![]() | 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. |
BOZ, Marcus Brute moved List of G.I. Joe ARAH characters to List of G.I. Joe characters without discussion. I'm unable to revert it and posted it to WP:Requested Moves saying it was an undiscussed move, but instead of reverting the move like he should have, Anthony Appleyard listed the reversion as a controversial request. Could you help me out on this, please?-- Ridge Runner ( talk) 00:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to revert your edit, but there has been a request that all changes be discussed first on the talk page. Best Regards. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. Happy New Year! Wish I could begin it on a more positive note: Would you entertain page-protecting Juggernaut (comics) once again? Asgardian and David A are edit warring, with the latter attempting to remove or edit Asgardian's continuous insertion of his disputed and non-consensus edit. Oy, oy, oy.
By the way, had you noticed that the main Steve Ditko fan site, Blake Bell's Ditko Looked Up, appears to be gone? I left a not on the Ditko talk page asking if anyone knew whether it had been archived.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I will also have to mention this - and the abrupt and unilateral action re: a month long ban - in my submission to the ANI. I have to say that this action was ill advised. The main focus, however, will be - and should have been prior to this - dealing with the conduct of David A.
Regards
Asgardian ( talk) 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For your tireless, valiant efforts as one of the newer admins, volunteering so much of your time on the needs of your fellow editors. Tenebrae ( talk) 14:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
Greetings. As I've been unblocked, I would now like to move on to resolving the other issues, which still require discussion. I note your comments here [2]. Yes, while on a technical level you can do this as an administrator, I believe that it was handled incorrectly. What you really needed to do here is have a good look at the Edit Summmary, which would indicate:
1 - David A was not in conflict with me or for that matter anyone on that article. It had been some days since he last edited the article.
2 - In an attempt to keep the peace, I laid down all the changes edit by edit in an effort to spell out what I was doing. This is all in the Edit History of the article. You can also see my constant efforts to speak with Ghidorah linked on the Talk Page, and there were many attempts. In return all we got were blind reverts and almost no commmunication.
3 - Why was it permissible for Tenebrae to make a blind reversion to an inferior version of the article when DrBat was warned not to? What should have happened is someone should have encouraged him to make changes by increments as I had done, and have the Edit Summary reflect this. As I've noted repeatedly, I asked him three times not to delete valid information and to by all means make technical changes, but not to blindly revert. Thankfully, it looks like he's taken that on board.
4 - I would humbly request that you base minimum unblock Dave. I would also like to be unblocked if possible, as there was nothing but cooperation from myself on that article in recent times, and an attempt to resolve the issues.
I like you, and admire the fact that you make an active effort to keep the peace. We could all, however, be not so much better editors but smarter ones. There's a level on which we only sometimes play on, and really need to be there all the time. For example, I think you shouldn't have made that comment (something like "I don't want to hear it"); Tenebrae shouldn't have posted that Barnstar which could to some be construed as gloating (and was not a pleasant task at any rate); I shouldn't have made a follow-up comment to one of Dave's tirades that only served to fuel the fire ("Yup, there you go"); Dave shouldn't have called me XYZ and so on. I suppose the general rule is if we have to think about it twice, then we probably shouldn't type it. As I said, better, and I will certainly try.
Finally, I just wanted to let you know that I am going to be contacting Wikipedia and presenting a case (with a series of examples) that relates to administrators and their conduct. I really feel - and this is NOT personal - that there are too many instances of inexperienced users exercising their administrative power without correctly assessing the situation. I've seen it done several times now, and while most actions have been overturned there is a recurring pattern (also note that you are not the prime example - there is another administrator whose actions have been of real concern and have been questioned several times) and it needs discussion.
There will be no venom in this, and I would have no objection to you commenting. I think you are a fine editor (and quite likely a fine person if I ever met you), but feel that you and few others could benefit from having a mentor who acts as a senior administrator and is a sounding board on all major decisions.
It may come to nothing, but at least I will have been heard.
Regards Asgardian ( talk) 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Regards Asgardian ( talk) 07:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
PS. - For a light-hearted change of pace, I might even tackle a D & D module. :) Asgardian ( talk) 07:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
00:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
...There's nothing like print sources, I always say. They just seem to be better researched and more solid, since the writer knows that if he or she gets something wrong, you can't just go online and fix it. I also just added what seems like important background to Dick Ayers early career, including his confirmation of his first Kirby, inking ... but I'd forgotten to sign in! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hate to download this on you BOZ, but I could use some input. And it covers the ongoing.
See Nova (Frankie Raye), Talk:Nova (Frankie Raye)#Infobox image, and Celestial (comics).
Thanks
- J Greb ( talk) 05:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
In a related note, do you think this should be added as one of the examples to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian? It feels like a thinly-veiled threat to me. DrBat ( talk) 07:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
If it gets any worse at Celestial (comics), it may be a good idea to drop the ban on Juggernaut as requested, and move it to that article. We'll see. As for Nova, that seems a bit like me to be fighting over whether apples are better than oranges. BOZ ( talk) 14:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Finally, I'm letting you know as a courtesy, based on the comment made here (it is linked) [3]; what I saw going at Galactus yesterday [4] and a general inability to grasp some basic points outlined at Talk pages [5]; I'm reintroducing an action re: David A. Unfortunately, this is where the issues originate, and this is what needs to be resolved. I've tried and tried to reason with this editor, but he can't/won't acknowledge even basci issues. The MC may just be the telling factor, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. You don't have to reply, as I'm just advising you as a courtesy.
Regards Asgardian ( talk) 02:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
No, David A has been very willing to compromise by adjusting the wording to find a solution that everyone can accept, and does not make major intrusions, simply minor adjustments, flow, or accuracy-corrections, but is regardless blindly censored. Whereas you completely ignore my Talk points beyond in all seriousness proclaiming that you and not Marvel's editorial department have the right to decide what's in continuity or not, and to repeatedly censor the references you personally dislike once again.
Meanwhile your complaints page continues to fill out, and I particularly agree about the new comment that the sheer neverending scale of the problem you are is extremely hard to convey to an outsider who hasn't had to deal with you several hundred times in a row. Oh, and you also contradicted your own insincere "tsk-tsk disapproving" statement about not contacting BOZ. "Regards" and "Please think this through" Asgardian. At this point I'm halfway willing to simply write you off as an Encyclopedia Dramatica troll having a go with Wikipedia, as you show much of the behaviour and attitude patterns. Dave ( talk) 09:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Given that these seems to be turning into the usual problem of censoring any accuracy adjustment I make no matter how trivial, or censoring any contradicting information, and (to repeat from the column above) I have been very willing to compromise by adjusting the wording to find a solution that everyone can accept, in each case. I would like some unbiased outside input to clear it up, and give me some input I can actually trust, so I'm asking you, and Tenebrae as you are editors whose judgement I trust. To me subjectively the two involved editors there seem too severely biased to be willing to compromise in the slightest, and I'm tired of going around in circles about it. (Meaning: I need someone with a clear head, and who isn't cultishly devoted to the character, to evaluate and tell me what is the appropriate thing to do for me here) Dave ( talk) 11:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Boz. Given that we discussed these very changes above, is there any chance that you could weigh in on the current Galactus Talk? Dave ( talk) 19:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I meant to ask you something the other day and the huge page crashed my Firefox :) No joke. Hekerui ( talk) 00:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I suppose it is an idea. I'm open to suggestions. I'm just tired of comments such as the latest here: [9]. Regards Asgardian ( talk) 05:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a question: Why are the comments of some editors, like Emperor and Peregrine Fisher, on the Draft Page, but not the Live Page? Also, was comics article editor/administrator User:Jc37 notified? Nightscream ( talk) 09:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Regards Asgardian ( talk) 04:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. I hope you don't mind me naming you as a party; The arbitration fill-out form provided spaces for four involved parties, including the filing party (me). This left the focus of our efforts (Asgardian), and two left over, so I chose you and Tenebrae, because you spearheaded the RfC, and because Tenebrae has supported my observations on the RfC Talk Page of Asgardian's WP:GAME behavior when criticized. If you feel I should not have named you, I apologize; just let me know, and I'll try to amend this.
There are two spaces available for the other parties to comment. According to the Arbitration guide, State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail. Since one of the spaces provided must be for Asgardian to comment, the other will go to you or Tenebrae, though I suppose the second one of you to get there can simply create another.
Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request for Permanent, Site-Wide Ban on Asgardian and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 22:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
See, this is the sort of refusal to take decisive action that I've never understood from all the editors who come across Asgardian-related matters. It's bad enough when uninvolved outsiders are like this; When people like you, who know his history, and spearheaded an RfC say these things, it's just mind-boggling.
