User talk:AFigureOfBlue

Adventures in Blackmoor

I userfied and moved it to User:Drilnoth/Adventures in Blackmoor to preserve teh page history. If it can be made notable in its own right, then it can go back into userpsace, or have a look and see if it is more suited to a series or something. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made some modifications. Would you say that it is well-sourced for now? -Drilnoth (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

oooh, looking better. I have White Dwarf magazines from that era, which count as independent (they are Games Workshop and were not affiliated with TSR), and there should be a review in there (which would add some commentary too). Give me a day or two and once that is done I think it is safe to move back into mainspace. (FWIW I have White dwarf magazines from late 70s to around issue 100, I even got a monster (Weresnake) in the Fiend Factory Section in 1981 :))) ). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. I have found an image to add in once it's out of the userspace, but I can't put it in yet because it would be fair-use. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

D&D work

Hey, thanks so much for all your work on all of the D&D articles! Web Warlock (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I can only hope that Gavin doesn't destroy it all. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy

LOL, no problem. :) And try not to burn yourself out on unproductive arguments like so many others have in the past. Wikipedia has a very specific dispute resolution process. You have stated your case, as have numerous other editors (see the documentation on the mediation case), and have reported your findings to others. If the problem persists, we have Third Opinions, RfCs, and then ultimately ArbCom. If I told you I never expected Gavin's case to go that far, I'd be lying; everything else is only delaying the inevitable, but that is the course we must follow for now. BOZ (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan to burn myself out. I'll do whatever it takes to fight Gavin, but I'll also be continuing to do more productive things on Wikipedia. If anything, he might burn out first.

.

.

.

.

I agree, that isn't very likely. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. :) I love the smell of chaos in the morning! Gets the blood boiling... maybe the real reason that people stopped editing D&D pages is because without Gavin there was no conflict. ;) BOZ (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

HAH! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'd like to say - you seem to have come along at just the right time to get things started again, and colliding with Gavin's return, your attempts to get people motivated again seem to have really turned this project around. Your work on organizing the project brings something much needed. Just in case you needed any encouragement. ;) BOZ (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow... thanks. I really don't know what to say; I'm just sorry I hadn't started earlier so that we could have gotten more done before Gavin came. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He might be a hindrance, but he doesn't have to be an obstruction. Just work on anything he does when you start up, and the rest of the day is yours. :) That's what I try to do. BOZ (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll try it out. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Armando Simon cite on D&D

Hi, I reverted your addition of the fact tag on the D&D article. The Simon piece was cited and is an actual paper written in the 80s. It's also supportive of D&D so I'm not sure why you removed it, perhaps you meant to remove another piece? Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I know that it was supportive of D&D; I think that I had made a mistake and looked at 69.154.243.219's revision without seeing BOZ's (using the watchlist), and added {{fact}} without seeing BOZ's citation at all. Even though it is supportive of my views, Dungeons & Dragons is a featured article, so I thought that a source was needed. My bad; thanks for fixing it. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hey, awesome! Good luck with that process. I let the folks on the comics project know that you picked it up. You could have a chat with User:Jclemens, who did the EGG and WotC reviews, if you need some advice - he's done at least a couple dozen already. :) BOZ (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Since we've added another GA to the nominations, I thought that it was only fair that I help work through the backlog a little bit. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool, that's a good call. :) BOZ (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Psst, I don't think you're supposed to make any significant contributions to an article you're reviewing. Never hurts to point things out to people as suggestions though, I imagine. BOZ (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines actually say that if something needs fixing and is easy to do, BE BOLD and do it; it's just significant contributions that you aren't supposed to make. I consider restoring content that was both written and deleted within the past day to be relatively easy, and I think that it was actually deleted by mistake in the first place. I can, of course, revert my edit if I need to. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should read guidelines more often. ;) I got the impression that reviewers weren't supposed to be involved, to remain neutral. BOZ (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith.

