User talk:Shadzar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Shadzar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 18:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am trying to learn and not destroy or making things to illegible where I edit or add content. So many thing to learn I didn't know where to start, but with those pages you listed I have a better place to look into more depth of article creation. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

uploading images?[edit]

I am lost in the legal jargin. So for the Dragonlance logo it is of the Fifth-Age version of the logo, should I want to upload the original in its place, and add the 5th age logo back is this allowed? Same question for other logos related to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. They were all found on another website and I am more than willing to cite where i got the small @9kb images, but it states in the image upload to not use images found on websites...but I can't scan a clean copy of the image nor find it anymore on the Wizards of the Coast website. So should i upload these variants so that people can use them, or if they are found to be needed delete them. Or just not upload them at all? If yes to uploading them should i select Logo as the as the option under the Licensing section? Thanks for any help. shadzar|Talk|contribs 06:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • To answer your question, the general rule is to not upload any copyrighted material. Any work that is in the public domain may be uploaded. Sr13 08:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So does that mean the logos should not be uploaded at all? shadzar|Talk|contribs 08:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw your cleanup on SimSoc which lead me to read this earlier. bumbling around I came across the {{logo}} template on another image. I thought it might lend some light to the issue. Darker Dreams 16:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Horcruci and the second book?[edit]

While Tom Riddle's diary is in the second book, it is not identified as a Horcrux until book 6. Are you sure this isn't just a bit of retcon on behalf of J.K. Rowling? - Vedexent (talk) - 11:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Horcurx(S), Horcruxes(Pl), there is no such thing as Horcruci. I don't know if the diary is an afterthought or not, as I am not JKR. I only added information based on facts from within the books and what is shown in the section Known Horcruxes on the page itself. It is not my place to second guess an author. Just trying to help the article contain correct information as shown from known facts. shadzar|Talk|contribs 19:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


derived from a title; "performed well in the titular (or title) role"; "the titular theme of the book" from

you sure saying titular character isn't correct in terms of Naruto? Thanks for help in clearifying. shadzar|Talk|contribs 02:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's incorrect. See Cambridge dictionary and, both only talk about rank such as Saint, not title as in the name of something. I could be wrong, but that's what I understand. Wirbelwind 02:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Odd Titular character redirects to Title character, but doesnt say anything about titular being incorrect use in English. Guess the verdict is still out on it, or it is like fish and fishes both ok as plural for fish. shadzar|Talk|contribs 03:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons logos[edit]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Dungeons & Dragons logo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Dungeons & Dragons logos. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ... discospinster talk 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish I understood half of what you are saying. Well I removed the prod thing, andput the talk page reasons for the list creation, and why it was only just begun an is unfinished since a few hours ago. Doubtful you will read this response, but I placed it here anyway. shadzar|Talk|contribs 15:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


You do have a point. I'm not sure about the merge.

However, I have a question about it.

Wouldn't it be nice if each set in DDM had its own page, with more information?

I'm trying to make individual articles for each set in Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures, akin to the articles of Magic: The Gathering. Agreed?

If not, feel free to merge all of the following articles with the main article.

Nice doing business.

The Ronin 21:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about these new miniatures or if they are supposed to be a game expansions. I just noticed some 4 month old articles that were stubs and thought I would draw attention to them for either cleaning them up or expanding. Feel free to remove the merge thingy if there is enough to make a full article out of each set. shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to make an article out of each set then. The Ronin 17:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Adnd-logo2.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Adnd-logo2.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

D&D wiki project consensus[edit]

A call to all members of the D&D wiki project. We are currently having a major dispute that needs to be settled by all members of the D&D wiki project. The dispute is as follows. 1. Should we put disambiguation tags on D&D articles preemptively or should we wait until there is an article conflict with some other Wikipedia article. Vote on preemptive or wait.