Why would you propose a solution that you know wouldn't work??? This makes no sense. "Mentoring" implies teaching him to do something that he doesn't know how to do; This isn't the problem here, because Asgardian's shortcoming is one of character, and not ability. In order for "mentoring" to work, he has to be willing to admit that he has a problem, and acknowledge the authority of the mentor. But if he's never admitted that his behavior is a problem, and employs the manipulative, intellectually dishonest statements to avoid doing so, and habitually ignores or attacks people with snide innuendo and personal ad hominem remarks when they challenge or criticize him (watch--I'll bet he'll quote this very post in the coming days of the Abitration case), then what suggests to you that he'll acknowledge a mentor? Why acknowledge a mentor when he won't acknowledge us? Wasn't the RfC the last opportunity for him to exhibit a genuine "change", BOZ? I think so. How many more chances, blocks, RfCs, etc. is he or anyone else to be allowed before it is considered reasonable to conclude that he is incorrigible?
I mean, on the one hand, the things you say about him appear to be in agreement with me, yet you insist on this non-committal neutrality with respect banning? Don't you understand that it is the responsibility of those of us in the community who are most familiar with him to put an end to all the strife he causes? If we don't, then who will? Whose responsibility do you think it is? Don't you understand that you're precisely one of the people that ArbCom is looking to for indication of what to do, and that by not being firm on this, you're the one empowering further? Please reconsider. With due respect my friend, if you don't do something when you know that you're one of the people who needs to, then you're only part of the problem. Nightscream ( talk) 06:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The statement is harmful, but at the same time, I don't want to squelch dissenting opinions. I just wish that such dissent were backed up by reason and evidence, instead of the same skittishness toward drawing a line in the sand. I would far prefer if you were convinced that Asgardian needs to be banned, especially given that I had thought we were in agreement over his incorrigibility (a point that you seem to agree with). You say that if that Asgardian's behavior persisted after the RfC, that you'd expect a sanction, and that we haven't gotten through to him "yet", but then you say ArbCom is too soon. How is it too soon? This has been going on for a few years now. What more do you need? Banning, and other sanctions, are for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience. What standard do you keep with which you find it reasonable to say that this is the case? You feel the time should be right? Which time is this? During a full eclipse?
You say wanted to see if the edit warring and disputes continued. Did you not see his behavior toward Off2riorob on the Beyonce talk page? Although Asgardian was right in terms of content, in terms of behavior, he was up to his usual tricks, including his stock use of "emotive" to dismiss his opponent's position, without specifying the passage or edit summary that was "emotive". Did you not notice that on the RfC page and the Arbitration page, he has continued his assertion that the editors he has disputed with, as well as those on the RfC page, were mostly "inexperienced"? This is the baldfaced lie, BOZ. You've got 40,000 edits since February 06, whereas Asgardian has 9,000 since September of that year. Your tenure and edits dwarf his, as do 13 of the other people who participated in the RfC. He responded to this by continuing his lie and adding to it, saying, "Many of these editors are very inexperienced and/or have been cautioned or blocked". Again, most of the 18 are more expierenced than Asgardian, and have far fewer blocks than he does. Some have one or two. One has 7, another 12, and another 17. Asgardian is tied with one of them for the second highest number of blocks, with twelve. This sort of lie is indeed a continuation of his behavior, one that is not addressed by a "mentorship" or "topic ban". These sort of remarks and personal attacks are unacceptable, and it has continued on the Arbitration page itself. Nothing has changed, despite Asgardian's claims to that effect.
I don't think he's being paid by anyone. Nightscream ( talk) 01:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, yeah, I should have. That much is obvious now. :-) Prior to your statement, I thought we were on the same page. If anything, it is I should apologize for possibly misrepresenting you.
What more is there to be done at the RfC?
I don't think he shapes up either because he is either genuinely blind to the nature of his behavior, or because he is emboldened by people like you who enable him. After everything he's done, he might see you saying that you acknowledge his behavior, but no it's too soon ,but no, I don't have a specific timeline--wait, how about March-April, etc., and conclude that he's getting away with this, because let's face it, he has. Even if you had March-April in mind, and my misreading of your position stepped things up a bit--so what? The pattern has continued, so again, what more do you need? You admit that his attacking his opponents on Beyonce is wrong (and no, this does not show a stronger argument--the one with the reasoning/evidence that illustrates it does), but you continue to show ambiguity on this: You say that you will only push for stiffer restrictions if ArbCom agrees with me--what, can't you push for them now by saying as much at the ArbCom yourself if you agree me?
As far as banning, I wouldn't mind if they gave him a chance in a year to come back, but only if he freely acknowledged the improper behavior, answered questions about them directly, and made it clear that he would abandon this sort of thing once and for all. Barring that, Wikipedia would do fine with him, just as it will continue if and when each of the rest of us shuffles off. Nightscream ( talk) 06:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
BOZ, I've asked Emperor, Peregrine Fisher and Jc37 if they wish to weigh in, or move their draft page comments to the live page (as I noticed you have yourself). I don't know if they're planning to, but I wanted to give them an opportunity before the process moves forward. Asgardian is now claiming that others have lost interest in the process, saying that they have "moved on" and that one has "dropped from view". I don't know that there is any truth to this claim, but if you think there is, let me know.
It seems clear that Asgardian has no intention of changing his behavior, or even admitting that he has a problem (as indicated by both his responses on the RfC page and to my posts on its Talk Page), and I think it's time that we discussed a resolution to this problem. Since he is unwilling to respond directly and honestly to the charges leveled against him, I believe it is time that he is indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. I don't know that a permanent ban is necessary, since I like to think that everyone is capable of change, and it's possible that given enough time away from Wikipedia, he may come around, but for now, his editing privileges need to be taken away, and not for some brief period of time. Let me know what you think. Nightscream ( talk) 04:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Regards Asgardian ( talk) 07:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Added a cover and a few little bits. Salavat ( talk) 05:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Asgardian has recently shown up again at Thor (Marvel Comics) started making some not only substantial but factually erroneous edits. I am afraid this might lead to an edit war so I am letting you now so this situation can be monitored. - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 13:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Apologies if this isn't the right way to try to contact you. I'm a grad student researching connections between radio drama and D&D. I saw on the Gary Gygax discussion page that you have a copy the longbio referenced there. I congratulate your integrity in not posting that in its entirety, but was hoping you could help me out on a point. You mentioned that the longbio talks about radio shows EGG listened to. Any chance you would be willing to either communicate which shows he mentioned, or even possibly send me a quotation? If it would help to verify my status as a researcher, I would be more than happy to do so. - numenetics ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC).
I was fortunate to have no television in my youth, so radio and imagination were there to assist my creativity. Some of my favorite programs were:
…and
Any music program broadcast in c. 1954 from station WLAC in Nashville, especially those hosted by Gene Nobles and Herman Guisarde (spelling?)
BOZ ( talk) 23:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tim_McAuliffe&action=edit&redlink=1 to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Tim_McAuliffe
thank you. Okip (formerly Ikip) 01:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 03:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Involved parties are expected to post their evidence on the evidence page, within a week, if possible, as AlexandrDmitri stated above. I'm still writing and editing mine now.
But again, what is it you wish to do? Are you asking because you intend to argue against banning, or for it? I thought you were neutral on the point...? Nightscream ( talk) 18:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I never said anything about this being "my" decision, or about who determines his fate, or about "which" evidence you present, or your level of involvement. I merely asked, pursuant to your question to me about presenting evidence, that I didn't understand what it was that you felt you were presenting evidence of. The other things in your message to me are those that I never brought up. Of course you can participate for whatever purpose you wish. But since you were asking me what you're supposed to do now, expressing confusion as to what you expect to get out of the arbitration, particularly given your refusal to take a stand with Asgardian, the question I asked was valid--"what is it you wish to do?"--was valid. Nightscream ( talk) 16:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
RE: [13]
Good luck :) Okip 03:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. Heaven knows, I understand your frustration. The process is slow, but I believe in the end productive, and I here have something that I think might help.
I don't believe "either/or" is the only answer. That is why, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence, I've added this proposed solution, to which I hope other editors can sign on.
His fellow editors need a "probation officer" admin to whom they can turn, who has veto power over Asgardian's disputed edits and unilateral changes to Project MOS. In addition, we need a reinstatement of the probation he was under in, I believe, 2008, in which he could make only one rv (either via "Undo" or by a multitude of edits essentially comprising an rv) a day. That last probation lasted a year; as his behavior did not change, bringing us to this point, this probation reinstatement should last two years. Given that at least one other editor is calling for a ban, this probation seems a less drastic and more productive solution.
-- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Boz. I noticed in the history of the Anne Brown (game designer) page that you seem to have had some suggestions for changes from Anne herself.
Over at Spelljammer Wiki, I am attempting to build up a website that can (amongst other things) serve as a reliable secondary source for Spelljammer related articles.
