User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 5

Please cease and desist from harassing other editors

Please cease and desist from harassing other editors as you have done to User:Stextc. As you have every right to add a template, other users have every right to remove them. You appear to be POV pushing and disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. You will stop your disruptive editing behavior in accordance with the WP:DIS and Wikipedia:Civility guidelines. Web Warlock (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken that I am harassing other editors, and your assertion is not supported by any evidence. In the case of Stextc, he has removed Notability templates from two articles with no reliable secondary sources, and has not provided reasonable justification for doing so. As you know, claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book or a person meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources. I have requested that the cleanup templates be restored to the articles Azure Bonds and Kate Novak which fail WP:BK and WP:BIO respectively; I have provided valid reasons for my request, and as such do not constitute POV pushing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are being abusive to push forward your own agenda. You have not been successful on getting articles through AfD so now you are resorting to bullying other editors. Web Warlock (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is my personal agenda: have a look at Wikipedia:Cleanup if you think cleanup templates are just my invention. They can justifiably be put on both of these articles at any time by any editor, since they have no reliable secondary sources. However, there removal serves no benefit, as they have been placed to alert other editors of the issues concerned, and taking them away merely hides an important issue that needs to be addressed. I feel that you opposition to the templates is actually have a negative impact on the RPG project; from where I stand, you appear to be a Bitter dino who resents the involvement of other editors. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You say "there[sic] removal serves no benefit" - but adding indiscriminately them serves no benefit either. It seems that you know you'd lose an AFD, so you add the tags because it's something you can make stick without need for consensus. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, the articles have no reliable secondary sources, so adding the notability tag is not "indiscriminate.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So AFD them. Don't just leave your territory mark on them and then revert anyone who objects. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is where I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of the cleanup templates. They are not indicators that the articles should be deleted; just they need cleanup. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's how they should be used. Are you prepared to clean them up? No. Do you think that someone will clean them up because you've tagged them? No. You are using them in lieu of an AFD that you think you'd lose. When you first came here and put a lot of articles up for AFD, you made a valuable contribution by getting rid of articles that needed to be removed. Now you're just marking territory. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a better idea then. Clean them up yourself if you are so concerned with the quality. But I suspect that you are not and instead using the tags to somehow call into the question the article's veracity or even it's reason for being. Web Warlock (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As you know, there are just too many RPG articles to be cleaned up by one person alone, as even so called "experts" can testify. However, if other editors get involved, then cleanup is more likely to take place. By removing the template, you are simply slowing down this process. If you are against cleanup templates, vent your frustration on the Village Pump, but I don't think you will get any support for such a regressive policy there. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Says the editor not doing any of the work to one of the five "heavy lifters" here. I am not asking village pump for anything I am asking you. You say you want to clean them up but I have not seen any evidence of that. You say you want to improve the articles but I have yet to see you even fix a typo. Plus there are many times you have added templates to articles that did not need them. No, you do not sound like someone that wants to improve articles. You sounds like someone that has a POV you want pushed and are grabbing at anything within the system to get that done. I mean really, weasel word templates? Listing the Manual of Style as a reason for deletion? That is desperate. If you are serious, then spend some time in another realm of articles. TV show episodes for example pretty much all need to be deleted, why not spend some time there. Think of it as a vacation. Web Warlock (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We're not against templates in general - we're against your inadvisably added templates. Sensibly added templates flag problems and should remain. Yours - widespread and indiscriminate - send the message "Wikipedia is rubbish, don't bother", and delay cleanup. I ask you again, if you believe an article should be removed, AFD it. If you believe it needs cleanup, clean it up. Don't scrawl over the articles faster than anyone can deal with them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"We're not against templates in general - we're against your inadvisably added templates". That statement is so POV that I might just put it on my user page so I can have a laugh every time I log on to WP :) --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am of course against anyone else's inadvisably added templates. It just happens to be you who's adding hundreds of templates, inadvisably, to articles that I happen to see. Would you care to reply to the rest of my comment? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your second point, I don't believe these two articles should be nominated for AfD; they just don't have any reliable secondary sources - hence the cleanup template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a reply to "If you believe it needs cleanup, clean it up". Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That comes after my review of RPG articles, during which I will continue to add cleanup templates where appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding them where appropriate would be fine. We're asking you to read the articles and think about them, and stop adding templates inappropriately as well. Most of the templates you add are added inappropriately, and those that are correct seem like coincidences as a result. Unless you start demonstrating some understanding of your actions, it's hard not to feel that the editors who unilaterally revert your edits are contributing more to wikipedia than you do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I chime in here? If an editor believes that an article needs cleaning-up, the onus is not on that editor to do so. An editor may feel, as I do, that many articles need clean-up and that if no one cares to make the effort to clean them up then the article is free to meet its fate; fates that can include merging, redirection, or deletion. If other editors do not wish particular articles to meet such fates, they can work to improve the articles by addressing the issues. If the issues can not be, or simply are not, addressed, then those who noted the issues in the first place have helped sort the wheat from the chafe. If editors merely wish the articles to be free of clean-up tags and do not addresses the issues they highlight but simply remove tags, they are little better than vandals who need to read WP:OWN. Fact is, this 'pedia has an absurd number of crufty articles about D&D and other pop-culture. Their days are numbered. --Jack Merridew 14:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the above conversation. No one has objected to the appropriate tags being placed on articles. The objection comes from the inappropriate and indiscriminant overuse of tags, especially when it is abundantly clear that the article in question was never actually read. And no offense, but you have not been around here long enough to know what Wikipedia will or will not do in the future. I have seen a lot of changes and lot of trends. Yeah some articles will disappear and then others will come back. It’s the way it has been for a while now. People come and go here a lot, articles typically stick around. Web Warlock (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"No one has objected to the appropriate tags being placed on articles". You are so busted! You have objected to the notability template, even on articles where there is a total absence of secondary sources: see Talk:Raistlin Majere. I don't understand your position: either you are choosing to ignore WP:RS, or you a POV pushing to give the impression you are an "expert". --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be an example of positive reporting. You can't claim that all your tags are appropriate, just because a few are. You add far too many tags too fast; some are bound to be right, but it's only by coincidence. It's not that we mean to be experts, but to point out that you give the impression that you don't know what you're doing; in many cases, you don't seem to read the article at all, but just dump a stack of tags on an article because it's an RPG article. You've even shown that you don't know what an RPG is; you seem to confuse it with a choose-you-own-adventure book, [1]. And it's not just notability tags, either. I've spoken to you in the past about {{in-universe}} and {{plot}}. So please don't misrepresent us by claiming that we're objecting to your correct and appropriate use of tags - because the vast body of your use of tags is incorrect and inappropriate. That's what we object to. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case why is the precedent for the cleanup tags clear for the articles we have discussed? This whole discussion is based on three articles Azure Bonds, Kate Novak and Raistlin Majere where there is little or no evidence of notability. On the evidence of this discussion, it does look like RPG "experts" are nothing but POV pushers, so I am afraid I can't agree with you, nor will anyone who reads this discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I, for one, do know what an RPG is; see: Rocket-propelled grenade. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"So busted" what are you? 12? By your flawed logic we should carpet bomb the projects to remove a couple of kids dealing crack. Of course you would claim success in that you got them. You obviously have no wish to actually engage in discourse, which by the way is also more evidence towards you only being here to push your own point of view. Web Warlock (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If I did not wish to engage in discourse, I would not be replying to you now. In fairness to you, there have been occasions where I put a cleanup template which might not be appropriate to a particlar article, but that does not invalidate me as an editor, and nor does it mean that I am pushing a point of view. From where I stand, it looks as if you believe that the notability guidelines don't apply to these three articles, so the cleanup template are unwarranted. Is this where you are coming from? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability cleanup template and the article Erol Otus

