User talk:BOZ

`

Proposed deletion of A Dozen and One Adventures

The article A Dozen and One Adventures has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This game accessory fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neelix (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - great way to start the year. BOZ (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing on HighBeam for that or Dark Thane, unfortunately. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Secrets of the Lamp

The article Secrets of the Lamp has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This game accessory fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neelix (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This user also added a PROD to Prisoner of Haven‎ and Sha' ir‎. BOZ (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Assassin Mountain

The article Assassin Mountain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This game accessory fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neelix (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge to Al-Qadim maybe? Web Warlock (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I already redirect the other two PRODs listed above to Al-Qadim, and that's the obvious target for this as well. But I wonder if we could create a new list of Al-Qadim game modules or something like that as a new target for all of these. There is probably better coverage for the campaign setting as a whole as opposed to coverage of individual modules. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. I originally created these as placeholders because I knew that there were reviews (mostly in White Wolf magazine) out there that I would eventually get to ... I just didn't think that it would be this long.  ;) I can always add the reviews later when/if I get my hands on the mags. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Good source for Dragonlance articles

I'm too tired to dig into this right now, but this looks like a great source for multiple articles: the novel, the artifacts list, maybe the characters list. See what you think. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I have used it in small ways in some of the character articles; I could take a better look at it tomorrow, but I'm about to go to bed myself. BOZ (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to self - I need to go back to Space Gamer 85, which has a sort of auto-biography for Dave Arneson. Don't let me forget - busy looking through old gaming mags for DL novel reviews.  ;) BOZ (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Mind MGMT

I'm hoping to get this article up to GA or better quality, and any help or suggestions you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! :) It looks like you requested a peer review, which is a step in the right direction. If you follow the suggestions of the reviewer, chances are that you will be pretty close to GA-quality or even there already. The GA reviewer might give you additional requirements, and most reviewers are reasonable enough that if you meet their expectations they will pass. BOZ (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Asgardian_appeal

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#BASC:_Asgardian_appeal. As you were involved in edit wars with Asgardian you may be interested in commenting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Genie's Curse

Hi! I actually could find an article scan at http://www.kultpower.de/powerplay_testbericht_extern.php3?im=alqadim.jpg. I hope that helps. If you should have any questions about the German, just let me know. Daranios (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, I don't know if Al-Qadim: The Genie's Curse is quite GA material, but I think I could get a really solid B-class article out of it. :) BOZ (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, up for a rough mentoring job?

Hey BOZ, You came to mind as a good person for this job [1]. Any interest? I think you and RAN have a generally similar outlook on Wikipedia (at least in part) and you and he would probably do well together if you have the time/interest... Hobit (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, wow. :) I've never tried mentoring anyone before, so I don't know if I'm up for the job, especially if it is a "rough" one. But, that aside, two obvious questions come to mind which I don't see answers for: 1), does he actually want a mentor? and 2), has he exhausted the community's patience already? BOZ (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

1 is unclear. But I suspect it depends on the mentor. 2 is that he's exhausted some people's patience. He certainly did some really bad stuff (copyright violations in a large sense) but I felt a lot of people who philosophically disagree with him tarred him with a lot more than he's actually guilty of. He was a heck of a contributor and I'd love to see him back... I don't have the time or energy at all. I'm not sure how the mentoring would go, but maybe Worm [2] (now an arb) could give you some advice. He'd be my first choice for a mentor for RAN (by temperament and philosophy somewhat close to RAN, very experienced mentor), but he's got too much on his plate. If you are at least mildly interested I can float your name at ANI and you can say no if it looks like a bad idea. Hobit (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess the safe answer would be to say I'll have to keep an eye on the situation and see how it goes, then. Not promising anything just yet, but I'd first like to see if he even wants to be mentored, and what the resolution of the AN/I discussion is. I'm not completely sure what is involved in a mentoring job, so I think it's best to have answers to those two questions before really looking into it. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds quite reasonable. Unless you object I'll add a link from ANI to here indicating a potential mentor may exist. Hobit (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you can say we are discussing it. BOZ (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, just left a note on RAN's page. Hobit (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

