Jump to content

User talk:BOZ/Archive 2011-2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Big name Joes

Oddly, the big name Joe characters, especially the Cobra sides, need LOTS of work (I tried to work on Destro but Wikipedia ate most of it. Sad face). We can find tons of cool refs for the obscure guys, we need to work on the well known ones. Lots42 (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean, I have tended to focus more on the guys who didn't have an article, or had an underdeveloped one, because other people already put the work into the more popular ones. I'm thinking along the lines of characters like Snake-Eyes, Duke, Scarlett, Hawk, Roadblock, Flint, Lady Jaye, Stalker, Shipwreck, Cobra Commander, Destro, Storm Shadow, Baroness, Zartan, Serpentor, Tomax and Xamot, Zarana, and Doctor Mindbender. Did you have anything particular in mind? BOZ (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Storm Shadow and Destro needs the most work. I tried working on Destro but then I clicked the wrong box and Wikipedia ate all my edits. Sad face. Lots42 (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion is, if you're making a big single edit, you may want to try editing in a word processing program, or maybe even wordpad or something - the best is something like MS Word which saves your work as you go. Otherwise, it's best to work with smaller edits to keep from losing your work. I'll see what I can do with Destro and Storm Shadow, maybe just a little bit. BOZ (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for D&D cover images

Yeah, I'm not actively editing, once in a great while I'll fix something if it's grammatically wrong or something, or maybe add something, but yeah, I'm pretty much done with editing on here, not really worth the headaches. You create something and then you get 50 thousand people who want to delete it for one reason or another (ok, I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get the idea :)

I took a look at your needed covers list, and I don't have many of them. Unfortunately the few that I do have are all packed away. I'll see what I can do.--C.J. (talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

V for Victory - Battleset 1

Do you remember why you created this redirect? Did someone formerly link to it? Nothing does now, and I'd prefer to delete it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there

Thanks for the welcome. I'm much more familiar with Forgotten Realms than Greyhawk, which was the cool thing about copy editing that article. I didn't know much of the history beforehand. Cheers. —Torchiest talkedits 07:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize the Forgotten Realms were so old! What's interesting is that the Forgotten Realms article is already at GA status, while the Greyhawk article is only C-class, but is about five times as long. Perhaps the history is too detailed, or maybe the characters list could be moved to separate article, to clean it up a bit, since there's nothing like that in the FR article. —Torchiest talkedits 18:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome. The articles you linked will be helpful in figuring out how to make myself useful. Ancientchild (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Galactus again...

I apologise about the trouble, and I have already asked Tenebrae, but would you also be willing to do "damage control"/step in and do a quick neutral and concise summary at the Galactus page, as Mobb One and "The Balance" seem to be upset about something again, unclear exactly what to me, as I've actively tried to be as neutral as I can, but it helps to have somebody like yourself step in and put a sensible unbiased "final say" on these types of things before they have a chance to start, and drag out on time and patience. Thank you for any help. Dave (talk)

V for V

Thanks for the heads up... your msg got lost in the mail somehow and I just noticed it now. Ok, I'm going to kill the redir. I'd love to see the Dragon, but I'd really like to find some other refs to. I remember this being a very well reviewed game, and I find it very strange that its so hard to find these things now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Big Boa

What the heck happened there? I referenced the HECK out of that article and poof it's gone for no 'verified'. Wat. Lots42 (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm yeah, "what the heck" indeed. The referencing may not be ideal, but there are sources. I don't know what that's about - it looks like the user thought of merging it to an unlikely place and then reverted himself. BOZ (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Dragon source

Hey. Me, User:Guyinblack25 and User:S@bre are collaborating on Day of the Tentacle, and reception material is scarce. I noticed that you included a Dragon review in the article, so I thought I'd ask for some expanded information from that review. It'd be a huge help. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion

Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Psylocke

Were things on Psylocke so contentious that a full content block was required? It didn't seem that way to me...not to mention that the issue was resolved within 3 contributions when a legitimate source was finally provided. So much drama, haha. When does the block expire? Let's edit it and get it out of the way.Luminum (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a relatively short protection, but if you feel the issue is resolved, I can cut the last hour or so off of it.  :) BOZ (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Check my talk page?

An IP has asked me for help sourcing some other game designers, and I'm not sure I can handle 'em all. Some of them are probably NN, but I only have a vague sense of which ones will or will not have RS coverage. I'd appreciate it if you'd pop in and see what you can do with the articles listed there. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Flint Dille

Seriously, are you the Flint Dille master? :) -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

GA reassessment for G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)

Good morning. FYI, the GA-rated article G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) has been submitted for GA reassessment. I just wanted to let you know as you might have some useful insights into the reliability of sources given your involvement in editing comics-related articles.

Background: even though it just passed GA Assessment in early March 2011, the current reassessment stems from an ongoing content dispute with an editor (user:Raintheone) who over the past month has been persistently harassing the G.I. Joe Wikiproject citing concerns over notability and reliability of sources - not just on this particular article, but A Real American Hero in general, especially the character articles, such as this [1] and the recent Zartan AfD [2] (result: keep). As that editor has been unable to get his way (including posting unconstructive edits, for example the outright deletion of entire passages that he disagrees with such as this [3]), he's taken the extreme step of taking this to GA reassessment, something that he previously threatened to do.

The current point of contention is over the reliability of fansite sources such as yojoe.com and joebattlelines.com. Note that we (the Wikiproject) have already acknowledged that these and others are likely unreliable per Wikipedia policies, as references for character bios, scans of file cards, and plot summaries - the problem is that he is also disputing the reliability of the Larry Hama (creator and writer of the comic, not to mention most of the action figures) interviews hosted on those sites, such as this one [4].

