User talk:BOZ

Happy New Year buddy=

And thanks... I've got time on my hands at the moment haha. :) StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dragons of Despair

Hi, I've recently made a GA review of Dragons of Despair, which you appear to be interested in based on your activity on the talk page. I raised some issues and would greatly appreciate it if you were to address them, so I can promote the article. Thanks, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Boz

Happy New Year! Hope it's off to a good start. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New variety of PH

You know, I actually like this integrated version better — it integrates the in-universe changes with changes and evolution in the creative personnel, and just by its nature reduces a lot of biographical fancruft to pertinent, issue-cited specifics. And, as it happens, the official guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) now appears to be moving away from in-universe biography, such as WikiProject Comics' FCB.

Since you mention User:Hiding, whom I've always considered my role-model here, supports this, maybe it's time to make a formal Project proposal to do away with FCB, and do real-world-perspective PH's only. Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On this note, your input would be welcome here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abomination_(comics) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics

there's a degree of hostility from one user that may be able to be neutralised by several voices. I think he needs to grasp that I am open to change and that this new style is a work in progress. Asgardian (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dragons of Despair

I'm promoting this article, what cateogory should it be under? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that Sports & Recreation#Board and Card games is appropriate... there really isn't a good place for this kind of thing. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add it myself; if there's any problem, feel free to change it. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. :) Yep, I agree with Drilnoth. BOZ (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Minsc

Sorry for the delay, I've been busy and thinking what may be the best way to answer your questions.

To be honest though, I really don't know how to answer you. Minsc is popular as a character for, well, being the character he is. That's pretty much the same case with almost any title; Ivy's popular for being Ivy, Squall Leonhart for being Squall and so forth. What makes him "worthy" of having his own article is above the rest of the cast there's viable reception to cite. If Sarevok, Imoen or others turn up with any then they should probably get their own articles but thus far Minsc is the standout from the crowd.

Best answer I can give. Minsc is just who people think of when they look at BioWare. Kinda like how characters like Morte or Annah from Planescape: Torment are icons for Black Isle Studios (heck, Annah actually has plenty to build an article with, I've just been busy with three character articles already sitting on GAN at the vg project).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		The Socratic Barnstar is awarded to those editors who are extremely skilled and eloquent in their arguments. I REALLY loved your comments, Secondary_proposal:_AFDiscussion The picture you painted was so vivid! travb (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Giff article updated

Hi BOZ,

As you have been improving the Giff article, I though I would let you know that your good work on the D&D articles (especially this Spelljammer cornerstone of a monster) inspired me to put out a call for artwork on the Spelljammer forums over at The Piazza. (I wanted to add an infobox to match the Beholder article, but felt that I couldn't do that without getting hold of some fan art to fill the top.)

The thread where I requested the artwork is called: Wikipedia artwork request. I quickly got help from someone called Silverblade. He doesn't do wiki editing, but he is one of the best 3D D&D fan artists I have seen...as well as a big Spelljammer fan. So I was really glad to see him make a picture for me to upload.

There is someone over at The Piazza who has the user name BOZ. I don't know if it actually is you, but you might want to pop in and say hi to him.

As I said, Silverblade is a big Spelljammer fan, so if you have a list of Spelljammer related articles that could do with having art added, he might be able to help us get these articles improved.

Anyhoo, I've uploaded the image, and done my best to explain the fair use of this image on the image page. But, as I've had two images zapped before (and am not on Wikipedia as much as you) I would appreciate it if you could double-check my work.

BTW: I saw an interview on Dragonlance Nexus where Jeff Grubb was saying that he liked to add animal-headed humanoids to campaign settings and mentioned the giff. Is that something we should be using to add information about the giff's creative origins to the article? And would that sort of interview be enough to get rid of the 'notability' tag?

Thanks! Big Mac (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Article drive

Thanks for the note. Haven't we previously discussed this somewhere like the Comics Project noticeboard? I was ill and had to let it drop but we threw around some good ideas that I can't find. (Emperor (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the link but I was thinking about something 1-2 years ago. I established WP:CMC/ID for the improvement drive and discussed it on the talk page but can't seem to find it. I'm sure it was moved somewhere or I'm looking at the wrong page. (Emperor (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

I did more digging and found a deleted page move on the clean-up talk page and found it. (Emperor (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

I used your idea to use Google site search and found the preliminary discussion, what I hadn't realised was that the older Notice Board (with discussion) was superseded by a very similarly named one so when I went looking for the discussion it wasn't there, despite me knowing it should be. Mystery solved. Thanks for helpng - that would have niggled me to death ;) (Emperor (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Indeed. You did a great job of listing the articles that need some focused work back then and I'm glad that has all resurfaced when there seems to be a desire to really take things up notch. (Emperor (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes I saw - I reverted it twice because it was looking terrible and was left half-done. If there isn't enough material to do this or you can't do a decent job of it then really leave it to someone else to do.

Thanks for the comments I'll look them over in the next day or so. (Emperor (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

That one wasn't so horrendous, mainly because there has been little actual rewriting. (Emperor (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Oh dear. (Emperor (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

This is going to be his next "thing" isn't it? I haven't yet worked out if this is a problem with the articles he is picking (at random?) not being ready to be rewritten like this or if he isn't up to it. I have seen it done well (although some might need a bit of expanding like Cable (comics)) but that might be down to the article itself. (Emperor (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

And I think J Greb isn't a fan.

I suppose the only way to address this is to throw it out to the project. I know we need to try and work some articles so they have less in-universe material, but I don't think that means we have to put up with those... abominations. (Emperor (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Indeed - very aptly named. It could easily be deleted in its current state and there could be no great loss. I agree we need to make sure all the ducks are in a row. (Emperor (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

References

Indeed - I have actually mentioned something similar. I'll try and find the link. (Emperor (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Link is here. (Emperor (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Discussion: WT:CMC#Resources list. (Emperor (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Silver Age of Comic Books

I've been away (and not sober), what happened? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The reviewer put up some confusing information and then left? :) BOZ (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Best I can tell they have substituted a template (or copy and pasted some text in) but not done the actual review (which would involve changing the image tags to appropriate images. If nothing has been done in a few days then drop them a line. (Emperor (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

Cool tool of the month....