File:NFHowlingCommandoes.jpeg

Hi, you restored the file File:NFHowlingCommandoes.jpeg about two weeks ago and probably intended to add a fair use rationale, but that hasn't happened yet. Do you plan on doing so? — ξ^xplicit 00:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. :) BOZ (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Chris Claremont photo

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the discussion on whether to include a 1990s photograph of Chris Claremont in his article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

As a veteran WikiProject Comics editor, you're invited to a discussion at Talk:Marvel ReEvolution#Merger proposal. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Mastermind in other media

Looks like the Mastermind in other media article needs to be protected, again. It was edited again, twice, as soon as the protection expired. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - you might want to keep an eye on whatever else it is that they are ranting about. BOZ (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Puppet Master (Marvel Comics)

Hello Boz. My move of this page to Puppet Master (Marvel comics) [3] was the result of a (short) requested move discussion on the talk page[4] and should not be overturned or moved unilaterally without another move discussion. Would you please undo your move[5] and, if you feel I have erred in reading the discussion, open a move review or, if you feel the page should be at a different title, open a new requested move discussion. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is controversial... please explain. BOZ (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding D&D titles

Hey BOZ,

I have a question I think you might be able to answer that could give me some precedence regarding some of the D&D articles. In regards to campaign settings, for example, "Forgotten Realms", would you think that Forgotten Realms should be in italics, and, if so, would there be cases where it would not be? I'm seeing a mixture of "Forgotten Realms" and "Forgotten Realms", even on the article Forgotten Realms, and I'm not sure which one is correct. Steel1943 (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think we are trying to make a distinction between the campaign setting, that is, the product name, which would be in italics, and the physical world itself, which would not be in italics. It's a tricky proposition though, and one which I think gets a bit too complicated to keep track of in some cases. See here for a discussion on the issue with Greyhawk. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that TSR/Wizards haven't even been consistent with this. I haven't done any research into it, but it seems to me that the names of campaign settings are usually not placed in italics in D&D products and related material, so I usually don't italicize them. However, there is probably no wrong answer on this one. BOZ (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wikiality of Baalphegor

Allo BOZ,

I've been tracking this across the Web without much success; it seems that substantial portions of the Baalphegor article (relating to her age, her time as consort to Gargauth, her power level and her supplanting of Rimmon as Lord of Cania) aren't actually sourced from anything canonical - or if they are, the citation is absent from the article. This is a bit problematic, as other sites (including the Canonfire wiki, on which I understand you are also an editor) seem to be sharing the complete Wikipedia text, which as far as I can tell is the fanon work of the user who originally set up the Wikipedia article. As this user was noted to have inserted his own fanon on another consort's page, it would be useful to clear up for all the sites that use this as a reference whether there's any primary source backing up the assertions made in the article. I'll watch this space if you'd like to respond to me. Regards! 142.176.66.12 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC) TheUltimateEvil

Thanks! Unfortunately there is still quite a lot of content relating to D&D which is still unsourced at this time. When people (including me) added text like this years ago, it was common to do so without using citations. Often without even directly consulting the sources! So it is a problem that has been slowly corrected over time, but there is still a lot to do. I will try to clean this up as best as I can. I do have some books handy so I will see what I can do about that in a little while, and I can look at the rest later. BOZ (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If it helps, I've already checked all sources cited on the page with no success; the reason I managed to discover it in the first place is because any web search on the topic turns up text identical to that from the article. That list of sources covers... let me see here. Book of Vile Darkness, Dragon #28, Dragon #76, Dungeon #2, Dungeon #135, Faces of Evil: The Fiends, Fiendish Codex II, Guide to Hell, Monster Manual II (first edition) and Powers & Pantheons. That should cut down on the rest of the search.24.222.143.27 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC) TheUltimateEvil

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, BOZ. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Bill Biggart

