User talk:David Shepheard

Greetings, David Shepheard, and welcome to Wikipedia. It's good to see new folks showing an interest in the place and wanting to improve the articles. Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you have any questions, feel free to drop by my talk page and ask. I'll do my best to provide you with an answer. If you're more of a "research it yourself" type, there's always Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. The Help Desk is also a good place for info.

Whenever you leave a comment on someone's talk page or on the Help Desk page or whatever, remember to sign your name. You do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) in a row at the end of your comments or questions. This will automatically produce your name and the date. Again, welcome to Wikipedia. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 04:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, too! -- Perfecto 05:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spelljammer novels

Hi Extreme Unction, and thanks for welcoming me.

Today was my first day on Wilkipedia and I was baffled to see my first article wizzing around the either almost as soon as I finished typing it. I've read all the things that you suggested, but saw more how to advice rather than when two things are one subject advice. I thought that an article about role playing and an article about novels (even if they are based on the same setting) would be two different things. The List of Forgotten Realms novels (which I based my article on) certainly seems to be a separate thing.

How do you work this sort of thing out? I'd be interested to know so that I can decide what to do in the future.

Big Mac 05:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a bit overwhelming for a new user. I consider myself fairly internet savvy, having been playing around online in various capacities since 1995 (and having been on BBS systems before that since 1981), and even I found the Wikipedia process rather byzantine. One page over here says this, and another page over there says that, and you just sorta have to get a feel for it over time. It really does come with experience.

I guess the first thing worth pointing out is this: You didn't do anything wrong. Your article wasn't moved because you screwed up and violated some sacred tenet of Wikipedia. You did absolutely the right thing by making an article that will improve Wikipedia. Wikipedia now has content it didn't have before, thanks to you. All that has happened is that I, a slightly more experienced editor, came along and saw how your information might be more usefully organized. I ran into the same thing when I first started editing, and I still run into it now that I've been here for a while. If you stick around, you'll do it too, eventually.

The thing is, if you felt really strongly about it, you could absolutely revert every change I made. You could, if you wanted, restore List of Spelljammer novels to its state prior to when I merged and redirected the article, and you could remove the Spelljammer novel section from Spelljammer. You could do all of those things and I couldn't stop you. (Well, that's not 100% true. I could stop you, because I'm an admin. It would be very much against the rules for me to do so, however, and I would get yelled at by many people. So I wouldn't. Well, I wouldn't anyways, because I'm just not that big of a jerk. So even if nobody at all would yell at me, I still wouldn't do that.)

(Where was I?)

(Oh yes.)

So anyhow, you could make those changes and revert all that stuff back to the way it was before I started mucking about with it, and nobody could stop you. Of course, they could turn around and change everything right back to the way it was before you changed it back, and then you could change it back to the way it was before they changed it back, and so on and so forth. But that just gets ugly in short order, so we don't recommed that.

Under ideal circumstances, if you do something, and then someone comes along and makes a change to what you did, and you have questions about that change, you go to the article's talk page. Every article has one. The Spelljammer talk page is at Talk:Spelljammer. You leave a note on that page saying "Here's what I don't understand about why you did what you did" or "I think it was better the other way because..." and hopefully you can make them change their minds or they can change your mind, and everybody goes away happy.

This is what you've done already on Talk:Spelljammer, and I've responded there with my reasoning of why I did what I did. Hopefully you will find it persuasive. If not, you can respond to me with a counterargument, and maybe I'll find that persuasive. Or maybe not, and I'll respond back to you. And so it goes, until hopefully we reach a compromise we can both agree on.

By the way, you'll notice that I've taken the note you left me on my talk page, and reprinted it here (in italics) on yours. I did this so the conversation won't be fragmented, and so you'll get the spiffy "You have new messages" notification. But it's not required or anything. If you leave someone a note on their talk page, some folks will respond on their talk page as well, while others will respond on your talk page. So it varies. But if you leave someone a note on their talk page, it's a good idea to add their talk page to your watchlist for a couple of days, just in case they respond on their talk page and not on yours.

Hope this helps. Feel free to ask any more questions you may have.

→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 06:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to go moving things back, I just wanted to bounce a couple of things off of you to see what you thought. I agree that bouncing things around would be silly (and would probably damage Wikipedia in the long run).

I'll do the things you suggested now (reading the talk page and putting you on my watch list) and I hope that editors won't want to move my things about in the future because I hope I can get things spot on the first time.