From this discussion, we get the box on the right - cool eh? Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ARS/Tagged

Coding: {{WP:ARS/Tagged}}

Ikip (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is awesome! :) Does it update regularly? BOZ (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely does update.

The only time it would not update is when you are looking at an old cache, which is solved by clearing the cache by adding this at the end of the address, then reloading the page: ?action=purge. See Wikipedia:Purge.

The cache is not going to an issue very often, if at all, because you won't need the list to update every few minutes. Ikip (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. :) BOZ (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Tomb of Horrors

Yeah, I noticed it had gotten to GA. Good work! I just polished a few bits. Isle of Dread looks pretty good already. Truly Trivial (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

List of minor company characters

You probably have the best grasp on the depth and breadth of our Marvel characters articles so I'd appreciated your input on what I say at the end of this section. It has come up in AfDs before where I have voted weak keep because there must be better ways of dealing with comics characters badly failing notability (like the examples I give), and this seems the best solution. We get to keep the information and work on it and then split it off later if we can improve the quality. (Emperor (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Dwellers of the Forbidden City

Hi, I am reviewing your article, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, for GA and have left some commennts at Talk:Dwellers of the Forbidden City/GA1. I will do a quick copy edit of a few MoS issues I spied. The article is well written and referenced but I am concerned about its comprehensiveness and tried to leave you with a few quick ideas on directions to expand it a little. Please contact me if you have questions or concerns. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I have no experience with the Good Article process. good number of sources and independant reviews. Edward321 (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ravenloft (module)

Thank for the notification. I'll take a look at the article a bit later. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man

I have started the review of Spider-Man and have mentioned my main concerns at Talk:Spider-Man/GA1. It is quite a overwhelming article. Perhaps some reorganizing would help. Please feel free to contact me with comments and suggestions. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I hadn't spotted recent developments. I'll leave some more thoughts on the talk page.

Also far-be-it for me to suggest anything about talk page management but you might want to think about archiving some of the threads here, it is a little unmanageable (you can lift the code needed from my talk page if you want to automate it). (Emperor (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Congratulations - good work. I was thinking it might no make it but it all came good in the end. I'll keep an eye opan for more sources and drop them when I find them (we might as well keep it rolling forward). (Emperor (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

Absolutely! :) BOZ (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Spider-Man

I think we're in agreement about what needs expansion and what needs cutting. My efforts to revamp the page weren't met with widespread approval by comics fans, so I decided to disengage (they hauled me over to ANI before over my disagreements with them before, so you can imagine why I'm hesitant to jump in on editing.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Applying wiki-style editing to enworld

I think they eventually got the idea - great way to make monsters....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, good stuff! :) "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." BOZ (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Spidey

What's going on, exactly? I saw Mattisse said something about rewriting for clarity. Above, I see David being taken to AN/I. Is it close? What are the hardest parts? I've been hesitant to work on it becuase, like my Jackie Robinson GA, its such an important subject it looks like a crazy amount of work. How many more refs do think it needs, for example? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Spider-Man

Thanks for the heads up. Tempest115 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Spider-Man

Thanks for the info. I did see some slight modifications that could be made, but it was usually just some reword/rephrase that wouldn't to anything to the content (e.g., is it really necessary to list 4 of spidey's foes in the intro? Wouldn't two or one suffice). I'll check the review page often to see if I could fix any of the issues that reviewer mentions. Good Luck! Kimu 20:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man Redux

Are you still working on Spider-Man? What concerns me now is the state of the footnotes. Do you want to try to clear this up or do you not care? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dork

Dork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.44.212 (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why... why would you say such hurtful things? :( *sniffle sniffle* BOZ (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If the shoe fits... I hope they don't look at my contribs. ;-) Of course, D&D players got all the girls at my school (and by girls I mean +5 vorpal weapons). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic Four

Will do. Seems to be going OK, although I'd leave the cultural impact section out unless you have something for it.

I also left some notes on One More Day at WT:CMC and given it a quick once over. Should be an easy one. (Emperor (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm sure some of those American holidays are made up on the spot ;) Anyway there doesn't seem much that needs doing to get the GA.

Anyway I have dropped you a chunk of FF material on the talk page, quite a lot of the Google Books can be read online (it might also be worth checking WP:CMC/BOOKS if any pages are missing - it still needs expanding but could be useful. I've already got some good stuff from it) so it should be easy enough to quickly sift out any nuggets there. Cameron Scott is worth talking to about the academic material - if it can't be used for FF quite a bit can be used elsewhere. The MA thesis is the one that could pay off digging out and might repay the effort (or it could be pretty thin stuff). Anyway something to chew over it is a bit of an info dump but I did some quick skimming and tried ordering it by usefulness (although there could be something mentioned in passing in something else that'd come in). (Emperor (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm not going to go crazy, but I enjoyed adding the little bit to Spider-Man that I did. What needs scholarly sources the most? Is it the FF's legacy, like SM? I can do a bit of research to help in whatever area. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I a bit rushed this week but will have a look for stuff - something I *do* have but will not have access to until friday is Modern Masters, where Byrne talks extensively about his work and the creative process in regards to the Fantastic four.--Cameron Scott (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There are four citation missing tags and the other media section looks under-referenced (I still say there is room to split it off). It is definitely coming on but the problem is it is a BIG topic and there is a lot of material (I suspect there are many more sources out there, even if I hope I've dug up the more important ones). You could put it up for GA review though (once those requests for sources have been addressed) and it might pass if you got the right reviewer. (Emperor (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Heh...