2. What should we label these tags? Example "child's play (module)", or "child's play (adventure)" and at this point we are taking all suggestions.

email me at or post on the D&D wiki project talk page Dm2ortiz 13:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Call to arms[edit]

user Pak21 who doesn’t play DDM is trying remove all the images there. Now he has two of his mates who don’t play DDM helping him. Add your voice at Wikipedia:Fair use review ~LG~

AD&D Userbox[edit]

Hi Shadzar. I've moved the AD&D userbox you created to User:Shadzar/Userboxes/AD&D as it's not considered to be encyclopedic content. This is per the Userbox migration policy. You may noticed I also edited your own user page to match the new location. Sorry for any inconvenience, and if you'd like to chat about it feel free to leave me a message. --coldacid 06:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

so um does that mean it no longer works till i fix it, that everyone has to alter their pages to get it to work again? that i need to somehow inform people where to find and how to use it now?
i never knew where to put the darn thing and just followed what instructions i found for creating one, but as long as it works and people can still use it without any special attention from me each time someone wants to use it i don't really mind where it is. rather pleased actually that after all this time someone has taken the time to at least inform me where user created userboxes go, or that a usebox policy change may have occured that i may wish to look into and learn about the changes. shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No, when I moved it I took care of all of that, including editing individual user pages using the box. They are now all pointing to the new location. If you come up with more userboxes later, please feel free to check out the userbox page or ask questions at WikiProject Userboxes! --coldacid 17:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User categories[edit]

Typically, it's not a good idea for a single userbox to categorise users into more than one category. It tends to result in one of the categories being deleted as "duplicative". - jc37 18:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

that userbox....[edit]

would you mind explaining on the userboxes talk page the best course of action to prevent further problems from the box and some references for where to look on such issues. thanks for the help in straightening it out. shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The main page is Wikipedia:Userboxes. As far as what "tends to happen", you may want to check out Wikipedia:User categories for discussion and its archive. Hope this helps : ) - jc37 00:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)



A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 4dventure, because another editor is suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. (The previous was a form letter just letting you know that an article you worked on may be deleted.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


Information.svg With regard to your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slaad: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

i am staying cool. that is why i told him i am through playing his game of edit warring. one in which he sees fit to delete rather that repair articles. while tagging can help articles be improved the problem lies in that s/he (further he for simplicity) refuses to exert effort in improving them and or giving others time to before the deletion template is added. i would assume you know better than myself how to find RFC and other such things pertaining to Gavin Collins, but many people from the wikiproject Dungeons & dragons have asked many times that he stop trying to rush them. he instead ignores the wikiproject and its efforts and goes, for lack of a better word, "hellbent" on AFDs for D&D related articles without giving people time to correct the problems noted with his other templates. while i agree that some things in the realm of D&D material needs to be dealt with and handled in more unbiased fashions, and those that do no dismiss the need of purchasing the products form the company, many as even noted in the RFC for Gavin, the wikiproject page for D&D, and his own talk page have tried asking him to work with us instead of against us, but he refuses to participate. this can only be to me to show that there must be some other agenda there like i noted in several places to him. IF he is so interested in helping make things work, then he should realize the time constraints are not always within the realm of human possibility. Wikipedia is a BIG place. D&D has 31 years and hundreds of thousands of pages of material that must be researched to find the proper "reliable" resources he says are needed. he has also made plenty of what others would seem to be personal attacks towards them with his own accusations and harrasing behavior, but is somehow trying to come off as the victim. i was not aware wikipedia was his personal flamong ground, to use a forum term. nor was it his personal place to attack other people. within the very AFD you noted my comment did you also see his useless comments trying to degenerate the AFD into something other than a civil matter by making fun of people? you may not see this on my page so i will duplicate it on your own talk page so you can refer back here to reply again. maybe you are watching my talk page and that will be unneeded, but with what little time i have i don't know all there is about WP as others do, and come here to try to provide truthful information that others may find useful. (ok well your talk page clearly staes to leave a reply here rather than your own talk page so i guess you are watching this page and will be able to see this reply. if not within a weeks time, then i will leave a message on your talk page referring you back to this topic on my talk page so you can see that i have replied.) shadzar|Talk|contribs 02:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I simply don't think that flaming him and his motivations, however, does anything to alter what you see as troubling or annoying behavior, or contribute toward the AfD/revision discussion. If you think Gavin.collins is misinformed or inappropriately motivated, the best solution for those involved with editing D&D articles is to rise above the fray; resorting to name-calling and accusations in an inappropriate forum -- e.g. AfD discussion -- is counterproductive. --EEMIV (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