Hi. Another editor who does not seem to understand that you cannot add material to an article that has nothing to do with that article's subject got into a prolonged discussion with me in which he argued why the material should be included for "context". In the article on Bill Biggart, whose notability is that was the only photojournalist killed while covering the 9/11 attacks, the other editor, Crtew, wants to include a list of all media-related deaths (not in the 9/11 article or a related 9/11 death list article, but in the article of just one of the victimn, Bill Biggart), because he argues, the passage that clearly states that Biggart was the only photojournalist killed while covering the event creates the false perception on the part of readers that Biggart was the only "media-related death" during the attacks. I tried to explain to him that this wrong, but he wouldn't budge. He agreed to a Third Opinion, so I called for one, and the person responding to provide a Third Opinion obviously agreed with me that that material does belong in the Biggart article. Nonetheless, Crtew reverted the article anyway, and is has now tried to start another discussion on the same issue further down on the talk page, completely ignoring Third Opinion, and the two other editors who have disagreed with him, which I believe is a blockable offense. Even if he wants to start a consensus discussion in order to open the matter up to more than three people, then he's still reverting during a discussion, which is definitely a blockable offense. When I criticize him for this, he accused me of being "disrespectful", and lobbing personal attacks against me by saying, " seriously cannot believe you are an administrator and you treat people like this", as if he's some kind of victim for merely being criticized for violating policy. I've warned him that if he does this again, he will be blocked from editing, but I need an uninvolved admin to keep an eye on him and do the blocking if it comes to that. If you could also warn him that he is indeed engaging in blockable behavior so that we can avoid actually blocking him, that would be even better. Please advise. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a case for WP:AN/I to me. If another admin gives him a warning and he is still causing trouble, I will block him. BOZ (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Richard Lee Byers, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Richard Lee Byers" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 00:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting bot! Never saw this one before. BOZ (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Dang, beat me to it!

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		I was about to add The Shackled City Adventure Path to the WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons watchlist, but you got to it before I had a chance. You are definitely on top of your game with that watchlist! Steel1943 (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. Didn't see that you added it yet, so I figured I would take care of it.  :) BOZ (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bariaur

A tag has been placed on Bariaur, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Link to non-existent content.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here.

··gracefool☺ 20:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Heroes voice actors

Please, explain to me: How is an OFFICIAL video featurette posted by the developers on the OFFICIAL Marvel Heroes YT page featuring all the actors saying "yes I voice this character; here are clips of me performing the voice" not a sufficient source? ESPECIALLY considering the other editors who reverted my edits have added material with even less sufficient sourcing in the past. I even went back and replaced the bare YouTube link with a secondary source reporting on it so as not to rely on primary sources or violate the supposed ban on YouTube video links. (Which doesn't exist, BTW. According to WP:VIDEOLINK, "There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable secondary sources, such as the Associated Press's channel. These official channels are typically accepted. Content from Vevo is an example of a primary source that might be used." This video went up on the game's official channel run by the developers, and thus falls under a reliable source.) With that said, I must insist my edits be restored. -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I protected the pages to stop your edit warring. I figured that was nicer than blocking you, considering how much edit warring you had been doing. If you want to use these links in the articles, please discuss this on the article's talk pages, or another good place to discuss this is here at the WikiProject Comics talk page. If you continue to edit war without gaining consensus from discussion, blocking is the next logical step. BOZ (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think that's a great idea, but the primary person responsible for reverting my edits doesn't seem to think so. Regardless, I've started a discussion, and would appreciate feedback from a neutral party, if you wouldn't mind adding your two cents. -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Concensus on WPP Comics so far seems to be that their inclusion is warranted. Since I can't make the change myself due to the protection, would you be willing to restore my edits? -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, just make sure to examine the advice given at that discussion. BOZ (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a photo in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Perkins

Note to self, work on Christopher Perkins (game designer) today, to avoid deletion... BOZ (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

More to examine: User talk:Paul Erik#Christopher Perkins. BOZ (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI nothing good on HighBeam. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. BOZ (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Web Enhancement article created

I was amazed to find that Wikipedia did not have an article for Web Enhancement, so I created one.

