me that there's no Biography, so will put in more work on adding all the important issues in the PH, then let the B explain who the character is and what happens after. Regards Asgardian ( talk) 04:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I have noticed that you have recently done a lot of work to try to improve the articles of some older video games, and so I was wondering if you would be interested in joining the new retro games task force.
AirRaidPatrol 84 ( talk) 19:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw the comments here: [18], and responded on J Greb's page : [19]. Tough one. Asgardian ( talk) 04:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the exact historical scope is for the behavior by him you wish to include, so I'll try to limit it to three examples from this year:
The first thing I would think you might find useful would be the ANI review of my block of Asgardian in February 2009, his fifth one overall, which was, IMO, incorrectly reversed. The reason I think you might find it useful is because I detail, with a copious amount of Diffs, many examples of his behavior. Of particular interest is the Points of Contention section, because I respond to a number of Asgardian's own statements in order to refute them, and highlight his lies, his use of logical fallacies, his double-standards, etc. It's a lot to slog through, BOZ, and I apologize, but the amount of material is determined by what Asgardian provides us. If you go through it and verify the Diffs, they may prove valuable.
The second thing would the Red Hulk matter from a few months ago. I'm not sure if it was already mentioned on the RfC page, or not, but here it is: During that incident he continued his behavior of reverting during a consensus discussion, even though that's what his last two blocks were four, including his last unreversed block. You'll notice that it's a continuation of his issue with titles, issue numbers and dates from the above matter in February. One of his claims that I refuted in that matter was that there was a discussion pertaining to this that supported his view on them. I not only showed that the discussion had nothing to do with this, but I jumped into that discussion, and the others not only told me that they never discussed this, but that they agreed with my viewpoint about occasionally mentioning them. But now in September he was again removing them, despite this. I tried to start another discussion on the Red Hulk Talk Page to accomodate him, and he continued his behavior. He insisted on September 3 that we needed yet another discussion to bring it to a wider audience, so I again went to the Comics Project page. Among the things that occurred during the Red Hulk discussion was that he was again arguing against a "laundry list" or "minefield" of dates and issue numbers that he felt would make the article unreadable. I tried to point out that no one would favoring littering the article with them, but only to mention them occasionally, a nice middle ground between his preference for none of them, and the notion of having too many. When I tried to ask him on September 3 if he understood this, he evaded the question, saying we should discuss that on the Comics Project page. Naturally, he never answered this question there either, an example of him stonewalling when his fallacies are rebutted. I should also mention that during the course of this, I protected the article in order to encourage discussion and consensus. It was opined by the others that I shouldn't have done this because I was involved. I apologized for this, having not known that it would matter (though I've since heard contrary opinions on this). In any event Administrator Mangojuice tried to desysop me for this on the AN Board. here is my post in which I defend myself, and in so doing, I detail Asgardian's behavior with respect to ownership of articles and consensus. Reading that and the Red Hulk Talk Page discussion may prove useful.
Last, he claimed in October that he doesn't "ever" make blind reverts. In fact, here is one example in which he did do so, during the aforementioned Red Hulk matter a month prior, and here is my revert of it. When I pointed this out (as it was only one month to the day prior), he reacted badly, leaving these silly taunts on my Talk Page, implying that my pointing this out was not proper admin conduct, was something for which I could lose my admin privileges, would "go to an overall pattern", and so forth.
Hope this helps. Happy Holidays. Nightscream ( talk) 07:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - I'll go through what you have and then if I can think of any other good examples I'll hunt them down (although with an eye on the fact that it is impossible to be completely comprehensive as it'd take someone weeks to go through every single incident, so I'll aim for the ones that best show the problem). ( Emperor ( talk) 15:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
What I've primarily noticed is him removing cleanup tags, usually the primary sources tags. Sometimes there's no explanation, and sometimes he says "All comics articles are like this" (which, by the way, they aren't). I know he's done this to the Eternity article, but there's far more I can't recall at the moment. WesleyDodds ( talk) 13:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to dig into this in the next few days and help out. ThuranX ( talk) 06:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Woh.... i dont even remember that nomination. My viewpoint has definatly changed now that it obvisiously exists, hope you can save it. Salavat ( talk) 01:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Obviously, this is nothing I can respond to in 5 minutes and with Xmas upon us this will take time. I suspect much of it will be shown to be POV by some (and there are counter arguments), but let's get it over with once and for all. Regards
Asgardian ( talk) 09:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
RE: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Asgardian#Evidence
I note with dismay once again that you do not have e-mail. I would like to privately discuss your evidence section, I have some constructive criticism, and I think it is better that I say it before anyone else does. Ikip 17:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
BOZ, I noted you locked the article for now. I really have tried and tried with Dave, and made concessions where possible. He, however, wants to argue everything right down the wording of each and every sentence. Unfortunately, he's also wrong about the use of the OHOTMU and got to let that go. My reasoning (right up until the lock) is all at the Talk Page. I'll post it elsewhere and hopefully once again get some support. I like Dave, but he's got to be a tad more flexible (I also don't know to what degree his medical condition is effecting his judgement).
Regards
Asgardian ( talk) 01:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 04:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you've got enough signatures (more than enough, in fact) now; I suppose I'll just add an outside view since I sort of backed away from this one a while ago. You would definitely, though, want to talk to Nightscream who initiated the one you linked to. He would have a lot to add, and might even sign under "tried and failed". However, given that he was asked to stop blocking Asgardian because he had gotten too involved, maybe an outside view from him would be best. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I added my endorsement, and since it has gained three signatures within 48 hours it is now active. Asgardian should be notified. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, sorry. DrBat ( talk) 02:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. I've been looking over the page, and wanted to know if I should add my name to the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" and "Other users who endorse this summary" headings. What is the difference between the two? Why do the users leave their name under one and not the other? Is signing both of them not recommended? Nightscream ( talk) 19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
...would be welcome on Bizarro with regard to the edit history and this comment I've left on Asgardian's talk page.
Thanks,
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
And thanks... I've got time on my hands at the moment haha. :) StarSpangledKiwi ( talk) 00:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently made a GA review of Dragons of Despair, which you appear to be interested in based on your activity on the talk page. I raised some issues and would greatly appreciate it if you were to address them, so I can promote the article. Thanks, ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 04:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Hope it's off to a good start. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 01:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You know, I actually like this integrated version better — it integrates the in-universe changes with changes and evolution in the creative personnel, and just by its nature reduces a lot of biographical fancruft to pertinent, issue-cited specifics. And, as it happens, the official guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) now appears to be moving away from in-universe biography, such as WikiProject Comics' FCB.
Since you mention User:Hiding, whom I've always considered my role-model here, supports this, maybe it's time to make a formal Project proposal to do away with FCB, and do real-world-perspective PH's only. Thoughts? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
On this note, your input would be welcome here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abomination_(comics) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics
there's a degree of hostility from one user that may be able to be neutralised by several voices. I think he needs to grasp that I am open to change and that this new style is a work in progress. Asgardian ( talk) 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm promoting this article, what cateogory should it be under? ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 15:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I've been busy and thinking what may be the best way to answer your questions.
To be honest though, I really don't know how to answer you. Minsc is popular as a character for, well, being the character he is. That's pretty much the same case with almost any title; Ivy's popular for being Ivy, Squall Leonhart for being Squall and so forth. What makes him "worthy" of having his own article is above the rest of the cast there's viable reception to cite. If Sarevok, Imoen or others turn up with any then they should probably get their own articles but thus far Minsc is the standout from the crowd.
Best answer I can give. Minsc is just who people think of when they look at BioWare. Kinda like how characters like Morte or Annah from Planescape: Torment are icons for Black Isle Studios (heck, Annah actually has plenty to build an article with, I've just been busy with three character articles already sitting on GAN at the vg project).-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 12:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
The Socratic Barnstar is awarded to those editors who are extremely skilled and eloquent in their arguments. I REALLY loved your comments, Secondary_proposal:_AFDiscussion The picture you painted was so vivid! travb ( talk) 00:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC) |
Hi BOZ,
As you have been improving the Giff article, I though I would let you know that your good work on the D&D articles (especially this Spelljammer cornerstone of a monster) inspired me to put out a call for artwork on the Spelljammer forums over at The Piazza. (I wanted to add an infobox to match the Beholder article, but felt that I couldn't do that without getting hold of some fan art to fill the top.)
The thread where I requested the artwork is called: Wikipedia artwork request. I quickly got help from someone called Silverblade. He doesn't do wiki editing, but he is one of the best 3D D&D fan artists I have seen...as well as a big Spelljammer fan. So I was really glad to see him make a picture for me to upload.