As Anne Brown has a connection to the Spelljammer Campaign Setting, I have an interest in seeing both the article here and the article there reflect the work she has done. One of the things I want to do (over at SJ Wiki) is ensure that, if people are still in the industry, I can point visitors onward towards homepages, blogs or other sites that help people find their newest work.
However, 'Anne Brown' is such a common name, that it has been hampering my research. There are so many false positives that come up when I search for her, that I find it hard to locate useful links. If you are in touch with Anne Brown, it would be great if you could pass on any useful links. Links good for the Wikipedia article could go over here, but SJ Wiki can accept all useful links about Anne Brown (as its remit is useful information about Spelljammer rather than notability).
Thanks in advance for anything you can do. And if you can't do anything, then thanks for your time and consideration. Big Mac ( talk) 20:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Saga of the Shadow Lord, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/foreign/x11for.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 18:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
KnightLago, the drafting arbitrator, will start posting on the workshop page early next week, so this is the time to submit any final evidence. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The links you suggested were correct and I put the right ones in. I'm used to getting rid of red links that I forget it might be a typo. Thanks for letting me know and not deleting my edit and tell me if something similar happens in the future. Merotoker1 ( talk) 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I did what I could but DAMN that article needs a lot of work. Well intentioned stuff just spilled out all over the place. Lots42 ( talk) 07:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. Just wanted to ask you to keep an eye on Blazing Combat. There seems to be an edit war brewing. An anon IP with an agenda appears to be violating POV, OP and "words that may introduce bias" guidelines. Details at Talk:Blazing Combat. Another editor's opinion is always helpful. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see [14]. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Will do; thanks. Running off to work now -- as of couple weeks ago, doing six days a week and running errands on 7th. I asked Dougweller above how long I have to submit proposal, etc. I'll get to it this weekend. Thank you, once again, for all your tireless efforts. Judging from the tone of what I saw on the proposal page, this case is being taken with suitable gravitas. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 12:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I took your advice too well and totally forgot about having to do the review. I promise I'll get to it ASAP, the weekend. Sorry. Hekerui ( talk) 22:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a friendly notice that, with the posting of the Proposed decision, the Asgardian case has moved on to the voting stage. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 22:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I was "edit warring" with Friginator. I understand and accept my warning. At this time, me and Friginator are talking it over, though I might ask you question if I feel the time is right. --Ottertron 19:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I need input regarding possible changes in this. I tried to modify my own notions considerably from previous comments. Would the current version be acceptable to change the entry into, or does it need further modifications? Dave ( talk) 07:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 07:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
With the close of the ArbCom case, Asgardian has left a farewell note - [15] - on his talk. Actually used it the replace the ArbCom case notes and two "complaint" threads, but that isn't the real issue.
The content of his farewell... to be honest some of it reads as "troll bait". We may want to keep an eye on the page in case some rise to that bait.
And I'm a wondering if we should run a few of his phrasing choices past the ArbCom since they look like parting shots at them.
- J Greb ( talk) 15:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Just something to keep an eye on...
It looks like at least one editor - Rtkat3 - is hitting, and reverting, a good chunk of where Asgardian was editing.
On a cursory, very cursory, look I found most of the edits limited to restoring/re-inflating IoM and AV sections. At least one instance though - Rhino (comics) - was a top to bottom revert and included link changes didn't and shouldn't have happened.
This may not be the only occurrence we'll see.
- J Greb ( talk) 10:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Howdy, you are cordially invited to give your input at the photo shop
Enjoy your day! -- Scott Free ( talk) 21:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I hear you, and I'll support you on that — I saw the lengthy and unproductive-looking blocks of discussion halfway up that talk page. Seeing as how debating each other's points didn't work, what I'm hoping to try is to get them to focus on their commonalities, maybe by using more general and less detailed descriptions of things. I admit this seems a last-ditch effort, but sometimes people can surprise you.
It feels so much less stressful to come to Wikipedia these days. I have to say, you're really turning out to be a terrifically diplomatic admin who can nonetheless get things done. Bravo, BOZ. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I'll get up to speed on it and see if anything suggests itself (this side of a topic ban). ( Emperor ( talk) 14:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC))
Ok, so i added the image for Ravenloft: Stone Prophet, but hit a problem for Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession. Ive come a choice for Strahd's Possession out of two images, but couldnt decide which one to upload because neither are to my liking so ill give you the option. Ive got the German version on Mobygames which is good for size bar the german writing and watermark (which i can probly edit out) or a small english version which is only 200px wide. Ill ask you which one you prefer because i wouldnt choose either or you can ask around to see if anyone else can find a bigger english image. Salavat ( talk) 14:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
If you don't mind taking a look at Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image 2010 and also the "From User talk:J Greb" subsection.
Thanks
- J Greb ( talk) 02:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll be glad to help. I've tried before, as you can see on the Galactus talk page, and the step-by-step approach didn't help -- David A has says he has some sort of mental health issue regarding rambling communication, and The Balance rarely communicates or compromises. Their editing differences could be resolved, I think, by more general and less analytically detailed prose, but the two of them can't or won't meet each other halfway. We might need a drastic approach. I'm on deadline now, but I wanted to respond first chance. I'll be back around in a day or two if you'd like to explore things more. Good luck, and hang in there! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 13:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Tenebrae for giving this a shot - I'm afraid the collision of David A and The Balance has led to a stalemate. One of the big issues is The Balance really doesn't seem to want to budge and that is a problem - we are putting together a collaborative encyclopaedia and not playing well with others is going to be A Big Problem. It is an especially big problem as it is an important character and it is stuck in a kind of limbo. Solutions? Bump protection up to admin level or impose topic bans and tear that article apart and rebuild it. The PH has been Asgradianed and is currently awful dry - it is little more than, and he appeared in this and then in that and then this. I'd want to basically get rid of the FCB and use parts to pad out the PH and other bits to create a section covering his characterisation. Other minor points include changing "origin" to "creation" and/or "development". We can then use the talk page to discuss other improvements - David and Balance can add ideas and suggestions, if a consensus can be reached (which doesn't mean everyone has to agree just the bulk of the editors) then we'll update the article. Hopefully we can break out of this deadlock and move the article on so it can push for GA status, which is something it deserves. Thoughts? ( Emperor ( talk) 01:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC))
Given that I have been repeatedly very explicit about exactly what I think could have any effect, or I have any energy whatsoever for, i.e. a slow-moving matter-of-fact issue by issue impartial evaluation case, that I'm extremely worn out, have a lot of things straining my focus, am limited to mobile phone access, have at least 5 medical conditions, and can barely even manage to strain together enough focus for that alone, and really really hate getting caught up he-said she-said accusation diatribes, I initially thought that you had accommodated this and it was a content only evaluation, but now it seems like the opposite, which would avoid anything workable and constructive whatsoever. I need getting unwillingly dragged into that kind of thing like a severe case of the measles, and definitely don't think I have any energy to spare for it. If I'm completely honest to myself I'm not willing to be headached, strained, and severely unfocused for several weeks by vainly trying to do research through a mobile phone and be tied up in a blindsided mudslinging contest. Me and TB dislike each other on a fundamental level. It is not reasonable to expect that kind of thing to change. We can however work out solutions if we go through intermediaries and strictly present our logic to them without any personal dislike additions. This would blow it all up and potentially strictly serve as an attack-attack-attack self-righteous agenda game, and unlike for Asgardian I don't actually want TB banned. He's blindsided, not deliberately deceitful and evil. He has however given me a strong impression that he want me banned, and will likely see this as a big chance, which would also remove all focus from improvements inthe article itself, whereas I liked the notion of Cameron and Emperor combing through it on their own, and then me and TB couls state any problems we had with the new version in the Talk, with them and others deciding what goes. That way the page would almost be guaranteed to have any inaccuracies or bias removed, and I could finally leave this thing behind, with me and TB reconsiling our differences by simply avoiding each other. Dave ( talk) 15:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I see no cause for giving DavidA any warning, at least with regards to the comment that Asgardians seems to be referencing. Asgardian has been banned, and therefore has no business concerning himself with editorial discussions, much less attempting to police others as offhand comments that they make about him when speaking to others. While Civility may put bounds on what editors say to each other, the fact that David was talking primarily about The Balance, and merely said that did not think that TB was like Asgardian, further mitigates the seriousness of his comment. So does the fact that he has every right to his opinion of Asgardian, particularly since it an informed one formed through years of behavior on Asgardian's part (even if the word "evil" is not the word I'd use). Asgardian has zero legal grounds for "taking if further", as his lack of credibility has become a fact known to the higher levels of administrative authorities on the site, and I do see his comment as being a legal threat, and not one of "traditional Wikipedia dispute resolution", as he alluded to such legal recourses when he whined after being banned. I haven't been following the dispute between DavidA and The Balance too closely, so I don't have an opinion on whether David should be warned for anything he has said in that dispute, but this particular comment is not deserving of any warning, at least not to David, and I oppose the issuing of one for it. If anything, it is Asgardian who should be warned not move on, and seek to find another site for his Net activities. Nightscream ( talk) 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The request for mediation concerning Galactus, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK
18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by
MediationBot, on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
Hi BOZ :) Can you delete my monobook subpage? I only use the peer revier tool on the toolserver now. Thank you! Hekerui ( talk) 19:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ! There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 04:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I meant to ask whether you had voted yet, but then I see you haven't registered on Commons and have made no login unification yet. Perhaps you should do it, I'm sure you've come across the need to edit something on Commons since you became an admin, and I notice your account exists in the German version. I swear I'm not stalkerish, I just found that weird :) Hekerui ( talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on Wikipedia for quite a while actually, just doing edits, both minor and major without a screenname. I am still technically new, that was my first article, the Red words on the Geoff site have been bugging me for a while. Can we add Modules from the Living Greyhawk Campaign as reference material or is this in violation somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarvenbierschneeman ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Boz, sup? Enjoying the summer? I got this fun, light, breezy summer project in mind, taking the JB article to GA! ( Boys' Ranch made it to GA recently BTW). Care to sort of moderate the process? You're an old hand at this by now ;-) Another of your comic book colleagues apparently wants to participate and I'm not very comfortable working with him alone. There has been some sort of kerfuffle in the past (a rather long time ago,actually), so if you're not comfortable getting involved, no prob. -- Scott Free ( talk) 22:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey thanks - But lay off those evening snacks, they're sure to make you drowsy -- Scott Free ( talk) 17:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey BOZ - I'm done with the work on the JB article - I left a proposal on the talk page regarding this -
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_Buscema&oldid=369463797
you are cordially invited to give your input.