I've been wondering about editing the Sue Weinlein Cook article to show that she was the inventor of the Web Enhancement, but I'm not too sure where to put that factoid. Monte Cook said she invented them around about 1999, but I'm not sure of an exact date. Big Mac (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good!  :) BOZ (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Quinton Hoover

Reminder to self, must find a source for his recent death which does not originate from Facebook. BOZ (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark Millar Infobox Photo

Hi. Can you offer your opinion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Hope you had fun trying to "unearth" what you saw as dirt and to throw it on me. That was very low of you, and quite obviously outside of any WP rule of behavior. Trying to get me blocked for having been blocked on other WPs ? Trying to frame me as an "international WP criminal" ? For real ? :) I had a good laugh. Since you've let yourself express what you really think of me, here's what I really think of you and your group: User_talk:Folken_de_Fanel#RFC.2FU_discussion_concerning_you_.28Folken_de_Fanel.29. What you'll find there is only the truth that hurts, the inconvenient truth. Maybe you'll be strong and reasonable enough to face it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. When did I say I was trying to get you blocked? BOZ (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think anyone else would believe you're not actively trying to have me getting blocked, when you open an RfC in which you falsely accuse me of "disruptive editing, going against consensus, edit warring, POV pushing, personal attacks, harassment, threats and taunts, and bad faith accusations", which are all serious and blockable offenses on WP ? And what with the whole business of accusing me to be nothing more than an "international troublemaker" and to suspect that if I'm not editing WP I'm surely not up to anything good (without you having the guts to request an actual checkuser) ? "I guess the community found that input useful, because lo and behold, both users were eventually banned and remain so. So yes, everything I have found for this case is very relevant." You don't have to pretend, your intentions are very clear.

If you really intent for us to "work together" as you wrote, you'd have to recant both the RfC and the talk page, and to consider what I've written on my own talk page as to the true reason why our relationship soured. Outright saying that proposing to have "your" articles merged is an "agression", is certainly not going to convince anyone I'm the only culprit here, and you know it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait a second, "our relationship soured"... did we have a positive relationship at some point? Am I misremembering something? I don't remember anything positive about any time we have ever interacted. BOZ (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably your inclusionist bias which led you to see any dissent as "agression", then...Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So we did have a positive relationship at some point, and I just didn't notice it. BOZ (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added by Theopolisme at 13:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposal at TAFI talk

A discussion that may interest you is occurring at Wikiproject TAFI's talk page at: Proposal: use Theo's Little Bot to automate the schedule and queue. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm

As usual, no warning from this user. Another breach of etiquette that I should brought up at the RFC/U, I suppose. BOZ (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Making forgetfulness a "breach of etiquette" worthy of an RFC/U...I'm afraid this won't have the effect you're looking for, and will make obvious to others you're trying to use every little excuse possible to portray me in a negative light rather than having a real case on me (just like resorting to 4 years old disputes and extra en:wiki activity), which effectively creates a more toxic environment than I could ever do merely with my deletionist approach. Posting a message on your own talk page with a vague threat and assuming my bad faith instead of coming to to me straight away to tell me "hey, you forgot to notify me", doesn't seem to me the attitude of someone who wants to round out the angles. For what it's worth I really did forget to notify you and will be careful as to the article creator for future AfDs, but given you always find your way to AfDs and I didn't hide it, this was really nothing.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to "forget" to notify the article creator just about every time you start an AFD, unless I am the one being forgetful here. But I accept your promise to be more careful in the future. BOZ (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Good stuff

Need to put this stuff to good use when I have more time.

• http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2013/05/24/the-new-dungeons-dragons-goes-to-print-in-ghosts-of-dragonspear-castle/
• http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110329#73644
• http://www.ofdiceandmen.com/
• http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlg45jhml/fan-favorite-dungeons-dragons-adventures-2/
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2012/08/20/whats-next-with-dungeons-and-dragons/#
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2013/05/24/after-a-year-playtesting-a-new-dungeons-dragons-whats-next/
• http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dnd/201204outsider
• http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4alum/2012Oct2