There is absolutely no question that you are helping to improve some of these extremely poorly written articles by canvassing them with notability tags. Your notability crusade is not without merit, though most others seem to think so. I personally welcome some of what you are doing here. A lot of these RPG articles are badly written across the board and need a lot of work and improvement. Some of them are crap and need to be removed once and for all. Your pointing this out is not really a bad thing, but you would win more support here if you:

(1) Were a bit less militaristic;

(2) Used a tone that didn't come across as arrogant, condescending, stubborn, insulting, and insolent;

(3) Actually rolled up your sleeves and assisted in cleaning these articles, if only in a token sense to demonstrate that you are not actually a gadfly.

(4) Learned something more about the subject matter as to not look as if you are desperate to have RPG articles removed at all costs using every nuance of every available policy as a leverage bar to do so.

Please understand that I do not think you are a gadfly, personally, nor do I think you are pushing some religious or personal agenda. Many others do think so, however, and you have given them plenty of reason to think this way! Was this your intention? I do not think so, so perhaps it is time you eased back a bit.

I personally think you have good intentions wrongfully executed. It does matter to get along with others and work well with others if you expect to get anything done. By my estimation you have gotten very little done here on Wikipedia as compared to the amount of effort you have expended. You have, though, managed to make a lot of people needlessly angry while at the same time inspiring cabals against you and your few allies and a swarm of stupid sockpuppets who have disrupted the administrators' work.