-- Scott Free ( talk) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)s Mic
I guess the GA project ran into a few snags - anyhoo, no rush and no biggie if you want to abstain. There's alway Michel Vaillant :-)-- Scott Free ( talk) 18:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to ask: The rules for establishing an RfC appear to require that two editors first go the talk page where the dispute lies and try to mediate first. I'm simply notifying you and a couple of other veteran neutrally that there is a dispute at John Buscema. Thank you for any attention to this brewing edit war, a repetition of one from 2008. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 03:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you delete this for us? Not sure if there's some rule that says it needs an XfD. It's an old version of an article that was deleted at AfD, but has since become a real article, so this old version isn't needed. I don't think it has anything worth merging, and the user who owns it doesn't want it anymore. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 05:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
As always, thanks for being alert and keeping a cool head. Don't ever disappear like Hiding or Doczilla -- WPC needs you! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello BOZ --
I have agreed to mediate this case, and I wanted to confirm with you (and, of course, the other parties) whether (a) the issue discussed therein still exists and (b) that you agree to me mediating the case. Please get back to me on my talk page or the talk page of the mediation case. -- tariqabjotu 08:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm adding that article to the other characters' articles too. Nightscream ( talk) 19:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up. You've got a typo in the DrV Washington Post should be Washington Times. Hobit ( talk) 18:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Boz, the above article has been put up for AFD. I remembered that the site Play This Thing, ran by game creator Greg Costikyan publishes a tabletop RPG article every week ('Tabletop Tuesday'), sure enough there was a decent article there. I don't know anything about tabletop games though, in particular which sites could be considered reliable sources, any suggestions? Someone another 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Since I don't recall ever encountering this editor, I have no reason to think it's the latter (unless it's an aggrieved editor using a different handle than one I've previously encountered); I assume he believes what he opined he did, even if I think he's wrong. I've started a consensus discussion on the matter here. Would you please participate? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 02:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey BOZ,
Noticed you're still adding to this page. Might I ask what advantages it's got over just tracking the general D&D category? Seems that doing this manually is a bit of a wasted effort, no? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just updating that them covers you pointed out that needed to be added to Strategic Simulations, Inc. games (dating back to May 1) have now all be uploaded. Wasnt to hard a list to find them covers. Thanks, Salavat ( talk) 06:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi BOZ. Can you provide the text of the article that you cited in Bart's House of Weirdness? Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here, and would appreciate your input. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 03:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Please discuss seriously about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia_and_public_domain_for_upcoming_edits. Rishikeshan ( talk)
I'm trying to track down a book that my weird notes indicate as 'Transformers ID3 Priceguide'. Google indicates nothing. This will help improve the Transformers articles; they badly need third party references. Lots42 ( talk) 00:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
As you may already know, Roy is scheduled for tomorrow's main page. Looking back, I can't quite understand what drove me to work on it at FAR, as I've never actually read any of the strip that I can recall. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd really like to add something to policy/guidelines that suggests a remedy for this stuff. Or at least points in the general direction. There are too many editors who do this kind of thing. Gavin is not the first and some of his defenders are right that it's unfair to single him out. I'm hoping you agree... because I could really use some help spearheading an effort to add a couple lines to WP:GAME or WP:DDE or WP:IDHT. Shooterwalker ( talk) 03:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You should know I no longer have access to the Joe book info I had put in. At least not right now. I'm open to any suggestions to improve the articles. Lots42 ( talk) 01:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a billion Joe vehicles. Thrasher's one is pretty noteable, heck, it had it's own puzzle. Not all are noteable. Lots42 ( talk) 18:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently 'Google Books' might have Joe info. Lots42 ( talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Erickson, Hal (2005). Television cartoon shows: an illustrated encyclopedia, 1949 through 2003, Volume 1. McFarland & Co.. p. 376. ISBN 9780786420995. Lots of good G.I.Joe refs. As you may have already figured, I added in some, such as in Vamp. Lots42 ( talk) 14:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
BOZ- I noticed your addition to SimTower. Could I get the "Eye of the Monitor" review in Dragon #217? ( Guyinblack25 talk 19:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC))
I know this is an odd question, but in which G.I.Joe episode was Cobra replacing American generals with synthetic doubles loyal to them? Lots42 ( talk) 00:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I just blanked that section. I think running totals tend to short-circuit discussion, which is the more important part. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
http://www.i-mockery.com/comics/protocomics12/default.php As a Joe fan you might get some laughs. Lots42 ( talk) 11:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Happy days are here again!-- Robbstrd ( talk) 18:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
A fun fiction-thriller novel with tons of G.I.Joe descriptions. Casablanca, Rayo (2008). 6 Sick Hipsters. Kensington Publishing Corp.. p. 61. ISBN 9780758222831. Lots42 ( talk) 00:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Now Mogo the living planet is getting a 'notabillity' warning. For crying out loud. Lots42 ( talk) 12:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Gresh, Lois (2002). The Science of Superheroes. John Wiley and Sons. p. 83. ISBN 9780471024606. - A good place to start. I used it for Doiby Dickles. Lots of great DC comic book info according to Google Books. Lots42 ( talk) 18:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
my page LadyKiller(band) was deleted. it should not have been. Before I completed my explanation about why it should not have been deleted as it contained many cited sources and explained an interesting relationship between world renowned recording artists and a world renowned studio - I came to find it had already been deleted. If this page has been taken down - then all of the wikipedias related to it - or any wikipedia page about any musician or band should be taken down as well. LadyKillerRock ( talk) 01:15, 2 December 2010
Hi.
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
I know I'm a little late to the party, but your work placing Dragon magazine reviews on literally hundreds of video game articles is one of the most incredible achievements I've witnessed on Wikipedia. It has already had a huge positive effect; otherwise uncited articles for older video games now feature Dragon reviews as a staple source. I regularly come across articles, at random, that your effort has changed for the better. However, the greater achievement—one whose effects will be seen for years to come—is that editors will now have a starting point when they go to improve these articles. For these things, I hereby award you The Original Barnstar! Keep up the amazing work. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 02:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC) |
![]() |
Cookies! | |
For all the good work :) Hekerui ( talk) 11:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC) |
Hey, thanks for your kinds words. Sometimes it's nice to hear your effort is appreciated. By the way, why/how did you finally realize I was Freak104? Spidey 104 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I started an investigation into Asgardian's socks. I don't know why one from last month closed without any apparent resolution or finding, but one of the IPs named during that one is one of the three I've named in this newest one. Someone on that page mentioned that a CU could look that investigation over and forward it to arbcom, but I don't know exactly what that means, whether it was done, and what, if any effect that had. I'm going to notify arbcom myself of that investigation and this newest one. Nightscream ( talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. It's been a while. Could you take a look at [ this possibly escalating situation] for a neutral evaluation before it gets any worse. Thank you. Dave ( talk) 09:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream ( talk) 04:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
BOZ, Marcus Brute moved List of G.I. Joe ARAH characters to List of G.I. Joe characters without discussion. I'm unable to revert it and posted it to WP:Requested Moves saying it was an undiscussed move, but instead of reverting the move like he should have, Anthony Appleyard listed the reversion as a controversial request. Could you help me out on this, please?-- Ridge Runner ( talk) 00:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to revert your edit, but there has been a request that all changes be discussed first on the talk page. Best Regards. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. Happy New Year! Wish I could begin it on a more positive note: Would you entertain page-protecting Juggernaut (comics) once again? Asgardian and David A are edit warring, with the latter attempting to remove or edit Asgardian's continuous insertion of his disputed and non-consensus edit. Oy, oy, oy.
