While noting that nearly all the persons commenting about year linking have been rude and crude (some even vandalizing my talk page...how is that productive?), you at least seemed more willing to consider "process."
From that, I'm going to say this: the year linking "guideline" is just that, a guideline. It seems completely rational to me that some exceptions should be made, and even the guideline notes that. Take the article on the year 1886. It has a list of famous persons. If you click on the name of the person and there's no year link, it becomes more difficult to "get back" to the page you were on.
Aside from functionality, however, is relevance. It makes perfect sense that since the world's oldest persons are held out in the media, time and again, as the "last living links" to the past, a YEAR link in that case is appropriate. Take Rebecca Hewison of the UK: an article on her death in 1994 (written before Wikipedia existed, I might add) said "last living link with 1881 is lost." Many of these articles also feature comments such as "born before the Titanic sank in 1912," a "survivor of the San Francisco earthquake in 1906" or even "born the year Queen Victoria died in 1901". Clearly, in such stories, the person's significance is not some personal achievement other than longevity and being a living "link" to the past...a symbol of history that is quickly moving from the realm of living memory.
It is generally Wiki policy for articles to follow the sources, not engage in original research. Even if year links are not considered useful to link to a person's birth, there could still be a compromise such as:
"Marie Bremont was noted as the last person alive verified as born in the calendar year 1886"
...a year article that, by the way, includes Marie Bremont (check the edit history...how long has that been there?) and is just justified in two ways, firstly as historical context and secondly as a link to another listing of the article subject elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Sincerely Robert Young Ryoung122 13:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Jiroemon Kimura. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems that you may have erroneously credited RYoung with a statement authored by another account. It might be prudent to withdraw this lest he suggest you were accusing him of sockpuppetry. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello! After a quick read of your pet dislikes I must say I almost completely agree. "Editors who want to turn WP into The Encyclopaedia Britannica. WP can be so much more, however with more and more pseudo-rules being imposed, I fear WP will be forever held back from what it could be" was absolutely spot on. I would say, however, that the encyclopedic nature of the articles is unassociated with the editing of talk pages. I think it's ironic how you criticize pseudo-rules, but you request Ryoung122 modify his talk page editing. Just some thoughts. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 09:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Your editing, editing, editing addressed precisely zero points accurately. I see that you've taken the "if they're wrong, you're right" approach. This doesn't work.
As soon as I hit "save page" I knew there would be some confusion on your part. I knew you wouldn't understand. Let me break it down as best as I can....(1) I would venture to say that the phrase "pseudo-rules" can refer to the severe overregulation of how and what editors write. I'm positive that such a wonderful editor, editor, editor such as yourself would certainly put it differently, but I'm on the right track (2) The already apparent existence of so much overregulation, I'm sure, can apply to the way people write on talk pages (3) That's annoying (4) For someone who hates "pseudo-rules" and limiting and all such evils, I'm sure most on Earth would agree that it is odd that you would ask someone to change the way they edit on talk pages.
You know, most Wikipedia editors I've come into contact with have been the same. Feisty, cannot take a little advice, cannot take criticism, attacks the editor not look into the issue, et cetera. The contact has always been like arguing with a Trekkie about episode 1395. You've proved no different. I attempted to bring up something a little touchy, however, I positioned the paragraph in such a way that gives a little, and takes a little. I can only imagine what it's like to be someone who's always skinny in those jeans because one only allows friends who say one's skinny. Instead of handling criticism or if not called that, then discussion, you made like a politician running a campaign and tried to find skeletons in my closet. Well, my edit count as well as the healthy number of points brought up on my talk page have about 100% of nothing to do with the point I brought up to you (Plus you didn't even read through it thoroughly).