Furthermore, the GAR guidelines explicitly state that "requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment". The article in question is currently undergoing expansion and reconstruction in the hopes of going to a FAC nomination. A comparison of the current version to the version immediately after passing GA can be found here [5], and the article has also recently gone through peer review, the results of which are in the process of being addressed here [6] and with some additional points recently added here [7].

Thanks and regards. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI - Due to the ongoing disruption caused by the GAR, and no evidence that he won't try that again or pull another AfD on the G.I. Joe articles in the future, I've opened the following RfC/U: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raintheone. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Extra eyes

Could you take a look at the material Mr. Simon Green (talk · contribs) is editing and my interaction with him.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do; life has been pretty busy and crazy for me lately, so I have to admit that I have been pretty unreliable. BOZ (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC draft: Restoring to merge after deletion at AfD

I have started a draft at User:Flatscan/RfC draft: Restoring to merge after deletion at AfD. You are receiving this notification because you were involved with a past instance. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Spider-Man

Ok so you were behind the GA. That's cool, maybe we could work together helping out. Trimming the fictional character biography might be a good idea but a lot of the newly added stuff is really good as well so we got to decide what to remove and what not. And the section was called comic book character, that too that might be a more fitting name. As for supporting characters I know I can find sources in the future, in fact I expect to find most of them in the FCB section in the near future. By the way the last paragraph on Publication history looks like it needs a source. Jhenderson 777 20:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll help out a little if I can, but I don't have the same kind of time as I did a couple of years ago. BOZ (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)

Hello BOZ, I'm in a dispute with Active Banana over the Lamia article; might help if you could comment or give a third opinion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppetry allegations

I am not User:Claritas. You could have just asked. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. BOZ (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost interview

Dragon reviews

It would be great if you could elaborate on the Dragon reviews for both Mega Man 3 and A Boy and His Blob: Trouble on Blobolonia. Thanks. ~ Hibana (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing! If I don't get back to you by tomorrow, please remind me and I will get it over the weekend. If you check my reviews page, there are a lot of old school games that I can add to. BOZ (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Grant Morrison photo

Hi. Your opinion on what would be the best photo for the Infobox in the Grant Morrison article is requested here. If you could take the time to participate, it would be greatly appreciated, but if you cannot, then disregard; you don't have to leave a note on my talk page either way. Nightscream (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I need your opinion

Hi. I have a question for which I need objective opinions. Can you offer your viewpoint here? I really need it in order to proceed. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Monte Cook returns to WotC

been so long i have been gone, i didnt even notice Gavin.Collins had been banned. things probably changed so even the link here might not work, but the latest Legends and Lore article states that Monte Cook will be replacing Mike MEarls as the columnist for DDi, so you might want to mention his return to WotC on his entry somewhere. shadzar-talk 08:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, cool!  :) If you've got the link, I'll be happy to add it. And yep, G.c has been gone since last year, what a shame!  :) BOZ (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons)

BOZ is hereby awarded this Demonslaying Flail for absolutely slaying the article on Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons) with awesome additions. bd2412 T 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
LOL, hey thanks! I wish I were more than about halfway done. :) I've got big plans! BOZ (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I am apparently being censored from responding

User:Friginator seems to frenetically attempt to censor out my reply due to personal libertarian political affiliation... Or at least I don't see why else, unless he is in some way connected to Frank Miller. And as far as I can see he is not an admin, so that can't be the reason.

See here and here. I don't think that I was remotely out of line, and remained very polite, especially considering that I was called Rorschach in the Talk, and Frank then explicitly based a raving terrorist that he distorted and tortured to death on that, and named it after my internet handle. Is this apparently agenda-driven censoring something that you could help to prevent, or at least clear up? Thanks in advance. Dave (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I'll have to take a look, but my time is short at the moment. BOZ (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Dave (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wassssssup!

I came back after a mildly long hiatus. Is it the same with you? I think Drilnoth may even be editing again, although not DnD. Hope you are well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Inajira

I've put the deleted article in your userspace - User:BOZ/Inajira. If you create the list you can then merge it in. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello BOZ/Archive 2011-2012! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Dragon review request

Hey BOZ; glad to see you're still around. I'm preparing to expand the Reception section for The Secret of Monkey Island, and I noticed that you left one of your signature Dragon reviews there. If I could bother you to email me the full review, I'd be immensely grateful. Looks like it was in issue 168 between pages 47 and 54. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am still around; thanks for asking!  :) Glad to see you're still around doing what you're doing, as well. I wish I could say I was in an easy position to get that to you, but I will do what I can. I think I should have no problem getting that to you sometime this week. BOZ (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Batman work group

Hello! Just wanted to take a moment to let you know about the newly created Batman work group, a part of WikiProject Comics designed to improve the classification and coverage of Batman-related articles on Wikipedia. You are invited to join the group, by adding your name to the list of participants. Feel free to pass this message along, to anyone else you know who would be interested. Thank you for your time and consideration, and we look forward to hearing from you! Fortdj33 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Guay