There is someone over at The Piazza who has the user name BOZ. I don't know if it actually is you, but you might want to pop in and say hi to him.
As I said, Silverblade is a big Spelljammer fan, so if you have a list of Spelljammer related articles that could do with having art added, he might be able to help us get these articles improved.
Anyhoo, I've uploaded the image, and done my best to explain the fair use of this image on the image page. But, as I've had two images zapped before (and am not on Wikipedia as much as you) I would appreciate it if you could double-check my work.
BTW: I saw an interview on Dragonlance Nexus where Jeff Grubb was saying that he liked to add animal-headed humanoids to campaign settings and mentioned the giff. Is that something we should be using to add information about the giff's creative origins to the article? And would that sort of interview be enough to get rid of the 'notability' tag?
Thanks! Big Mac ( talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Haven't we previously discussed this somewhere like the Comics Project noticeboard? I was ill and had to let it drop but we threw around some good ideas that I can't find. ( Emperor ( talk) 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
Yes I saw - I reverted it twice because it was looking terrible and was left half-done. If there isn't enough material to do this or you can't do a decent job of it then really leave it to someone else to do.
Thanks for the comments I'll look them over in the next day or so. ( Emperor ( talk) 01:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
Indeed - I have actually mentioned something similar. I'll try and find the link. ( Emperor ( talk) 18:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
I've been away (and not sober), what happened? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
From this discussion, we get the box on the right - cool eh? Casliber ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Coding: {{WP:ARS/Tagged}}
Ikip ( talk) 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed it had gotten to GA. Good work! I just polished a few bits. Isle of Dread looks pretty good already. Truly Trivial ( talk) 04:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You probably have the best grasp on the depth and breadth of our Marvel characters articles so I'd appreciated your input on what I say at the end of this section. It has come up in AfDs before where I have voted weak keep because there must be better ways of dealing with comics characters badly failing notability (like the examples I give), and this seems the best solution. We get to keep the information and work on it and then split it off later if we can improve the quality. ( Emperor ( talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
Hi, I am reviewing your article, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, for GA and have left some commennts at Talk:Dwellers of the Forbidden City/GA1. I will do a quick copy edit of a few MoS issues I spied. The article is well written and referenced but I am concerned about its comprehensiveness and tried to leave you with a few quick ideas on directions to expand it a little. Please contact me if you have questions or concerns. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank for the notification. I'll take a look at the article a bit later. Cheers, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I have started the review of Spider-Man and have mentioned my main concerns at Talk:Spider-Man/GA1. It is quite a overwhelming article. Perhaps some reorganizing would help. Please feel free to contact me with comments and suggestions. — Mattisse ( Talk) 22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - I hadn't spotted recent developments. I'll leave some more thoughts on the talk page.
Also far-be-it for me to suggest anything about talk page management but you might want to think about archiving some of the threads here, it is a little unmanageable (you can lift the code needed from my talk page if you want to automate it). ( Emperor ( talk) 02:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC))
I think we're in agreement about what needs expansion and what needs cutting. My efforts to revamp the page weren't met with widespread approval by comics fans, so I decided to disengage (they hauled me over to ANI before over my disagreements with them before, so you can imagine why I'm hesitant to jump in on editing.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 02:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I think they eventually got the idea - great way to make monsters.... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
What's going on, exactly? I saw Mattisse said something about rewriting for clarity. Above, I see David being taken to AN/I. Is it close? What are the hardest parts? I've been hesitant to work on it becuase, like my Jackie Robinson GA, its such an important subject it looks like a crazy amount of work. How many more refs do think it needs, for example? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 03:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Tempest115 ( talk) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I did see some slight modifications that could be made, but it was usually just some reword/rephrase that wouldn't to anything to the content (e.g., is it really necessary to list 4 of spidey's foes in the intro? Wouldn't two or one suffice). I'll check the review page often to see if I could fix any of the issues that reviewer mentions. Good Luck! K im u 20:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you still working on Spider-Man? What concerns me now is the state of the footnotes. Do you want to try to clear this up or do you not care? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 01:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Dork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.44.212 ( talk) 03:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Seems to be going OK, although I'd leave the cultural impact section out unless you have something for it.
I also left some notes on One More Day at WT:CMC and given it a quick once over. Should be an easy one. ( Emperor ( talk) 03:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
[1] :) - Drilnoth ( talk) 14:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey; I was wondering if you could take a look at the proposed template in User:Drilnoth/Sandbox 5 before I ask for further comments at the appropriate pages, to even out anything that still isn't working quite right. Thanks! - Drilnoth ( talk) 03:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem - there's no rush. It strikes me that this'll be easier to make get up to standard than the FF just on the size front. I've left some thoughts on the talk page and will have a thorough read through of the article later and see if I can tweak anything.
I should be ready to propose Alex Raymond soon. I also spoke to | about Pride & Joy (comics) and left some notes on the talk page and when they're computer problems are fixed we should be able to get some more eyes on it and then we can renominate that one too. We should be able to have one or two on the go at any one time. ( Emperor ( talk) 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
thanks. been so busy with things lately, havent really had time for any wikipedia stuff. hope you guys were able to make some good use of what i started, and apologize if i was needed for it by the community, or for anything and havent been able to participate in my abscence. shadzar- talk 04:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
My time has been limited this week and I seem to have got waylaid with other issues, but hopefully I can get some time aside to help out next week. Sorry. Hiding T 11:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I reviewed your GAN for Spider-Man: One More Day. As I said on the review page, it's really in excellent shape; I only have two minor things and then I'm looking forward to getting it up to GA status. Nice job! -- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, I have added your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Coordinators' working group as a co-coordinator of the D&D project, since you're pretty helpful and get a lot of the stuff organized. If you'd rather not be listed there, feel free to remove your name. - Drilnoth ( talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 05:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You're probably feeling fairly paranoid around right now, but Raul has scheduled thru March 6, March 7 he said he might bump March 6's article to if Tony's Saxbe Fix article passes FAC, and March 8 is almost certainly gonna be Tubman. Can't you find something for late March?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 06:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I honestly feel Fantastic Four needs a lot of work before it can be considered for a GA nomination. WesleyDodds ( talk) 05:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 07:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I've undeleted Chattur and temporarily redirected it to Spelljammer. All yours! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! That's awesome. Thanks for also finding that edit; I've re-added the information to the lead, which should be growing. I agree - the article is obsessively overdetailed, and I'm planning on trimming it. Since Ms. Marvel is an old character, I should be able to dig up a million sources about her. I guarantee the article will look brilliant. -- A talk/ contribs 21:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
Great work on getting Planescape: Torment to GA! — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 10:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC) |
Fred Gallagher has just replied to me to let me know he's going to try and do an original illustration, using Megatokyo characters, in time for the 13th. He's got to have a look at the contract issues regarding copyright, but he's hopeful it's possible. Hiding T 14:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jc,
Just to prove I'm not a total layabout, I finally got to having a look at Peanuts and added a note on the talk page. :) I have to say, I don't know what the sourcing looked like two years ago, but this one still needs a tonne of citation work and is not going to pass GA without it. You might want to get together with folks like Peregrine Fisher, Hiding, and Emperor and see what they can come up with; the sources have to exist somewhere, I'm sure, even if we're talking about primary sources in some places. The article itself seems pretty good, and if we can nail that after a few hours of work, then it can move on to FA as the next step without a doubt. BOZ ( talk) 19:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Comics Star | |
For your recent work at helping organise the raw resources that are WikiProject Comics editors into the humming GA/FA machine currently underway : ) - jc37 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
Boz, do you not have super-powers? Do you want super-powers? I'll gladly nominate you for super-powers. What do you think? Hiding T 10:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Great work on those "critical reception" sections! – Drilnoth ( T • C) 02:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Good Article Medal of Merit | |
BOZ, on behalf of Wikipedians everywhere, I award you this GA Medal of Merit for your consistent contributions to articles that result in successful GA nominations, one of the most recent being Planescape: Torment. Congratulations and keep up the good work! — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 12:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks! I wish I could have done more! BOZ ( talk) 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
yeah, that is why i said someone needs to look at the site quick, and do some work to make sure the article states the truth where the Dille Family Trust website lies through its teeth. shadzar- talk 04:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 15:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, BOZ. I've been cleaning up the WikiProject Comics/Participants list right now (which has gone completely out of hand), and I've noticed your not on the list. I was going to add you while I'm cleaning the list, but out of curiousity is there a reason why you don't want to join? I'm just asking for your permission before I add you. -- A talk/ contribs 17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I get where you are coming from. I tend to use the tools the same way Emperor does, although occasionally I go on a deletion spree. My motive in asking was just that you're a good editor whom I would trust with the tools, and I think that should be enough. I don't care what you do with the tools. To be honest, I'm kind of half of the mind that we need a lot of editing admins to balance out the average. But I'm not sure how an rfa would go, I haven't visited the bear pit in a long time. I think at the end of the day, being an admin is all about judgement. I trust your judgement. I don;t know if being an admin changes people's perception; although it used to be true that if you were here long enough people assumed you were an admin, and were surprised if you weren't, I don't know if that holds up any more. What I think would be useful, is that you'd achieve more editing ambitions with the tools. I know I do. It would just mean that, on those occasions when you needed an admin, you wouldn't have to run to them, unless you needed someone neutral. But I think, looking at the thread of this conversation, that maybe you just don't see the need. Which is cool too. Sometimes I wished I'd never stepped up. The only reason I don't step down is that I know what I'd lose. Never having had them, you may well be better off. Hiding T 13:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, good adds! :) I wonder if it would make sense to use that link to source more things in articles like Pool of Radiance and Gold Box? BOZ ( talk) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I know it's been quite a while, but thanks for letting me know and for your hard work in improving the article. D dc c 06:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on the articles you mentioned - they are good quality articles now, lots of references, great stuff! Who is "we"? ··gracefool ☺ 06:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've got around to it. Apologies for the delay, I got caught up in the BLP issue. I think Drilnoth wants to co-nom, so we need to wait for him before we submit it to RFA live. Best, & good luck, Hiding T 13:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the Q's - those are some good ones, and definitely more up my alley than concerns of BLPs or how I would mishandle AFDs. ;) I won't be able to get to them quickly, as there are a few and I will need to think some of them through, but I do appreciate it! BOZ ( talk) 12:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, got it. :)
|
Looking through your contributions I found LGBT themes in comics, (which is excellent, by the way), and it gave me this idea for a userbox. I don't think it'll catch on though. :D All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 02:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that; looks like AWB has a bug! – Drilnoth ( T • C) 02:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - I don't think I've managed to look at my watchlist today and missed it. ( Emperor ( talk) 02:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
Just in case you haven't been keeping an eye on things, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). – Drilnoth ( T • C) 16:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The article
Hergé you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Hergé for eventual comments about the article. Well done!