Thought you might find this funny. [1] shadzar-talk 17:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

HA! Thanks for pointing that out. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll get in there and "vandalize" a little bit myself. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Nevermind, now I see what you mean. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

-Cross posted from User talk:RJHall-
Thanks for adding in that ref to a bunch of articles; any reliable secondary sources we can get are good, and books are even harder to come by then web pages! -Drilnoth (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I keep trying to find more independent sources, but they are hard to come by.—RJH (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Batman (film series) GA review

Thanks for reviewing that article. I'm not finished with the concerns, but I will notify you when I'm done. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! If you have any questions about the concerns, just put them in the GA Review subpage. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I think I finished off your concerns. I will now go to work on Batman & Robin. Wildroot (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! :) BOZ (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just barely finished with the re-editing of the Plot section for Batman & Robin. I think that's ready for GA-status as well. Wildroot (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll check in on it in a moment. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages on redirects

Hey there. I was under the impression that we were keeping track of redirected pages via having {{D&D}} on the page. I noticed that yesterday, Craw-Daddy had deleted a number of such talk pages I'd created. I've been trying to locate pages to apply the project, including redirects, but I'd rather not waste my time on that if it's going to be undone. I guess my question to you is, are these useful in any way? The ones that got deleted seemed to be only on pure redirects (as opposed to redirected articles) where the page had been moved and a redirect left in its place. Are there only some redirects we'd really want to keep track of? Let me know before I continue. Thanks! 71.194.32.252 (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do tag them. I'll talk to Craw-daddy. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll continue after he responds to you. From the Deletion log:

From the log

01:26, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:The Bane of Llywelyn (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:26, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Swords of the Undercity (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:25, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Swords of Deceit (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:25, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Sabre River (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:24, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Land Beyond the Magic Mirror" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:24, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Iuz the Evil (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:23, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Jade Hare" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:23, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Isle of the Ape (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:22, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Five Shall Be One (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:21, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Fate of Istus (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:21, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Earthshaker! (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:20, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Death's Ride (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:19, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Day of Al'Akbar (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 00:26, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:City of the Gods (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:23, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:In Search of Adventure (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:22, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Tomb of the Lizard King (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:22, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:The Marklands (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:22, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Rahasia (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:21, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Patriots of Ulek (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:21, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Lost Tomb of Martek (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:21, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Howl From the North (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:21, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Horror on the Hill (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:20, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Greyhawk Ruins (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:20, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Ghost of Lion Castle (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:20, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Duchy of Ten (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:20, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Border Watch (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:07, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Bane of Llywelyn, The (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:00, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:The Veiled Society (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 23:59, 25 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Temple of the Frog (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 23:59, 25 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Oasis of the White Palm (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 23:59, 25 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Mystery of the Snow Pearls (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 23:58, 25 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 23:58, 25 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Castle Caldwell and Beyond (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 23:58, 25 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Ravager of Time (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 23:57, 25 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Test of the Warlords (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history)

71.194.32.252 (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I did ask for those talk pages to be deleted. I didn't see the point of having Talk:Temple of the Frog (module) (or whatever) having a tag that states it's a redirect, when the article Temple of the Frog exists *and* the talk page Talk:Temple of the Frog exists too, having a (non-redirect) D&D tag on them. Perhaps what I should have done instead was to update the Talk:Temple of the Frog (module) to *be* a redirect to Talk:Temple of the Frog but I didn't see the point of that. Basically it's like someone moved the page Temple of the Frog (module) to Temple of the Frog, but didn't move the talk page at the same time. I could recreate all those talk pages that were deleted, but I would recreate as redirects to the proper talk page, not as pages that would have the {{D&D|class=redirect}} template on them, as they aren't useful in any way. They way things were you have one talk page in the "Redirect" category and one in the "Stub" (or "Start" or whatever) category page, which is less-than-useful. I tend to reserve the "Redirect" tag for pages that are real redirects, e.g. the way that the *article* page Hall of the Fire Giant King redirects to Against the Giants. Hope this makes sense here. I genuinely thought that I was doing a good thing here in that sort of cleanup. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In other words, I would create them like Talk:City of the Gods (module), so that the talk page *is* a redirect to the talk page of the real article. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, having {{D&D|class=redirect}} is sufficient, as this automatically adds the page into the "NA-importance" category, so {{D&D|class=redirect|importance=NA}} contains a redundant "importance=NA" tag. Just thought you should know to save yourself some typing. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Thanks for the tip.

