User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 4

Why don't you?

Why don't you do more to add to Wikipedia instead of taking away? Wikipedia is for the sharing of knowledge among everybody over anything they want! Are you opposed to censorship, or do you support it? Are you a fascist? communist? What is your deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.22.11.124 (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As every good editor knows, there is more to just adding. Editing also involves eliminating unnecessary text in order to improve an article, or deleting inappropriate articles to improve Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. You have a major advantage over speech here in the save page button, an additional filter between your thoughts and your mouth keyboard. Please try to use it to pause and consider how much what you wish to say is going to help what you wish to accomplish. --Kizor 12:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Gavin, can we talk in a manner that you take to be a honest exchange of views, rather than attempt to discredit you or undermine your credibility, as you've taken a previous comment me to be, while I maintain otherwise because I'm nowhere near that subtle? If not, how can I persuade you regarding said previous comment? Note that my response schedule will likely be erratic - what you witnessed starting has largely receded, but I have not yet fully destroyed its effects. --Kizor 12:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think my last comment was a polite response to a straight forward and reasonable question, but please feel free to put forward your own response if you wish to. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A clarification: a previous comment that I made on another page a month or two ago. --Kizor 13:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not following you then. What are you refering to if not my comments above? --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this again, from the top, some time later. --Kizor 13:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RAFaL

Hi. I removed the Wikiproject France tag from Talk:RAFaL as the group in question is an organisation in Quebec, Canada. From the scope statement on the wikiproject, I don't see Quebec included. If I am mistaken about this, apologies. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have updated the article with the correct template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Erik Mona → User:Iquander

Erik Mona would appear to be User:Iquander [1] [2] [3] who has been involved with many of the D&D articles and AfDs, etc. This is a huge conflict of interest and I'm not sure what the appropriate course is? Thoughts? --Jack Merridew 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had similar problems with JHunterJ in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Monsters. Declaring an "interest" is voluntary rather than a mandatory. My experience is that most contributors to D&D articles never declare their interest in AfD debates about articles which they have edited, and drawing attention to this would be like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500. Unless there is a blatant WP:COI infringement, I do not think this issue is worth pursuing, as it is probably best to have expert opinion, even if it can be biased at times.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I dropped the same note on User talk:FT2. Looking at Iquander's contribs I see that he created a bunch of stubs (July 06 time frame) and has only recently become involved with AfDs (and removing notability clean-up tags). I have been assuming that the fervor over D&D articles was due to fandom, but see that there may be a spamish side, too. Anyway, I thought you should know. Best, Jack Merridew 11:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guys. I have been a lifelong player of Dungeons & Dragons and have been professionally associated with the game for several years, though I've not worked for its publisher since 1999. In trying to follow Wiki policy as best as I can, I have refrained from posting to articles or AFDs related to products or things that I had any role in working on. For example, I have not edited the Dragon or Dungeon magazine pages, the Paizo Publishing page, etc. I am a co-author of the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer that is currently up for deletion and I've likewise refrained from comment. I've even refrained from editing the page, which is pretty pathetic at present and doesn't make a very strong case for notability. I have tried to be a scrupulous Wikipedian and stay away from articles directly related to things I have worked on professionally. I am also very knowledgeable about D&D in general, though, so I will continue to participate in discussions that can benefit from my expertise, so long as I do not believe I am posting with a conflict of interest. Believe it or not, I think arguing for the notability of D&D articles is generally a good thing, and I think that there are way too many non-notable D&D stubs on Wikipedia, including a few I helped to edit before I really understood Wikipedia. I do not endorse the rather snobbish way you guys are going about your deletion drive, and I think the frequency of (particularly Gavin's) AFDs has been appalling and very much outside the friendly nature that all Wikipedians are supposed to embrace. That said, a quick look at Gavin's contributions in the last week suggest that he is giving people a little more time to respond to his prods and templates, which is a change I fully appreciate. Iquander (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that the Dungeon Design Panel article was the first I ever created on Wikipedia, before I was aware of the various POV guidelines, and that I recently voted for its deletion in the recent AFD. I trust you guys were ok with me participating in that one, eh? Iquander (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Beware 3RR

Hi, I noticed the good work you are doing protecting the Amarillo_Design_Bureau entry - however I notice you have effectively reverted the same page 5 times today. There is probably a better way of protecting the notability tag. Matt Beard (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:3RR, and let me know which part of it applies to me. I think someone is sock puppeting so reverting vandalism by single user accounts is quite reasonable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The summary of 3RR is

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

I believe that your edits constituted reverts (according to the description on the 3RR page) and 5 were performed in less than 24 hours. I don't believe that any of the exceptions on the page apply.