Pmlinediter
Talk
11:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Good Article Medal of Merit | |
For all of your work in bringing articles up to GA quality, I hereby award you this medal! Great work! –
Drilnoth (
T •
C)
14:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
|
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 06:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations. Now don't go chopping off anybody's hand... BusterD ( talk) 12:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear BOZ,
I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and are aware of the items on the Administrators' reading list. Best of luck in your new position! — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I was browsing through my favorite weirdo-blogs today, and I found this image. Fitting! Now that you're an admin, you're cool enough to wear those shades. :D – Quadell ( talk) 14:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi BOZ,
A while ago I posted a call for formal cooperation between the D&D WikiProject Forgotten Realms work team and Forgotten Realms Wiki. I also posted the same call for cooperation over at Forgotten Realms Wiki.
I have seen you running around forums trying to mobilise people to help improve specific wiki articles. But only a small percentage of forum users even know how to edit a wiki.
There are a number of frustrated ex-Wikipedians who have moved to more D&D friendly wikis (like Forgotten Realms Wiki). These people all have the skills that Wikipedia needs and they all care about Forgotten Realms. I think that it would be a good idea to try to build links between wikis like Forgotten Realms Wiki and the D&D WikiProject.
I think that we could argue that Forgotten Realms Wiki's best articles function as a secondary source of Forgotten Realms information. So I think that improvements in encyclopedic information over there could possibly help underpin some of the related articles over here (against Notability claims).
But we can't save every D&D article. So I as well as trying to mobilise these FR experts to help get FR articles improved (on both wikis), I also think that we ought to ask for Wikipedia to agree to a "graceful exit" strategy for articles that are cited for deletion and can't be saved. Forgotten Realms Wiki wants to host a high level of detail of content about Forgotten Realms and I think that Wikipedia should have a "no FR article gets deleted without FR Wiki being offered a copy" policy.
I believe that you have managed to get articles temporarily undeleted, so that content could be moved elsewhere. That sort of thing could also be done for any Forgotten Realms articles that have already been deleted.
I think that if we could get this sort of cooperation going, wiki editors could help improve the FR content on both websites. And I think that given that Wikipedia doesn't want to have articles for all things D&D, that finding good D&D related wikis to act as caretakers for the "unwanted stuff" would help Wikipedia ensure that non-noteworthy, but good content wasn't wasted.
I realise that Forgotten Realms Wiki is only a tiny fish, compared with Wikipedia, but if the deltionists are going to argue that certain types of content should be taken off of Wikipedia and "left to other wikis", then I think that Wikipedia has got a duty to forge relationships with the wikis that have a similar care for detail to Wikipedia itself.
I think that this FR Wiki is the best organised independent D&D wiki I've seen. I hope you can help make some suggestions as to how the FR fans could move forward in a cooperative strategy. I think that if we can get this sorted with one campaign setting, we could then use that as a model for getting cooperation started up with the second biggest independent D&D wiki community.
Please drop by on both of the discussion pages I've linked to above and let people know how they can help without their edits getting trampled by the delitionists. Big Mac ( talk) 01:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, i'll fix up as much as I can on the page. The Jay Experience 08:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
i was just so shocked i went into comment mode and posted the smilie without realizing where i was doing so. you do so much work, you are good for the position. but guess it even adds more work for you huh? shadzar- talk 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Is undeleting Arcane magic (Dungeons & Dragons) a good idea? It looks to me, looking through the page history and the AFD, that it was mainly copied (maybe not word-for-word, but pretty close) from the SRD; if that's the case, it would probably be considered a copyvio. A lot of your undeletions so far have been well chosen, but I'm just wondering if this one is a good idea. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 03:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
CONGRATULATIONS! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Oh, no, if you're coming here to complain about RfA thankspam, I can assure you that you received none from me. ;) First of all, I'm not going to thank everyone who participated, and second of all if I did get you, then I've given some thought to what I wanted to say to you personally. :)
But hey, thanks for dropping by! ;) BOZ ( talk) 02:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You earned it. It is people like yourself that keep this place going. :) — neuro (talk) (review) 02:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I have affixed "You're Welcome" spam to the top of this section. – Quadell ( talk) 02:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy the mop... for there is always more messes to clean up than anyone might wish. Try to not let it get in the way of continued fine editing. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Just remember to use your powers wisely. ( Emperor ( talk) 03:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
Nice work! I've been feeling like I'd like to work on some more D&D related topics, but it's hard to know where to drop in. I'll probably end up joining in on those collaborations; thanks for the note! J Milburn ( talk) 11:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
As I posted on your talk page, Hergé has recently been promoted to a GA. Right now, we all should work to attempt to lift it to FA or at least A-class. I will work with you to help you in this job (will try to make at least an edit a day). And on another note, I would advise you to archive this talk page, it is taking a long time to load (over 3 seconds), though by judging the size of your previous archive, it isn't even half yet. :-) Pmlinediter Talk 12:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on becoming an admin. I don't generally participate in RFAs, but I knew you'd be a great one because of your ability to build consensus and hear other people out. We all have our preferences on Wikipedia. But I'm impressed that you haven't become jaded, and shifted into a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Keep your head up, and let me know if you ever need any help with anything. Randomran ( talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem - it's really lucky I stumbled onto that thread; I was (pleasently) surprised to hear your request. :) -- A talk/ contribs 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Boz, I don't see how I will ever doubt my decision to nominate you for rfa. You are the editor I think I most wish to be like. I'm sorry I haven't been much help with comics articles lately, I've found myself sidetracked. I think I once commented to Jc something about how "no sooner do you get it all straight, have a few drinks to celebrate, put the chairs on the table and start mopping up than a whole new crowd walks in ready to get it all straight again". I'm kind of putting my priority on the BLP issue right this second, as best I can, and keeping an eye on a few meta debates you do well to ignore. Anytime you need me, you know where I am. And you'll do fine, I promise. :) Hiding T 19:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It's looking good Boz, thanks for your work, it's a very tidy article. Someone another 13:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
On your adminship! Things are looking brighter for D&D!-- Robbstrd ( talk) 18:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Great news! I'm very happy for you, and for Wikipedia. Cheers and keep up the good work! Freederick ( talk) 20:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Allan Varney has been discussing his Dungeons and Dragons work in a thread called Allen Varney here. You might want to keep an eye on his comments, just in case any of them are useful for adding information to any D&D articles. (He might even be able to give you specific confirmation of uncitated D&D facts).