BOZ (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Restoring after AfD

Hi. While reviewing the dispute at Talk:List of Dragonlance characters, I saw this comment from you: "An article can even be restored after an AFD related to notability, if sufficient sourcing can be found after the fact, and contacting the closing administrator in that case is considered an obligatory courtesy, but even in that case contacting the administrator is not required". It is unclear to me if you mean unredirecting (AfD closed as merge or redirect), undeleting, or recreating. Would you clarify? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't really recall what I meant, and not totally sure what you're asking, but I suppose my comment would apply to any of those situations. I think it was more of a general hypothetical, and not really related to basis of this case, since none of the character articles there had ever been subject to AFD to my recollection. If I didn't answer your question in a helpful way, please let me know. BOZ (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll break it down into separate cases:

1. unredirecting after merge discussion closed as merge or redirect – This case was covered by the discussion and is clear.
2. unredirecting after AfD closed as merge or redirect
3. undeleting after AfD closed as delete
4. recreating after AfD closed as delete

If I understand your answer correctly, with "sufficient sourcing", you would do all four of those without contacting the closing admin? Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I would always contact the closing admin to restore an article after an AFD - whether the result was merge, redirect, or delete - if I found sufficient sources to do so. I was saying that contacting the closing admin before bringing an article back should be done as a courtesy, but that I don't understand it to be an absolute requirement. If I am wrong, and it is a requirement, then I concede to being wrong on that point, but like I say I would always extend that courtesy first. BOZ (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notifications are good. FYI, 2 is similar to 1 (WP:Non-deleting deletion discussions, WP:ND3), and 4 is covered by WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Erik Olson (artist)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Erik Olson (artist), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Erik Olson (artist) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Erik Olson (artist) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Illia Connell (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Darlene Pekul

Expanded Darlene Pekul wiki, but it's still mainly based on primary sources--there don't seem to be a lot of secondary sources about her work or life. Guinness323 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts!  :) BOZ (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for T-Dog (The Walking Dead)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. BOZ (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Vincent M. Ward

Vincent M. Ward is now INCUBATED. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bomber (video game)

The article Bomber (video game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No hits in WP:VG/RS search. Imagine there's more in print, but I'm finding no indication of reviews even in listings. Do you have print sources to add? Article topic doesn't pass the search engine test for notability (the GNG).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. czar · · 23:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Rick Remender

Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Rick Grimes article

Hey, BOZ. I just reverted an IP with regard to this. But the same person, using the same IP range, changed the infobox to present Rick's first appearance as being in Capes. Considering that I'm still not too familiar with the comic version of The Walking Dead and I don't know what the Capes comic is about (haven't Googled it yet), I was wondering if you, as someone significantly more familiar with The Walking Dead comics than I am, wouldn't mind looking into this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to confess, I'm not as familiar with the comics as I seem to be. Based on a Google search, it looks like he may have appeared in a TWD preview. While that would be worth noting in the article, we don't generally consider previews to be the first appearance of a comics character. You might want to inquire at WT:COMICS for further clarification. BOZ (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, BOZ. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Pyraimd articles

Boz, the Pyramid archives are no longer available online, and I no longer have access to them. So I'm afraid that I can't really help you out. Sorry.. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, man. I wonder why that is. I will have to ask around. BOZ (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move