[1] :) -Drilnoth (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, indeed! He bores me in the extreme. ;) BOZ (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Topical templates

Hey; I was wondering if you could take a look at the proposed template in User:Drilnoth/Sandbox 5 before I ask for further comments at the appropriate pages, to even out anything that still isn't working quite right. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's fine; what are you trying to change other than making the templates more adaptable? BOZ (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not much; basically, my main goal is to allow categorization by topic... e.g. Category:Dungeons & Dragons articles with topics of unclear notability. It might be able to serve as a replacement for WolterBot's (sadly out of date) cleanup listings, and allow users to work on fixing up Wikipedia based on what they're interested in, rather than working by date. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Or finding good topics to delete. :P That is, if we don't merge or fix them first. BOZ (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh... -Drilnoth (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that having a category like that would help us find them before they get deleted, it's probably a good thing. BOZ (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll probably make a real proposal later today. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

One More Day

No problem - there's no rush. It strikes me that this'll be easier to make get up to standard than the FF just on the size front. I've left some thoughts on the talk page and will have a thorough read through of the article later and see if I can tweak anything.

I should be ready to propose Alex Raymond soon. I also spoke to | about Pride & Joy (comics) and left some notes on the talk page and when they're computer problems are fixed we should be able to get some more eyes on it and then we can renominate that one too. We should be able to have one or two on the go at any one time. (Emperor (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes it just depends on enthusiasm. It is handy to have someone go on point for the nomination (even if everyone pitches in). Hopefully when there is more momentum going we'll get more interest, ideas and volunteers. (Emperor (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Righto. I've been through Silver Age of Comic Books and done some minor copy editing and left a few notes on other changes. Looks like things are coming along. (Emperor (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes, looking through the alerts it is clear that in any fortnight there are half a dozen articles on the go (some as other media adaptations, but it all counts), we just have to keep ours churning over too. As we've still got some to run through the process (and I have my fingers crossed still for the Silver Age one) and I've flagged another half a dozen which look promising and could easily be produced with some copy editing and firming up the referencing. Hopefully, Jack kirby isn't far off - it is pretty solid but there is a major statement or two which needs sourcing but that shouldn't take long now and once that is done it is in pretty good shape. (Emperor (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

I'll read through it now and see if anything needs tweaking - I'd recommend starting a section on the Comics Project talk page and ask for a few more people to read it through and I'd say get it up for nomination in the next couple of days unless there is some serious issue I can't see. (Emperor (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

OK read through and done some tweaking. It looks good to me although I left a note on a couple of things that might need clarifying. Looks like we can get the ball rolling on this. (Emperor (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Thanks to you putting the time and effort in to get the momentum going. It should be possible to go through the ones that seem obvious but then it might be a might more hard work bringing others up to standard but if we focus on the 300 or so we've already identified as the most important we should be in a good position for when Wikipedia 1.0 rolls around (hopefully most would be up to a B by then which means they are of a reasonable enough quality for inclusion in an encyclopaedia). (Emperor (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

No I don't think we ever finalised 300 - that is a theoretical number we can shoot for but it'd be a bit rigid to finalise such a list without kicking it around a lot. We did get somewhere near 200 and I'd want to leave the door open to people suggesting others.

Looks like the One More Day is pretty much done - well done.

I made an edit to the Silver Age of Comic Books article [2] and it did improve the flow (IMHO anyway ;) ) but might need some tweaking (or using a different way of doing it). I've left a note on the talk page about what I've done so if you have any thoughts (or any others on that article) then throw them in over there. (Emperor (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Undermountain

thanks. been so busy with things lately, havent really had time for any wikipedia stuff. hope you guys were able to make some good use of what i started, and apologize if i was needed for it by the community, or for anything and havent been able to participate in my abscence. shadzar-talk 04:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

FF

My time has been limited this week and I seem to have got waylaid with other issues, but hopefully I can get some time aside to help out next week. Sorry. Hiding T 11:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Spider-Man: One More Day

I reviewed your GAN for Spider-Man: One More Day. As I said on the review page, it's really in excellent shape; I only have two minor things and then I'm looking forward to getting it up to GA status. Nice job! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• It looks much better; I think the photo in particular adds much to the article. I'm at work now, but I'm going to look it over in a little bit and I fully expect to pass the GAN tonight. One thing, just to make sure I'm clear though: when MJ whispered to Mephisto and arranged a deal so that Spidey's identity would be preserved, this deal was a SECOND, SEPERATE deal from the original one (which took away their marraige), right? Just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly... --Hunter Kahn (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, so here's the deal. I just bought the hardcover collection of the four One More Day issues, and I see that it includes both an afterward by Stan Lee (praising the story and remaking on how changes are essentially, blah blah blah) as well as a Q&A interview with Quesada by a guy named John Rhett Thomas. I've only combed through the interview, but it looks like it may be worth including some info from it into the story; at the very least, the Stan Lee comments should be added. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind if I wait a little bit to pass the GA, and if I go through these sources and add them to the article myself (or tell you what my proposed additions would be), then have you read them? If we come to an agreement, then I think we'd be finished with the GAN. I don't want to hold things up, and let me know if you really object, but ultimately it won't be that much longer of a wait and I think the article will be improved for it. Let me know what you think. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, I put in the review page what my possible additions to the One More Day article could be. I didn't want to just drop them in without checking with you guys what you thought of them, whether you thought they were necessary, etc. Please take a look at them in the review page and leave comments. Thanks! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I put them in and added some new comments to the review page. Check them out at your leisure. Also, I noticed too late your suggestion to shorten the one statement. I pasted it into the article as-is, but I agree with you that it could be shortened. However, I'm now late for work and must go. If I get to it first after work, I'll shorten it, but please feel free to do so yourself in the article if you get there first. Thanks! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
        • The article has passed. Thanks again for all your help and for your patience with me; I know buying the hardcover was probably a bit over the top, lol, but I think we've improved the article and I was happy to have heard about this and am glad the comic. Incidentally, although I haven't really been into comics in a long, long time, one day I'd like to be involved in getting the articles No Man's Land (comics) and Maximum Carnage up to GA and perhaps FA status. I plan turn my attention to these articles someday, and if you knew of any sources I could use I'd appreciate it, or if you ever decided to work on them yourself I'd like very much to be involved, so please keep me in mind. Thanks for everything once again, I enjoyed working on the article with you! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Just so you know, I have added your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Coordinators' working group as a co-coordinator of the D&D project, since you're pretty helpful and get a lot of the stuff organized. If you'd rather not be listed there, feel free to remove your name. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, that's fine for now; it's a role I don't mind taking on until there are more editors actively working on things, at which point I'd rather step aside. :) BOZ (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay... I just thought I'd let you know and make sure that you were OK with it. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's basically what I've been doing anyway for the past few months, or at least what I was trying to do until you came along to help. BOZ (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly why I thought that you should be on the list. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo

Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

You're probably feeling fairly paranoid around right now, but Raul has scheduled thru March 6, March 7 he said he might bump March 6's article to if Tony's Saxbe Fix article passes FAC, and March 8 is almost certainly gonna be Tubman. Can't you find something for late March?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic Four

I honestly feel Fantastic Four needs a lot of work before it can be considered for a GA nomination. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class discussion

Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll see what I can do! BOZ (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Chattur

I've undeleted Chattur and temporarily redirected it to Spelljammer. All yours! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Ms. Marvel

Thanks! That's awesome. Thanks for also finding that edit; I've re-added the information to the lead, which should be growing. I agree - the article is obsessively overdetailed, and I'm planning on trimming it. Since Ms. Marvel is an old character, I should be able to dig up a million sources about her. I guarantee the article will look brilliant. -- A ^talk/_contribs 21:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, BOZ. Would it be possible if you could give me your opinion on something that came up here? If it isn't too much of a bother. -- A ^talk/_contribs 13:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

		Cookies!
		Great work on getting Planescape: Torment to GA! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 10:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty happy about that. :) BOZ (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Megatokyo

Fred Gallagher has just replied to me to let me know he's going to try and do an original illustration, using Megatokyo characters, in time for the 13th. He's got to have a look at the contract issues regarding copyright, but he's hopeful it's possible. Hiding T 14:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, cool! :) How does he like the comic getting to the main page? BOZ (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He's pretty psyched. He wanted to know if he could mention it, and I figured that since it is public knowledge, there's no harm in it. Hiding T 11:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's no secret, and in fact all will see in about... 40-ish hours? BOZ (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Peanuts

Hey Jc,

Just to prove I'm not a total layabout, I finally got to having a look at Peanuts and added a note on the talk page. :) I have to say, I don't know what the sourcing looked like two years ago, but this one still needs a tonne of citation work and is not going to pass GA without it. You might want to get together with folks like Peregrine Fisher, Hiding, and Emperor and see what they can come up with; the sources have to exist somewhere, I'm sure, even if we're talking about primary sources in some places. The article itself seems pretty good, and if we can nail that after a few hours of work, then it can move on to FA as the next step without a doubt. BOZ (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing I would definitely not call you is "a total layabout" : )

Last time we went up for GA, Hiding rather impressively went gung-ho on the references.

I have more than a few myself, but most are primary sources.

What would help, is to get an idea of what is needed, and I'll see about looking through my collection. (In other words, I'm not exactly sure of what I should be looking for to help with the article.)

Also, you may want to check out the discussion at Talk:List of minor characters in Peanuts.) - jc37 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's probably just a harsh criticism of myself; I don't feel like I do as much as I want to accomplish, but in the end it's probably more like I do a lot more than I need to. :)

Well, I did my best to identify the parts that need work; you just kind of have to look and go with your common sense to see if things look satisfactory and what doesn't. Look through your collections, particularly any notes by the editors or commentary from Schultz and other people, and go to town with the citations. Hiding can help, and the others I mentioned will most likely be willing as well. My time is limited now, so I just do what I can here and there. BOZ (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Comics Star
		For your recent work at helping organise the raw resources that are WikiProject Comics editors into the humming GA/FA machine currently underway : ) - jc37 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Incedentally, I had thought we had a "comics collaboration" barnstar around somewhere, but couldn't find it. (It's what I was intending to give, but the Project one does the job just fine : ) - jc37 19:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Super-powers

Boz, do you not have super-powers? Do you want super-powers? I'll gladly nominate you for super-powers. What do you think? Hiding T 10:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I meant adminship. Take your time thinking about it, the offer is open until I die. Hiding T 12:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There's many different styles of adminship. I'm not really that heavy myself on the admin tasks anymore, occasionally I'll go on a deletion run, but I think it's just as important to have admins who are active editors as it is to have admins who are active vandal fighters and the like. I doubt you're that likely to abuse the tools; there's not that much you can abuse, to be honest. And no, I'm not likely to dies anytime soon. Hiding T 12:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • On a cautionary note, I;ve seen rfa's flounder because some people have the oipinion that you need to demonstrate a need for the tools, like you will become an uber vandal fighter or whatever. Something to consider. In my day, if you were a good contributor, you were pretty much golden, as they say. Hiding T 12:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If Hiding, Emperor and I aren't enough to convince you, go poke Doczilla. I think he had similar concerns, and may help clarify. - jc37 19:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know that Doczilla and I had interacted enough for him to have an opinion about me. :) BOZ (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice!

Great work on those "critical reception" sections! –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure! I have more from the same book, but got too busy to add them. :) I've used that book for other things before, like novels and I think modules; it's technically not a primary source, but it's not independent because of who wrote it. BOZ (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it helps. As you said, it isn't really primary or independant, but it can still help if the article's other sources are also in grey areas. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Good Article Medal of Merit

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		BOZ, on behalf of Wikipedians everywhere, I award you this GA Medal of Merit for your consistent contributions to articles that result in successful GA nominations, one of the most recent being Planescape: Torment. Congratulations and keep up the good work! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I wish I could have done more! BOZ (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

LW/TSR

yeah, that is why i said someone needs to look at the site quick, and do some work to make sure the article states the truth where the Dille Family Trust website lies through its teeth. shadzar-talk 04:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics

Hey, BOZ. I've been cleaning up the WikiProject Comics/Participants list right now (which has gone completely out of hand), and I've noticed your not on the list. I was going to add you while I'm cleaning the list, but out of curiousity is there a reason why you don't want to join? I'm just asking for your permission before I add you. -- A ^talk/_contribs 17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not really a joiner. ;) I just do what I do in trying to make the project better. You can add me if you like, but I'm pretty ambivalent either way. BOZ (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahah, alrights. Seeing as you've been contributed to discussions a lot, your almost on an honorary level - you make the effort, which I have to thank you for. So no doubt your on the list. -- A ^talk/_contribs 23:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Becoming All-Powerful!