You will find a list of other D&D authors (and any threads they are answering questions about their work in) in the Celebrities on the Piazza thread.
I hope that some of this helps you get the information to back up some endangered articles and also helps you provide some more background information about D&D. Big Mac ( talk) 20:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the friendly head's up and congrats. I can now bother you too about silly Wiki-questions instead of just Emperor. What's the official Wiki-page-policy on describing fictional events in the past tense? I need a URL. No, seriously. 8-) Lots42 ( talk) 00:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
On the RFA pass. I never noticed you were up for it, but I certainly would have gone support if I had. McJeff ( talk) 05:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello BOZ, I need to ask you a question, Can I add Fictional boxers and Fictional soldiers to Dukes. It's because he is stated to be a former soldier from Team X, and a boxer along with Wraith in Wolverine. In case you're wondering I'm JoeLoeb. Hi. ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 01:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
Hello BOZ! I was just thinking maybe you and me could rally a group of comics fans and start a new fictional categories (Fictional characters with telekinesis). What do you think? ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 05:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC))
(moved from user talk:Ikip)
Now what did I say about not getting yourself into trouble over all the drama? ;) BOZ ( talk) 18:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK that User:Boz is a Conspiracy theorist? I thought it was you at first, then realized it was a different editor. Ikip ( talk) 06:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK that membership in D&D Wikiproject = "anti-Christian censorship of communist type"? lol Hekerui ( talk) 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if you want these...
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
BOZ, after you see Wolverine, can I still talk to you about soldiers and boxers for Blob? ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 05:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC))
Can you create one, BOZ. With Blind Al, Bob, Agent of HYDRA, Taskmaster, Cable, Siryn, Weapon X, Wolverine, etc. :)( JoeLoeb ( talk) 01:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC))
Yeah, I could imagine myself being disappointed on how some of the characters were altered for the Wolverine movie... I got that sense more and more as the X-Men series progressed. I did enjoy the Spider-Man series immensely though, and everyone who has seen Iron Man really enjoyed it. (I know I'm a Marvel boy at heart, but I really enjoyed The Dark Knight and Watchmen a ton.) I did take a look at your Deadpool template and I thought it looked fine. What specifically do you think needs work? BOZ ( talk) 02:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you consider adding this line to the text above new articles? there seems like small but unanimous support for it.
(I will watch your page) Thanks. Ikip ( talk) 04:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Ah - ya caught me right before bedtime, but I did comment in that thread. :) BOZ ( talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
WOW! Awesome work on that article. :) I'd do the GA review but I'm a wee bit of a Kirby fan. :) Great work, and good luck at the GAR! CarpetCrawler message me 03:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Doing the GA review as I speak. Hopefully I'll have it completed sometime today. Reading it right now, it looks pretty good, so far. I'll make my assessment at Talk:Neverwinter Nights 2/GA1. MuZemike 16:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've never played NWN2, so I won't be contributing. When you're working on NWN, BG, or BG2, I'd be glad to help out. Thanks. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation to the Wikiproject, it motivated me. When they killed all the deities it was a little weird - what makes a better story than a prophecy? I listed the article on the Assessment page for reassessment, it's probably C by now (it's mostly in universe info but I don't know any extra-universe info, an article like the one on Minsc at least has had some coverage through the video game). Thanks again. Hekerui ( talk) 00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. I have another question, does Jimmy Olsen know that Clark is Superman? ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 05:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC))
I don't know why I missed that. I'll look over the articles I assessed. :) Hekerui ( talk) 17:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasum, but if you were aware of the defects in the article, you should not have put it up in the GA queue. It takes away time that the reviewer could be using to review other GA candiates. GAC should not be used to garner help for editing an article. I suggest delisting it for now. WesleyDodds ( talk) 06:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm trying to mediate an edit war over the Galactus article here. Can you chime in with your two cents? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 00:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to get too explanatory for WP:BEANS reasons (though I'll try to clarify further if this doesn't explain well enough).
But basically I think I've learned my lesson from long past when Hiding was trying to work through WP:DR levels concerning Asgardian. Indefinite protection sometimes may not be the tool to use, especially if further follow-up action may be required.
Also, there are those who really get upset if pages are protected for too great a length of time. ("The encyclopedia that anyone can edit.) I almost made it a week, but after re-reading the talk page, decided that 3 days+a warning should be enough.
If the dispute continues, we have other options. For example, removing the entire disputed section to the talk page, to not be re-added until there is consensus.
Anyway, I hope this helps. - jc37 11:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Just making sure that you knew about this. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 13:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
i am not sure if i register account name ‘georgezhao’ before, i want to Manage my global account, but find this user name 'georgezhao' used different password, i cannot remember which one to use. i faided to merge my english account and chinese account. could you please help me to figure out why?
it seems no people is using this account‘georgezhao’ , please help me to change my user-name 'gzhao' to georgezhao? thank you very much。 Gzhao ( talk) 20:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thank you for your quick reply, but i even not sure which email account was used for that account. i did not get any email from my current gmail account. i asked at Wikipedia:Changing username. please support me to change to that account, i merged every accounts on Chinese, french and other English project, en is the last one. i really want to get it done. thanks again.
Gzhao ( talk) 22:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
BOZ, been a while. 5 days. Can you help me, I'm trying to add The Red and Blue Blur to Superman's aliases, and with your pull It can happen. Can you assist me? ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 05:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC))
Thanks, but I've tried and nobody ever responds. It's been a month, and zip. :) I'll try. ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 16:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC))
Did you three choose to bring Planescape: Torment to FA because it has its 10 year release anniversary in December? That's a good idea to boost a main page proposal I must say! Hekerui ( talk) 00:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep works for me - I've thought this was a good idea for quite a while. ;) ( Emperor ( talk) 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC))
The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). You nominated FOUR in one day. While the rules say that three of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Boz, I noticed your good work on the Alex Raymond article, so this to invite you to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Al_Williamson/archive1
Cheers,
-- Scott Free ( talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey cool, thanks for spreading the word - I'll see if I can do some editing on Mr. Valiant, if that's all right.
Cheers,
-- Scott Free ( talk) 02:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
On 6 June you placed four requests for articles to be peer reviewed: Alan Moore, Jack Kirby, Peanuts and Fantastic Four. The rules clearly state that editors are limited to one nomination per day. At present we have a long backlog of articles awaiting review, and a desperate shortage of reviewers. Please decide which of these four you most want to be reviewed, then withdraw the others and reintroduce them at intervals of a few days. And, if you really want to help the process along, why not stop by and review another article youself? Brianboulton ( talk) 23:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
BOZ,
If you've got access to 'em, could you check File:Dormammu.jpg against the various OHOTMU?
It feels like the image is from there, but the sourcing is woefully lacking.
- J Greb ( talk) 00:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems like every time I make a suggestion at a Wikiproject I get ignored. Do you have any suggestions as to where to find sources for FoxTrot? It's very hard to Google, and it's been tagged as needing secondary sources since July 2007. Clearly I'm the only person on the whole project who gives a rip about it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yup, it's moi from the good ol' Creature Catalog. I figured I could give a hand with the highly debated Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) page, like re-writing it publication history style like the Cloaker. I am willing to take on that huge task. You know me, a dragon junkie. Ravin' Ray ( talk) 13:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, sorry about the (incredibly) late reply - I got rather bogged down with my work (and a relationship, oy), and didn't have much time to do much other than occasional anonymous Wikipedia edits. I apologise for not being able to have an involvement with the Gavin.collins RFC - did anything happen with that, by the way?
Oh, and are there any articles I might be able to help with currently? -- Muna ( talk) 03:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I quit contributing to Wikipedia back in 2007 because of Gavin Collins nominating every single GURPS page that I created and/or worked on for deletion. So has Gavin been banned from Wikipedia yet? Seanr451 ( talk) 10:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to do this, but I think Abomination may need locking for a good fortnight. I tried to make a case for why some of the fairly poor additions couldn't stay, and even removed tags (which I added) and asked two questions. In response I got another attack. I think we have here a case of two rather immature editors (take a look at their Talk pages) who can't see where they are going wrong. Anyway, you can read my comments on the Talk page.