Anyway, the problem with the "if they're wrong, you're right" tactic is at the end of the day, you were never really right. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 16:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It's been a while since the wiki folk of Sydney had the chance to meetup - and there's quite a lot going on. If you've never been to a meetup before, you're especially welcome, and if you're an old hand, then please do make an effort to touch base :-) You can sign up here, or drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions or anything - hope to see you there! cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 02:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
— The Earwig (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:RogerHandelSonatas1730Cover.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse ( talk) 04:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I've asked four editors here to consider changing the bolded parts of their comments in that RfC. As you are one of those editors, I'm notifying you here so you are aware of the request. If you are prepared to change the bolded comment to just "support" or "oppose", could you please refactor completely, rather than using strike-through. Any emphasis can be moved to the non-bolded part of the comment. To make clear what has happened, you can also re-sign your comment to include the date it was updated, I tend to use the following code: <small>Updated: ~~~~~</small>. The aim here is to reduce the rhetoric and inappropriate emphasis, and to refocus discussion on what needs doing here. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CalendarWatcher Tony (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I've mentioned this to you guys before, but if you feel your concerns over CW's status are valid, you should really ask for an independent assessment of the matter. Simply put, you guys are repeatedly accusing CW (and Arthur) of sockpuppetry without any formal proof of the matter. This course of action will only serve to increase tensions all around, as seen in recent events. On the other hand, if you turn the matter over for a review by neutral parties, you get an answer without appearing to be continually badgering the accounts in question. (Please note that this is an advisory message; it is not intended to condone CW's post, or to pass any judgement whatsoever as to the validity of the accusations of sockpuppetry.) -- Ckatz chat spy 17:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought we were trying to end that thread, so I'll respond to you here. And it's not about being unable to back away from a stand. I'm just very sceptical about the value of some aspects what appears to be a campaign being propelled by a very small number of editors, and whether many of the removals are even justified, given what wp:overlink currently says. I'm not going around adding links, or reverting en masse, I'm just asking questions, mainly about the removal of links to common but relevant terms, none of which are being answered. For example, where does overlink talk about "adding value" or "dilution", or other phrases that are used by yourself and others? And where is the evidence that delinking - or at least the aspects of it being queried here - has been "overwhelmingly well received"? In contrast, I've never said that it's been "overwhelmingly rejected", but on the occasions when I've seen reactions from other editors, it's tended to be sceptical or negative, going to talk pages and asking "why did you remove links A & B from that page?" In fact I'm sure most people - as do I - welcome the removal of repetitive or redundant links, or links to common terms that have no real relevance to the main topic, which were probably included for the sake of it. But that's not the point being disputed.
Anyway, I have said all I think I can say about hierarchy of links, on multiple occasions. And as of course for the one question you asked recently, which I did not respond to on the Queen talk page, and which you have now repeated - here is the link to the page where it was judged that several delinking editors came unstuck "at the point when there was no clear consensus" on "mass date delinking". Now, I'm sure you're aware of the case, so are just suggesting that I've stretched the meaning of the decision with my interpretation of it. I can't see that I am. See the excerpts of the ArbCom findings of fact below, with some phrases highlighted by me -
There is of course now the thread on link. Perhaps I and others will get some clear answers to our questions there? N-HH talk/ edits 12:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to unsubscribe from one's own talk page? HWV258 . 11:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I had this logged as an AWB bug, but it looks as if the text in galleries, in Monobook, is already small. Using small tags would result in even smaller text which is not good for accessibility. I have added this example to my bug report however. Rich Farmbrough, 05:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC).
And do you have GregU's great dash script installed? Tony (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I've started a draft RFC in my userspace User:OpenFuture/Request_For_Comment/Pmanderson if you are interested in joining that. If we can show that at least two users have tried to resolve the issue (so we need one more except me) we can file it. I did unfortunately file a Mediation request just earlier today, as per Chasers request, so we might have to wait for a response on that one first. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
That was an honest mistake and I apologise. I notice you were replying to a comment from December 2006, which was about changing the then-current image. Your comment was not directly related as you were asking about adapting or enhancing the current image. I think you could have started it as a new discussion. The answer to your question though, is that you are free to enhance the image if you wish to take the emphasis away from the background. That's one of the main things that sets free images apart from unfree images - they can be adapted. I'll put your comment back on the talk page. Rossrs ( talk) 23:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I won't give up... I promise ! I'm too persistent ! Thanx for your support. Lurulu ( talk) 18:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
See the meetup page for further information - short version is that we're hoping to meet in a fortnight in the city for a beer and a chat. Minors and Miners are welcome, with a responsible adult and a minimum of coal dust ;-) - do try and get out if you can, it's been a little while since wiki folk met in Sydney :-) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 05:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Timbouctou 01:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The Music Barnstar | ||
Specifically for your work on Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC), but for classical music content generally. Witty Lama 02:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC) |
Sir, my humblest greetings, and my surprised delight that such an august figure has turned up in the WP community.
Tony
(talk)
06:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Max Seiffert, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Lib/Seiffert-Max.htm.
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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications 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.) VWBot ( talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice work, your reformatting with a table, thank you. But shouldn't it be role, or character, part, persona (or nothing at all) instead of roll? -- Vsop.de ( talk) 00:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
While noting that nearly all the persons commenting about year linking have been rude and crude (some even vandalizing my talk page...how is that productive?), you at least seemed more willing to consider "process."