I get where you are coming from. I tend to use the tools the same way Emperor does, although occasionally I go on a deletion spree. My motive in asking was just that you're a good editor whom I would trust with the tools, and I think that should be enough. I don't care what you do with the tools. To be honest, I'm kind of half of the mind that we need a lot of editing admins to balance out the average. But I'm not sure how an rfa would go, I haven't visited the bear pit in a long time. I think at the end of the day, being an admin is all about judgement. I trust your judgement. I don;t know if being an admin changes people's perception; although it used to be true that if you were here long enough people assumed you were an admin, and were surprised if you weren't, I don't know if that holds up any more. What I think would be useful, is that you'd achieve more editing ambitions with the tools. I know I do. It would just mean that, on those occasions when you needed an admin, you wouldn't have to run to them, unless you needed someone neutral. But I think, looking at the thread of this conversation, that maybe you just don't see the need. Which is cool too. Sometimes I wished I'd never stepped up. The only reason I don't step down is that I know what I'd lose. Never having had them, you may well be better off. Hiding T 13:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gold Box

Hey, good adds! :) I wonder if it would make sense to use that link to source more things in articles like Pool of Radiance and Gold Box? BOZ (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure that it could be. Right now though I'm just making sure that the CRPGs mentioned all get a cite so they escape the fervor of the deletionists. ;-) —RJH (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dragonlance GA

I know it's been quite a while, but thanks for letting me know and for your hard work in improving the article. Ddcc 06:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

D&D articles

Nice work on the articles you mentioned - they are good quality articles now, lots of references, great stuff! Who is "we"? ··gracefool☺ 06:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. :) "We" are members of the D&D WikiProject, mostly myself, Drilnoth, Peregrine Fisher, and a few others who come and go. :) You're welcome to (re?)join the WikiProject, or help with our efforts, or just watch us work! BOZ (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a WikiProject page? ··gracefool☺ 22:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BOZ

Okay, I've got around to it. Apologies for the delay, I got caught up in the BLP issue. I think Drilnoth wants to co-nom, so we need to wait for him before we submit it to RFA live. Best, & good luck, Hiding T 13:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. :) I've taken a look at what some people, such as Emperor, did in regards to answering the questions and I think I've formulated some decent responses. BOZ (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• You'd better, it's live. ;) Hiding T 12:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA questions

Thanks for the Q's - those are some good ones, and definitely more up my alley than concerns of BLPs or how I would mishandle AFDs. ;) I won't be able to get to them quickly, as there are a few and I will need to think some of them through, but I do appreciate it! BOZ (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I finally got all of your questions answered. Got any more, go for it. :) BOZ (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Very nicely done, btw.

You made answering those questions look easy. (As it should be, but you might be surprised.)

If ever you get in a quandry about discerning consensus (or really anything about adminship...). Grab Hiding. He and Kbdank71 (among a few others...) were the main ones with the sledgehammers who taught me : )

(And honestly, most of what I know about blocking came initially from Hiding. I still have his initial advice copied to a file on my comp for easy access.)

We are fortunate in that we have several rather good admins active in the comics project. (Though I have to admit. looking back, it's sad how many good admins I "used to know" have faded into the past; at the comics project, at CfD, at DRV, etc.)

Besides those already mentioned, personally, I typically go to J Greb concerning images and "box" templates. And Doczilla (before he went semi-inactive) and Emperor (among others) are particularly great 3PO. Regardless of their personal feeling, they have an almost uncanny ability to remain neutral in contentious situations.

And of course (regardless of whether this succeeds, though it's looking like it will), feel free to ask me for help/assistance any time. - jc37 23:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't as easy as it looked, and every answer took some thought and work. :) (Thus why it took me two days to get 'em all!) I suppose the ever-growing "admins I used to know" category is a large part of the reason why RfA is still so active, and that why "we have enough" isn't really true - attrition is a natural part of life, I suppose. I decided to stick with candor in my responses, even if it may cost me an oppose or two (or twelve); I could have tried to give the answers I thought everyone would want to hear, but that's pretty disingenuous isn't it? I'll absolutely keep you in mind if I need anything, and you're absolutely right about the others as well. And, how ironically fitting that you got #50! :) BOZ (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Then a few of the reasons for my questions apparently were successful.

One being the "hope" that the nominee actually read the pages in question. All too often, people presume that they know certain things, and then make simple (though sometimes grave) mistakes that could have been avoided. (I've been there myself. Way back when, I was indef blocking IPs, which has been determined to be a no-no : )

That and, as I've mentioned to others, for me, assessing the answers isn't entirely on the answers themselves, but "how" the candidate answered.

I realise that there are those here who call RfA and adminship no big deal. And that's true to a point. But evaluating those those to be entrusted with those tools to not cause some big deals (among other things) seems to me to be a geneuine responsibility of every community member. Both for the community and the editor. To (badly) paraphrase Shakespeare's Henry V: When we purpose to accept their service, we purpose not their deaths (to drama or mischance or mistakes, etc.)

So I kinda take RfA a bit more seriously than perhaps others do (and possibly more than I should - c'est la vie.) It's also why I don't comment there much, though I read RfAs quite a bit.