By the way, had you noticed that the main Steve Ditko fan site, Blake Bell's Ditko Looked Up, appears to be gone? I left a not on the Ditko talk page asking if anyone knew whether it had been archived.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I will also have to mention this - and the abrupt and unilateral action re: a month long ban - in my submission to the ANI. I have to say that this action was ill advised. The main focus, however, will be - and should have been prior to this - dealing with the conduct of David A.
Regards
Asgardian ( talk) 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For your tireless, valiant efforts as one of the newer admins, volunteering so much of your time on the needs of your fellow editors. Tenebrae ( talk) 14:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
Greetings. As I've been unblocked, I would now like to move on to resolving the other issues, which still require discussion. I note your comments here [2]. Yes, while on a technical level you can do this as an administrator, I believe that it was handled incorrectly. What you really needed to do here is have a good look at the Edit Summmary, which would indicate:
1 - David A was not in conflict with me or for that matter anyone on that article. It had been some days since he last edited the article.
2 - In an attempt to keep the peace, I laid down all the changes edit by edit in an effort to spell out what I was doing. This is all in the Edit History of the article. You can also see my constant efforts to speak with Ghidorah linked on the Talk Page, and there were many attempts. In return all we got were blind reverts and almost no commmunication.
3 - Why was it permissible for Tenebrae to make a blind reversion to an inferior version of the article when DrBat was warned not to? What should have happened is someone should have encouraged him to make changes by increments as I had done, and have the Edit Summary reflect this. As I've noted repeatedly, I asked him three times not to delete valid information and to by all means make technical changes, but not to blindly revert. Thankfully, it looks like he's taken that on board.
4 - I would humbly request that you base minimum unblock Dave. I would also like to be unblocked if possible, as there was nothing but cooperation from myself on that article in recent times, and an attempt to resolve the issues.
I like you, and admire the fact that you make an active effort to keep the peace. We could all, however, be not so much better editors but smarter ones. There's a level on which we only sometimes play on, and really need to be there all the time. For example, I think you shouldn't have made that comment (something like "I don't want to hear it"); Tenebrae shouldn't have posted that Barnstar which could to some be construed as gloating (and was not a pleasant task at any rate); I shouldn't have made a follow-up comment to one of Dave's tirades that only served to fuel the fire ("Yup, there you go"); Dave shouldn't have called me XYZ and so on. I suppose the general rule is if we have to think about it twice, then we probably shouldn't type it. As I said, better, and I will certainly try.
Finally, I just wanted to let you know that I am going to be contacting Wikipedia and presenting a case (with a series of examples) that relates to administrators and their conduct. I really feel - and this is NOT personal - that there are too many instances of inexperienced users exercising their administrative power without correctly assessing the situation. I've seen it done several times now, and while most actions have been overturned there is a recurring pattern (also note that you are not the prime example - there is another administrator whose actions have been of real concern and have been questioned several times) and it needs discussion.
There will be no venom in this, and I would have no objection to you commenting. I think you are a fine editor (and quite likely a fine person if I ever met you), but feel that you and few others could benefit from having a mentor who acts as a senior administrator and is a sounding board on all major decisions.
It may come to nothing, but at least I will have been heard.
Regards Asgardian ( talk) 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Regards Asgardian ( talk) 07:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
PS. - For a light-hearted change of pace, I might even tackle a D & D module. :) Asgardian ( talk) 07:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
00:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
...There's nothing like print sources, I always say. They just seem to be better researched and more solid, since the writer knows that if he or she gets something wrong, you can't just go online and fix it. I also just added what seems like important background to Dick Ayers early career, including his confirmation of his first Kirby, inking ... but I'd forgotten to sign in! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hate to download this on you BOZ, but I could use some input. And it covers the ongoing.
See Nova (Frankie Raye), Talk:Nova (Frankie Raye)#Infobox image, and Celestial (comics).
Thanks
- J Greb ( talk) 05:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
In a related note, do you think this should be added as one of the examples to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian? It feels like a thinly-veiled threat to me. DrBat ( talk) 07:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
If it gets any worse at Celestial (comics), it may be a good idea to drop the ban on Juggernaut as requested, and move it to that article. We'll see. As for Nova, that seems a bit like me to be fighting over whether apples are better than oranges. BOZ ( talk) 14:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Finally, I'm letting you know as a courtesy, based on the comment made here (it is linked) [3]; what I saw going at Galactus yesterday [4] and a general inability to grasp some basic points outlined at Talk pages [5]; I'm reintroducing an action re: David A. Unfortunately, this is where the issues originate, and this is what needs to be resolved. I've tried and tried to reason with this editor, but he can't/won't acknowledge even basci issues. The MC may just be the telling factor, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. You don't have to reply, as I'm just advising you as a courtesy.
Regards Asgardian ( talk) 02:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
No, David A has been very willing to compromise by adjusting the wording to find a solution that everyone can accept, and does not make major intrusions, simply minor adjustments, flow, or accuracy-corrections, but is regardless blindly censored. Whereas you completely ignore my Talk points beyond in all seriousness proclaiming that you and not Marvel's editorial department have the right to decide what's in continuity or not, and to repeatedly censor the references you personally dislike once again.
Meanwhile your complaints page continues to fill out, and I particularly agree about the new comment that the sheer neverending scale of the problem you are is extremely hard to convey to an outsider who hasn't had to deal with you several hundred times in a row. Oh, and you also contradicted your own insincere "tsk-tsk disapproving" statement about not contacting BOZ. "Regards" and "Please think this through" Asgardian. At this point I'm halfway willing to simply write you off as an Encyclopedia Dramatica troll having a go with Wikipedia, as you show much of the behaviour and attitude patterns. Dave ( talk) 09:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Given that these seems to be turning into the usual problem of censoring any accuracy adjustment I make no matter how trivial, or censoring any contradicting information, and (to repeat from the column above) I have been very willing to compromise by adjusting the wording to find a solution that everyone can accept, in each case. I would like some unbiased outside input to clear it up, and give me some input I can actually trust, so I'm asking you, and Tenebrae as you are editors whose judgement I trust. To me subjectively the two involved editors there seem too severely biased to be willing to compromise in the slightest, and I'm tired of going around in circles about it. (Meaning: I need someone with a clear head, and who isn't cultishly devoted to the character, to evaluate and tell me what is the appropriate thing to do for me here) Dave ( talk) 11:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Boz. Given that we discussed these very changes above, is there any chance that you could weigh in on the current Galactus Talk? Dave ( talk) 19:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I meant to ask you something the other day and the huge page crashed my Firefox :) No joke. Hekerui ( talk) 00:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I suppose it is an idea. I'm open to suggestions. I'm just tired of comments such as the latest here: [9]. Regards Asgardian ( talk) 05:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a question: Why are the comments of some editors, like Emperor and Peregrine Fisher, on the Draft Page, but not the Live Page? Also, was comics article editor/administrator User:Jc37 notified? Nightscream ( talk) 09:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Regards Asgardian ( talk) 04:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. I hope you don't mind me naming you as a party; The arbitration fill-out form provided spaces for four involved parties, including the filing party (me). This left the focus of our efforts (Asgardian), and two left over, so I chose you and Tenebrae, because you spearheaded the RfC, and because Tenebrae has supported my observations on the RfC Talk Page of Asgardian's WP:GAME behavior when criticized. If you feel I should not have named you, I apologize; just let me know, and I'll try to amend this.
There are two spaces available for the other parties to comment. According to the Arbitration guide, State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail. Since one of the spaces provided must be for Asgardian to comment, the other will go to you or Tenebrae, though I suppose the second one of you to get there can simply create another.
Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request for Permanent, Site-Wide Ban on Asgardian and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 22:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
See, this is the sort of refusal to take decisive action that I've never understood from all the editors who come across Asgardian-related matters. It's bad enough when uninvolved outsiders are like this; When people like you, who know his history, and spearheaded an RfC say these things, it's just mind-boggling.