Wow, it's amazing that you contacted me on the and at the time that you did. I just finished uploading the remainder of my 2011 New York Comic Con pics just over an hour or two, and then began adding the pics to the articles that needed them. I left off on Fabian Nicieza before the delivery guy showed up with my dinner, and now I'm continuing. Normally I'm done putting all the pics in place within a day or two of the end of the convention, but because I had so many to upload this year (almost 328, compared to last year's 180), I did just the Friday and Saturday pics, and didn't get around to uploading the Sunday pics until now. It's really weird that you contacted me right now. You're not psychic, are you? :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, like I said, the entirety of my 2011 NYCC pics are up, and that category spans two pages, plus a subcategory for the cast of Fairy Tail whose link is at the of the first page, so have a gander. I'm currently putting them in the articles, after which I'm going to create Commons category pages for the ones that don't have 'em, but I did not photograph Dennis Calero, as I've already photographed him on four different past occasions, and I'm satisfied with the most recent one I took of him this past May at the Big Apple Con. In general, the three categories where my pics of comics creator are the New York Comic Con, Big Apple Con and Midtown Comics categories, with each convention year or individual store signing given its own linked subcategory, so those would be the best places to look for creator pics. (There's also the Brooklyn Book Festival, at which I photographed authors of a wide range of different books, including comics, but so far, the only one I've covered was the 2009 one.) Hope that helps! Nightscream (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lich (Dungeons & Dragons)

BOZ, I derive no pleasure from this, but I'd like to direct your attention to this. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Could use some extra eyes on something...

If you get a chance could you take a look at Chemo (comics), ites edit history, and this editors contribution history.

I'm going to tap a few other old hands at Comics since there is something odd here and I want to make sure it isn't just me. I'm also approaching a few Arbs since this may impact an old ArbCom case.

- J Greb (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

re: Magneto and TheRoD1988

Actually it blocked again. This is his first edit since his week long block on Nov 11.

- J Greb (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Warlords review in Dragon (magazine)

You've cited the review of Warlords game in issue #178 of the Dragon. I failed to find any info on this issue and/or review. Could You please point me to the place I can see it online? Thanks in advance! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dragon request

Hey BOZ. After The Secret of Monkey Island got to GA (huge thanks for the Dragon material, by the way), I've moved to working on Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis's Reception section. I noticed one of your Dragon notifications there, so I thought I'd bother you for the full review, if it's not too much trouble. It's in May 1993's issue on pages 60 to 61. Many thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, glad to hear it!  :) I'll be happy to hook you up with the Indy review, hopefully later today or at least sometime soon. BOZ (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
No rush, but is that Dragon review still in the cards? If you're too busy to get it, I understand. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey there! Sorry, I'm not exactly the model of efficiency. I can only access this at home, where I am often busy, or distracted by other things. I have remembered a few times to look into this but either failed to take advantage of the opportunity, or been unable to get to it for one reason or another. I haven't forgotten about you!  :) BOZ (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all. Take your time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Huge thanks. Just checked my emails and noticed that you sent it. I'll implement this as soon as possible. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Cool man, glad you got it.  :) BOZ (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Homunculus (Dungeons & Dragons)

BOZ, I have a question for you about Homunculus (Dungeons & Dragons). I recall from looking at the original Monster Manual that the creature was actually identified as a "Homonculous", not a "Homunculus" - though I'm not absolutely 100% sure and could have got this wrong. If it was "Homonculous", then the article is currently at the wrong location (I can't move it from "Homunculus" to "Homonculous", because Homonculous (Dungeons & Dragons) exists as a redirect). I also note that the spelling used in the article is inconsistent; it's sometimes "Homonculous", sometimes "Homunculus". I won't try to correct it, as I'm not totally sure which is right. Could you help? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I've just made a clumsy mistake I need some help fixing. I've uploaded a file (File:Green silme.JPG) that I've given the wrong name; just a typo, it should be Green slime.JPG. Unfortunately I can't rename the file myself. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Braincricket's talk page.
Message added 01:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Braincricket (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear BOZ,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Video game Barnstar

In recognition of the vast quantities of video game articles created using Dragon magazine as a source, filling several gaps in WP's coverage of retro games. Someoneanother 18:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You were rightfully given a barnstar back in the day for all your hard work, but in updating the C64 game list I am constantly finding articles you've updated or created. You really gave our coverage a shot in the arm, so thank you. Someoneanother 18:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ben Templesmith, again

I apologize for asking, but can you offer your opinion on the latest round of the Ben Templesmith Photo Saga? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, not again!  ;) BOZ (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:TFA

Hey, thanks. I appreciate it. Prioryman nominated it for TFA awhile back, but I didn't think it would go through. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Increased 3rd party access to your collection?

Well I've been wondering for a while now who was the good editor that added all the Dragon refs to Wikipedia. Excellent job! I also just stumbled upon this page and I was wondering if you'd be interested in having it linked from WP:VG's Reference Library. I've set up a few tables for material like this (e.g. for GameFan and Games) so I could either help set up a new subsection on Dragon under the Reference Library page or just link to your list or none of the above if you prefer. Let me know what you prefer, but no pressure either way. :) -Thibbs (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello BOZ. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing BOZ a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thanks!  :) How many years has it been now, 3? BOZ (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons images

Hello, Boz. I'm at it again. Keep an eye open for more D&D pics. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk:BOZ/1E Monsters

Hello. I don't believe User talk:BOZ/1E Monsters is in use, and it is a broken redirect, so could you please delete it? Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey

BOZ, do you know if the image at the bottom of page 13 of the original Monster Manual II is meant to be a Banderlog or a Barghest? I think it's the latter, but I can't quite tell, and I wouldn't want to upload the wrong picture. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've always had a problem with that as well, due to the positioning. It looks just like the other picture of the banderlog, but then why two pictures of the same thing and not one of the other? It doesn't match the description of a barghest, which resembles a goblin that turns into a wolf. A bit of a mystery, although I think it's more likely the banderlog than not. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the image looks rather canine, so it could possibly have been meant as a barghest, maybe caught half-way in transformation. Anyway, I won't be uploading the image, as it's unclear what it's meant to be. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Aameul and Hethradiah