Think about it: Just about every article you've nominated for deletion has survived, and most notability tags are contested. Articles are being improved from all this mess and arguing, but it can be done a better way, don't you think? Would it not be better if people were united to get things sorted out on these RPG articles and not feeling like it was you and Jack vs. them?

Perhaps you don't really care about working and playing well with others, and that is fine. You may actually get some kind of a charge out of most people disliking your work here. I do not personally think that is the case, however, and if you changed you approach a bit and moved forward in a spirit of collaboration while still enforcing policy and guidelines, there would be less headache here on Wikipedia for all concerned.

Please give it some thought. Dicecollector29 (talk)

• These are sweeping generalisations that are not borne out by evidence, but there is evidence that you are making these statements in order to remove the cleanup templates without regard for the notability guidelines. I note that you have removed the notability cleanup template from the article Erol Otus on the basis that "starting cleanup - notability esteblished via reference of extensive tsr contributions and imdb"[2]. If you read WP:BIO it says that "Database sources such as...imdb are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion". Perhaps you have missed this? Whether you have or not, I can't say, but from where I stand, you are just not taking the guidelines seriously, and you twisting concepts like "collaboration" around to support you POV. Just because the templates are contested, it does not mean that they are not justified. I must request that you replace the cleanup template until reliable secondary sources are found.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have complete regard for these notability guidelines which is why I have not removed the tags from a couple of the other articles I'm working on. They are not ready yet. As for Otus, the IMDb, in this case, simply mirrors what information is available elsewhere (as far as Otus' credits are concerned on these video games). His credits on these games are clearly available in multiple sources, and the IMDb just reflects all that. That IMDb exclusion guideline is also less about credits and more about the IMDb trivia sections, which are often nonsense. In any case, the IMDb link on Otus' bio can be removed and still cause no harm to his notability. He is easily notable for his many works. The other references support that, and more references are coming. Again I say, contributing to these articles is much more fun than just posting tags and then spending hours and hours fighting over them. Dicecollector29 (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to fight about: the notability template is justified. Your opinion on its own is not enough to demonstrate notability. Please restore the template without further ado. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User Page

...and don't I at least deserve {{cquote}}s? :-) Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You would get them if I knew how. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This will do the job, but it doesn't seem to like having a url inserted in the last argument. <shrug> --Craw-daddy | T | 19:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

“ We're not against templates in general - we're against your inadvisably added templates ” — --Percy Snoodle 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• See: User:Gavin.collins oldid — Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sturm Brightblade

Hello. Would you object to my removing the {{RFCmedia}} template from this article's talk page? There hasn't been a move to remove the notability notice for a week. --Sturm 14:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it if you wish. Thanks for your comments as well.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist from adding the notability template without reasonable justification

Please cease and desist from adding the notability template to the articles Mary Kirchoff, Kate Novak, Chris Pierson, and Don Perrin, as these authors have written multiple novels and books which have each been read by hundreds of thousands of people. Claims of notability must adhere to common sense; it is not enough to simply be an instruction creep and a bureaucrat when these authors have written so many popular novels and books. There is no reasonable justification for adding the template which was put there to cause problems. Note that this is not to say that these guidelines should always be ignored; it is just that you are following the letter, not the spirit.

The reason why I ask you to stop adding the template in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as the explanations for adding the template are not supported by common sense and the policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, which applies to all of Wikipedia. Unless these articles are actually not notable, I would be grateful if you would remove the template immediately.--NotabilityMan (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• NotabilityMan won't be following up on this, at least not with that sock account. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  Was he actually a Grawp sockpuppet? Or was that just the excuse to shut him up? (If he was, block away, but I distinctly remember an earlier attempt to falsely claim Rray and Hobit as suckpuppets too which was absolutely without base). But in any event, regardless of his status as such or not, he did have valid points about non-justified template use and POV pushing.Shemeska (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  Go ask User:Daniel Case who tagged the userpage, or User:East718 who blocked the account; both referenced Grawp. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I personally don't think he is a sockpuppet of Gawp (sounds like a D&D location), but his editing pattern is very similar to another vandal, the anon IP 134.139.148.100 who has been blocked: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NotabilityMan for details. As regards his arguments above, I think he now knows that reliable secondary sources are required as evidence of notability although he can chosen to ignore this fact. I hope other editors who remove cleanup templates without justification learn from NotabilityMan being blocked; vandalism its against the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that certain editors would do well to realize that Gavin.Shemeska (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)