2)I understand your position, but it does seem to be the general consensus of the project that those articles should be tagged. I think that BOZ and 71.194.32.252 have been adding {{D&D}} to them, and I've been updating the description to say they're redirects. I think that this is important to the project because all articles on the public watchlist should probably be tagged, and those articles are on the watchlist. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I still think it's the wrong way to go for the reasons I've stated above. When City of the Gods (module) was moved, the talk page should have been moved too (but wasn't for some reason), which would have left a redirect on the article talk page like the one that I created above. I would suggest this to other members of the project and see what they have to say about it. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have posted on the project talk page with a link to this discussion. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Craw-daddy's G6 tagging is inline with common practice on these no-content talk page redirects. However, if the project identifies some value in them, then I have no problem doing restorations.

On a related note, I have to say that I also see very little value in redirects such as Temple of the Frog (module). Certainly, no one is ever going to search under that title. It seems as though someone created these specific titles in the anticipation that disambiguation would be necessary. However, preemptive anticipation of disambiguation is usually overkill. In any event, let me know if you want me to do anything.--Kubigula (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer; I think that the project can actually handle it. There seems to be quite a bit of discussion on its talk page. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Allright, would it be OK to start adding the template back to redirects yet? I'm expecting a lot of free time in the near future. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing; if there's any other trouble just let me know. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, when you tag redirects, do you think you could assess them? Basically, just put, {{D&D|class=Redirect|importance=NA}} on the talk pages instead of just {{D&D}}? Then other people don't need to go through to assess them. I find copying and pasting the longer tag to be the best way to do it. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sorry about that - didn't mean to give you more work. I was just trying to get through them quickly, since there were so many. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind; just thought I'd mention it to you. It is really fast if you just copy the longer line and the use Ctrl-V to paste it (if your computer and browser allow that). -Drilnoth (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, here's another template: {{D20}}. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep; I think that navbox is kind of obsolete at this point, but I'll add it to the watchlist. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Restore PRODs?

Hi, I restored the history of the Pharaun Mizzrym article, behind a redirect to War of the Spider Queen#Characters (like you suggested on ^demon's talkpage). The most recent version of the history is at [2]. - Bobet 11:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what?

Since it seems there is little to do in this war that is being thrown at people, just find the proper warning, and place on the user's talk page and revert the vandalism accordingly for each occurrence (as was done with Ansalon). Each tag contains some information, but the user's failure to address the specific concerns that were the reason for placing the tag, in the placing editor's opinion, on the talk page of the articles in which the tags are placed means either of a few things, one of which could be seen directly as vandalism and/or disruptive editing. shadzar-talk 23:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about that, but technically Gavin's edits AREN'T vandalism, and none of the user warning messages cover what he's doing specifically. If you'd like to help out with the situation, User:Drilnoth/ANI draft has a current draft of what I want to post at AN/I regarding his actions, and you can edit it to make it more accurate and comprehensive. Otherwise, I will not comment on the addition of user warning templates to his userpage. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