Greetings, BOZ. I have volunteered to oversee and close the WP:RM discussion currently taking place at Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move. I have also agreed that, given the contentiousness of the issue, it would be good to have a panel of admins close the discussion as a committee. Your name was suggested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move, and my experience with your work leads me to think that you would be an excellent and appropriately uninvolved member of such a committee. My intention is to draft a proposed closure once the RM has run its course, and present it to you and the third admin on the committee (I intend to ask User:Kww also), for evaluation and revision. Please let me know if you are interested - it would be a great help. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration! It is going to be a busy weekend for me, with limited internet access, but I will certainly be available Monday and Tuesday. I am somewhat aware of the Bradley/Chelsea Manning issue, but not so much that I think it would affect my objectivity regarding reading consensus. Do what you need to do, and then let me know. :) BOZ (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will keep you posted. Cheers again! bd2412 T 14:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have created a notepad in my userspace where I have made a tally of !votes and put down some thoughts regarding the arguments raised thus far. So far this is very rough, and may contain some errors (User:SlimVirgin has made a tally that is somewhat different from mine, because she has discounted votes of apparent SPA accounts on both sides), but please feel free to make any comments, corrections, or adjustments that you think are merited. Of course, the discussion will not close until Thursday, August 29, at 15:30 UTC, so this is not an urgent matter. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I will have a read of that. It's long, but not as much as all of the discussion which has taken place so far.  :) I tried to read a big chunk of the discussion as it stood a couple of days ago, but even by then it had gotten pretty excessively long. BOZ (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry, it is also highly repetitive. I'll try to put together a highlight reel. bd2412 T 21:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up that this discussion will close in about 12 hours. My plan is to close it right on time, put the headers and footers on, and indicate that the result is PENDING. I have updated my sandbox draft with the latest votes, and a brief summary of the rationale behind each vote (I think most of these are self-explanatory, but let me know if my abbreviations are too cryptic). Whenever all three of us are available thereafter, we can discuss and determine what consensus there is, and what it means. Given the breadth of this discussion, and the passion on both sides, I think we should try to come to a unanimous agreement on the closure if at all possible. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, great! I will review your sandbox draft later today when it is more complete. BOZ (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind, my sandbox draft deliberately does not reach the ultimate question. I have tried to lay out the issues, and suggest the direction that I think they point, but I have tried to avoid making up my mind about anything while the discussion is still going on. bd2412 T 14:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The move discussion is now closed and I have moved it to Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request‎. I am open to discussing the closure anywhere that suits you and User:Kww. bd2412 T 15:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wherever is fine by me. I will probably be too busy to take a good look at anything at least the next five hours, but I will try to find a good chunk of free time this evening to get into it. BOZ (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Great - I will look forward to hearing your views, then. bd2412 T 16:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Send me an email through my user page, and I'll add Kww in the reply. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel

I'm having problems with this user, and I noticed the RFC/U is closed on this user, but I am quite frustrated with this user's hostility and wikihounding by merging newly split of pages, and then taking an aggressive and drastically incorrect application of policy to AFD or Merge them. This user is experienced and appears to be engaged in the exact same behavior that resulted in the first RFC/U. I was wondering what can be done, because I've asked him to not be so hostile and not make personal attacks, but he dismisses it and continues to become more involved in my work over the course of the month. The two pages Timelines of Gundam and Cultural impact of Gundam are fresh split off the Gundam franchise page, but this user also gone as call my removal of an improper Note-tag as vandalism.[6] The card game has persisted for 14 years with over 45 sets being released, is played internationally with currently ongoing and upcoming tournaments in Taiwan. Clearly, it meets N, but I am concerned about this behavior and I was hoping you could advise on what I should do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I am quite happy with not interacting with this user, and would prefer to keep it that way. However, I understand your plight, as I have been there before. While he does have some fairly extreme opinions, it may still be possible to reason with him, so I recommend starting with that. As you might see on the Summary section of the RFC/U, the closer recommended that those in the dispute with him should allow him time to reflect on the RfC; I would like to think we have done this, and that he has moved on to bigger and better things such as getting Panzer Dragoon to GA, and focusing on things he likes such as anime and video games. The closer recommended that that if the problems with him continue (and I see no reason to limit this to users who have had a problem with him in the past) that we approach AN or AN/I regarding his behavior, so that may ultimately be a recourse for you as well if you are unable to work out your differences with him. Hopefully that is not necessary, and this can be worked out between the two of you without having to resort to bringing him under community scrutiny again. You may want to consult Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more advice. BOZ (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, going to my talk page and "forbidding" me to interact with you is one thing, but then complaining about me to other users behind my back is certainly not what I would call civil. Other users notified you (here and here for example) that your preferred editing method of splitting sections might not be the best one and runs afoul of WP:AVOIDSPLIT, so my remarks are no news to you and complaining about it might turn to your disadvantage. I think I've been very patient with you when I posted a lengthy comment to your talk page to clarify to problems with your splits, and all I go for an answer was "no thanks" and mass reverts. Your refusal to cooperate is duly noted and I won't waste my time anymore. There are on-going AfD and merge discussions, you might not be happy about it, but you should let them unfold instead of stirring drama behind the scene, and wait for the result to see who's right or wrong.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Night hag (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Night hag (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night hag (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking on the task with the other two admins in resolving the RM issue at the Bradley/Chelsea Manning article. I know that this was a difficult task and applaud all three of you. GregJackP Boomer! 04:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes thank you for your hard choice in closing the move discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - it was definitely not easy. BOZ (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Hanali Celanil for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hanali Celanil is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanali Celanil until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Writing a piece about the Manning close