i wasn't flaming him, just pointing out my beliefs as to his possible agenda. i just made it clear that i would no longer play his games. no longer participate in the AFDs he creates while giving no one time to fix the articles. he seems, and i hate repeating myself when no one listens, that wikipedia is run by machines that can adhere to a strict time table such as one he chooses to make. one week or less for fixes to occur or the article is nominated for deletion. many have tried to tell him it cannot work that way to get anything done when he insists on 100 AFDs per day (guesstimate). while trying to fight to keep the articles and constantly stay online there is no time to dig through periodicals or or places to find the sources he says are needed or to make other changes for the tags he lists. if there is someone who knows wikipedia SOP better and can explain it to myself or him, then i think these months someone should have. wikipedia is run by humans, not machines with unlimited time and processing/searching ability. it takes those humans time to make the changes AFTER researching the articles further. shadzar|Talk|contribs 09:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that Gavin Collins is pursuing D&D articles. However, that is not in itself necessarily wrong, as long as the tagging is valid. Any editor can tag any article, and some of mine have carried tags for referencing etc. I've suggested that he makes sure he gets it right, since at least one article tagged for notability had "proper" references. Not all the articles are tagged for AfD, many are just tagged for improvement.
Those that go to AfD are then judged by the community. and I note that some seem likely to be kept, some deleted, but that not GC's judgement, it's the community setting a benchmark. He does not have the power to delete articles.
Rather more worryingly, a series of sockpuppets (Gavin is a loser, Gavin is a colon) have been tracking his edits and removing the tags. I've blocked a couple of those, since that is clearly a misuse of the system.
I would suggest the following
  1. If the tagging is valid, fix the problems, then remove some or all of the tags as appropriate, under a normal user name, with a reason in the edit box.
  2. if the tagging does not appear to be correct remove some or all of the tags as appropriate, under a normal user name, with a reason in the edit box
  3. If the article is at AfD, vote
  4. If an edit war develops with tags constantly being added and removed from an article, seek help. Admins can protect articles and block editors if necessary
I understand the project members' frustration, but I'm yet to be convinced that what he is doing is enough out of line to merit a block. Jimfbleak (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Jim would you care to help explain this? on the current topic of the Slaad deletion EEMIV commented above about my making personal attack, while i only made a simple comment to Gavin within the AFD itself that i was done playing his games. this was after Gavin insulted and attacked all the project member with his comment "I think that when it comes to the definition or reliable secondary souces, fans of role-playing games may have a tenuous grasp on the difference between the real-world and the fantasy world of comics, game guides and fansites. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)". that on top of the fact as Jéské helped point on Gavin on Gavin's talk page that he should research more prior to his mass tagging since he doesn't even know anything about the rights given to duplicate content under the licenses provided by WotC who is the owner of D&D now and not the defunct company TSR that Gavin thinks owns D&D. this shows signs of some problems to many people if the editor cant even be bother by taking the time to find out who owns the IP they are trying so hard to "defend". and sadly in almost every article that is tagged or nominated by Gavin there is 90% chance to be something stating that the currently owner of D&D copyright is Wizards of the Coast and not TSR. if not a little view of the D&D article itself would yield that information. in the RFC for Gavin Collins even nothing was done. i don't know if blocking Gavin would be the right thing to do, but i can agree with those "Gavin of the colon" being blocked. but for us user who are trying to work on the articles and help build wikipedia to more than jsut a few stubs, especially in the D&D areas, his actions are nothing more than disruptions with the time schedule he demands with tagging clean-ups and then how quickly him and his "cohorts" niminate the articles for deletion. by cohorts i mean those other that possibly agre with any personal agenda he may or may not have at undermining the D&D articles as with his insults to all roleplayers and the roleplaying editiors like he made in the Slaad AFD. thanks for any help in clearing these things up. shadzar|Talk|contribs 23:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm happy to answer that. Dragon is (well, was) predominantly a role-playing game magazine. So it's in Category:Role-playing game magazines, which is a subcategory of Category:Games magazines. As a rule, an articles is not placed in both a category and a subcategory of that category. So I removed it from the broader category. Make sense?--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RPG notability guidelines[edit]