subst:uw-vandalism3 Does include the "Please stop your disruptive editing", but also calls for a block on the way, which requires an admin I think. It is quite clear that the case is a matter of disruptive editing as can be seen here. I think it is clear signs of overall disruptive editing and things stated there should be done to prevent such disruptive editing. That is why I am placing the warnings to make it clear there is an attempt at compromise, since the article talkpages are always ignored when these tags are placed, so even adding something there would not even reach an editor in question who refuses to use the article talk pages. shadzar-talk 23:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position on this topic and reasoning for the use of the template messages, but at this time I do not feel comfortable adding that kind of tag for his specific actions. I will, however, do what I can when it comes to AN/Is and ArbComs. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Something that may or may not be of use for the rcfu shadzar-talk 01:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep; I've been keeping an eye on that conversation. However, until Merridew actually returns to the mainspace, if the ArbCom goes in his favor, I don't think that we can really use his involvement as a part of the argument (and even then he'd have to return to his old behaviors first). -Drilnoth (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean this particular line "I admit not really understanding Wikipedia procedures". I admit that may be a big part of the problem dealing with behavior or conduct, or it may not, but it may be something in that statement that could help wikipedia, its readers, and editors. Also I just saw something somewhere about wp:spa that I want to track down and will bring back to you to look over and think about if/how to use it. shadzar-talk 02:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh... that's nice. I hadn't really caught that. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

~remove indent~ User_talk:134.139.148.100 is where I saw mention of WP:SPA so don't think it will help that much from an IP account that may just be a sockpuppet or SPA itself...so don't know much if anything in WP:SPA is relavent or not. As I tell BOZ, I am just a research monkey, so read the things I find and make your own conclusions as to whether or not they are of any use as I also don't know much about procedures around here other than working with consensus, even if you guys want to merge DM -> GM, and it just don't feel right to me. =P shadzar-talk 02:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good find but, as you said, considering that the account is an IP in addition to having been blocked multiple times. I think that the later carries much more weight. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was considering WP:SPA itself as the more focal point rather than the IP user, considering what it says and how something seems contradictory in a way for an accounting expert to be so focused on fiction articles. But it is just my opinion that SPA might have some relevance. Hopefully not. shadzar-talk 02:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly a valid point, which I think that all of us have thought of many times before. However, he does make enough non-D&D edits that I don't think WP:SPA applies; this does not, however, preclude WP:POINT from being a possible reason for his edits. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this as an example of trying to disrupt wikipedia process or procedures? [3] shadzar-talk 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find that nearly as rude as his response to my removal of it on the talk page: [4]. That's something that I might mention during the RFC, although I don't think that it should be on the RFC itself. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

~undent~ WP:OWN? "I realy need citations with footnotes; vague references which don't support the text of this article won't do." shadzar-talk 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes; I found it rather amazing that he said that, especially while we're drafting the RFC/U. I've already added it, and will be keeping an eye on that page to see if he ever cares to respond. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Any further attempts to disrupt us from setting up that page should be noted as well (perfectly fair to let the first one slide as a misunderstanding). However, we should be open to helpful and useful suggestions from him. Keeping that in mind, the case we make is our point of view, and unlike with setting up the RFM terms, we are under no obligation to use anything he wants us to add or change. BOZ (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's basically my view of the subject, too. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

~undent~ AN/I closed/archived by bot, current location shadzar-talk 03:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages of redirects which existed for one day

Following your post to my talk page regarding deletion of the D&D Module redirect talk pages, the user who had requested deletion recreated all of them. I have posted at my talk page why they are utterly useless and should stay (and new be re-) deleted. I am inclined to delete them all again. Please advise why and how these talk pages of redirects that existed for one day total could ever be useful.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Book of Artifacts

Hey, thanks for the C-rating. ;) I'm trying to fill in some blanks here and there, and 2nd edition stuff is often woefully underrepresented.

Today, I'm going to make an effort into working on the Ravenloft module article. I'm taking a short break first, though. :) BOZ (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome; it looks good. Happy to see some work on 2nd edition.