On an unrelated note, I'm glad you also like Tomb of Horrors - it's my favourite module. Just a tad unfair, perhaps, as there are something like three scenarios where there is no saving throw. I once spent quite a bit of time coming up with ways to beat the killer scenarios...ah, the good old days. Asgardian ( talk) 01:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
as I was tired of the insults. Hopefully we can get back on an even keel. I've clashed with editors in the past and since resolved our differences, so hopefully that will also be the case here.
On another note, could you comment on the article Doctor Strange? I reworked this, and there seems to be an issue for J Greb. I broke down the edits as requested, but that still doesn't seem enough. I find this a shame given that no one (as far as I know) is doing these badly needed rewrites that take quite some time. The article is certainly much improved, and I don't believe anyone could dispute this. If it needs some minor changes, so be it. I don't wish to make a complaint about him, but to judge by recent comments he's being rather snide. Over to you. Asgardian ( talk) 01:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep looks good. I'll need to go through previous discussions and make some notes, then I'll look into adding to it. ( Emperor ( talk) 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
Its not speculation its what we know based on the trailers it should be their its proven fact and source The Movie Master 1 ( talk)
You were around when the whole thing was going on more (IIRC)... I'm suspicious that Artemis56 may be another Grawp sock based on the username and immediate interest in editing D&D articles. Any thoughts? Should we just keep an eye on him? – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
In some form or another, probably. It happens, though - hence the vandalism counter on my userpage. ;-) Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It's probably way beyond the scope of DnD, but I'm not a fan of Infobox VG and the way it floats the title above the rest of the infobox (I think book infoboxes do it the same way). Do you have an opinion on it? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 06:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions are very much appreciated Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 08:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks BOZ! Appreciate the lookout. :) Luminum ( talk) 01:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks BOZ! You're a sweetheart. ;) Luminum ( talk) 05:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 21:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I just made a comment at an AfD, and I want you to know that I consider you "one of the good guys". The comment isn't really directed at you. Abductive ( talk) 22:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
For an additional reference, you could use the review in Computer Gaming World, Issue 49, pp. 20-21. There is also some mention in Computer Gaming World, Issue 63, pp. 8-9, 49. it would probably be best not to link to the URLs, however, per their notice.— RJH ( talk) 17:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It would help tremendously. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 12:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Boz, wanted to drop you a note thanking you for your work in citing old game articles with RPG magazine cites, it's the sort of thing regular VG editors would not be able to get their hands on. After the Amiga Magazine Rack proved useful I wanted to discuss it further and a couple of other sources with you in case they might come in handy.
The AMR is even more useful than it first seems. As well as scanning amiga reviews the contributors there scan entire multiformat magazines and enter them into the database, it would be easier for them to just stick to amiga but they've taken the harder option, to their credit. This makes the rack an excellent wildcard if you're looking for sources on games from other systems which were released during the amiga's lifetime, such as SNES/PC/Megadrive etc.
World of Spectrum offers a similar service, amongst other things, for the ZX Spectrum computer. This is mainly focused on British gaming at the time. A lot of games released multi-format during the spectrum's lifetime will have appeared on the Amstrad, Commodore 64 and Spectrum, meaning it should be possible to get sources for any such game (as well as Spectrum games in general of course).
Allgame is a database of games, largely US-centric, but it covers older systems as well. The writers randomly write overviews and reviews for games listed there. It is very random; there might be nothing more than a few technical details, or a very short overview, or a very long overview or even a review as well. Like the AMR it's another wildcard for older games.
Just thought I'd pass those along, since you might be interested in further video games which are related to RPGs outside of the D&D universe (though at least some of the D&D games will be covered by those above). Keep smiling :D Someone another 15:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey BOZ,
Back on an old version of my userpage, I had a short essay on my views of deletionism. But, I had my userpage deleted because there was personal stuff (age, location) on it, and lost the essay along with all that stuff. I don't want to have the entire page restored, but would it be possible for you to copy/paste the text of that section onto my talk page or userpage? Now that you're an admin you should be able to view the deleted revisions. Thanks in advance. Mc JEFF (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I just looked over WP:PR and "From Hell" caught my eye. I thought of the movie of course. Pity I don't know anything about comics or else I would have helped find sources etc. I don't like horror stuff and that movie was not exactly a fairy tale, but it had an interesting conclusion. On the other hand, the good fairy in my favourite childhood fairy tale (Frau Holle) is said to be a leftover from the goddess Hel after which hell was named (possibly). Anyway, I meant to say: Someone gave me a PR on Ram Narayan and asked me to do one for someone else. If you start another PR sometime or find one you think I can help with, tell me and I'll hopefully be able to contribute. Hekerui ( talk) 20:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you switch Girlosophy (book) and Girlosophy? It's unnecessary dab'ing, and I think that means an admin needs to do...stuff. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 05:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand about the lead. It does need to total rewrite, though. Gameplay, like I said, needs a few more drafts before it's in really good shape. As for Plot, a game guide isn't totally necessary; for example, I just found a reference that you can use for the ending: [3]. When there's no other choice, sometimes you have to get by on the barest minimum for plot cites. Plus, it can be used as a citation in Legacy. Which, by the way, is definitely necessary if you're looking to take this to GAN. An article about an influential game that doesn't have a section discussing its influence is not comprehensive. Plus, I've always found that Release sections in articles where they aren't completely necessary, as they are for stuff like Halo 3, are a waste. Most of the information in them is better off other places, or not included at all.
As for Reception, I've put in a query at the WPVG "Reference library" to see if anyone has the ACE review. You have a fair amount of reviews already, but not enough to really be called comprehensive, particularly if you're going for FA. If all else fails, I did manage to find a loophole while writing Ultima Underworld that probably contributed to the article's current FA status: foreign reviews. All you need is a decent internet translator and even languages like Swedish can be cracked. It's a slow, laborious process, but it worked for me. For some reason, it was easier to track down foreign publications than English ones; who knows. Finally, you are still going to need to deal with that Dragon magazine review. And try to cut down on its use in the article; where possible, replace it with a different source that displays similar information. This keeps the article from looking like it wasn't researched, which is something you don't want at FAC or even GAN. As for its use specifically in Reception, I'd say that the second and third paragraphs can be axed entirely. Merge a few details from four about random monster encounters into Gameplay; if I remember correctly, you don't really detail that in there. Paragraph five can be condensed into two sentences that you can tack on to paragraph one: The reviewers criticized the performance of the C64/128 version, but believed that the MS-DOS version was far superior in this regard. However, they found the latter's lengthy installation to be an annoyance. Something like that.
As a side note, this might contain some interesting information. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 01:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, arrgh! Sorry, Boz. Mea culpa. It was late in the evening, and I rushed to judgment. I will strike my erroneous comment from the top of the PR, add a mea culpa there, and continue with the review. Thanks for your patience and kind note, which, amazingly, showed no hint of anger. Finetooth ( talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 21:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Man, I love that adventure, I played it when I was about 12. Nice to see there are other D&D'ers here. Ikip ( talk) 01:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. You added a review about the game Phantasie from Dragon magazine and said the mag gave it four stars. Could you provide more context (i.e. was that 4/5 stars or 4/4 stars)? Thanks! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 10:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I think they did an artilce on Ravenloft, but they're links aren't working. [4] I saw your edit to AtheG. Do you know how to fix it. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Boz. I know this may seem random, but since you seem to know a lot about D&D, I figured you might be able to give me a tip. I'm in a campaign that's gone in a direction that no one, not even the DM, had expected; one of the PCs is about to be tried for treason. But the thing is, we don't really know how to go about it. Are there any sources on how the judicial system works in D&D (3.5) or is it just kinda make it up as you go? Minaker ( talk) 06:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, Boz! :) Minaker ( talk) 05:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
[Check this http://www.myjones.com/code/limited.php?campaign=wizards]! Hekerui ( talk) 22:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Boz - 'sup - FYI - the Al Williamson article that I've been pimping has been nommed for GA (see 'Miscellaneous' section) -- Scott Free ( talk) 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI. You contributed the most to this article. Ikip ( talk) 23:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, BOZ. That sounds good, I'll contact you again when I'm ready. 70.106.205.159 ( talk) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd say hello and advise that I've been cleaning up a lot of the little articles with no images and little info of late. I have a laundry list of these non-entities I'm working through, but please advise if anything stands out. Regards. Asgardian ( talk) 08:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S - don't go near those curtains! If they are ripped they turn to green slime!