Hi - from your comment on Gavin.collins' user page, it sounds like you might be interested in the proposed RPG notability guidelines and the ongoing discussion about them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Blood Hawk[edit]

There are many, many, many articles that just plain need to go; people have talked about mass nominations in the past, but attempts have generally failed. Hopefully we can make a dent in the masses of them. Deletion is a little complex- to get it via AfD (as I am doing)

  • add "{{subst:afd1}}" (without quotes) to the top of the article you are proposing.
  • Click the link to 'preloaded debate',
  • add a category from the list offered,
  • and add a reason.
  • Save the page.
  • Go back to the article that now has the AfD banner on the top of it,
  • copy the little bit of code just after the link to the preloaded debate and
  • add it to the top of the list that is linked.
  • Save the page. Then
  • copy the next bit of code from the AfD notice,
  • click the link that says 'authors' and
  • paste the code onto the talk pages of the original author, and possibly anyone else who has contributed to the article in a major way- mass spamming of talk pages isn't needed, one or two is fine. Finally,
  • let other editors interested in D&D discussions know about it by adding a link to the discussion at the top of this section.

It's not as complicated as it sounds- you'll get used to it after a couple of goes. There are also tools that do this all for you, but don't ask me about them, I do pretty much everything manually being useless at learning how to use new software. J Milburn (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, I did beat you there, already completed all the steps with that one! J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

D&D AfDs[edit]

Excuse me. If you're still making new AfDs, can I ask you to not to for the time being? The flood has created an environment where it would be, if not impossible for a full-time staff with access to all the relevant publications, far too much to ask of a volunteer community to go through every single aspect of Dungeons & Dragons that's listed for deletion, hunt for references and mentions, discuss possible mergings or lists or other ways of making sure that the best option for upholding the quality of the encyclopedia is chosen, and in general ascertain the merits of the subject. (And absence of proof in the articles as they stand at a specific moment is not proof of absence - I've personally saved two articles by discovering new refences during an ongoing AfD, and this is a pitiful total compared to those who do so actively.)

If the AfDs make it impossible to resolve them by the merits of the subjects, then they're resolved by force. Regardless of whether or not those merits would be enough, deciding matters by drowning out the possibility of opposition is not right. And it is not like we are on any kind of deadline. Please stop. --Kizor 18:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

D&D AfD list formatting[edit]

Nice work on that, I was dreading doing it myself... J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

it wasn't a fun task but someone needed to do it, and i noticed a few closed then saw others so tried to catch them all in one sitting. shadzar-talk 20:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your AD&D vs. D&D rant[edit]

Shadzar, you are preaching to the wrong person. I play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition with some aspects of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Options in the Forgotten Realms setting almost exclusively. I have thousands of dollars invested in the game. However, I am a realist when it comes to Wikipedia user categories. When I said that those two categories could be merged, it was in the hope that something of those categories would survive. None of them did. They are all gone now.

I dislike 3e+ with a passion as strong as yours. I do not think that splitting the users by so many subcategories would be a good idea, unless there were hundreds of each group. I have seen other categories deleted which were based on more notable topics. The merge suggestion failed to keep even the Dungeons & Dragons category, which annoys me to no end.