Good idea to work more on Ravenloft (D&D module) (I'm assuming that's what you're referring too); without a peer review having been done, I think we'll want to just nominate it for FA status pretty soon. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

See what you can find here! http://nightmare.org/dnd/gallery/main.php?g2_page=6 BOZ (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean that I could search for images there? Because now that you mention it, the Wizards site probably has some. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

They might, I haven't checked. That site seems to have maps for other books, but not sure if they have one for EtCR. BOZ (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm; I just looked. They have the art gallery, but not the map gallery. I'm still searching right now, though. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I found some pretty cool maps from House on Gryphon Hill, but of course they aren't mentioned in the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There it is! I found the map gallery for Expedition, including the 3D-style maps mentioned in the article. I'll just upload one and replace the book cover. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Great work. :) BOZ (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The map image has been uploaded and added to the article in place of the book's cover, which I've tagged with {{orfud}}. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for copyediting

Hello again. Would you be interested in copyediting the article Ralph Bakshi? It is currently up for featured article candidacy. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

Well, right now I'm trying to get another article promoted to FA status, but if I have the time I might see what I can do to help you out. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey, did I ever point out my first barnstar to you? ;) BOZ (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I can only assume that that was given out per WP:SIRH, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines on the topic? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course! :) Feel free to mention that anywhere that it might be helpful. Also, here is a "discussion" you might want to keep an eye on. BOZ (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U creation

Thanks for pointing out the WT:FICT discussion; I'd noticed it earlier. As for the RFC/U, I'm not sure how the barnstar could really be made to fit into it, both because it was given so long ago and because it seems to be a (mostly) isolated incident of WP:SIRH. If you can find a way to work it in, though, please do. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'd like to try my hand at reorganizing the evidence section later today if I can find the time. BOZ (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of it almost looks like picking nits, and those are mixed in with the more serious obviously bad stuff, which I don't want to get lost in the shuffle. I'm going to see what I can do about ordering them better. To tell the truth, most of his "bad" edits aren't even that bad, it's the sheer volume of argumentative and nasty-toned remarks that form the problem. BOZ (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that the most important things are his accusations (COI, vandalism, etc.) and his obvious misuse of certain tags (such as {{Who?}}). -Drilnoth (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I found most of his infamous "boilerplate" talk page warnings from Feb-Apr of this year. The tone sounds hostile enough, and accuses the user of POV-pushing. Time for a break - I also looked through the Paladine talk page archives, and will look through some of the other articles I mentioned in the RFM as time allows. BOZ (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

But, I'll do that a little later. Further suggestions: strengthen positions like COI and vandalism claims, hostile tone, dissmissive of other opinions, ignoring consensus, and other violations of civility, AGF, and the like. For interesting reading, check out the Exploring the issues portion of the RFM. BOZ (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll probably work on that more tomorrow. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Good additions, BOZ. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, looking at the current version, I have to point out some items that we should consider either removing or using in a different way. I take the "Evidence of disputed behavior" section to be a list of things that the person shouldn't be doing, rather than suspicious or borderline questionable stuff. Items #3, 6, 9, 11-13 are interesting, but I don't see how they belong in this section - perhaps there is somewhere else we can use them? The diffs under #8 seem kind of weak, so not sure; we could use stronger examples of ignoring consensus. We could also use some diffs that illustrate edit warring over templates, so I'll try to look for those. Items #10 and 15 I guess we can keep, but since those are content disputes rather than conduct disputes, I would make sure you have the most concrete examples possible and toss any weaker or questionable ones. 16:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC) (previous comment by BOZ. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