I do understand why you did what you did - which is why I added an informal warning rather than templating you. However, it was starting to turn into an edit war.

I was trying to help rather than hinder - I didn't want a helpful user to be templated or banned for what some may view as a violation

Matt Beard (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The guideline says "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor", but I believe if it is more than one editor (in this case, single purpose accounts), then I am guessing that 3RR does not apply. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR applies whether you're edit warring with one other editor or a dozen. I'm not going to block you or report you, but if you make another revert on that article, I will. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, I will voice my concerns at Talk:Amarillo Design Bureau.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear it. On a related note, you really need to learn how to distinguish between vandalism and content disputes. Just because another editor disagrees with you, it does not make them a vandal. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I can distinguish as the some of the vandals have been blocked. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You should have been blocked, too, for violating 3RR. Doesn't make you a vandal. Just makes you an edit warrer. I'm not sure that you understand that vandalism means editing in bad faith. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've temporarily(48 hours) semi-protected your talk page due to vandalism from a variety of IP addresses. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like the protection removed. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just done the same again (for 96 hours). — Xy7 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2008

Hello, children of 4chan. Go and play somewhere else, K? ... richi (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your note on my talk page today

I'd appreciate it if you would not copy and paste comments you made on an article talk page onto my user talk page. If you want to discuss an article, let's discuss it on the article talk page. It might be appropriate to notify me of a discussion on an article talk page, but it's completely unnecessary to transcribe the entirety of your comments in multiple places. Thanks.

Also, please don't tell me how to edit here. (You titled your comment on my talk page page "Please Stop Removing Notability Templates".) I'll continue to remove any template that is incorrectly added to an article. You have no authority to tell me or any other editor here how to conduct themselves. Thanks again. Rray (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am afraid that your edits are based on the mistaken belief that your opinion is the sole arbiter about notability, so you should expect further messages to this effect. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Further messages to that effect will just be a waste of your time and mine, since I have no intention of recognizing your authority to tell me how to edit. I'll remove notability tags when they're incorrectly added. If you disagree, then you should feel free to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article in question.

You'll notice that I don't come to your talk page and ask you to stop adding notability templates to articles. You should show me the same courtesy by not telling me how to edit on my talk page.

Some (in fact, most) of the articles you tag with a notability tag are correctly tagged, and I don't remove the tags when they're correctly added. But not all of subjects of the articles you tag have questionable notability, and it's unreasonable to expect other editors to not remove them in those instances.

Your comment about my "mistaken belief" is condescending and borderline rude, too. It's no better than assuming that I only removed that notability tag because I "like" the company. We'd both be better served if we could agree to disagree without your attempts to analyze what I like, dislike, believe, and/or don't believe. Rray (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your belief based on if not WP:CORP? If could explain why your views are not mistaken, perhaps I could understand your motavation. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be missing my point. You don't need to worry about my motivation or beliefs at all. We can discuss whether or not the tag is appropriate or not on the talk page of the article. You made a numbered list on that article page of why you thought that the company in question wasn't notable. I replied to it point by point. The note on my talk page telling me what to do is just unnecessary, and the stuff about other editors' beliefs and motivations is just irrelevant. Rray (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your motivation is of concern to me as removing the tag was unwarranted. The reasons I gave to you explained why Amarillo Design Bureau fails WP:CORP. Your reply to me refuted some of my assertions, but you did not explain how your arguments apply to specifically to Amarillo Design, and I think you are avoiding a sensible discussion about notability. Unless you can come up with evidence, in my view your actions were not justified.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an acting class; my motivation is irrelevant. At any rate, participation here involves assuming good faith on the parts of other editors, so you should assume that my motivation is to improve articles and proceed from there. If I had another motivation, I'd be following you around removing all of the notability tags you've added, which I clearly haven't done. (Since like I said before, most of them are appropriate.)