I'm writing a blog post about the Chelsea Manning decision, and as you're one of the closing administrators, I wanted to give you the opportunity to review it for factual inaccuracies. You don't seem to have "e-mail this user" enabled, so if you don't mind dropping me a line via the e-mail from my userpage, I'll send you a draft - I'd rather not circulate it publicly prior to publication. I'm intending to go to print with it early this week to an audience of 5,000 or so (though my last piece on Manning - unrelated to Wikipedia - has 9,000 direct page views). The piece is rather harshly critical, but I would like to be absolutely sure that it is not inaccurate in any way. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Email?

Hi, I notice that you don't have 'Email this user' enabled here, and so I wonder if you could do me a favor and email me so that we can have a private chat?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Bazim-Gorag for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bazim-Gorag is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bazim-Gorag until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Barachiel (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barachiel (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barachiel (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Diinkarazan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diinkarazan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diinkarazan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Tharizdun for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tharizdun is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tharizdun until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Seelie Court (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seelie Court (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seelie Court (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Lemuria (comics) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lemuria (comics) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lemuria (comics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Kamar-Taj for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kamar-Taj is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamar-Taj until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of K'un-L'un for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article K'un-L'un is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K'un-L'un until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Blackworld for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blackworld is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackworld until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Heliopolis (Marvel Comics) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heliopolis (Marvel Comics) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heliopolis (Marvel Comics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

List of multimedia franchises

You might be interested in this article that I have just begun - I intend to create as comprehensive a list as possible of true multimedia franchises (i.e., franchises that have several different works in each of several different media). Cheers! bd2412 T 19:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty cool, thanks for letting me know!  :) BOZ (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked around quite a bit, and was really surprised that we don't already have such a thing. It should be a mainstay. bd2412 T 21:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! OTOH, we need South Park and X-Files. BOZ (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are probably a dozens more that are needed. I haven't even added Indiana Jones! bd2412 T 21:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Highbeam

Sorry but my highbeam account expired some months ago but I forgot to update my page.--Moroboshi (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Pyramid online reviews

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Alan De Smet's talk page.
Message added 03:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Wundagore for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wundagore is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wundagore until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have alternately proposed to merge this article into Transia, which I believe would be the best outcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Justin Achilli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Wolf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Chronepsis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chronepsis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronepsis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

RFAR:Manning naming dispute - Formally added as party

The drafting arbitrators have requested that you be formally added as a party to the Manning naming dispute case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Luthic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luthic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luthic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Berronar Truesilver for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Berronar Truesilver is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berronar Truesilver until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Almor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Almor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kevin Siembieda may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Siembieda attended the [[College for Creative Studies]] in Detroit for four years, from 1974-1977).<ref name="designers">{{Cite book|author=Shannon Appelcline|title=Designers & Dragons|publisher=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Incabulos for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Incabulos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incabulos until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Now we know why we are parties

The drafting admin is proposing that we violated BLP as a "finding of fact".—Kww(talk) 06:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:BOZ and User:Kww, I would be inclined to revisit the thirty day limitation, and (since it doesn't seem like any relevant change will occur in the next few days) roll it back to a "four-week" limitation, which would allow the new move discussion to commence tomorrow. bd2412 T 18:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any desire to stir the pot: everyone expects to start in three days, and two days isn't going to make any substantial difference.—Kww(talk) 18:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That is true. I would like to head off any dramatic efforts to disrupt the launch of the new discussion at its scheduled time, but I may be overthinking things. bd2412 T 19:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned, unless you think he may be seeking some kind of sanction against us? Or to overturn the no consensus before the new discussion starts. BOZ (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