Hello, BOZ. Just so there is no possible misunderstanding, I created Aameul and Hethradiah as redirects to Demogorgon (Dungeons & Dragons). I didn't mean to make articles out of them, and while I could be wrong, it looks like you've placed them in the section for articles rather than redirects. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, no problem, I can't see anyone ever turning those into articles. On the D&D watchlist there's no separate section for articles and redirects. BOZ (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of expanding WP:GAMEGUIDE

Greetings, BOZ! There is a discussion underway on the talk page of WP:NOT about altering the scope of WP:GAMEGUIDE. As a seasoned editor and shepherd of RPG pages, I would value your input. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Tarrasque (Dungeons & Dragons)

BOZ, do you have any comment on this edit to the article? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like a valid removal to me, since fair use doesn't apply when a free image can provide the same encyclopedic information. I don't know if "copyright violation" is the exact right phrase to use in this situation, though, but otherwise appropriate. —Torchiest talkedits 04:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
If that's your position, then potentially each and every D&D image I've uploaded could be considered a copyright violation, and they should all be removed. I'd like to get this properly sorted out. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
No, I think it's different in this case because there was already an image on the article, and it was free. Substituting a non-free image is probably not good practice. If there had been no image, it probably wouldn't have been a problem. —Torchiest talkedits 04:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how it makes a difference that there was already an image in this case, since images easily could be created for any given D&D article. Incidentally, I replaced already existing images with the non-free ones I've uploaded on numerous occasions, and nobody objected. They are still there in various articles. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The criteria for fair use includes a component of not being able to find a free replacement, so if a free image is already being used, clearly, it was found. I'm not trying to say you need to go undo all your other images, but policy-wise, removing a free image and replacing it with a non-free image is something that can legitimately be undone. But I'll leave this for BOZ to comment on now. —Torchiest talkedits 05:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I had been under the impression that replacement images were also covered by copyright. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This Tarrasque is clearly modeled after the images in the DnD books, so it's a derivative work. I clarified the copyright status on the image page. I prefer we use this image because it shows a more recent incarnation. Hekerui (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Ooh, I actually have talk page stalkers - glad they're friendly ones. :) I'll confess neutrality on this one. While I do genuinely appreciate all the images that Polisher of Cobwebs has been adding (a million thanks!) I think in a few rare cases like the tarrasque, we might prefer the other image. Although, since it is a derivitave image it is technically non-free as well, so we really could go either way. You might want to discuss this with the artist, who reverted the image in the first place. I think that worked out well in the case of beholder. BOZ (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know the part about derivative works being non-free, exactly. Does that mean any representation of a Tarrasque would be non-free, even if, say, PoC uploaded a picture that he drew himself? —Torchiest talkedits 13:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is, shall we say, imperfect. I usually go to User:Drilnoth for questions like this, although he is not always readily available. BOZ (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, the tarrasque was created for D&D and not drawn from existing fiction, and so any depiction of it which isn't an unreliable original work would be a non-free derivative work. However, Paizo got away with creating art for the tarrasque (presumably without Wizards' permission), so I don't know. Derivative works are a grey area I'm not too familiar with. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As a vaguely-related note, you might find this discussion worth following. BOZ (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lair (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) 13:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, because I restored it...  :) BOZ (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Electro Page

I apologize about edit warring it but the other user who warred with me kept posting what appears to be unofficial information under the Television section of In other media saying he is one of the villains appearing in Ultimate Spider-Man well his source did not back this up plus his link to the series was false. I'd have notified you sooner but didn't know how. Again sorry. --Fredkrueger09 (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Usually, when another user challenges you on an edit, the best thing to do is to either explain yourself in the edit summary, or make a comment on the article's talk page explaining yourself. When you go without explaining your actions, it can be hard for other editors to interpret what you are trying to do. Also, see WP:BRD. BOZ (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