I wish you the best when it comes to editing anything in that area. Stop by an let me know if you need anything. - LA @ 15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New D&D template[edit]

I'm not sure that you want to put the D&D articles into the exact same category as all other role-playing game articles. In other words, I think you might want to choose a different ASSESSMENT_CAT name for the new D&D template. Yes, obviously they are RPG articles, but the D&D project is separate from the more general RPG project, so I think it would be wise to keep the assessment categories distinct from each other. This is just my opinion, and you might want to solicit other people's views on this on the D&D project talk page and/or the RPG project talk page. I'm not sure what ASSESSMENT_CAT name to suggest, but perhaps just using "Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game" is the obvious one. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at the project page, they already have some categories set up. See, for example Category:FA-Class D&D articles. So you would want to use just "D&D" for the ASSESSMENT_CAT name I think. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You're not going through all of those by hand are you?  :) A bot would be the thing you'd want to save yourself the trouble... BOZ (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
by hand is the only way i know how to do it. XD. shadzar-talk 16:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
See WP:BOT. You can make a request for someone to use their bot to do this kind of work. They can also automatically assign stubs (those that use the {{D&D-stub}} on the article page) to the "stub" class, redirects to the "redirect" class, and so forth. Many apologies, it didn't even occur to me this morning that I should have told you about this option. It can save a lot of the work. Of course, the articles' importance ratings will still have to be set "by hand". --Craw-daddy | T | 19:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
i will remember that for the future. but it hink i got them all done this morning that already had the projects template on them. at least those that weren't archived. i may have missed a few. its ok it gave me something to do. and i got a chance to see all the pages under the project that alreayd had the template. shadzar-talk 08:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Now I'm not suggesting that you (or any other person) need do this, but there are a bunch of articles in Category:Unassessed D&D articles. These have neither a "class" nor "importance" distinction assigned to them. This is a case, for example, where a bot could be used to filter at least some of them into Category:Stub-Class D&D articles. As I said above, a bot can identify pages that use {{D&D-stub}} on their article page and then update the talk page {{D&D}} template appropriately to {{D&D|class=stub}}. As to the "importance" ratings, that's another issue and one that may have been debated in the past on the D&D project pages. That's a more subjective thing to judge, as well as distinguishing between what's a "start" class article or a "B" class article. In any event, good work.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 20:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist from removing the Plot cleanup template without reasonable justification[edit]