From that, I'm going to say this: the year linking "guideline" is just that, a guideline. It seems completely rational to me that some exceptions should be made, and even the guideline notes that. Take the article on the year 1886. It has a list of famous persons. If you click on the name of the person and there's no year link, it becomes more difficult to "get back" to the page you were on.
Aside from functionality, however, is relevance. It makes perfect sense that since the world's oldest persons are held out in the media, time and again, as the "last living links" to the past, a YEAR link in that case is appropriate. Take Rebecca Hewison of the UK: an article on her death in 1994 (written before Wikipedia existed, I might add) said "last living link with 1881 is lost." Many of these articles also feature comments such as "born before the Titanic sank in 1912," a "survivor of the San Francisco earthquake in 1906" or even "born the year Queen Victoria died in 1901". Clearly, in such stories, the person's significance is not some personal achievement other than longevity and being a living "link" to the past...a symbol of history that is quickly moving from the realm of living memory.
It is generally Wiki policy for articles to follow the sources, not engage in original research. Even if year links are not considered useful to link to a person's birth, there could still be a compromise such as:
"Marie Bremont was noted as the last person alive verified as born in the calendar year 1886"
...a year article that, by the way, includes Marie Bremont (check the edit history...how long has that been there?) and is just justified in two ways, firstly as historical context and secondly as a link to another listing of the article subject elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Sincerely Robert Young Ryoung122 13:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Jiroemon Kimura. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems that you may have erroneously credited RYoung with a statement authored by another account. It might be prudent to withdraw this lest he suggest you were accusing him of sockpuppetry. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello! After a quick read of your pet dislikes I must say I almost completely agree. "Editors who want to turn WP into The Encyclopaedia Britannica. WP can be so much more, however with more and more pseudo-rules being imposed, I fear WP will be forever held back from what it could be" was absolutely spot on. I would say, however, that the encyclopedic nature of the articles is unassociated with the editing of talk pages. I think it's ironic how you criticize pseudo-rules, but you request Ryoung122 modify his talk page editing. Just some thoughts. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 09:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Your editing, editing, editing addressed precisely zero points accurately. I see that you've taken the "if they're wrong, you're right" approach. This doesn't work.
As soon as I hit "save page" I knew there would be some confusion on your part. I knew you wouldn't understand. Let me break it down as best as I can....(1) I would venture to say that the phrase "pseudo-rules" can refer to the severe overregulation of how and what editors write. I'm positive that such a wonderful editor, editor, editor such as yourself would certainly put it differently, but I'm on the right track (2) The already apparent existence of so much overregulation, I'm sure, can apply to the way people write on talk pages (3) That's annoying (4) For someone who hates "pseudo-rules" and limiting and all such evils, I'm sure most on Earth would agree that it is odd that you would ask someone to change the way they edit on talk pages.
You know, most Wikipedia editors I've come into contact with have been the same. Feisty, cannot take a little advice, cannot take criticism, attacks the editor not look into the issue, et cetera. The contact has always been like arguing with a Trekkie about episode 1395. You've proved no different. I attempted to bring up something a little touchy, however, I positioned the paragraph in such a way that gives a little, and takes a little. I can only imagine what it's like to be someone who's always skinny in those jeans because one only allows friends who say one's skinny. Instead of handling criticism or if not called that, then discussion, you made like a politician running a campaign and tried to find skeletons in my closet. Well, my edit count as well as the healthy number of points brought up on my talk page have about 100% of nothing to do with the point I brought up to you (Plus you didn't even read through it thoroughly).