Why would you propose a solution that you know wouldn't work??? This makes no sense. "Mentoring" implies teaching him to do something that he doesn't know how to do; This isn't the problem here, because Asgardian's shortcoming is one of character, and not ability. In order for "mentoring" to work, he has to be willing to admit that he has a problem, and acknowledge the authority of the mentor. But if he's never admitted that his behavior is a problem, and employs the manipulative, intellectually dishonest statements to avoid doing so, and habitually ignores or attacks people with snide innuendo and personal ad hominem remarks when they challenge or criticize him (watch--I'll bet he'll quote this very post in the coming days of the Abitration case), then what suggests to you that he'll acknowledge a mentor? Why acknowledge a mentor when he won't acknowledge us? Wasn't the RfC the last opportunity for him to exhibit a genuine "change", BOZ? I think so. How many more chances, blocks, RfCs, etc. is he or anyone else to be allowed before it is considered reasonable to conclude that he is incorrigible?
I mean, on the one hand, the things you say about him appear to be in agreement with me, yet you insist on this non-committal neutrality with respect banning? Don't you understand that it is the responsibility of those of us in the community who are most familiar with him to put an end to all the strife he causes? If we don't, then who will? Whose responsibility do you think it is? Don't you understand that you're precisely one of the people that ArbCom is looking to for indication of what to do, and that by not being firm on this, you're the one empowering further? Please reconsider. With due respect my friend, if you don't do something when you know that you're one of the people who needs to, then you're only part of the problem. Nightscream ( talk) 06:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The statement is harmful, but at the same time, I don't want to squelch dissenting opinions. I just wish that such dissent were backed up by reason and evidence, instead of the same skittishness toward drawing a line in the sand. I would far prefer if you were convinced that Asgardian needs to be banned, especially given that I had thought we were in agreement over his incorrigibility (a point that you seem to agree with). You say that if that Asgardian's behavior persisted after the RfC, that you'd expect a sanction, and that we haven't gotten through to him "yet", but then you say ArbCom is too soon. How is it too soon? This has been going on for a few years now. What more do you need? Banning, and other sanctions, are for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience. What standard do you keep with which you find it reasonable to say that this is the case? You feel the time should be right? Which time is this? During a full eclipse?
You say wanted to see if the edit warring and disputes continued. Did you not see his behavior toward Off2riorob on the Beyonce talk page? Although Asgardian was right in terms of content, in terms of behavior, he was up to his usual tricks, including his stock use of "emotive" to dismiss his opponent's position, without specifying the passage or edit summary that was "emotive". Did you not notice that on the RfC page and the Arbitration page, he has continued his assertion that the editors he has disputed with, as well as those on the RfC page, were mostly "inexperienced"? This is the baldfaced lie, BOZ. You've got 40,000 edits since February 06, whereas Asgardian has 9,000 since September of that year. Your tenure and edits dwarf his, as do 13 of the other people who participated in the RfC. He responded to this by continuing his lie and adding to it, saying, "Many of these editors are very inexperienced and/or have been cautioned or blocked". Again, most of the 18 are more expierenced than Asgardian, and have far fewer blocks than he does. Some have one or two. One has 7, another 12, and another 17. Asgardian is tied with one of them for the second highest number of blocks, with twelve. This sort of lie is indeed a continuation of his behavior, one that is not addressed by a "mentorship" or "topic ban". These sort of remarks and personal attacks are unacceptable, and it has continued on the Arbitration page itself. Nothing has changed, despite Asgardian's claims to that effect.
I don't think he's being paid by anyone. Nightscream ( talk) 01:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, yeah, I should have. That much is obvious now. :-) Prior to your statement, I thought we were on the same page. If anything, it is I should apologize for possibly misrepresenting you.
What more is there to be done at the RfC?
I don't think he shapes up either because he is either genuinely blind to the nature of his behavior, or because he is emboldened by people like you who enable him. After everything he's done, he might see you saying that you acknowledge his behavior, but no it's too soon ,but no, I don't have a specific timeline--wait, how about March-April, etc., and conclude that he's getting away with this, because let's face it, he has. Even if you had March-April in mind, and my misreading of your position stepped things up a bit--so what? The pattern has continued, so again, what more do you need? You admit that his attacking his opponents on Beyonce is wrong (and no, this does not show a stronger argument--the one with the reasoning/evidence that illustrates it does), but you continue to show ambiguity on this: You say that you will only push for stiffer restrictions if ArbCom agrees with me--what, can't you push for them now by saying as much at the ArbCom yourself if you agree me?
As far as banning, I wouldn't mind if they gave him a chance in a year to come back, but only if he freely acknowledged the improper behavior, answered questions about them directly, and made it clear that he would abandon this sort of thing once and for all. Barring that, Wikipedia would do fine with him, just as it will continue if and when each of the rest of us shuffles off. Nightscream ( talk) 06:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
BOZ, I've asked Emperor, Peregrine Fisher and Jc37 if they wish to weigh in, or move their draft page comments to the live page (as I noticed you have yourself). I don't know if they're planning to, but I wanted to give them an opportunity before the process moves forward. Asgardian is now claiming that others have lost interest in the process, saying that they have "moved on" and that one has "dropped from view". I don't know that there is any truth to this claim, but if you think there is, let me know.
It seems clear that Asgardian has no intention of changing his behavior, or even admitting that he has a problem (as indicated by both his responses on the RfC page and to my posts on its Talk Page), and I think it's time that we discussed a resolution to this problem. Since he is unwilling to respond directly and honestly to the charges leveled against him, I believe it is time that he is indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. I don't know that a permanent ban is necessary, since I like to think that everyone is capable of change, and it's possible that given enough time away from Wikipedia, he may come around, but for now, his editing privileges need to be taken away, and not for some brief period of time. Let me know what you think. Nightscream ( talk) 04:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Regards Asgardian ( talk) 07:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Added a cover and a few little bits. Salavat ( talk) 05:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Asgardian has recently shown up again at Thor (Marvel Comics) started making some not only substantial but factually erroneous edits. I am afraid this might lead to an edit war so I am letting you now so this situation can be monitored. - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 13:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Apologies if this isn't the right way to try to contact you. I'm a grad student researching connections between radio drama and D&D. I saw on the Gary Gygax discussion page that you have a copy the longbio referenced there. I congratulate your integrity in not posting that in its entirety, but was hoping you could help me out on a point. You mentioned that the longbio talks about radio shows EGG listened to. Any chance you would be willing to either communicate which shows he mentioned, or even possibly send me a quotation? If it would help to verify my status as a researcher, I would be more than happy to do so. - numenetics ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC).
I was fortunate to have no television in my youth, so radio and imagination were there to assist my creativity. Some of my favorite programs were:
…and
Any music program broadcast in c. 1954 from station WLAC in Nashville, especially those hosted by Gene Nobles and Herman Guisarde (spelling?)
BOZ ( talk) 23:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tim_McAuliffe&action=edit&redlink=1 to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Tim_McAuliffe
thank you. Okip (formerly Ikip) 01:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 03:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Involved parties are expected to post their evidence on the evidence page, within a week, if possible, as AlexandrDmitri stated above. I'm still writing and editing mine now.
But again, what is it you wish to do? Are you asking because you intend to argue against banning, or for it? I thought you were neutral on the point...? Nightscream ( talk) 18:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I never said anything about this being "my" decision, or about who determines his fate, or about "which" evidence you present, or your level of involvement. I merely asked, pursuant to your question to me about presenting evidence, that I didn't understand what it was that you felt you were presenting evidence of. The other things in your message to me are those that I never brought up. Of course you can participate for whatever purpose you wish. But since you were asking me what you're supposed to do now, expressing confusion as to what you expect to get out of the arbitration, particularly given your refusal to take a stand with Asgardian, the question I asked was valid--"what is it you wish to do?"--was valid. Nightscream ( talk) 16:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
RE: [13]
Good luck :) Okip 03:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. Heaven knows, I understand your frustration. The process is slow, but I believe in the end productive, and I here have something that I think might help.
I don't believe "either/or" is the only answer. That is why, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence, I've added this proposed solution, to which I hope other editors can sign on.
His fellow editors need a "probation officer" admin to whom they can turn, who has veto power over Asgardian's disputed edits and unilateral changes to Project MOS. In addition, we need a reinstatement of the probation he was under in, I believe, 2008, in which he could make only one rv (either via "Undo" or by a multitude of edits essentially comprising an rv) a day. That last probation lasted a year; as his behavior did not change, bringing us to this point, this probation reinstatement should last two years. Given that at least one other editor is calling for a ban, this probation seems a less drastic and more productive solution.
-- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Boz. I noticed in the history of the Anne Brown (game designer) page that you seem to have had some suggestions for changes from Anne herself.
Over at Spelljammer Wiki, I am attempting to build up a website that can (amongst other things) serve as a reliable secondary source for Spelljammer related articles.