Please cease and desist from removing the Plot template from article Kender, an article which is almost entirely comprised of plot summary and character descriptions contrary WP:NOT#PLOT. There is no reasonable justification for removing the cleanup template which was put there to address the following problem: articles comprised of plot summary do not contain real-world content supported by reliable secondary sources. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as your explanation for removing the template ("the summary is in no way too long. another copy and paste tags incident by you-know-who gone wrong" [1]) is not supported by the guideline WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF which applies to this topic. Unless you adding real-world content from reliable secondary sources to the article, I would be grateful if you would refrain from removing the cleanup template, which was placed there to alert other editors who may be able to replace the plot summary with real-world content. I would suggest in future that you discuss the removal of cleanup templates on the article's discussion page so that misunderstandings do not occur in the future.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Shadzar, just a note: it is best to respond to other users with a civil tone (even if, and especially if, they do not show you the same courtesy in the first place). If the user persists in incivility, you can always report them at WP:ANI. Just a few days ago I reminded Gavin that it is specifically against the civility rules to accuse other users of POV-pushing, as he did to you above. BOZ (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No need to resort to the same incivility Shadzar. However, that aside, what you said is pretty much what a number of editors, myself included, feel of late. He's gone over the line more and more often, and despite repeated mentions of the Civility policy to him, he hasn't changed. BOZ is correct about reporting him at WP:ANI if he repeats that same incivility.Shemeska (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
pure frustration and not doing a thing for a while with the d&D project solely because of Gavin has put me in bitter mood about it all. The final straw was his telling me to discuss a template on the article talk page which i have mentioned to him countless times in regards to the templates. but instead he comes to my talk page. i don't know much about ANI whatever or its processes, and as i stated want nothing more to do with Gavin. if that means i no longer edit wikipedia while he/she is a member or actively participating in the harrassment of editors of D&D and other related RPG project, then so be it. i can easily not log in and visit only to read without contributing. i am wholly fed up with it. with as much work as the D&D project has to do, it is not worth the effort to try to do it and have some child with a temper tantrum that doesn't like the game, its players, or articles based on it be wasted in trying to get something productive done. shadzar-talk 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You're not the first one to talk about leaving because of Gavin, and some have already done it. Of course, the less opposition there is, the better it is for him. I hope you reconisder, but I understand if you really do want to give up. BOZ (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree that the plot tag is inappropriate, and will raise that on the discussion page. There is no plot that I can see in the article - in-universe yes, plot no. You were correct to remove the tag, imho. - Bilby (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • not leaving yet. the D&D project has slowed down a lot understandably. considering a whole new edition that must be review by the project coming soon, and trying to integrate it into existing articles. April 15th stress as well does not help with any of the mosnters work i was intending to do. it jsut seems in this transition period some are taking the opportunity given by slowed editing while new information is consolidated to further their cause against D&D. or one that since its inception has been seen by me as an act against D&D, its editors, playes, and articles. i am no great technical writer, but try to do what i can with the articles within WP guides and such. i can create a heck of a game as a DM, but that doesn't help on WP. having someone trying to be the WP police in a field they have no knowledge or interest has just got my goat currently. i will be helping more with those monsters if anything is left to do when i have the time coming soon to do so and figure out what you have created for them Boz. i have also been reading over some items and thinking about their notability like the discussion i have recently been in regarding the girdle of femininity/masculinity. sems after mosnters we may need to work on the items of note and consolidate them into a better article than many stubs. but my notes are scattered among the tax work here on my desk and none on this site. you would think somone interested in accounting would have more appreciation for April 15th and that which revolves around it, but no some still think WP revolves around some personal deadline for them. sigh... well with any luck someone can get this figured out so things can get underway to doing what is needed with 4th eiditon coming out wihtout too many more intteruptions from parts unknown. shadzar-talk 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Gavin may be interested in accounting, but I don't know how they handle taxes in England.  :) There are far, far fewer magic item articles on here than there are monsters, so if we do have to consolidate we can do that just fine. (There is a List of Dragonlance artifacts as an example of how to do that.) Don't give up now, things are just getting interesting! BOZ (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Well, I've never done this before, so it's all new to me. I guess if you intend to help, put four ~'s under Involved, or if you're not sure what you want to do, sign under Support so that we know you've got our back. I didn't figure you'd be under the Opposed section.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're talking about, and for awhile I wondered about that myself. But no, I don't think so. Jack turned out to be notorious for that sort of thing, but I don't believe Gavin was connected with that. They just happened to compliment each other very well until Jack got busted. BOZ (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


OK - thanks. :) You can try the one I mentioned in the RfM (I don't know what is in that article); otherwise I don't have any idea what to add.  ;) BOZ (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably that, yeah - unfortunately, I have no idea what would be best to take from that, because I haven't seen the article in question any time recently. BOZ (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7[edit]

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. For more details, please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have put some work into the Gary Gygax article, which I have nominated for a GA review. If there is anything you can do to help it get passed, please join in! Also, feel free to comment on the D&D WikiProject talk page regarding our efforts to get articles in the 0.7 release. BOZ (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Good deal - thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Great news! :) Gary Gygax is now a Good Article. I have now nominated Wizards of the Coast. BOZ (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought you weren't going to help with that one. ;) Well, thanks for catching my typo at least! :) BOZ (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Accidental editing caused by automatic reflexes. shadzar-talk 17:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
LOL!  :) BOZ (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to self.[edit]

Get ISBN numbers for the publications in this older edit and place them on the article talk page.

shadzar-talk 03:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's where we are at! :) BOZ (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject: Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

Hi! I’ve been working on a lot of ‘’Dungeons & Dragons’’ articles lately and saw that you were a member of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons), and am inviting you to rejoin Wikipedia’s D&D group. I've been hard at work removing tags placed inappropriately on D&D articles, as well as modifying articles to remove tags that were placed legitimately. In addition, I have been compiling related articles together so that the articles are longer, making it easier to remove tags and to have short articles on lesser topics by just putting it into another appropriate article (links to such compiled articles can be found on my userpage). Check out the project here , and ask any questions that you may have here. Thank you for your time. Drilnoth (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


Cool... I knew they were coming soon, but I haven't been keeping up on things... will update.  ;) BOZ (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin's reverting {{importance}} tags.[edit]