I'll take a look. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that those are all important points listed, although I agree that they need either more concrete examples or they should be put somewhere else in the discussion. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's another way we can use the less behavioral ones that are descriptive of his thought process or where the dispute stems from, let's explore that. One thought is, most of that is referenced in the "Description" section. Is there any specific reason we can't put links and diffs there? If not, that would be perfect for some of these. BOZ (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could; I was just following the pre-made template. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Did I read somewhere that said there was no specific way it had to be formatted, or was I imagining that or thinking of something else? :) BOZ (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You can probably change it around. After all, you just have to use the basic outline and be able to understand what is being discussed. Feel free to move things around, for the most part. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do - I'll get into that in a few minutes. :) BOZ (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm done with what I wanted to do regarding the setup. I could go on and on looking, but this is RFC not ArbCom. I say fire it off whenever you feel it's ready. One admonishment I would make is that you try to find more recent late-November early-December diffs for the "Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute" to show that not only was he still talking the same talk, but walking the same walk. You know, diffs of him adding the notability template where we have the importance and/or primarysources, etc, that sort of thing. Shouldn't be too hard since you'll be focusing on the last couple hundred edits or so. Other than that, not sure we need anything else. BOZ (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that later today or tomorrow and get the RFC started! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's about time! BOZ (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would personally change that to say regarding rather than against :o ;) BOZ (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

DOH! I think that I put "regarding" on his talk page, but not on all the others. Well, I've already notified quite a few people (including Jeske, Vassyana, Webwarlock, Shadzar, ColorOfSuffering, and Metatron's Cube), but I'll change that for future notices. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Good, that's fine. When you get through the "usual suspects", I'll see who else needs to be advised. BOZ (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I got everyone that I can think of. While looking around, I didn't see any active users who would probably be on Gavin's side to let them know, although if you or I notice any you should probably make them aware of the RFC/U for the sake of fairness. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Toss up a note on the D&D talk page if you haven't already, as well as the RPG talk page. BOZ (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Goblinoid Deities

Thanks for all your work in cleaning up/consolidating the goblinoid deities. I spent some time a while ago trying to track down source books and enter all the details, but eventually got disheartened by all the notability tagging going on. It's such an easy way to vandalize a page without having to justify the tag. The argument could be made that many Wiki articles don't fulfill the exact requirements for notability (e.g. this or this), but it seems that some people have specifically singled out D&D articles. Anyway, good job! Maglubiyet (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm trying to do whatever I can to establish notability, whether that is adding sources or merging articles. Any help with these topics would be appreciated. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Before you respond...

Remember, calm, reasoned, rational. Read it a few times, then respond later. ;) A quick, visceral response feels good, but looks bad. BOZ (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Very good words. I'd just hit "Preview" when I saw the big orange bar. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Heroic Worlds

I should have checked back sooner, but if you haven't seen it already: [5] BOZ (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, great! Thanks! I'll add those in later today unless you (or someone else) already has. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope that was helpful. :) If you need me to ask anything else, let me know. BOZ (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly was; I added in the page number and removed the one reference. Thanks again for your help! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Categories

Alright. Thanks for letting me know, then I won't make the same mistake twice.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Pluralization on the monster lists

Hey there, just a note; when you see the monster names pluralized or not pluralized in the monster lists, that is intentional. I tried to write the names as written in the product in question, rather than how they may be commonly known. So, when Orc is written as "Orcs" for the White Box, that's because all the monster names there were pluralized. BOZ (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. I'll fix it up; thanks for letting me know (I also alphabetized the lists; I think that makes them much more useful as a reference, even if its not in the same order as in the books). -Drilnoth (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, alphabetizing the entries is fine, since we have page numbers. Some works don't have page numbers though, so maybe those should stay in the order they appear if it's irregular? BOZ (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey, my first Barnstar. Cool. Thanks.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Merging

I set up Flanaess and merged a few of the already-redirected articles into it. I didn't link to every article that should probably be linked to it, but I'll probably come back and hit that at some point.