D&D redirects

BOZ, do you have any opinion of the way Folken de Fanel is turning D&D articles back into redirects? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that there is already a consensus at the D&D project on the fact that most D&D monsters articles are not notable and that, given their number, redirects are better suited to deal with them than countless AfDs that would close on "redirect" anyway. If there is any doubt that this consensus is still valid, we have the very recent AfD on Cyclopskin, in which a presumption of non-notability on D&D monsters was adopted and everyone agreed that a redirect without AfD would have been appropriate.
Now on the way I have redirected, I don't see any problem. These articles were identical to Cyclopskin in that they didn't have any source besides TSR or WotC, I followed the conclusions of the D&D Project and the Cyclopskin AfD that such articles were highly unlikely to ever meet WP:GNG and thus redirected per their recommandations. Per their conclusion I didn't need to initiate a discussion and wait for hypothetical sources that would never come. I agree with the Project that the growing number of useless D&D monster articles is concerning, particularly since a few IPs decided to massively turn old redirects into articles without caring if they could ever meet the GNG.
I think, however, that Polisher's actions weren't constructive at all. Indeed, everyone in the Cyclopskin AfD pointed out that he shouldn't have reverted user Drmies's initial redirect. He apparently didn't take any heed of this consensus and went on to revert all the redirects I did on similar non-notable articles only sourced with TSR/WotC. I wouldn't have any problem if someone wanted to reasonably argue that an article could be notable, and I would let the discussion unfold before redirecting again (and even go to AfD if I felt some users would disagree with my evaluation of sources, just like I did with Apparition), but Polisher merely reverted without discussing or bringing sources that could reasonably be argued to be secondary independent, thus ignoring the current consensus. And if one the the article turned out later to be notable, redirects could easily be undone anyway, so I don't see any point in Polisher's insistance to systematically revert all the redirects I do, and I urge him to adopt a more constructive behavior and to respect the Cyclopskin AfD consensus.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not interested in engaging in some kind of complicated debate on this subject, and will be quite happy to let others decide the issue. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
What I can see from this "consensus at the D&D project" that Folken keeps linking to is an isolated discussion from over a year ago between a few people where there was some agreement that some monsters may not be notable and would better be served as redirects. Only one sample article was discussed (Chimera), it was redirected, and discussion quickly died out afterwards. No list was made on which articles should be redirected, no list was made on the criteria on which to judge which articles should or should not exist, so I cannot take this as any sort of projectwide consensus. I'm sure that Folken prefers to redirect these articles for his own convenience, to avoid the "countless AfDs" he'd otherwise have to go through to accomplish the same goal. Although, I may point out, the results of one AFD do not necessarily have anything to do with the results of another; if that were true, we could just as easily use the results of the Ankheg AFD to assume that we could keep everything, and of course that is not necessarily true either. As for whether the articles should be kept as redirects or taken to further discussion, I think we should be open to community input in each case; if "redirect" is the result, then so be it, and it may be the result in each case, but then you have it. One thing that is not acceptable is edit warring; I saw what went on with Lamia noble between the two of you, and that both of you reverted each other multiple times instead of discussing - fortunately this was eventually resolved, but should not have happened from either of you in the first place. As for my opinion, I am an unashamed inclusionist at heart and have no problem with articles existing and waiting for forthcoming independent sources, although this is merely my opinion. Deletion discussion on articles such as these can result in "keep" as with ankheg (twice), "no consensus" as with lamia (twice), "redirect" as with cyclopskin and afanc, or of course "delete", and community consensus on the discussion should be respected regardless of whether we like its outcome. BOZ (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for my behavior. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
With all that said, I don't believe that you have behaved inappropriately in general, per WP:BRD. If the articles are restored as redirected as a BOLD move, and if someone restores them by REVERTing, then it is time to DISCUSS. BOZ (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not here to blame Polisher, but if you insist...Following the BRD essay, if Polisher's restoration is the Bold move, then I Reverted. Next move should have been Discussion, but instead Polisher went back to a Revert. Either you got lost in the BRD cycle, BOZ, or your perception of Polisher's behavior is entirely misguided. I will also note that I started redirecting Lamia noble on July 9th, and that the Cyclopskin AfD ended a few days ago, on July 6th. I consider that, given Polisher's active involvment in the discussion, he couldn't be unaware of its result, and also couldn't be unaware of remarks from other users that he shouldn't have restored Cyclospkin in the first place. I started redirecting Lamia noble on the grounds that it had identical sourcing to the non-notable Cyclopskin article. Yet, Polisher reverted, without discussion and apparently completely disregarding the Cyclopskin AfD. I thus thought it unlikely that he would respond to an attempt at discussion, seeing how he deliberately refused to listen to other users, and identified his edit to be disruptive. Had he done another revert, I wouldn't have continued the revert war but reported him to AN/I.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
BOZ, a lone user in the confines of this talk page can certainly qualify a consensus on the D&D Project talkpage (thus quite visible, for 4 months before archival, to anyone wishing to work in group on D&D articles) between a substanciate number of 6 unanimous users, an "isolated discussion between a few people" if he wants, however, in no way can his own single opinion have any impact on actual article editing. This lone user can certainly unilaterally declare that discussions he doesn't like are not "any sort of projectwide consensus", on his talkpage...as this is all talk, I'm not really concerned, because if there was any doubt about the validity of such a consensus and its conclusions among current and more diverse users, then the Cyclopskin AfD has cleared it, as I already said.
The argument about the absence of "criteria on which to judge which articles should or should not exist" is irrelevant. It is not up to this consensus to establish "what should or should not exist", we already have WP:GNG for that. The Project merely approved the use of redirects at users' discretion instead of AfDs on D&D monster articles that already don't meet the GNG, on the presumption that they are unlikely to ever massively meet the GNG. Not redirecting wouldn't mean unequivocal conservation. This presumption has been verified in several AfDs. You're quick to point out the result of the Ankheg AfD, but of course forget to note the many irregularities that characterized it (canvassing, invalid argumentation later rebutted by the RSN, closing admin's violation of WP:NOTVOTE) and will cause a renomination. That was one single AfD on the 5 that happened since June, with Cyclopskin, Afanc, Apparitions being redirected and Lamia on the point of being merged. This is a trend which justifies the initial Project's decision, and I could still mention countless other AfDs that happened a few years ago.
I respect your inclusionist views and of course I won't demand that you redirect all D&D monsters, but I'm gonna stick with the D&D Project/Cyclopskin consensus and unless another consensus overrides it (for example the sudden discovery of several independent sources of secondary coverage for hundreds and hundreds of D&D monsters, that no one could reasonably question) I can see no reason to object that. As I said, I'm acting in good faith and with common sense, I'm not a blind crusader, I will always check on Gbooks and Gscholars before redirecting, and if anyone is ready to object the redirects in discussions with reasonable arguments (ie new sources that I would have overlooked) I'm also ready not to redirect right away and let the discussion unfold or even go to AfD. However, I won't waste time on claims that primary content from TSR or WotC would be notable enough, obviously based on fundamental misunderstandings of WP:RS/WP:GNG. Neither will I give credit to claims that D&D monster articles are likely to be notable if the user advocating them refuses to engage in a discussion to prove that. While I won't revert war on such instances, I will eventually restore the redirects after explaining the consensus, and if the user is still determined to prevent a redirect while refusing discussion, I'll go to WP:AN/I.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
BOZ, I thank you for letting me know that you've replied to me here. However, I really don't have anything more to say on this matter. My posts on this page have been much shorter than Folken de Fanel's, and with reason. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point, I see what you mean. BOZ (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent AFDs