He's proposed "vacating the decision" as one of his remedies. I'm concerned about people going "look ... even they thought their decision was invalid, because as soon as Kirill threatened to vacate it, they caved." I don't think that's true for any of us, and I have no desire to send that message.—Kww(talk) 19:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I stand by our decision. I am concerned that some effort will be made to impose a fiat solution on this matter, which will backfire dramatically. I am not alone in having this concern. bd2412 T 19:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm confident that Salvio and Newyorkbrad see the problems with that, and I believe that most of Arbcom will as well. As far as Kirill goes, I wonder if I would get anywhere claiming that once I was added as a party, Kirill had to recuse himself due to this?—Kww(talk) 20:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful. bd2412 T 20:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Didn't think so. The way those things work, I will remember his efforts to ban me long than he does.—Kww(talk) 20:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

How about now? They are one vote away from unleashing a new level of chaos. bd2412 T 13:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way (@BOZ and Kww), since there appears to be some confusion as to whether we, as the closing administrators, found a consensus that the original title was not a BLP violation, I propose that we issue the following addendum further explaining our determination on this matter.

Of the approximately 335 editors who expressed an opinion of some sort (and of the 150 editors who supported "Chelsea Manning" as the page title) 37 specifically identified WP:BLP as a basis for that title. This included several editors who alluded to the "spirit" of BLP, as opposed to the content of the rule itself, inherently acknowledging an absence of mandating language in the letter of the policy. By comparison, a far larger number (about a hundred) cited MOS:IDENTITY. A number of editors who supported reverting to "Bradley Manning" also made specific and well-reasoned arguments as to why they believed BLP did not mandate the contested title change. Because 37 editors asserted that BLP mandated a certain title, and 170+ editors asserted that the proposed title was not mandated, there was a clear consensus against the proposition that BLP mandates the title in question. The fact that approximately 110 editors raised other arguments in favor of that certain title does nothing to upset that consensus.

Cheers! bd2412 T 02:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time we've had to share internal logic, and my logic didn't really work that way. MOS:IDENTITY really is rooted in WP:BLP: we tend to honor people's self-identification because that builds on WP:BLP's foundation of respect for the individuals covered. However, WP:BLP does specifically state "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves". That leads me to weigh an argument of "follow secondary sources" about a living person more heavily than an argument based on "what the subjects have published about themselves". So, my books it was wasn't 170 to 37, it was more like 170 vs. (somewhere between 37 and 137, with the difference relying on a weaker argument). Same result, but a slight different path to get there.—Kww(talk) 03:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we are better off letting the decision lay as it is, then. bd2412 T 03:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's required: if all three of us arrived at the same conclusion, the fact that we used different paths to get there isn't very important. Concurring decisions are very common in courts (and Arbcom, for that matter).—Kww(talk) 04:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my lack of response; I am just now noticing this. Where are we currently lying with all of this? I see a fairly favorable result regarding our decision on the proposed decision page, and I also see no consensus to prevent a new move discussion from beginning tomorrow. Please let me know if I am missing something as I have not been following the ArbCom case with any closeness. BOZ (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that one arbitrator is all alone in wanting to call the close into question, and that the move discussion will begin as proposed. bd2412 T 18:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like all is well, then. :) BOZ (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Skerrit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Skerrit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skerrit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ken St. Andre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interplay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Adam (Ravenloft) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adam (Ravenloft) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam (Ravenloft) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Simone 11:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Zuoken for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zuoken is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zuoken until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Basilisk

Hi. I noticed that you split the earlier history of Basilisk (fantasy role play) to Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons). It now looks like a cut-and-paste move. I am aware of the dispute that has included reverting and a page move, but I don't understand how the history split helps. Would you explain? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It seemed to be a different topic now, so I split the edit history. Should I have done something different to retain the edit history attribution? BOZ (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Trishina for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trishina is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trishina until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Ankhtepot for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ankhtepot is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankhtepot until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Simone 17:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)