Well, I kind of started the project over two years ago, and haven't worked on it for a variety of reasons (grad school), so a second pass will be kind of desirable once I get through the first pass (which, at the current rate, will easily take another year or so). Thanks for the tip, though. Nifboy ( talk) 04:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Please be assured that I haven't forgotten the review. It normally takes me a few days to return to an FAC, especially when a large backlog of planned reviews is combined with attending college full-time. I'll take a look at the changes either tonight or tomorrow (probably the latter). Giants2008 ( 17–14) 22:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I have archived the Graphic novel PR request due to the current cleanup banner. The nature of a peer review is clearly outlined in the introductory paragraph of the WP:Peer review page. The essence is in the wording: "...is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." Lower down, in bolded print, is the stipulation about cleanp banners. Although there is currently no formal rule, it is reasonable that PR nominations should be limited to those from editors who have themselves done substantial work on the article being nominated. Please remember that peer reviewing is done voluntarily by ordinary editors, some of whom are prepared to sacrifice a lot of their online time helping to improve articles. I am sure that your efforts to bring articles to PR have been in good faith, but for the future it is as well that you should be clear as to how the system works. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
'lo guys,
I'm cross posting this to BOZ, Doczilla, Emperor, Hiding, and Jc37 because I'd like some additional admin-level input on something that ThuranX dropped on my talk page.
What he posted is at User talk:J Greb#I'm not saying I told you so... and it deals with information that' come up at Talk:Red Hulk#Dates while describing the plot. ThuranX's post provides a direct link to the touch off edit/confession.
Frankly, I find the information more than a little frustrating. But before moving forward I would like some input from other admins that have had to deal with these two. Admins other' than the one (Nightscream) currently involved in the edit war on Red Hulk.
Just try and keep this in one place I've set up a subhead under ThuranX's post to mey talk.
Thanks in advance for any input you have to offer.
- J Greb ( talk) 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Boz. I have never asked you for anything, but you came to mind for some reason.
I am a little concerned by this personal attack, [5] and was hoping a non-involved admin could drop a short line on this editors page, as I feel any further contact will be meet negatively.
Thank you sir in advance. Ikip ( talk) 16:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't really need one. The pub hist needs some reffing care (mostly primary), and then the whole article needs a couple for c/e sweeps, and it's an FA. Or else, there's you PR. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 02:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, BOZ! Sorry for not responding sooner; as you probably surmised from my contribution history, I've been away for several months. I plan to return to Wiki-editing regularly (if not often), and it's good to see some of my old and treasured colleagues still here fighting the good fight. With kudos and regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, -- A Nobody My talk 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I know this was discussed this past February, but after we had an edit dispute on Red Hulk, Asgardian and Peregrine Fisher requested that we have another one, so I'm going to try and contact as many people as I can to hopefully hash it out once and for all. Can you participate in the discussion here? Thank you very much. It is most appreciated. Nightscream ( talk) 05:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't, er, noticed it (ho ho ho!), but I've got it bookmarked now — it's a good idea to have a page like that. I made a couple of copy edits (following Strunk & White's advice to go on a "which" hunt) and added a couple of important comics creators whose pages need attention. Nice add, BOZzie! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I was tad suprised and disappointed to see this comment [6] added to the discussion here [7]. It was a legitimate reversion as the changes had several flaws, which I pointed out to the editor here: [8]. As a result, there has been no more revision of that section in the article.
I respect your input, so if in doubt about any of my edits, please just ask. Asgardian ( talk) 03:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
One perhaps for your good article drive, Lívia Rusz? Don't look at me, never heard of her. Hiding T 21:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
So, you gonna take it to FAC? I think my next FA is going to be White Plume Mountain after I finish Jackie Robinson. You should do AtG. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 03:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I mean...c'mon man. Gavin.Collins was an appropriate subject for an RfC but A Nobody's is a partisan witch hunt? I don't want to pull the whole "you have to agree w/ X if you agreed with Y" but gavin's was another case that could have ended with the same old shit (as it were) but didn't because people were determined to find some resolution. I don't want to hassle but that hurt a little. Protonk ( talk) 02:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
As an editor who I respect greatly, I would love your opinion of the RFC off wiki, but I see you don't have email :( No need to provide your opinion here. You are welcome to email me though. Ikip ( talk) 05:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Per your edit summary comment, I would like to know more about the Marble Madness review in Dragon #131.
PS- I haven't gotten a chance to say this yet, but I think it's great you're taking the time to offer your magazine resources. I've already spotted a few other games I would like to work on in the future. Thanks for all your hard work. ( Guyinblack25 talk 14:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC))
Hi, BOZ. I promise I'll pitch in on the Spider-Man peer review. In the meantime, would you mind taking a look here. You might remember some time back an Arbitration that went against User:Asgardian for, among other things, his edits at Awesome Android. He's not making similarly wholesale edits that contradict Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars / Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance. If you get a chance, would you mind taking a look in your capacity as admin? I fear a repeat of an edit war I thought was long settled. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 05:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I will endeavor to get there. By coincidence, I was touching up some things there this morning! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The VG Barnstar | |
In recognition of all your efforts to improve Wikipedia's older game articles, one review at a time, I award you this. Keep on truckin'! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 01:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC) |
Just wanted to let you know that you have two new peer reviews for spider-man here. // Gbern3 ( talk) 20:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Please you can digitalize the review of sokoban: Lesser, Hartley, Patricia, and Kirk (April 1988). "The Role of Computers". Dragon (132): 80-85.
Hey, just wanted to drop by and tell you: I think what you're doing is fantastic. Having quicker access to Dragon's reviews will make people's lives a lot easier, when they start working on those articles. I had to dig long and hard to find Dragon's review of Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss; once I did, getting it involved several days worth of downloading. Interested parties now know when the magazine reviewed a game, and can just check the history to see who added said review. It's great; keep up the good work. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 10:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
National Cartoon Museum looks like it could be worth pursuing. Hiding T 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC) See also: No-Prize, should be up your street? Hiding T 13:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
My latest FA has finished. Do you want to do a co nom on Against the Giants? It seems like it's prett ready. Maybe cut down on the plot per the PR. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I had no idea there was such a thing :) Hekerui ( talk) 14:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about the Signpost article about the D&D WikiProject. I found it interesting. I understand the problems the three of you discussed; they stress me out as well. On all too many occasions I wonder why I bother; knowing editors like you are out there fighting the good fight helps keep my morale up. I'm glad you're pushing forward with thr project. I prefer to stick where I am: randomly striking when and where the mood takes me, so I probably won't ever formally join the project, but I support you. Best of luck in your future editing! — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you watch pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation? The fiction ones are deader than I've ever seen them. I think we may have run out of delitionists (you know the editing numbers are declining). - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 06:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Just drawing your attention to my statement on the matter.— Kww( talk) 17:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, would you like to chime in on this discussion? I'm trying to explain to someone why characters from other lines (Sgt. Savage, Extreme, etc.) don't belong on the List of G.I. Joe ARAH characters, but can't seem to get through to him.-- Ridge Runner ( talk) 06:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll try to fix it. I have a widescreen monitor didnt realize it ran so wide.- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 23:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, BOZ! I've got the new '70s-horror-comics issue of Back Issue, and there was a recent Alter Ego with some Werewolf and Man-Thing material, so that might not be a bad idea. I recently found about a dozen 1970s issues of The Comics Journal a couple of 1980s Comics Features, and a copy each of the truly obscure Whizzard (with Chaykin and Steranko interviews) and Graphic Story Magazine, so I've been combing through them for usable historical material. Now if only the latest round with Agardian doesn't chase me away again for a few months to recover...! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi BOZ, thanks for the Dragon citation at Savage (video game) - there's a few bits of information I think should go in: Which platform did the reviewer use (I'm guessing it wasn't the Spectrum), and briefly what their main priases and criticisms were. Thanks! Marasmusine ( talk) 09:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
Heh - thanks, and I said it before, but I do mean it - I hope it goes better for you next time! BOZ ( talk) 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, to be completely honest, I did not know of the WikiProject Dungeons and Dragons. I am in the process of reading the interview between you and the other two editors now, though. And thanks for your approval on my additions to the Ruins of Adventure article. Macai ( talk) 23:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't suppose any of them have anything on Dragon Warrior or other Dragon Quest series? 陣 内 Jinnai 06:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there more stuff in that review? If so, I could certainly would like to see more from that review to expand on the article a little more.