Just wanted to congratulate you on your patience regarding the ongoing D&D AFDs, and in particular on your ability to keep your admin hat and editor hats separate.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, man - you don't know how good it feels to hear that! The WP:BATTLEGROUND has been intense lately and I've been pretty stressed out, especially yesterday. Your comments made my day! BOZ (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

clarification?

Care to clarify about "brownie"? [8] I appear to be the only one who mentioned "brownies" and I am certainly not saying anything close to what you are claiming. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, even though you are trying to refute the sources in "brownie", you are mentioning their existence. BOZ (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Adherer, Brownie and Caryatid column

Hello. When you reverted DreamGuy's redirects, you said the issue required more discussion. I have started a thread for that at the Adherer talk page (that can be duplicated for the other ones).Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. BOZ (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Primary D&D races being redirected

Please keep an eye on the main D&D races, as FdF is redirecting large numbers of D&D creature articles again. The main PC races are absolutely notable. A simple Google Books search pulls up many good sources. I've added some to Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons) already, but there should be equal amounts for Elf and Halfling, and probably Gnome and Human as well. —Torchiest talkedits 21:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately I have no idea what to do about this user. He seems to have some kind of personal problem with articles that don't meet his interpretation of community standards and the users who support them, and will try to enforce these beliefs and sit on whatever articles he comes across that he sees as a problem, making sure that no one undoes his redirects. It's a very troubling attitude. I guess the only thing we can do, is what you've done with the dwarf article, which is unfortunately not easy in many cases. BOZ (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I found that particular redirect to be pretty unacceptable, as it demonstrates a clear lack of even the smallest effort to find sources. I'm certain the same thing is happening with every article redirected. —Torchiest talkedits 22:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
To quote Fight Club: "I am Jack's complete lack of surprise". BOZ (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Another case is Bruenor Battlehammer - there was a previous AFD, which resulted in no consensus (although he claims to have redirected it per an AFD, and then additional sources were added after the AFD to confirm his notability. I don't have time right now to review the rest of his contributions fully. BOZ (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If "the main PC races are absolutely notable", then it shouldn't be a problem to find and add sources to these articles so that they meet our guidelines and would undoubtedly survive an AfD. And I have all the recent AfDs that resulted in massive redirects in mind. If the sources added are similar to those that have been massively rejected and deemed unable to establsih notability (such as D&D and other D20 sourcebooks) in the "death watch beetle" AfD, then the consensus from that AfD would still hold and redirects would be immediately re-implemented.

You do realize that we reached a consensus in the "dwb" AfD regarding primary WotC/TSR content and other D20 primary sources that are not appropriate to establish notability for D&D fictional elements in order to have a standardized treatment of these numerous elements that would spare us countless AfDs of which the outcome would be obvious, and that a preference for bold redirects has already been expressed in various AfDs and on the D&D wikiproject. I'm merely implementing this consensus on articles that have unappropriate sourcing according to this AfD. Now, the good thing with redirects is that they can easily be reverted if valid source eventually come up. You could always revert war without adressing the sourcing issues until we go to AfD, but this kind of pov pushing wouldn't cast you in a too favorable light in the long term, and again given the "dwb" outcome, you wouldn't have much to hope for.

Unfortunately, assuming bad faith on me and speculating that I would have a "personal" (as in "I don't like it" ?) problem with the articles won't change the obvious: the community decided that most of these D&D monster articles don't have their place on WP and I'm merely implementing this conclusion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, let's work this out. The obvious solution is to build up the relevant sections of the redirect target with sourced information until they are clearly substantial enough to support a standing article that no one will seriously question. bd2412 T 00:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, they are notable, and it is inappropriate for you to redirect them without making a good faith effort to find sources first. Based on my experience with Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons), it's clear to me you have made no such effort. And yes, we are all well aware of your views on primary sources; there is no need to repeat them here. Outside of that, plenty of sources are available. Please tag articles and start talk page discussions, or at least try find sources yourself. The preference for bold redirects is yours, and perhaps one of two others'. There is clearly no consensus to redirect articles for which reliable secondary sources exist. No bad faith assumption exists. There is the clear evidence of you redirecting at least two articles today (so far) that have significant mentions in reliable secondary sources that were not difficult to find. —Torchiest talkedits 00:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
If they're notable, just saying it is not enough, you have to actually provide sources. I'm not gonna take your word for it as your interpretation of what is "notable" or "reliable" is significantly different from what our guidelines and policy state, as the outcome of recent AfDs have proved it. Talking about Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons), "D&D for Dummies" is written by two WotC writers talking about their own employer's content (and sometimes their own content), it is obviously dependent on the subject or its creators and unacceptable as a notability proof. There's no restoring the article with that kind of sources. Preference for bold redirects has been expressed in AfDs and in a discussion in the D&D Wikiproject, you will not reduce that to me and "one or two others". There is a clear consensus for redirecting articles for which no significant and independent secondary sources exist, and I have not redirected a single article for which that was the case.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I have reviewed Bruenor Battlehammer and there are only 3 sentences in the whole article that are not plot. All the sources are used for plot description and don't contain significant coverage that goes beyond a description of the topic.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I added four reliable sources to Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons) in less than half an hour, two of which were not D&D for Dummies. That was just the tip of the iceberg. My point is, you're redirecting at a rate that makes it clear you're not looking for sources at all. I'm not against redirecting articles, provided you do the proper due diligence first. Your edit summaries indicate you aren't doing that, but relying on misinterpreting consensus and a presumption of non-notability. —Torchiest talkedits 01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not misinterpreting any consensus (otherwise please explain how you reached that conclusion.. I'm redirecting, not going to AfD, which means that I don't have to look for sources if I don't think there is any, and you can easily restore if you find sources without having to ask an admin, going to DRV or start an undeleting process, provided the sources are valid ie generally correspond to our standards of significance and independence, as well as those established by the "dwb" AfD. Good if it got you to work on Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons), which proves that it was more efficient than the "primary" tag that was there since 2007. I notice, however, that you're getting a bit carried away, blaming me for all sorts of things while you could just work on the articles without all the fuss, and insisting on immediatley removing tags, particularly the "notability" one on Dwarf, based on the content you wrote yourself while not even letting other people be judge of its validity...which is getting bordeline WP:OWN. The reasonable way to deal with that would be to leave the tag for a few days to see what could be done with the article, not right after writing just 3 sentences. Talk about having "due diligence first"...Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
jumping in... There are tons and tons of articles with _no_ sources on Wikipedia. We don't just redirect them all. Hobit (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)