The notability tag is for articles with subjects of unclear notability. You had a problem with the article lacking sources, so you should have used an unreferenced tag or a refimprove tag. (I added a refimprove tag to the article, which is the tag that you should have added.) Multiple reliable sources exist to demonstrate notability, so it passes WP:CORP.

How on earth could you think I'm avoiding a sensible discussion? I responded point by point to your arguments for why the article wasn't notable on the talk page of the article. You immediately discarded those arguments to ask that reliable sources be added again, but no one is disagreeing that reliable sources need to be included in the article. It's just a matter of using the correct tags for that purpose.

I respect your right to disagree with me, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to belittle my arguments by making comments about my likes or dislikes, my beliefs and motivations, and my "deluding myself". You write well enough and understand things well enough that using such tactics subtracts from the your arguments rather than adding to them. You're more than welcome to tell me you think I'm mistaken. Telling me I'm deluding myself is another matter entirely. Rray (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Non-article D&D pages

See these discussions about this category.

• Category talk:Non-article D&D pages
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Category talk:Non-article D&D pages

Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the category Dungeons & Dragons articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction and for correcting my edits. Do you think that Category:Non-article D&D pages is now redundant? --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Any non-article D&D pages will probably be in Category:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, so yeah, we could probably do without the category. I'm a little confused by the name of that category, as most of the pages in it are ... well, articles. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note the templates I created to populate the category, which at the moment are {{DD-in-universe}}, {{FR-in-universe}} and {{GH-in-universe}}. That way, if we decide to split FR and GH articles into a subcategory (e.g., World of Greyhawk articles that need to ...) it's just a matter of changing the template. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your latest note on my talk page

I'd appreciate it if we could carry on one discussion regarding my edits rather then two. Since we already have a discussion on the talk page of the article, an additional note on my talk page is unnecessary. I'd also appreciate it if you wouldn't make assumptions regarding my like or dislike of a particular subject. I don't assume that your edits to an article have anything to do with your dislike of a subject, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't attribute my edits to my like of a subject. I'd suggest that your communication style in these instances don't help you build consensus or achieve your goals. Rray (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, your attempts to "instruct" me as to which edits to make are unwelcome and will be fruitless. I'll make whatever edits I think are appropriate, and I'd encourage you to make edits that you think are appropriate. If we disagree, then we can discuss on the talk page of the article. Rray (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page: I think there is a problem we need to address on your talk page, because it relates to your actions, namely courtesy. This problem relates to consideration for other editors, and also whether or not reverting their edits is reasonably justified. Taking the example of the article Drizzt Do'Urden, I think you already agree that this article has comprised of mainly plot summary and references to the character in the primary sources which it belongs. The reason why I put the template there is that it is an issue which the respective guideline suggests should be addressed. If you remove the template, and your decision to do so in not warranted (as I suggest above), then you might expect your actions to be questioned (if not reversed). What I am saying here is that it is unfortunate that you seem unwilling to consider that other editors have opinions too, especially where they give reasons (good or bad) as to why you might be mistaken. I have asked you to replace the template. Whether you choose to do so while there is a discussion about this issue is your decision. However, it would be considered to be courtesy by me if you did.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think characterizing my actions as discourteous is unfair and inaccurate. I disagree that the tags are appropriate, so I'm well within my rights to remove them. You shouldn't take that personally or think that's somehow a discourtesy to you. (There's a note at the bottom of every page here that you might read: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." This note applies to any edit you make here.)

If I didn't realize that other editors had opinions, or if I thought that those opinions didn't matter, I wouldn't have started a discussion on the talk page regarding the subject. Starting discussions encourages discussion, collaboration, and consensus-building. Adding tags to article en masse does not.

I might be mistaken, but so might you. If a consensus is found on the talk page of the article that the templates are appropriate, then they'll be re-added. They won't be re-added simply because you think you're right and I'm wrong.