As Anne Brown has a connection to the Spelljammer Campaign Setting, I have an interest in seeing both the article here and the article there reflect the work she has done. One of the things I want to do (over at SJ Wiki) is ensure that, if people are still in the industry, I can point visitors onward towards homepages, blogs or other sites that help people find their newest work.
However, 'Anne Brown' is such a common name, that it has been hampering my research. There are so many false positives that come up when I search for her, that I find it hard to locate useful links. If you are in touch with Anne Brown, it would be great if you could pass on any useful links. Links good for the Wikipedia article could go over here, but SJ Wiki can accept all useful links about Anne Brown (as its remit is useful information about Spelljammer rather than notability).
Thanks in advance for anything you can do. And if you can't do anything, then thanks for your time and consideration. Big Mac ( talk) 20:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Saga of the Shadow Lord, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/foreign/x11for.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 18:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
KnightLago, the drafting arbitrator, will start posting on the workshop page early next week, so this is the time to submit any final evidence. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The links you suggested were correct and I put the right ones in. I'm used to getting rid of red links that I forget it might be a typo. Thanks for letting me know and not deleting my edit and tell me if something similar happens in the future. Merotoker1 ( talk) 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I did what I could but DAMN that article needs a lot of work. Well intentioned stuff just spilled out all over the place. Lots42 ( talk) 07:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. Just wanted to ask you to keep an eye on Blazing Combat. There seems to be an edit war brewing. An anon IP with an agenda appears to be violating POV, OP and "words that may introduce bias" guidelines. Details at Talk:Blazing Combat. Another editor's opinion is always helpful. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see [14]. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Will do; thanks. Running off to work now -- as of couple weeks ago, doing six days a week and running errands on 7th. I asked Dougweller above how long I have to submit proposal, etc. I'll get to it this weekend. Thank you, once again, for all your tireless efforts. Judging from the tone of what I saw on the proposal page, this case is being taken with suitable gravitas. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 12:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I took your advice too well and totally forgot about having to do the review. I promise I'll get to it ASAP, the weekend. Sorry. Hekerui ( talk) 22:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a friendly notice that, with the posting of the Proposed decision, the Asgardian case has moved on to the voting stage. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 22:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I was "edit warring" with Friginator. I understand and accept my warning. At this time, me and Friginator are talking it over, though I might ask you question if I feel the time is right. --Ottertron 19:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I need input regarding possible changes in this. I tried to modify my own notions considerably from previous comments. Would the current version be acceptable to change the entry into, or does it need further modifications? Dave ( talk) 07:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 07:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
With the close of the ArbCom case, Asgardian has left a farewell note - [15] - on his talk. Actually used it the replace the ArbCom case notes and two "complaint" threads, but that isn't the real issue.
The content of his farewell... to be honest some of it reads as "troll bait". We may want to keep an eye on the page in case some rise to that bait.
And I'm a wondering if we should run a few of his phrasing choices past the ArbCom since they look like parting shots at them.
- J Greb ( talk) 15:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Just something to keep an eye on...
It looks like at least one editor - Rtkat3 - is hitting, and reverting, a good chunk of where Asgardian was editing.
On a cursory, very cursory, look I found most of the edits limited to restoring/re-inflating IoM and AV sections. At least one instance though - Rhino (comics) - was a top to bottom revert and included link changes didn't and shouldn't have happened.
This may not be the only occurrence we'll see.
- J Greb ( talk) 10:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Howdy, you are cordially invited to give your input at the photo shop
Enjoy your day! -- Scott Free ( talk) 21:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I hear you, and I'll support you on that — I saw the lengthy and unproductive-looking blocks of discussion halfway up that talk page. Seeing as how debating each other's points didn't work, what I'm hoping to try is to get them to focus on their commonalities, maybe by using more general and less detailed descriptions of things. I admit this seems a last-ditch effort, but sometimes people can surprise you.
It feels so much less stressful to come to Wikipedia these days. I have to say, you're really turning out to be a terrifically diplomatic admin who can nonetheless get things done. Bravo, BOZ. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I'll get up to speed on it and see if anything suggests itself (this side of a topic ban). ( Emperor ( talk) 14:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC))
Ok, so i added the image for Ravenloft: Stone Prophet, but hit a problem for Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession. Ive come a choice for Strahd's Possession out of two images, but couldnt decide which one to upload because neither are to my liking so ill give you the option. Ive got the German version on Mobygames which is good for size bar the german writing and watermark (which i can probly edit out) or a small english version which is only 200px wide. Ill ask you which one you prefer because i wouldnt choose either or you can ask around to see if anyone else can find a bigger english image. Salavat ( talk) 14:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
If you don't mind taking a look at Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image 2010 and also the "From User talk:J Greb" subsection.
Thanks
- J Greb ( talk) 02:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll be glad to help. I've tried before, as you can see on the Galactus talk page, and the step-by-step approach didn't help -- David A has says he has some sort of mental health issue regarding rambling communication, and The Balance rarely communicates or compromises. Their editing differences could be resolved, I think, by more general and less analytically detailed prose, but the two of them can't or won't meet each other halfway. We might need a drastic approach. I'm on deadline now, but I wanted to respond first chance. I'll be back around in a day or two if you'd like to explore things more. Good luck, and hang in there! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 13:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Tenebrae for giving this a shot - I'm afraid the collision of David A and The Balance has led to a stalemate. One of the big issues is The Balance really doesn't seem to want to budge and that is a problem - we are putting together a collaborative encyclopaedia and not playing well with others is going to be A Big Problem. It is an especially big problem as it is an important character and it is stuck in a kind of limbo. Solutions? Bump protection up to admin level or impose topic bans and tear that article apart and rebuild it. The PH has been Asgradianed and is currently awful dry - it is little more than, and he appeared in this and then in that and then this. I'd want to basically get rid of the FCB and use parts to pad out the PH and other bits to create a section covering his characterisation. Other minor points include changing "origin" to "creation" and/or "development". We can then use the talk page to discuss other improvements - David and Balance can add ideas and suggestions, if a consensus can be reached (which doesn't mean everyone has to agree just the bulk of the editors) then we'll update the article. Hopefully we can break out of this deadlock and move the article on so it can push for GA status, which is something it deserves. Thoughts? ( Emperor ( talk) 01:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC))
Given that I have been repeatedly very explicit about exactly what I think could have any effect, or I have any energy whatsoever for, i.e. a slow-moving matter-of-fact issue by issue impartial evaluation case, that I'm extremely worn out, have a lot of things straining my focus, am limited to mobile phone access, have at least 5 medical conditions, and can barely even manage to strain together enough focus for that alone, and really really hate getting caught up he-said she-said accusation diatribes, I initially thought that you had accommodated this and it was a content only evaluation, but now it seems like the opposite, which would avoid anything workable and constructive whatsoever. I need getting unwillingly dragged into that kind of thing like a severe case of the measles, and definitely don't think I have any energy to spare for it. If I'm completely honest to myself I'm not willing to be headached, strained, and severely unfocused for several weeks by vainly trying to do research through a mobile phone and be tied up in a blindsided mudslinging contest. Me and TB dislike each other on a fundamental level. It is not reasonable to expect that kind of thing to change. We can however work out solutions if we go through intermediaries and strictly present our logic to them without any personal dislike additions. This would blow it all up and potentially strictly serve as an attack-attack-attack self-righteous agenda game, and unlike for Asgardian I don't actually want TB banned. He's blindsided, not deliberately deceitful and evil. He has however given me a strong impression that he want me banned, and will likely see this as a big chance, which would also remove all focus from improvements inthe article itself, whereas I liked the notion of Cameron and Emperor combing through it on their own, and then me and TB couls state any problems we had with the new version in the Talk, with them and others deciding what goes. That way the page would almost be guaranteed to have any inaccuracies or bias removed, and I could finally leave this thing behind, with me and TB reconsiling our differences by simply avoiding each other. Dave ( talk) 15:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I see no cause for giving DavidA any warning, at least with regards to the comment that Asgardians seems to be referencing. Asgardian has been banned, and therefore has no business concerning himself with editorial discussions, much less attempting to police others as offhand comments that they make about him when speaking to others. While Civility may put bounds on what editors say to each other, the fact that David was talking primarily about The Balance, and merely said that did not think that TB was like Asgardian, further mitigates the seriousness of his comment. So does the fact that he has every right to his opinion of Asgardian, particularly since it an informed one formed through years of behavior on Asgardian's part (even if the word "evil" is not the word I'd use). Asgardian has zero legal grounds for "taking if further", as his lack of credibility has become a fact known to the higher levels of administrative authorities on the site, and I do see his comment as being a legal threat, and not one of "traditional Wikipedia dispute resolution", as he alluded to such legal recourses when he whined after being banned. I haven't been following the dispute between DavidA and The Balance too closely, so I don't have an opinion on whether David should be warned for anything he has said in that dispute, but this particular comment is not deserving of any warning, at least not to David, and I oppose the issuing of one for it. If anything, it is Asgardian who should be warned not move on, and seek to find another site for his Net activities. Nightscream ( talk) 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The request for mediation concerning Galactus, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK
18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by
MediationBot, on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
Hi BOZ :) Can you delete my monobook subpage? I only use the peer revier tool on the toolserver now. Thank you! Hekerui ( talk) 19:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ! There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 04:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I meant to ask whether you had voted yet, but then I see you haven't registered on Commons and have made no login unification yet. Perhaps you should do it, I'm sure you've come across the need to edit something on Commons since you became an admin, and I notice your account exists in the German version. I swear I'm not stalkerish, I just found that weird :) Hekerui ( talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on Wikipedia for quite a while actually, just doing edits, both minor and major without a screenname. I am still technically new, that was my first article, the Red words on the Geoff site have been bugging me for a while. Can we add Modules from the Living Greyhawk Campaign as reference material or is this in violation somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarvenbierschneeman ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Boz, sup? Enjoying the summer? I got this fun, light, breezy summer project in mind, taking the JB article to GA! ( Boys' Ranch made it to GA recently BTW). Care to sort of moderate the process? You're an old hand at this by now ;-) Another of your comic book colleagues apparently wants to participate and I'm not very comfortable working with him alone. There has been some sort of kerfuffle in the past (a rather long time ago,actually), so if you're not comfortable getting involved, no prob. -- Scott Free ( talk) 22:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey thanks - But lay off those evening snacks, they're sure to make you drowsy -- Scott Free ( talk) 17:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey BOZ - I'm done with the work on the JB article - I left a proposal on the talk page regarding this -
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_Buscema&oldid=369463797
you are cordially invited to give your input.