Anyway, the problem with the "if they're wrong, you're right" tactic is at the end of the day, you were never really right. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 16:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It's been a while since the wiki folk of Sydney had the chance to meetup - and there's quite a lot going on. If you've never been to a meetup before, you're especially welcome, and if you're an old hand, then please do make an effort to touch base :-) You can sign up here, or drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions or anything - hope to see you there! cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 02:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
— The Earwig (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:RogerHandelSonatas1730Cover.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse ( talk) 04:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I've asked four editors here to consider changing the bolded parts of their comments in that RfC. As you are one of those editors, I'm notifying you here so you are aware of the request. If you are prepared to change the bolded comment to just "support" or "oppose", could you please refactor completely, rather than using strike-through. Any emphasis can be moved to the non-bolded part of the comment. To make clear what has happened, you can also re-sign your comment to include the date it was updated, I tend to use the following code: <small>Updated: ~~~~~</small>. The aim here is to reduce the rhetoric and inappropriate emphasis, and to refocus discussion on what needs doing here. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CalendarWatcher Tony (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I've mentioned this to you guys before, but if you feel your concerns over CW's status are valid, you should really ask for an independent assessment of the matter. Simply put, you guys are repeatedly accusing CW (and Arthur) of sockpuppetry without any formal proof of the matter. This course of action will only serve to increase tensions all around, as seen in recent events. On the other hand, if you turn the matter over for a review by neutral parties, you get an answer without appearing to be continually badgering the accounts in question. (Please note that this is an advisory message; it is not intended to condone CW's post, or to pass any judgement whatsoever as to the validity of the accusations of sockpuppetry.) -- Ckatz chat spy 17:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought we were trying to end that thread, so I'll respond to you here. And it's not about being unable to back away from a stand. I'm just very sceptical about the value of some aspects what appears to be a campaign being propelled by a very small number of editors, and whether many of the removals are even justified, given what wp:overlink currently says. I'm not going around adding links, or reverting en masse, I'm just asking questions, mainly about the removal of links to common but relevant terms, none of which are being answered. For example, where does overlink talk about "adding value" or "dilution", or other phrases that are used by yourself and others? And where is the evidence that delinking - or at least the aspects of it being queried here - has been "overwhelmingly well received"? In contrast, I've never said that it's been "overwhelmingly rejected", but on the occasions when I've seen reactions from other editors, it's tended to be sceptical or negative, going to talk pages and asking "why did you remove links A & B from that page?" In fact I'm sure most people - as do I - welcome the removal of repetitive or redundant links, or links to common terms that have no real relevance to the main topic, which were probably included for the sake of it. But that's not the point being disputed.
Anyway, I have said all I think I can say about hierarchy of links, on multiple occasions. And as of course for the one question you asked recently, which I did not respond to on the Queen talk page, and which you have now repeated - here is the link to the page where it was judged that several delinking editors came unstuck "at the point when there was no clear consensus" on "mass date delinking". Now, I'm sure you're aware of the case, so are just suggesting that I've stretched the meaning of the decision with my interpretation of it. I can't see that I am. See the excerpts of the ArbCom findings of fact below, with some phrases highlighted by me -
There is of course now the thread on link. Perhaps I and others will get some clear answers to our questions there? N-HH talk/ edits 12:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to unsubscribe from one's own talk page? HWV258 . 11:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I had this logged as an AWB bug, but it looks as if the text in galleries, in Monobook, is already small. Using small tags would result in even smaller text which is not good for accessibility. I have added this example to my bug report however. Rich Farmbrough, 05:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC).
And do you have GregU's great dash script installed? Tony (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I've started a draft RFC in my userspace User:OpenFuture/Request_For_Comment/Pmanderson if you are interested in joining that. If we can show that at least two users have tried to resolve the issue (so we need one more except me) we can file it. I did unfortunately file a Mediation request just earlier today, as per Chasers request, so we might have to wait for a response on that one first. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
That was an honest mistake and I apologise. I notice you were replying to a comment from December 2006, which was about changing the then-current image. Your comment was not directly related as you were asking about adapting or enhancing the current image. I think you could have started it as a new discussion. The answer to your question though, is that you are free to enhance the image if you wish to take the emphasis away from the background. That's one of the main things that sets free images apart from unfree images - they can be adapted. I'll put your comment back on the talk page. Rossrs ( talk) 23:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I won't give up... I promise ! I'm too persistent ! Thanx for your support. Lurulu ( talk) 18:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
See the meetup page for further information - short version is that we're hoping to meet in a fortnight in the city for a beer and a chat. Minors and Miners are welcome, with a responsible adult and a minimum of coal dust ;-) - do try and get out if you can, it's been a little while since wiki folk met in Sydney :-) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 05:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Timbouctou 01:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The Music Barnstar | ||
Specifically for your work on Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC), but for classical music content generally. Witty Lama 02:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC) |
Sir, my humblest greetings, and my surprised delight that such an august figure has turned up in the WP community.
Tony
(talk)
06:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Max Seiffert, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Lib/Seiffert-Max.htm.
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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications 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.) VWBot ( talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice work, your reformatting with a table, thank you. But shouldn't it be role, or character, part, persona (or nothing at all) instead of roll? -- Vsop.de ( talk) 00:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)