Hello, BOZ. There is a discussion at the talk page of Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) about the picture in the lead; your comments there would be welcome. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

AfD on D&D creatures

Following your decision to massively revert redirects on D&D creatures, I've taken them to AfD. I've started with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adherer, which also covers Brownie and Caryatid Column.

BTW, I have already redirected Chimera, since this one was redirected per consensus at the D&D Wikiproject talkpage. If you're determined to see this one restored, please start a discussion on the article talk page and reach a consensus that will overturn the previous one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject invitation

Hello, BOZ.

You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron,
a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing!

Please visit the project page to learn more about improving Wikipedia articles considered by other editors as based upon notable topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! I appreciate the invitation. I wish I were a better rescuer though - maybe if I can improve my source-finding skills, I will join the ARS. I heartily appreciate the work you guys do! BOZ (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:David Shepheard#D&D monster list

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at David Shepheard's talk page.
Message added 14:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HighBeam search trick

Hey, something you can attempt that I did a few times before I got HB access: search on HB for a topic, and when you find a good source, copy a sentence from it and Google it. I've scored a few non-HB hits that way, which would be nice for finding non-pay copies of articles. —Torchiest talkedits 02:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool, that sounds like a neat trick.  :) Probably won't be able to do that today, but I will keep it in mind. BOZ (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your help desk question

Try asking the question at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You know, I was actually thinking about doing that. :) BOZ (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject

Hello, BOZ.

You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron,
a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing!

Please visit the project page to learn more about improving Wikipedia articles considered by other editors as based upon notable topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

D&D monsters

Hi Boz! Sorry - it seems I missed your earlier message. :( I did make some progress though, and I think I have a couple of books that will be particualrly handy. Somewhere at home I have Clute and Grant's Encyclopedia of Fantasy, and I recall that I had a couple of other similar works somewhere in the boxes. I need to write a quick lecture tonight, (something dull on XNA deployment), but I should be able to help on Dwarves later this week. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Strange Tales

Did so. He's now edit-warring. You might want to check in at Strange Tales and Doctor Strange. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Heya, BOZ. Just thought you'd want to be alerted to my post at User talk:Crackinthesurface. Oy. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Always good to work with fellow WIkiProject Comics veteran! Geez, all my old buddies are admins now. That's a lot of extra work. I'm on my condo board; I imagine it can be very similar: uncredited work, and very few people appreciate. Trust me, I know how much extra work admins take on, addressing concerns on a dozen noticeaboards. Bravo to you, mate! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutral notice

There is a discussion involving WikiProject Comics at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Grand Comics Database that may be of interest to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

TSR Games

i put something in the D&D wikiproject talk page that you might need to look at and/or watch and develop. shadzar-talk 02:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Death Ascendant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darkon (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) 12:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere

Please take a look at this discussion, in which merges of Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere were approved.

I've looked at your additional source in Raistlin, and it does not go beyond a mere mention of the character's name within a plot summary of the book. That is not significant coverage from multiple independent sources. The same can be said of your Goldmoon source, with just a so-called "interview" of the author herself (hardly independent) and which only brings one sentence among tons of plot recap. Besides, the very reliability of the website used, HighBeam, is highly questionable, as we cannot even verify there really was an "interview" with the author. According to its WP article, HighBeam Research doesn't seem to be more than an aggregator or a search engine, the "Rabe, Jean" entry doesn't mention any author so I assume the content itself is aggregated and its paid registration status makes it impossible to verify which sources were used to build it. For all I know it could have been taken from the official Dragonlance forum that was used as a source before your edit.

You certainly found the sources and tried to add them in good faith effort at building a more complete article, and that's always welcome, however, considering there has already been a discussion on the subject and a merge approved, the correct course of action was to try reach consensus with Neelix, the user who merged the article, on whether an unmerge was appropriate. I see nothing that would justify an unmerge, and I'm almost sure Neelix would think the same. Of course, it's not easy for Neelix to have a say in the matter if you forget to even notify him of your intentions.