You seem to want to make these things personal -- see our previous discussions regarding my likes and dislikes and my motivations. I'm not interested in that, and I don't think it's a productive use of our time. I think it would be more productive to discuss the actual issues related to the articles and the tags.

To be fair, I think many of your tags and even many of your AfD efforts are valid. And I admire your enthusiasm for putting forward your opinions. But other editors aren't wrong or discourteous just because they disagree with you in some instances. You're not the sole arbiter of what's appropriate here. Rray (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Creator races deletion proposal

Hi,

I added a comment on the topic, here. Have a nice day.
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 07:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing pattern

I actually agree with most of the templates and tags that you add to articles. But I don't think you're infallible, and I think your habit of instructing any user who removes any tag or template that you've added to an article to not remove those tags is disruptive. I'm suggesting that a better way for achieving your goals here might exist and be worth looking at. Your current approach doesn't seem to build consensus at all, and in fact, it seems like it's creating multiple unnecessary conflicts. I thought I'd address these concerns with you directly on your talk page since it encompasses your behavior on multiple article and user pages. I'd rather be able to work out an actual meeting of minds with you on your talk page than go back to the whole RFC process though, and I hope you're open to that. Rray (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you are just repeating the arguements I have characterised elsewhere:

"Gavin has now put the Notability template on my article! Why is he defacing my article with inappropriate tags he knows nothing about? He just wants to create extra work by disrupting WP[5].

At some point you will have to admit that these articles do in fact have many style, notability and content issues, and as one of the many creator/editors, you have to take responsiblity for this state of affairs: You reap what you sow.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I already admitted that these articles have style, notability, and content issues. I did that when I said that I agree with most of your templates. But some of the tags you've added are incorrect, and other editors have every right to remove tags that are incorrect. You disrupt the project by insisting on their talk pages that they shouldn't be removed. I didn't write most of these articles, and I don't really care about most of them either, so your characterization of my concern is completely inaccurate. Wikipedia is supposed to work on a basis of consensus, cooperation, and collaboration. Your refusal to admit that multiple editors who have concerns with your behavior might have a point is contrary to a collaborative spirit. Most of these editors have worked hard to improve articles at your suggestion; they're meeting you more than halfway already. But your behavior seems to demonstrate that you think you're always right in every case, and that's not conducive to a collaborative environment at all. Rray (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment on another user's talk page where you describe the arguments given by people who disagree with you as being "puerile". I also noted that you referred to people who disagreed with you in another article as "bullies" who faded away quickly once you requested an RFC. Your apparent contempt for editors who disagree with you is disruptive, and calling other editors "bullies" on someone's talk page is still a personal attack, even if you're talking about them behind their back. Rray (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I see no evidence of me being disruptive, but I see evidence of you reverting my edits without justification. Take for example, the article Drizzt Do'Urden. The article is mainly comprised of plot summary with a heavy in universe perspective, at least in my view. For reasons I have explained on the talk page, I contested your removal of the in universe template but you have dismissed my concerns. Despite the intervention of other editors in the RFC, you have continued to ignore this issue. Instead you replaced the in universe template with another cleanup template which you did not think "will be controversial". How can I collaborate with you you if revert my edits, and that you use the word concensus as if it means that you are always right? This article has got in universe issues - this is a statement of fact. Your behaviour is transparently puerile. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently no one else thinks the templates are correct there either, because no one has re-added them, even after you asked for comments from other editors.
• Do you think that the cleanup tag is inappropriate?
• Your remark about my behavior being "transparently puerile" is a personal attack, and your refusal to assume good faith on my part is bizarre. It's impossible to work collaboratively with someone who thinks he's never wrong and insults people he disagrees with. I'm sorry if my try at starting a productive discussion with you was fruitless. I'd hoped that we would be able to work collaboratively, because I do agree with most of your edits. It's unfortunate that you can't agree with any of mine. Rray (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can't agree to work with you until you restore the in universe template. Other independent editors in the RFC have gone on the record to say that this article may have in universe issues, and they have gone to a lot of effort to provide an explaination why this may be. Even if you disagree what they have said, I recomend that you restore the template until this issue can be resolved amicably. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)