See you around.

Big Mac 06:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

Here's a little something I wrote years ago...
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 06:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an even smaller thing I wrote...

Big Mac 06:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. Did you ever see the Crystal Sphere someone made up on the old Spelljammer mailing list that was filled with water? That would be a good place to stick your Aquatic Elves... =) → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 07:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't but I'll look out for it at some point in the future. Thanks for the heads up.

Big Mac 07:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a post on the SJML about a crystal sphere called Fluidspace. That might be what you were talking about. Big Mac 11:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something you may want to consider

Big Mac:

I see you're still going at it. Hope you're enjoying yourself.

Just a thought about Spelljammer: It might be better to have the sections for the Website and Computer game above the lists of product materials. Generally speaking, most wikipedia articles that have both prose and lists put the lists at the end, so that you can read the actual meat of the article before getting to the lists.

Another thing you may consider is to turn the Spelljammer Novels section into a subsection of the product line, rather than leaving it in its own section where I put it. Just seems like it would make more sense to have it as part of the overall product list, rather than "Here's the products. Oh, and here are the novels, too."

Anyhow, these are just suggestions which I thought I'd float past you. Let me know what you think.
Ξxtreme Unction|^{yakkity yak} 18:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 'official SJ website' section is different to the rest of the stuff I just added. You might have a point with what you said about that. The website is a 3e thing so does need some sort of separation to help people see that. I suppose the original article (which I didn't write) might need something on it to mark the fact that that is what happened for 2e AD&D. Then the 3e website stuff I added could be put after that. I do think it needs a subheading - I think all D&D products need subheadings to separate 1e D&D, 2e AD&D, 3e (WotC) D&D and 3.5e D&D. Often campaign settings have very similar products issued again and again as the RPG editions have increased.

The bit that says: "Several of TSR's other campaign worlds had their own sections..." would be a good place to put in a 2nd Edition (AD&D) subheading. I've got a couple of problems with what is written after this point:

1 I certainly do not like the two references to 'solar systems' which I know is incorrect for Spelljammer (they are called 'planetary systems').

2 I also question the stuff about Dark Sun, Ravenloft and Mystara. Dark Sun and Ravenloft are ignored with the original boxed set which concentrates on the 'Radiant Triangle' (the collective name for 'Greyspace', 'Krynnspace' and 'Realmspace') but are mentioned briefly in the Complete Spacefarer's Handbook. I think that the person who wrote this has not refered to all of the Spelljammer products or they would not have said what they did about two of the settings. In my opinion (and as I understand it facts and not opinions are supposed to be what I am writing) I think that these advanced settings were only ignored in the original boxed set because they were awkward to integrate. I think that if Spelljammer had gone on TSR eventually would have included them. As for Mystara, I think that was ignored only because it was already discontinued, I don't Mystara is worth a specific mention there (but if Mystara does get mentioned at all then the Mystaraspace conversion on the official Mystara website should get a link).

I'm not entirely sure where to go with the existing stuff. You have far more editing experience than me on this sort of thing. However, what feels right, at the moment, is to look to see about taking out references to the settings that were not included, then document Spelljammer in as close to chronological order as possible, mentioning briefly what each product did to change the SJ universe. For example there are quite a few spheres that were added before the Astromundi Cluster boxed set (Clusterspace). I'd add Dark Sun, Ravenloft and Mystara back (along with any other TSR settings) but only to show how they are being added to Spelljammer.

Back to the 'computer game'. This mainly needs to be a cross reference. A lot of tabletop roleplayers will not be interested. The same goes for 'novels'. You are suggesting that Spelljammer products and novels should go together, but I think that may cause ambiguity. People that do not do tabletop games and/or read roleplaying books, may not realise that a book, like Into the Void, would never be used in any tabletop game. In fact I know that some Spelljammer fans actually dispute 'facts' from the Cloakmaster books. Some don't consider spin offs as 'proper' products.

The thing about table top role playing games and spin offs like novels and books is that a lot of people do not consider the spin offs as official, or 'proper' products. Those people would not want to even see anything about the computer game or the novels in the article. (That is why I originally put the novels in a separate article.) If they do have to be in the same article as the (so called) 'proper' role playing stuff then there should be a clear destinction of some sort.

Maybe I should move both the computer game and novel sections down - maybe I could have a 'Spelljammer spin offs' section with both the computer game and the novels (and the original comics if I can find anything out about them).