And replacing them with {{notability}} tags again. Thought you'd want to know; there's more discussion here. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New proposition regarding D&D article notability[edit]

Hi! I know that you have recently been active in some Dungeons & Dragons articles, so I thought that I'd point out a new proposition that I made regarding their notability at WT:D&D#A new proposition. Any input on the idea would be much appreciated. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for working on that! The articles look much better. Now, if only we could get Gavin to do that... -Drilnoth (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly he has increased the number of tags he uses so it is even more needed now that ever. Also some of the recent edits I made do not have the articles even listed on the D&D watchlist, so you may wish to hit them up on there.... shadzar-talk 21:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Give us a list, and we'll add them. BOZ (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
These are the ones I edited:
  1. Bucknard
  2. Belker
  3. Kron Hills
  4. Edralve
  5. Tasslehoff Burrfoot
  6. Kitiara uth Matar
  7. Carceri
  8. Shade
  9. Jazirian
  10. Kendermore
  11. Tanis Half-Elven
That you had recently edited, that had multiple issues and I could find replacements for in articleissues shadzar-talk 22:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Those are all on the watchlist - are you sure you're using the most recent version? I'm about to edit it. BOZ (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I am now. ;) shadzar-talk 22:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Notice[edit]

Hello, Shadzar. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the dispute between the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject and Gavin.collins. Thank you. --Drilnoth (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


I'm not sure what you mean. I've usually found that people around there often have long memories and good ability to find things; I go there to look for leads to information that I couldn't find on my own, and most of the time they are helpful. BOZ (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Naturally; message board posts are not reliable sources, but they can lead me to reliable sources, and have done so before. :) BOZ (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact, one thread I started on there about Gary Gygax was instrumental in finding information for working on his article. Not too helpful for the WotC article (people share your feelings there), which I did mostly on my own. But hey, like anything, it's hit or miss so worth a shot. :) BOZ (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought you didn't trust ENWorld - what happened? :) BOZ (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Yeah, I read that. But the edit I questioned/corrected read that WotC could recover attorneys' fees even if they lost. It's the "winner pays losers' attorneys' fees" aspect that I questioned. Typically that language means that they can collect attorneys' fees if they win, which in American courts they otherwise couldn't do. DCB4W (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U[edit]

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed against Gavin.collins. Since you have been involved in the dispute regarding his disruptive edits, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Note from Protonk[edit]

  • Not a problem. If you want to just agree with one of the summaries, you can sign (or make a short comment) in the section entitled "users endorsing this summary". If you want to write your own part, just go to this section and either copy the "outside view" bit or just fill it in. You can put anything you like there but make sure that it is neutral, factual and fair. Protonk (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


I'm not Gavin. Have a look into refactoring that comment. In addition, two users independently disagreeing with you once each is not edit warring; don't throw accusations like that around lightly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


Hey there,

Since you were the one who requested this article under AfC, you might as well know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undermountain. BOZ (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's cool, we saved that one from the wrecking ball. ;) The weird thing was, Grawp and his IP buddies were targeting that article, and the guy who was reverting them asked someone to just delete it rather than dealing with the vandalism! BOZ (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dragonlance GA[edit]

Hey there! Just letting you know that we have nominated Dragonlance to be a Good Article, and it is currently up for review. :) BOZ (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lorraine created the company TSR, makers of Dungeons & Dragons, the preeminent role playing game[edit]

LOL! Worst. Research. Evar. :) BOZ (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


Just noticing that shiny new thing on my user page? :) BOZ (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

D&D Wikiproject[edit]

Have you seen this? Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-21/WikiProject report BOZ (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What is it actually? I don't read news comes online, so not sure what things are about in print anymore these days with all the video glogging. Did you guys win some award? shadzar-talk 23:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Essentially, it's Wikipedia's weekly newsletter. They just decided to interview our Wikiproject! BOZ (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Variant Dungeons & Dragons games [edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Variant Dungeons & Dragons games , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. zorblek (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Merry Christmas![edit]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :)

Merry Christmas![edit]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)