My next goal is to make List of Forgotten Realms characters look more like List of major Dragonlance characters. :) I'll get started on that in a little while. BOZ (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look as well when I get a chance, it would be nice to be constructive and proactive instead of chasing tags. Web Warlock (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far! I'll help out when I get a chance; there's a lot on my to-do list right now. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool - I just finished merging the first wave of undeletions into the FR characters list page, and boy do I need a break. :) I'll see if I can dig out my copies of Hall of Heroes (1E), Heroes' Lorebook and Villains Lorebook (2E) to see what I can add in terms of sources and more characters and such. BOZ (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I found my big box of FR supplements, including the ones mentioned above. :) BOZ (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice! -Drilnoth (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Small note

I added a note over on the discussion page for Demodand that might help that particular article. You've been making a bunch of contributions to random D&D articles of late (which makes you awesome) so I figured that I might mention it to someone capable of editing the article (I'd do it myself, but per that note on the discussion page, it might cause a tempest over perceived COI that one or two editors might jump on in a fit of wikilawyering).Shemeska (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for mentioning those. A quick question, then: Where might I find a source for the demodands being in The Great Beyond? Since you're the author I believe that you're telling the truth, but something needs to be published already to be able to cite it. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ravenloft module

Just a quick note - keep an eye on this thread and this thread. If you need me to ask/mention anything there, let me know. :) BOZ (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I knew about the one thread, but no the one about the Acaeum. I'll keep my eye on them. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Turned up maybe something useful here? BOZ (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll mention something at the FAC. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As requested, I've added some additional content from the White Dwarf review of Ravenloft II. Please edit my contribution for consistency and length, and let me know if you need anything else from the early White Dwarfs. (Or from any Ravenloft products -- I think my Ravenloft collection is fairly complete.) Ant Brooks (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks. One other thing that would be nice is if you could clarify the PC's goal in the original I6 module; that's one of the requested things for the FAC, and I don't have the module myself. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... what do you mean by their goal? Their initial motivation for traveling to Barovia is a letter from the Burgomaster pleading for assistance in dealing with Ireena Kolyana's "affliction". (The letter also alludes to "much wealth" to motivate less philanthropic PCs.) This turns out to be a fake created by Strahd in order to lure the PCs into his kingdom, and Strahd's motivations for doing this depend on the result of the fortune telling process with Madam Eva. Once the PC become entwined in Strahd's plans, their goal is presumably to destroy the vampire and free Ireena Kolyana/Tatyana, but that's never specifically spelled out as such in the module.

Article hits page

Neat! That's a really cool idea. There's got to be a way to get a bot to do it (I sure wouldn't expect anyone to do that by hand for more than a few articles, and even then) but that's a damn cool idea. The original boxed set is actually getting more hits than I expected. ;) BOZ (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on putting a few more of the major articles that just aren't Top-importance on it right now. It shouldn't be too hard to do by hand, just once a month. Maybe an hour at the most. Some of the results from High-importance articles are actually quite surprising. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Going off the list that they made for the 0.7 project and picking off the top 20 with the most total hits, I'd suggest considering Faerun, Alignment, Dragon (the monster, not the mag), Drow, Death knight, Planescape, Beholder, Illithid, Ravenloft, Eberron, Lolth, Dark Sun, Magic of Dungeons & Dragons, Tiefling, Bahamut, and Tiamat. :) BOZ (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and can't wait to see how that turns out! BOZ (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas. I'll take a look at them. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I've finished updating it for now. It's rather sad how much orange and yellow there is. I guess we'll just need to fix it! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep! :) It's interesting how high Death knight is on the list, but I suspect that has a lot to do with people looking for something other than the D&D creature (WoW, probably). BOZ (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's probably right. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I got tired of looking, but I found a couple more 7000+ hits articles: Raistlin Majere, and Dungeons & Dragons (TV series). You really do need to see if there's a bot you can run - maybe filter the whole watchlist into the thing and see what comes up where! BOZ (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect category?

Do you know if there might be something wrong with the redirect category? I recently added Talk:The Knights of Myth Drannor Trilogy and Talk:The Parched Sea but they don't quite look right to me. :) BOZ (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

ARRRRRG! It had been fixed! (for context, see Template talk:WPBannerMeta#NA importance error?) :) -Drilnoth (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, don't mean to be the bearer of bad news. ;) BOZ (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)