One other thing, the consensus question is usually a deal-breaker for me (See User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria.) But your answer showed that you were not only in the neighborhood of understanding, but also (importantly) rather open to learning in practicum : )

Anyway, sorry about the length. I (as I think you may know) tend to type stream of consciousness. And I can go on and on if I don't stop myself : )

But since you seem open to constructive suggestions, I thought it was worth making the effort : )

And if I may be so bold, congrats in advance : ) - jc37 01:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I like to assume nothing, but... I'm at 95% with more than half of the time expended, and it would take something like an avalanche of 20+ Opposers to pile on at this point to knock me out. Still, I'd rather comment no further. ;) Yes, I have more or less read all of the major policy pages more than once, but since you provided links I availed myself of the opportunity for a refresher. :) I wrote my responses, then went into the policies and added a few things I had forgotten, but which I'd had experiene with. Yeah, I'm definitely open to learning, and never assume that I know everything... but when I actually know I'm right, it would take a lot to convince me otherwise. ;) Stream of consciousness is fine, and I do it plenty myself! Not so much at this late insomniac hour though. ;) BOZ (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, got it. :)

Userbox

For this user, sex is speculative fiction.

Looking through your contributions I found LGBT themes in comics, (which is excellent, by the way), and it gave me this idea for a userbox. I don't think it'll catch on though. :D All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 02:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice!

Thanks for catching that; looks like AWB has a bug! –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That probably had more to do with a messed up ref tag more than AWB, but you're welcome anyway. ;) I recognized the name, and I figure Emperor might want to look at that article. Might be merge-worthy though, but I'll let him decide that. BOZ (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Knowles

Thanks for the note - I don't think I've managed to look at my watchlist today and missed it. (Emperor (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Well we have talked about various things but coming her seeking clarification but I see a note above. I'd better go and make everyone see sense (preferably in slow-mo). (Emperor (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Start again!

Just in case you haven't been keeping an eye on things, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Round and round we go, on the enlessly spinning battleground. :) Eh, as long as it keeps a certain editor occupied I don't much care what happens with it. ;) BOZ (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wonder if it will ever be finished. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, not any time soon at least. When the most partisan of editors aren't saying anything, then the neutral ones are too disinterested to keep things going. :) BOZ (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hergé

The article Hergé you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hergé for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pmlinediter  ^Talk 11:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		For all of your work in bringing articles up to GA quality, I hereby award you this medal! Great work! –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Co-nom! – Quadell (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I can't take a lot of credit for Hergé‎ though, as most of the work was done by Fram and others before I got there. :) BOZ (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It was just a general medal; I just happened to see this GA notice and thought "Hey, you need a medal!" :) Seriously now, you've done a lot of great stuff with quality improvement. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me be the first

"He who does not keep peace shall lose his hand."

Congratulations. Now don't go chopping off anybody's hand... BusterD (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, congrats! –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I might chop my own off by mistake, is that OK? BOZ (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as long as you can use your superpowers to regrow it. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Never unsheath your axe unless you intend to use it. In other words, always remember to cover your axe! BusterD (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I might have to use my superpowers to grow something else, you know, for when all the ladies find out I'm an admin now... you know, I mean my rockstar hair, drives the rockin' chicks wild! ;) BOZ (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Con-gwa-chu-way-shuns : ) - jc37 12:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't be the first anymore, but congratulations just the same. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankee! :) BOZ (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no, let me be the retroactive-first! And as a reminder, it is now time to put your nefarious plan into action. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We decided on my talk page to do that on April 1. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No time like the present... ;) BOZ (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you agreed... –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Draw, partner! BOZ (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and block you for a few seconds, except I think that that would be frowned on for a new admin. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, if you actually did it. ;P BOZ (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Best of luck with the bit, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Request for Adminship

Dear BOZ,

I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and are aware of the items on the Administrators' reading list. Best of luck in your new position! —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I was browsing through my favorite weirdo-blogs today, and I found this image. Fitting! Now that you're an admin, you're cool enough to wear those shades. :D – Quadell ^(talk) 14:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. :) Brian Bosworth! BOZ (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, congrats on your RfA! Awesome, finally there's an administrator with a sense of humour. :) While I'm at your page, I'd also like to point out another success: the long-awaited review for Pride & Joy (comics) was worth it - it's finally a good article. -- A ^talk/_contribs 16:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome - good work!  :) BOZ (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming a sysop. I've seen some of the improvements you have made to D&D articles, and how you have remobilised some of the D&D community, so I think you really deserve the position they have given you. Big Mac (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• The reward for a job well done is a bigger job. Congratulations! Hobit (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! :) BOZ (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Congrats!!! Well deserved. Web Warlock (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, man. :) BOZ (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bane (comics)

Thanks for the heads up. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help me encourage cooperation between Forgotten Realms Wiki and Wikipedia

Hi BOZ,

A while ago I posted a call for formal cooperation between the D&D WikiProject Forgotten Realms work team and Forgotten Realms Wiki. I also posted the same call for cooperation over at Forgotten Realms Wiki.

I have seen you running around forums trying to mobilise people to help improve specific wiki articles. But only a small percentage of forum users even know how to edit a wiki.

There are a number of frustrated ex-Wikipedians who have moved to more D&D friendly wikis (like Forgotten Realms Wiki). These people all have the skills that Wikipedia needs and they all care about Forgotten Realms. I think that it would be a good idea to try to build links between wikis like Forgotten Realms Wiki and the D&D WikiProject.

I think that we could argue that Forgotten Realms Wiki's best articles function as a secondary source of Forgotten Realms information. So I think that improvements in encyclopedic information over there could possibly help underpin some of the related articles over here (against Notability claims).

But we can't save every D&D article. So I as well as trying to mobilise these FR experts to help get FR articles improved (on both wikis), I also think that we ought to ask for Wikipedia to agree to a "graceful exit" strategy for articles that are cited for deletion and can't be saved. Forgotten Realms Wiki wants to host a high level of detail of content about Forgotten Realms and I think that Wikipedia should have a "no FR article gets deleted without FR Wiki being offered a copy" policy.

I believe that you have managed to get articles temporarily undeleted, so that content could be moved elsewhere. That sort of thing could also be done for any Forgotten Realms articles that have already been deleted.