I'll have a think about it while I am reading my email and come back to this later.

Big Mac 03:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More inane procedural blather from Yours Truly

BigMac:

FYI, it is generally frowned upon to seed the main body of an article with external links. The philosophy is "If you are linking to an article or other content outside of Wikipedia, it is better to incorporate that content within Wikipedia somehow, and then link to it internally." m:When should I link externally has some informative discussion on the matter.

→ Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 23:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help.

Big Mac 00:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mongols

It's called vandalism, and it sucks up a lot of time and energy. However you caught that less than a half-hour after the vandal struck. Thanks for doing your part. Shenme 06:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know what was going on.

Big Mac 10:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D&D wiki project consensus

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 [email protected] or post on the D&D wiki project talk page

Fair use rationale for Image:SJ3e-Logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SJ3e-Logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Please note that the same also applies to Image:Spelljammer-Netlogo.gif. Cheers --Pak21 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I could have sworn that I did add text to provide this information when uploading these images. You have already deleted the images and changed the page that used them. I don't have time to do anything about it now.Big Mac 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

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. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite BOZ. I would love to help out however, I have two problems:

I'm very busy at the moment and
The ever changing strategy of the D&D delitionists means that I am currently unsure what sort of standards WikiProject D&D is pushing for.

Incidentally, whatever message you put over there has been yanked by another wikipedian, so I'm not really sure what the 0.7 push was intended to do. I've had a look around the project, but there currently seems to be a lot of discussion about specific delitionists and a talk about what sorts of monsters should be in a list. In that discussion, there is yet more mention of the notability of specific D&D monsters. Maybe next time you want to promote something like this, you should create a subpage at WikiProject, so that we come in on a page that isn't a mobile talk page.

You have my moral support (for the good work I know you are doing with these articles) but at the moment, I don't have time to help out with a generic D&D Project. If I get any free time, I'm much more likely to lend it to the Creature Catalog conversion effort or one of many other projects, where my help may be challanged, but (probably not on the grounds that it isn't worth reading). I've got no problem with constructive criticism of my work (as it helps me improve) but the delitionist horde seem to offer no useful advice and always seem to pitch the limited amount of feedback they provide in terms that don't help wikipedians improve the articles that they created badly.

In any case if I do any more D&D work on Wikipedia, I would be far more interested in promoting knowledge of the Spelljammer Campaign Setting than generic D&D. There is no WikiProject to help out a lot of the smaller D&D campaign settings and (if it wasn't for the constant threat of delitionism) I would like to redress that balance and help ensure that future generations have a full record of how D&D works.

I think it may be worth improving the WikiProject D&D page, so that it links directly into tutorials and guidelines that help people edit D&D articles in a way that satisfies any claims of notability and also complies with some sort of agreed standard for D&D. If the people in the project can get that sort of thing going, I will try to ensure that any future edits I make to Wikipedia are done in a way that will outwit the delitionist horde.Big Mac (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, you missed all the fun. :) I think we got a few into the release, but I guess we'll find out soon enough! BOZ (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had been involved in discussions prior to his Request for Mediation, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a reply on your talk page. Big Mac (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting - feel free to add to the RFC if you haven't already. BOZ (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giff

Thanks, and you're welcome! :) BOZ (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonlance GA

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)[reply]

Hello

Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. You commented on my talk page earlier, but I'm not sure if you noticed. :)

I don't know if you've taken a look, but I'd like to point out to you the success we've had with the D&D GA-drive so far: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and we plan to hit Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) after some work. :)

If you're interested in coming around to check out what we've been up to, you are welcome as always. :) BOZ (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to this on your talkpage. I hope to see some SJ related articles in the GA section at some point. Spelljammer would be nice, but I'd also love to see some other D&D giants (like Jeff Grubb) get a bit of love. And, although I've not played it, I'd love to see some of the minority settings (like Jakandor) get some attention too. Big Mac (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tossed the list of TSR works mentioned by Allen Varney on his article - forums are on the list of unreliable sources, so unfortunately we can't rely on them for information that would otherwise be difficult to verify, but I'm sure we can assume that finding his name in some credits wouldn't be hard. :)

As far as getting more creators to GA, Dave Arneson is next on my hit-list! Grubb has some definite possibilities, and he's on my list of things to look at. Spelljammer is a definite down the road possibility, but Jakandor might be pretty difficult if it hasn't been reviewed by an outside reviwer. BOZ (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ankheg

Hello,

Because you participated in the previous AFD for Ankheg, I am notifying you that it has been nominated for AFD again. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afanc

This at least the third or fourth D&D-related AfD in which you fail to provide any comment based on actual policies and ignore the issues formulated in the deletion nomination (mostly insufficient or non-existing sourcing/notability).