-- Scott Free ( talk) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)s Mic
I guess the GA project ran into a few snags - anyhoo, no rush and no biggie if you want to abstain. There's alway Michel Vaillant :-)-- Scott Free ( talk) 18:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to ask: The rules for establishing an RfC appear to require that two editors first go the talk page where the dispute lies and try to mediate first. I'm simply notifying you and a couple of other veteran neutrally that there is a dispute at John Buscema. Thank you for any attention to this brewing edit war, a repetition of one from 2008. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 03:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you delete this for us? Not sure if there's some rule that says it needs an XfD. It's an old version of an article that was deleted at AfD, but has since become a real article, so this old version isn't needed. I don't think it has anything worth merging, and the user who owns it doesn't want it anymore. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 05:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
As always, thanks for being alert and keeping a cool head. Don't ever disappear like Hiding or Doczilla -- WPC needs you! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello BOZ --
I have agreed to mediate this case, and I wanted to confirm with you (and, of course, the other parties) whether (a) the issue discussed therein still exists and (b) that you agree to me mediating the case. Please get back to me on my talk page or the talk page of the mediation case. -- tariqabjotu 08:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm adding that article to the other characters' articles too. Nightscream ( talk) 19:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up. You've got a typo in the DrV Washington Post should be Washington Times. Hobit ( talk) 18:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Boz, the above article has been put up for AFD. I remembered that the site Play This Thing, ran by game creator Greg Costikyan publishes a tabletop RPG article every week ('Tabletop Tuesday'), sure enough there was a decent article there. I don't know anything about tabletop games though, in particular which sites could be considered reliable sources, any suggestions? Someone another 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Since I don't recall ever encountering this editor, I have no reason to think it's the latter (unless it's an aggrieved editor using a different handle than one I've previously encountered); I assume he believes what he opined he did, even if I think he's wrong. I've started a consensus discussion on the matter here. Would you please participate? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 02:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey BOZ,
Noticed you're still adding to this page. Might I ask what advantages it's got over just tracking the general D&D category? Seems that doing this manually is a bit of a wasted effort, no? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just updating that them covers you pointed out that needed to be added to Strategic Simulations, Inc. games (dating back to May 1) have now all be uploaded. Wasnt to hard a list to find them covers. Thanks, Salavat ( talk) 06:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi BOZ. Can you provide the text of the article that you cited in Bart's House of Weirdness? Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here, and would appreciate your input. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 03:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Please discuss seriously about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia_and_public_domain_for_upcoming_edits. Rishikeshan ( talk)
I'm trying to track down a book that my weird notes indicate as 'Transformers ID3 Priceguide'. Google indicates nothing. This will help improve the Transformers articles; they badly need third party references. Lots42 ( talk) 00:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
As you may already know, Roy is scheduled for tomorrow's main page. Looking back, I can't quite understand what drove me to work on it at FAR, as I've never actually read any of the strip that I can recall. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd really like to add something to policy/guidelines that suggests a remedy for this stuff. Or at least points in the general direction. There are too many editors who do this kind of thing. Gavin is not the first and some of his defenders are right that it's unfair to single him out. I'm hoping you agree... because I could really use some help spearheading an effort to add a couple lines to WP:GAME or WP:DDE or WP:IDHT. Shooterwalker ( talk) 03:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You should know I no longer have access to the Joe book info I had put in. At least not right now. I'm open to any suggestions to improve the articles. Lots42 ( talk) 01:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a billion Joe vehicles. Thrasher's one is pretty noteable, heck, it had it's own puzzle. Not all are noteable. Lots42 ( talk) 18:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently 'Google Books' might have Joe info. Lots42 ( talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Erickson, Hal (2005). Television cartoon shows: an illustrated encyclopedia, 1949 through 2003, Volume 1. McFarland & Co.. p. 376. ISBN 9780786420995. Lots of good G.I.Joe refs. As you may have already figured, I added in some, such as in Vamp. Lots42 ( talk) 14:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
BOZ- I noticed your addition to SimTower. Could I get the "Eye of the Monitor" review in Dragon #217? ( Guyinblack25 talk 19:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC))
I know this is an odd question, but in which G.I.Joe episode was Cobra replacing American generals with synthetic doubles loyal to them? Lots42 ( talk) 00:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I just blanked that section. I think running totals tend to short-circuit discussion, which is the more important part. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
http://www.i-mockery.com/comics/protocomics12/default.php As a Joe fan you might get some laughs. Lots42 ( talk) 11:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Happy days are here again!-- Robbstrd ( talk) 18:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
A fun fiction-thriller novel with tons of G.I.Joe descriptions. Casablanca, Rayo (2008). 6 Sick Hipsters. Kensington Publishing Corp.. p. 61. ISBN 9780758222831. Lots42 ( talk) 00:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Now Mogo the living planet is getting a 'notabillity' warning. For crying out loud. Lots42 ( talk) 12:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Gresh, Lois (2002). The Science of Superheroes. John Wiley and Sons. p. 83. ISBN 9780471024606. - A good place to start. I used it for Doiby Dickles. Lots of great DC comic book info according to Google Books. Lots42 ( talk) 18:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
my page LadyKiller(band) was deleted. it should not have been. Before I completed my explanation about why it should not have been deleted as it contained many cited sources and explained an interesting relationship between world renowned recording artists and a world renowned studio - I came to find it had already been deleted. If this page has been taken down - then all of the wikipedias related to it - or any wikipedia page about any musician or band should be taken down as well. LadyKillerRock ( talk) 01:15, 2 December 2010
Hi.
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
I know I'm a little late to the party, but your work placing Dragon magazine reviews on literally hundreds of video game articles is one of the most incredible achievements I've witnessed on Wikipedia. It has already had a huge positive effect; otherwise uncited articles for older video games now feature Dragon reviews as a staple source. I regularly come across articles, at random, that your effort has changed for the better. However, the greater achievement—one whose effects will be seen for years to come—is that editors will now have a starting point when they go to improve these articles. For these things, I hereby award you The Original Barnstar! Keep up the amazing work. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 02:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC) |
![]() |
Cookies! | |
For all the good work :) Hekerui ( talk) 11:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC) |
Hey, thanks for your kinds words. Sometimes it's nice to hear your effort is appreciated. By the way, why/how did you finally realize I was Freak104? Spidey 104 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I started an investigation into Asgardian's socks. I don't know why one from last month closed without any apparent resolution or finding, but one of the IPs named during that one is one of the three I've named in this newest one. Someone on that page mentioned that a CU could look that investigation over and forward it to arbcom, but I don't know exactly what that means, whether it was done, and what, if any effect that had. I'm going to notify arbcom myself of that investigation and this newest one. Nightscream ( talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. It's been a while. Could you take a look at [ this possibly escalating situation] for a neutral evaluation before it gets any worse. Thank you. Dave ( talk) 09:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream ( talk) 04:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)