I think that if we could get this sort of cooperation going, wiki editors could help improve the FR content on both websites. And I think that given that Wikipedia doesn't want to have articles for all things D&D, that finding good D&D related wikis to act as caretakers for the "unwanted stuff" would help Wikipedia ensure that non-noteworthy, but good content wasn't wasted.

I realise that Forgotten Realms Wiki is only a tiny fish, compared with Wikipedia, but if the deltionists are going to argue that certain types of content should be taken off of Wikipedia and "left to other wikis", then I think that Wikipedia has got a duty to forge relationships with the wikis that have a similar care for detail to Wikipedia itself.

I think that this FR Wiki is the best organised independent D&D wiki I've seen. I hope you can help make some suggestions as to how the FR fans could move forward in a cooperative strategy. I think that if we can get this sorted with one campaign setting, we could then use that as a model for getting cooperation started up with the second biggest independent D&D wiki community.

Please drop by on both of the discussion pages I've linked to above and let people know how they can help without their edits getting trampled by the delitionists. Big Mac (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well hey, I'd be happy to help out. I understand that a lot of D&D editors left over the last year and a half due to persistent negative attention (IYKWIMAITYD) towards D&D articles. Getting them to come back has been like pulling teeth, but I hope to use partly the recent attention to Dave Arneson's article, and my RFA to see what kind of interest I can drum up around here.

I'm not really interested in getting involved with another wiki as that splits my already divided attention even further. But I'd be happy to help out with any cooperative efforts. I can undelete any FR articles which have been deleted so that they can be copied, but I don't think there are very many left - kind of got to most of them already. :) If you know of any, though, I'll be glad to do the honors. BOZ (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you could just help on the Wikipedia side (the FR team within project D&D) that would be good. The former FR project dried up and the page is pretty fragged. It needs to be shown some love and set up in a way that shows what FR articles are good and what FR articles need a bit of extra help. I wonder if there is a way to duplicate the stats from the front page, but filter them to only show FR related articles.

The other thing about cooperation is that some people will start editing on Wikipedia and then move over to FR Wiki, while other people will start editing on FR Wiki and then move over to Wikipedia. Allowing an exchange of editors will keep people wiki-editing, and retain the talent pool (even if some people don't spend as much time here or there). Big Mac (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bane (comics)

Thanks for the heads up, i'll fix up as much as I can on the page. ^The  Jay  Experience  08:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry bout that.

i was just so shocked i went into comment mode and posted the smilie without realizing where i was doing so. you do so much work, you are good for the position. but guess it even adds more work for you huh? shadzar-talk 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's OK, I like the smilie there - it's an honest reaction. :) Doesn't really add more work, just whatever I want to do. BOZ (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Query

Is undeleting Arcane magic (Dungeons & Dragons) a good idea? It looks to me, looking through the page history and the AFD, that it was mainly copied (maybe not word-for-word, but pretty close) from the SRD; if that's the case, it would probably be considered a copyvio. A lot of your undeletions so far have been well chosen, but I'm just wondering if this one is a good idea. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't looked that closely at it. I was undeleting some leftover edits under redirects and existing articles. Lookng at the AFD, I see the suggestions that it is too detailed, but it's not clear if it's word-for-word and I hadn't made a comparison to see; it may be pretty close from what I remember. It looks like that text was added by User:Psyghost, so if I skip everything between where he started and after the AFD, I should be cool. BOZ (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good; thanks for taking another look at it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankspam?

CONGRATULATIONS!

Oh, no, if you're coming here to complain about RfA thankspam, I can assure you that you received none from me. ;) First of all, I'm not going to thank everyone who participated, and second of all if I did get you, then I've given some thought to what I wanted to say to you personally. :)

But hey, thanks for dropping by! ;) BOZ (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You could just give everyone something simple like this. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bo-ring. :) Nothing personal. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That was kind of the point. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, why take the easy way out, I'm going to force myself to be creative with my spam. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You earned it. It is people like yourself that keep this place going. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 02:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) BOZ (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have affixed "You're Welcome" spam to the top of this section. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Now that's unique. :) BOZ (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the mop... for there is always more messes to clean up than anyone might wish. Try to not let it get in the way of continued fine editing. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do my best, for sure. :) I'd rather edit than admin, so if I had to give one up I'm sticking with what I do best! BOZ (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just remember to use your powers wisely. (Emperor (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you, Obi-Wan Kenobi. :) BOZ (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! I've been feeling like I'd like to work on some more D&D related topics, but it's hard to know where to drop in. I'll probably end up joining in on those collaborations; thanks for the note! J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Herge article

As I posted on your talk page, Hergé has recently been promoted to a GA. Right now, we all should work to attempt to lift it to FA or at least A-class. I will work with you to help you in this job (will try to make at least an edit a day). And on another note, I would advise you to archive this talk page, it is taking a long time to load (over 3 seconds), though by judging the size of your previous archive, it isn't even half yet. :-) Pmlinediter  ^Talk 12:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

congrats

Congratulations on becoming an admin. I don't generally participate in RFAs, but I knew you'd be a great one because of your ability to build consensus and hear other people out. We all have our preferences on Wikipedia. But I'm impressed that you haven't become jaded, and shifted into a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Keep your head up, and let me know if you ever need any help with anything. Randomran (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sure! What's the most helpful thing that I can do? The article looks pretty well-referenced and comprehensive. Is it just a matter of improving the prose, or are there certain aspects of research that you want some help filling in? Randomran (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I've checked in at the D&D WP. As a side note, have you guys seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources? It's a really useful list for us video game folks. Often if I'm trying to prove that something is notable, I do a bunch of google searches on some of the most popular sources here. I'm sure there has to be a few websites that cover D&D from time to time, and that are reliable by most standards. (Just a quick roll through Dungeons & Dragons would show sources that have passed our highest standards.) Randomran (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the medium helps too. Video games are electronic, and so there's a lot of electronic WP:RS that deal with then. But there's bound to be a few solid online sites that deal with D&D, no? Or even just a few go-to print publications? It can't hurt to have a little list. Randomran (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Looks like you guys are already one step ahead. For the record, I have some video game books. But I went so far as to buy one just so that I could improve articles on Wikipedia. If you enjoy your hobby that much, I think you'll find it to be a great investment. Randomran (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Sounds good. Good luck! Randomran (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks!