If you're still intent on seeing these two articles unmerged, I urge you to organize a discussion first and notifying Neelix instead of starting a revert war that would not be productive at all. Thank you.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I replied to Neelix's thread on the list talk page, and since you seemed to want me to notify him, I have done so.
Either you have a fatally flawed understanding of what HighBeam is, or I do. BOZ (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I have a couple of comments on this. HighBeam Research is absolutely a reliable source, as it aggregates RS newspapers and journals. Wikipedia editors (such as myself, for example) are even able to request free one-year memberships to the website to use it for sourcing Wikipedia articles. The Jean Rabe article is from Contemporary Authors. I can assure you that the text from that article is not the same as the text from the forum post, hence my removal of the quote. I'll post more on the list talk page. —Torchiest talkedits 19:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

HELP

Please help by voting KEEP the Clementine (The Walking Dead) article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clementine (The Walking Dead)... I am working hard on that article... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 06:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words : ) - jc37 21:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Getting ugly on D&D articles

Hey, I've been digging for sources on all these new nomination and haven't come up with much yet. I'm adding everything that looks good, but do you know of any independent reviews of the Axe of Dwarvish Lords? It looks like it already has one, so 1-2 more might go far enough to keep it, and change the focus to the module, with the magic item as a section, instead of the other way around. Anyway, good luck! —Torchiest talkedits 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Torchiest. Thanks for your selfless efforts, as always.  :) I think we will be able to save Abeir-Toril, especially with you finding sources like you have. Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons) can probably be saved as well, although we could use some better sourcing to cement that. For Axe of the Dwarvish Lords, especially considering it more as the adventure rather than the fictional element of the same name, we might have some luck finding sources; I have been amazed at the dumb luck I have had in stumbling across sources for D&D books after years of nothing. On Akadi, Crenshinibon, and Pool of Radiance (novel), I don't know if we will find any sources but you never know – fortunately there are decent merge targets for those if we don't. BOZ (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbie, a good friend, someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

List of Marvel Comics characters merges

Hey, I was just wondering why instead of just tagging the articles that need to be merged you redirected them? It makes it harder to track down the content and then merge it in. Seems like it would just be better and more effecient to tag the articles and let the user who performs the merge redirect once it's done. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Fandraltastic. I have restored some articles that were speedied or PRODded, and applied a merge tag to them so that they can be merged - I do prefer to let you do the merging since you seem to know what you are doing. :) I have also restored a few that were previously delted due to AFD and just redirected them, because I did not feel it was appropriate to leave them up as articles, as I don't want people to get the idea that I am violating AFD consensus by restoring them to articles - this is why I added the merge tags to the list articles so that at least people know what I have done. Any ideas on how I can do this better? BOZ (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the explanation. It just looked like you blanked the pages and redirected them to the S list, I didn't realize they had been AfDed. Sorry. Also, feel free to jump in and merge some of them if you'd like to. It's not really a job that'll be finished anytime soon if I'm doing most of them, there are a TON of articles that need to be merged to the list, haha. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem – I previously did merge Shirow Ishihara and Zoe Ishihara – please check my work and let me know how it looks.  :) BOZ (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I added the templates and some real world info to those sections, and spruced up the redirects some. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Festivus

Happy Festivus!
Here's wishing you a happy Festivus!
May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength,
may your list of Grievances be short,
and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles.
—Torchiest talkedits 13:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
LOL, awesome man, thanks! I wanted to pass around a holiday greeting, but I wasn't sure where you find these and I didn't want to be lame and just copy one that someone left me. Maybe I will look through my talk page archives to steal one so I can be less lame.  ;) BOZ (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I just made this one up. But people have short memories, so you can just reuse an old one lol. —Torchiest talkedits 16:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed, a Festivus for the rest of us. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Thanks for the kind message, BOZ. Old Wikifriends are the best! Warm wishes to you and yours! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Argento Surfer (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays, and thanks

Fandraltastic (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

LOL, they are duplicating! :) BOZ (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, and a Happy Christmas and a Merry New Year to you, too. :)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Fortdj33 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Xmas

Merry antipodean Xmas
hope yours is/was fun, and you had a good turkey :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I did have some turkey yesterday! LOL BOZ (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Day Later!

Doczilla STOMP! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for dropping me the Christmas greeting. Much appreciated! Doczilla STOMP! 10:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Atlas of the Dragonlance World

The article The Atlas of the Dragonlance World has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books.

I noticed you added a reference (Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role-Playing Games) to The Forgotten Realms Atlas. Dpes that source also refer to The Atlas of the Dragonlance World?

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. Goustien (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Goustien - you confused me for a second.  ;) In regards to Heroic Worlds, you may be right. That book is at the library, and probably the only day I may be able to make it there to check is Thursday, and that is only if I can find the time. Note that the same user also put Wizards of High Sorcery up for PROD, if we can find a source for that one as well. BOZ (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Goustien, I checked Heroic Worlds, and unfortunately it does not cover the Dragonlance Atlas. The Forgotten Realms Atlas must have been published just before the cut off point of material that Heroic Worlds (published in 1991) covered. BOZ (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Christmas Wishes

Thank you for your note, and I hope you and yours are enjoying the Christmas season as well : ) - jc37 07:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks from me too! :) Hekerui (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year!
Hello BOZ: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 19:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Thank you, very kindly! :) BOZ (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Kitiara uth Matar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Paul B. Thompson and The Inheritance
Tanis Half-Elven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Paul B. Thompson and The Inheritance
Riverwind (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Paul B. Thompson
Tasslehoff Burrfoot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Topknot

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BOZ/Archive_2011-2012&oldid=1088370092"