Also, they didn't happen to review The Guardian Legend by chance, did they? (Such a review would have been somewhere in early 1989 which was when the game was released in North America.) MuZemike 04:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. Let me know if there's anything I need do. I admire your wherewithal. This isn't easy. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Kiki Kaikai - I am doing the GAR on this and will likely fail it if it does not get some print sources (or electronic copies of such, ie like the CD-ROM) as it was obviously a popular game given the number of ports and yet the reviews, which are from a more recent look, are all negative and therefore it almost certainly fails WP:NPOV since companies don't port unpopular games. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Nutiketaiel ( talk) 15:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 01:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
How likely do you think it is Thagomizer would pass a GA? Hiding T 14:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
See what you think about Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy as well. I don't know how things stand with this sort of article. Hiding T 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Am in the middle of a mess right now, but I think I have a desired outcome for Asgardian RFC. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, I think the desired outcome would be to instigate the old arbitration restrictions indefinitely, restricting Asgardian to one revert per week, or possibly topic banning if an administrator feels Asgardian has been disruptive. Hiding T 10:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it seems that User:Scott Free has been blocked by User:Brandon apparently relating to User talk:BOZ/RFCU Asgardian draft. It might be useful if you could sort out the lead. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello BOZ, this is 70.106.212.170. I can't believe Icewind Dale II passed GAN. A ton of thanks for nominating it for me. 70.106.200.51 ( talk) 02:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
A lot of editors point to this deleted article as everything that is bad with inclusionism. I would be interested why: Telepathy and war to User:Ikip/Telepathy and war thank you in advance. Ikip ( talk) 17:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
At Juggernaut (comics) today, he removed another editor's "Fictional character biography" subhead to mash together PH and FCB. I also wrote about this Juggernaut-like unstoppable tendency a moment ago at Talk:Adam Warlock, if you'd like more detail of the problem as demonstrated on that page. I can't believe after all the discussion and all the editorial consensus not to mash up those two sections, he's still doing it. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
hes also doing it to rhino (comics) Ghidorah ( talk) 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Hiding's effort failed should tell you that everything that is being offered up is opinion. There are no rules against bold edits, and as I've stated, the Guidelines are tinged with grey. Recheck the discussion here: [13]
Also, this comment what with all the complaints I've seen from numerous people is somewhat farcical. Who? An editor who suffers from a medical condition and makes irrational statements? A blind reverter who was exposed as a sockpuppet? Another editor who is either very young; has a medical condition or is a sockpuppet? The fans who insist on huge summaries of games and TV shows? I can offer evidence of attempting to reason with all these people.
In short, I think there is an overreaction by a very small group of editors who are perhaps not open to discussion of new ideas. Please also note - and this is important - that these repeated attempts at comment/sanctions can undermine your own credibility and may imply that this is a grudge. Asgardian ( talk) 03:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The structures suggested in this section are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article; they are not meant to enforce a single, binding structure on all articles, nor to limit the topics a fully developed article will discuss.
Many thanks. Asgardian ( talk) 03:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
See, you notice that what I’m saying is merely my own personal opinion – or in some cases merely exasperated sighing – rather than any actual intended statement of fact. "Not wanting to come down hard on you" is exactly right – block ‘em and book ‘em is not my style, and I prefer to reserve that sort of treatment for vandals and legitimate troublemakers. Besides, as I said, that would bring about from you accusations of things such as "secret cabals" with a "grudge" out to get you, coupled with "but I didn't even do anything wrong" – so basically, a heavy handed approach would only make you upset, make me look bad, and solve nothing – I think JGreb and Hiding for example have tried that with you and gotten only contempt. I say that talking to you doesn't accomplish much, because you seem to then go on your merry way as if to stick your fingers in your ears and say "I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you" when someone tells you something you don’t want to hear. Not to say that you never listen, but only when you choose to be receptive.
As to the theory of a small group of people on a witchhunt against you, well that’s one good reason to have an RFC. If it turns out that a small group of people are persecuting you for no good reason, then the community at large will recognize this and the people involved will look pretty bad, wouldn’t you say? If as you say, there is some secret cabal that think they have ownership rights over comic-related articles, then wouldn’t it be in your favor to have this exposed to the community for what it is? Or if, instead, you fear that there is something about you which will be exposed, then maybe you really do have something to worry about? An RFC cannot impose any sanctions that its subject does not willingly agree to – look at the recent one on A Nobody. Nor is it necessarily, and properly, a prelude to ArbCom – unless the community at large agrees that the person is very much in the wrong, and the person continues in what the RFC determined to be wrong behavior. Complaints I’ve seen against you, Asgardian, stretch back years and from many people – this is not a new thing, not recent by any means, and not from as small a group as you seem to think. I was hoping that by now, and still am, that you will see how much difficulty other editors find in working with you and that you will learn to work better with those who are willing to be collaborative so that we can all work together to build something good. I would rather see that any day than to see some actual sanctions be forced on you – which is the main reason I argued to go with an RFC over another ArbCom. See it how you will, say of me what you will, but to me RFC is the best thing for this situation at this time. BOZ ( talk) 04:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Will add more. This is a start. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
First of all i think this pages needs some archiving :). Secondly thanks for the support and for the offer of Drilnoths help it greatly appreciated. Salavat ( talk) 04:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I added a section in the Bombuzal talk page for you to check out. InternetMeme ( talk) 08:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please add more info from this review? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 06:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please. The more reviews the merrier, though there's no point merely having the information that its been reviewed without any of the points made by the review.-- Sabre ( talk) 12:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I think you've probably been on Wikipedia a lot longer than me, so apologies if I've sounded condescending in that conversation at Project Video Games talk page. AirRaidPatrol 84 ( talk) 20:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | |
For taking the time to rescue Sword of Aragon from foundational copyright violations. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC) |
First off, a big thank you for all your work going through those old reviews, I love seeing your progress updates on the VG project talk page. As per your edit summary on Final Fantasy II, I would like to ask for any more detail you might have from that review (November 1993, issue 199). Thank you! -- Pres N 16:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your incredible, long-running work on finding reviews for classic games in Dragon magazine, updating and creating articles as needed through 15 years of reviews, I hereby award you this barnstar! -- Pres N 16:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC) |
Woohoo! :) BOZ ( talk) 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You've been here since early 2006 and not come across a Crat before? I tip my hat to you. Wikipedia's built on content contributors like you, so it's lovely to pop in and say hello. From a Crat. Oops. Don't click that link, it'll sully you :-) -- Dweller ( talk) 12:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
OIC, but I think the full title of the board game is 1830: The Game of Railroads and Robber Barons. See this page. MrKIA11 ( talk) 14:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 18:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, but it was your finding of Dragon reviews (though not this one, it was the earlier Alisia Dragoon addition) that inspired me to look for Dragon and other reliable sources to revamp this page; so take some credit for yourself too. Jappalang ( talk) 22:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving, BOZ!
Do you think the Asgardian RFCU is ready to go to the next step? His edit warring hasn't abated, and I've just added information on his latest attempt at circumventing mediation at Juggernaut (comics). You have to read it to believe it. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Now, I like the way you have handled yourself to date, and you haven't been petty in any shape or form (something I unfortunately can't say of everyone), and took your advice on board. Recent edits will tell you as much (it was two things actually: one was your advice, the second the fact that on close examination none of the featured comic articles really passed muster. If we don't work together they never will).
As to my "latest attempt", I'll throw the matter over to Jc37, as he's now involved and we (as another editor supports the revised version and there's been no debate otherwise) are dealing with what I can only assume is an immature and probably obstinate editor.
Regards Asgardian ( talk) 04:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I think over this coming week I'll have a lot more free time than I was expecting to have; I think I can finally look into getting everything in order to get the RFC/U up and running. It will take me a little while to look at everything thus far involved. BOZ ( talk) 06:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, BOZ. I'm handling a GAN on which the reviewers are no longer around (
Boys' Ranch), and the original nominator has stepped back as no longer inclined to work on it.