No problem - it's really lucky I stumbled onto that thread; I was (pleasently) surprised to hear your request. :) -- A ^talk/_contribs 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No problems

Boz, I don't see how I will ever doubt my decision to nominate you for rfa. You are the editor I think I most wish to be like. I'm sorry I haven't been much help with comics articles lately, I've found myself sidetracked. I think I once commented to Jc something about how "no sooner do you get it all straight, have a few drinks to celebrate, put the chairs on the table and start mopping up than a whole new crowd walks in ready to get it all straight again". I'm kind of putting my priority on the BLP issue right this second, as best I can, and keeping an eye on a few meta debates you do well to ignore. Anytime you need me, you know where I am. And you'll do fine, I promise. :) Hiding T 19:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Vantine84's talk page.
Message added 07:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Against the Giants

It's looking good Boz, thanks for your work, it's a very tidy article. Someoneanother 13:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

On your adminship! Things are looking brighter for D&D!--Robbstrd (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Great news! I'm very happy for you, and for Wikipedia. Cheers and keep up the good work! Freederick (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming an admin, BOZ. I did notice this before, but only because I went to vote for you and found it was too late to vote. I'd pretty much given up on Wikipedia, but your work here has made me come back and put some time into editing it. I'm not nearly as active as I used to be, as Spelljammer Wiki needs me far more than Wikipedia does, but I probably wouldn't be here at all if it wasn't for you.

I'm trying to ensure that all Spelljammer Wiki articles are going to be correctly citated to their original sources. I'm hoping that SJ Wiki will eventually be seen as something that is a reliable secondary source, but even if it doesn't come up to that standard, I'm still hoping that the references sections of articles, will allow people in the D&D WikiProject team to quickly skim through the appropriate D&D books when verifying facts. I've also spent a small amount of time looking out for interview related to Spelljammer (I've put a link to one on the Spelljammer Wiki article for Jeff Grubb). I'm hoping that if I can find things like that, they will also help you and the team over here.

I think that both you and Robbstrd are much further ahead than me, with this sort of activity, but hope I can add in my own little bit to help you continue with your good work. Big Mac (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Allan Varney discussing his D&D work at The Piazza

Allan Varney has been discussing his Dungeons and Dragons work in a thread called Allen Varney here. You might want to keep an eye on his comments, just in case any of them are useful for adding information to any D&D articles. (He might even be able to give you specific confirmation of uncitated D&D facts).

You will find a list of other D&D authors (and any threads they are answering questions about their work in) in the Celebrities on the Piazza thread.

I hope that some of this helps you get the information to back up some endangered articles and also helps you provide some more background information about D&D. Big Mac (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for popping past my talk page. I can understand Wikipedia viewing forums in general as unreliable sources of information, but if we can veryfy that specific persons (i.e. game designers like Allan Varney) write under specific user names on specific forums, doesn't that allow us to treat that information as coming from the person? For example, in the thread over at The Piazza, Allan Varney corrects me when I refer to him as a TSR staff member and states that he only did freelance work for them. That would seem to be something that could be used to confirm the second paragraph of the 'Roleplaying games' section of his article (which says he started to freelance). (There may well be better sources to cite for this fact - I'm just using it as an example of something in the wiki article that wants a citation.) Big Mac (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the difficulty, often enough; sometimes the best sources we have for some types of information are forum posts. We can always use it for the time being, but if we try to take an article to GA we would probably have to remove it, and to take it to FA (Featured Article), we would definitely have to remove it. Of course, there are issues with BLP articles (biographies of living person) and reliable information, but if we could have some kind of verifiable proof that this is the actual person making these posts, then we might be able to get away with using it. BOZ (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the friendly head's up and congrats. I can now bother you too about silly Wiki-questions instead of just Emperor. What's the official Wiki-page-policy on describing fictional events in the past tense? I need a URL. No, seriously. 8-) Lots42 (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

On the RFA pass. I never noticed you were up for it, but I certainly would have gone support if I had. McJeff (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Congratulations on passing the RFA. Wish I'd known about it before-hand, I would have thrown as much support your way as I could. You've been the most level-headed, even-handed, well-spoken editor I've dealt with here (please forgive my effusive praise). I admit, I've been distracted of late mucking around with some "actor-related" projects, in the real world and here, but I'll find my way back over to the WP:D&D to help out where and when I can when I have the time. But, either way, congrats again. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Geez, BOZ, if I didn't know better I'd start to think you were a nice guy or something. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't let 'em fool ya. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Vantine84's talk page.
Message added 06:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blob/Dukes

Hello BOZ, I need to ask you a question, Can I add Fictional boxers and Fictional soldiers to Dukes. It's because he is stated to be a former soldier from Team X, and a boxer along with Wraith in Wolverine. In case you're wondering I'm JoeLoeb. Hi. (JoeLoeb (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

New category

Hello BOZ! I was just thinking maybe you and me could rally a group of comics fans and start a new fictional categories (Fictional characters with telekinesis). What do you think? (JoeLoeb (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

Hey Joe,

You can give it a try, but I don't recommend it because that one has been deleted before; it was discussed here and here, and ultimately it was determined that the category should be turned into a list here. It was recreated once since then, but it got deleted again. Before recreating it, you might want to start a discussion somewhere appropriate to see if people's feelings have changed since 2007. I won't delete it if you recreate it, but someone else might undo all your hard work. BOZ (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I'm not good at all these categories and protocols. I was just thinking out loud. Blame Sylar from Heroes. He's so cool I thought I could improve his categories. (JoeLoeb (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

Welcome back

(moved from user talk:Ikip)

Now what did I say about not getting yourself into trouble over all the drama? ;) BOZ (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

((subst:Template:Thank you}} for the welcome back. I have a lot of "friends" who watch my talk page, so I hope you don't mind me moving this here. Ikip (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)