As you might remember, you worked on getting a couple of articles while I was reviewer to GA previously (
Dragonlance &
Winnie Winkle), and everything went well. I wondered, if you had time, if you might be able to lend a hand with the article under review? I'll leave a note at the relevant WikiProject, too; it'd be a pleasure to have you on board if your time allows though. Thanks, and have a good weekend. –
Whitehorse1
13:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment. I had a twange of nostalgia (having fanatically played the game long ago) and decided to check if the project has an article on it, thereby seeing the copyviolation instantly. Since you have pointed out Dragon's review, I decided to search for more sources (surprisingly there were) and flesh the article out. Jappalang ( talk) 01:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe this protection is unneeded. The anon, unexplained reverts were over, one revert with an explanation was made, and it was then already taken to Talk and tagged appropriately before the protection was levied. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 20:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hiya again! Got the photo OK'd (as was prerequisite) and tightened up a bit here-and-here with thorough checking twice by Jaquays himself for facts, etc. Amusing to see http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/days-of-high-adventure/6847-Gamings-Renaissance-Man online, too: Paul did mention that was forthcoming and was going to note there was nothing for him on Wiki'(!)... just after I mentioned to him that I was looking to finish the edit I'd started nine months before. Good timing, or what? ;) Could you have a check through vs. the quality standards, please, aiming for B-ish or thereabouts (slightly shorter, more factually correct and about equally referenced compared with Dave Arneson's article at that point). Many thanks, David. Harami2000 ( talk) 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry; I /was/ going to add "time permitting"... oops! ;) +thx for forwarding for checking. Nice of the Escapist article to give me the DYK refhook I was looking for (not just curriculum creator but also co-founder for The Guildhall at SMU) as was known but couldn't obtain a definitive reference for. Cheers, David. Harami2000 ( talk) 01:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see more info from the review in Dragon. And the one on the Atari Lynx too, if you could.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 14:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
BOZ, yes. What a difference. The book itself is actually a very interesting read, and unlike some comic efforts Mike Conroy actually knows what he is talking about. This will help with dozens of characters. I also have a few favourite DC villains and will tackle them in coming weeks. This is definately going to help the standard of a great many articles.
Regards Asgardian ( talk) 00:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It's your birthday! All the best for your day of honor and much health for the next life-year :) Congrats on the feature today, too! Hekerui ( talk) 23:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on making the front page. I remember how hard the D&D taskforce worked on that article. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 07:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I hear you.
Might it be possible for you, as an admin, to protect the article once again? There's edit-warring going on, which began a single day after the last protection was lifted.
Courage. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 04:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll talk with you re: matters, but be careful who you listen to. Regards. Asgardian ( talk) 11:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The draft Asgardian RFCU has been cited in WQA [ [17]]. I know nothing about the past history of any editor involved here but it strikes me as odd -- it's a draft so it's none of my business but it's cited on WQA so it is?? Gerardw ( talk) 03:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Other matters aside, I'm actually going to tackle four DC villians that are favourites of mine as there is some good 3rd party stuff. Let me know if there are any out there you like that need a touch up. Regards. Asgardian ( talk) 07:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
On another note, I've made some fairly solid additions to Galactus, adding another lead paragraph for context, a great 3rd party quote and tidied up some language and an incorrect source. Also occurs to me that there's no Biography, so will put in more work on adding all the important issues in the PH, then let the B explain who the character is and what happens after. Regards Asgardian ( talk) 04:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I have noticed that you have recently done a lot of work to try to improve the articles of some older video games, and so I was wondering if you would be interested in joining the new retro games task force.
AirRaidPatrol 84 ( talk) 19:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw the comments here: [18], and responded on J Greb's page : [19]. Tough one. Asgardian ( talk) 04:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the exact historical scope is for the behavior by him you wish to include, so I'll try to limit it to three examples from this year:
The first thing I would think you might find useful would be the ANI review of my block of Asgardian in February 2009, his fifth one overall, which was, IMO, incorrectly reversed. The reason I think you might find it useful is because I detail, with a copious amount of Diffs, many examples of his behavior. Of particular interest is the Points of Contention section, because I respond to a number of Asgardian's own statements in order to refute them, and highlight his lies, his use of logical fallacies, his double-standards, etc. It's a lot to slog through, BOZ, and I apologize, but the amount of material is determined by what Asgardian provides us. If you go through it and verify the Diffs, they may prove valuable.
The second thing would the Red Hulk matter from a few months ago. I'm not sure if it was already mentioned on the RfC page, or not, but here it is: During that incident he continued his behavior of reverting during a consensus discussion, even though that's what his last two blocks were four, including his last unreversed block. You'll notice that it's a continuation of his issue with titles, issue numbers and dates from the above matter in February. One of his claims that I refuted in that matter was that there was a discussion pertaining to this that supported his view on them. I not only showed that the discussion had nothing to do with this, but I jumped into that discussion, and the others not only told me that they never discussed this, but that they agreed with my viewpoint about occasionally mentioning them. But now in September he was again removing them, despite this. I tried to start another discussion on the Red Hulk Talk Page to accomodate him, and he continued his behavior. He insisted on September 3 that we needed yet another discussion to bring it to a wider audience, so I again went to the Comics Project page. Among the things that occurred during the Red Hulk discussion was that he was again arguing against a "laundry list" or "minefield" of dates and issue numbers that he felt would make the article unreadable. I tried to point out that no one would favoring littering the article with them, but only to mention them occasionally, a nice middle ground between his preference for none of them, and the notion of having too many. When I tried to ask him on September 3 if he understood this, he evaded the question, saying we should discuss that on the Comics Project page. Naturally, he never answered this question there either, an example of him stonewalling when his fallacies are rebutted. I should also mention that during the course of this, I protected the article in order to encourage discussion and consensus. It was opined by the others that I shouldn't have done this because I was involved. I apologized for this, having not known that it would matter (though I've since heard contrary opinions on this). In any event Administrator Mangojuice tried to desysop me for this on the AN Board. here is my post in which I defend myself, and in so doing, I detail Asgardian's behavior with respect to ownership of articles and consensus. Reading that and the Red Hulk Talk Page discussion may prove useful.
Last, he claimed in October that he doesn't "ever" make blind reverts. In fact, here is one example in which he did do so, during the aforementioned Red Hulk matter a month prior, and here is my revert of it. When I pointed this out (as it was only one month to the day prior), he reacted badly, leaving these silly taunts on my Talk Page, implying that my pointing this out was not proper admin conduct, was something for which I could lose my admin privileges, would "go to an overall pattern", and so forth.
Hope this helps. Happy Holidays. Nightscream ( talk) 07:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - I'll go through what you have and then if I can think of any other good examples I'll hunt them down (although with an eye on the fact that it is impossible to be completely comprehensive as it'd take someone weeks to go through every single incident, so I'll aim for the ones that best show the problem). ( Emperor ( talk) 15:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
What I've primarily noticed is him removing cleanup tags, usually the primary sources tags. Sometimes there's no explanation, and sometimes he says "All comics articles are like this" (which, by the way, they aren't). I know he's done this to the Eternity article, but there's far more I can't recall at the moment. WesleyDodds ( talk) 13:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to dig into this in the next few days and help out. ThuranX ( talk) 06:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Woh.... i dont even remember that nomination. My viewpoint has definatly changed now that it obvisiously exists, hope you can save it. Salavat ( talk) 01:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Obviously, this is nothing I can respond to in 5 minutes and with Xmas upon us this will take time. I suspect much of it will be shown to be POV by some (and there are counter arguments), but let's get it over with once and for all. Regards
Asgardian ( talk) 09:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
RE: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Asgardian#Evidence
I note with dismay once again that you do not have e-mail. I would like to privately discuss your evidence section, I have some constructive criticism, and I think it is better that I say it before anyone else does. Ikip 17:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
BOZ, I noted you locked the article for now. I really have tried and tried with Dave, and made concessions where possible. He, however, wants to argue everything right down the wording of each and every sentence. Unfortunately, he's also wrong about the use of the OHOTMU and got to let that go. My reasoning (right up until the lock) is all at the Talk Page. I'll post it elsewhere and hopefully once again get some support. I like Dave, but he's got to be a tad more flexible (I also don't know to what degree his medical condition is effecting his judgement).
Regards
Asgardian ( talk) 01:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 04:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you've got enough signatures (more than enough, in fact) now; I suppose I'll just add an outside view since I sort of backed away from this one a while ago. You would definitely, though, want to talk to Nightscream who initiated the one you linked to. He would have a lot to add, and might even sign under "tried and failed". However, given that he was asked to stop blocking Asgardian because he had gotten too involved, maybe an outside view from him would be best. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I added my endorsement, and since it has gained three signatures within 48 hours it is now active. Asgardian should be notified. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, sorry. DrBat ( talk) 02:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. I've been looking over the page, and wanted to know if I should add my name to the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" and "Other users who endorse this summary" headings. What is the difference between the two? Why do the users leave their name under one and not the other? Is signing both of them not recommended? Nightscream ( talk) 19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
...would be welcome on Bizarro with regard to the edit history and this comment I've left on Asgardian's talk page.
Thanks,