Instead you provide us with very lyrical explanations of how you subjectively consider the topics as the greatest ever, usually making up grotesquely exaggerated descriptions which do not correspond to the existing article, indeed trying to make them pass for what they are not (D&D article suddenly become "studies of this part of folklore and the gaming culture", which they are not since they're purely plot summaries).

This problem got worse today with your comment on Afanc, since your reason for keeping the article ("the similarities and differences between the two things help study of this part of folklore...") isn't actually contained in the article at all, and the actual state of both articles doesn't allow to make such a comparison. Which means that if the article was kept, this study of "similarities and differences" would have to be done. But you don't provide any source for doing that and the article contains none, meaning that the analysis should be done by contributors themselves, meaning original research.

WP:AFDFORMAT tells us that "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion.".

It's the third or fourth time that I have to remind you that you're not contributing in a proper way to AfDs, so I don't think you're willing to understand how to contribute in an acceptable way. AFDFORMAT continues:

"But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD."

I don't want to go through a dispute resolution process so I hope you'll understand what I'm saying here. But if your behavior in AfDs continues like this, we will have to come to that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is about discussion. If other editors choose to agree or disagree, that is up to them. You have made several attempts to bend my words in AfD discussions and misrepresent me, instead of sticking to the point and working out if the article should be retained or not. You should not be doing that, as it is against Wikipedia's principle of assuming good faith.

This is not a case of WP:ILIKEIT, it is a case of me thinking that the specific articles should be left on Wikipedia and improved. I'm entitled to have that view about individual articles and entitled to participate in the discussion, just like anyone else is. I believe that removing useful content from Wikipedia is against the interest of the encyclopedia. This article, and a couple of other articles you are also trying to delete, should be referred to WikiProject:D&D. They should be asked to look into improving them. That is what would be best for Wikipedia as it would give Wikipedia better coverage of these subjects. WikiProject D&D has improved a lot of poor-quality D&D articles and may be able to turn some of these articles into ones worthy of being featured articles at some point. Talking to them first is a logical first step. Going directly to AfD without attempting to salvage the articles is not so logical, when there are WikiProjects out there that are attempting to work through bad articles and improve them.

Ultimately, it is down to the community to decide what happens with an AfD. If the bulk of the community decides to ignore me (or ignore you) that is up to them. You should trust the community to come to the correct conclusion.

I don't agree with you on your AfD actions on these few articles, but I do not want to initiate a dispute resolution action against you, if that is what you are worried about. If you keep showing bad faith towards editors that disagree with you, it is possible that someone else might do that to you, but I'm just interested in seeing Wikipedia improve. Big Mac (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You got me wrong. I'm not saying you don't have the right to think no D&D article should be deleted on WP and instead should always be kept as a separate article, you are entitled to this opinion and to advocate it, however, you are doing it at the wrong place. If you are really intend on seeing this opinion prevail, then you can discuss it at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy or Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not for example. But you have to understand that AfD is already a system which fully integrates the idea that all topics are not suitable for a stand-alone article, and establishes a set of criteria to determine whether the topic is to be kept or not. Among those, "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" can be submitted for deletion. From then on, users taking part in AfDs are asked to determine whether an article falls under one of these criteria for deletion or not (WP:DPAFD: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy."). For D&D articles, the most communly invoked reason for deletion is that the topic doesn't meet the General Notability Guideline, and from then on, users are asked whether articles meet the GNG, that is, if "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Contrary to what you claim, yes, there are limits to what you can say in AfDs. I've quoted them before, but WP:AFDFORMAT does state that discussions have to be on "whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies", and there are arguments to avoid in AfDs. So again, sorry to contradict you but WP:ILIKEIT is perfectly relevant in your case because you express the opinion that articles should be kept, not because they meet the criteria for conservation, but because you subjectively consider they have certain qualities, to which other people might object with reason.

Decisions to keep or delete are based on criteria such as WP:GNG instead of purely personal feelings for a reason: the community at large has created these criteria and agrees with it. It's a purely factual way to judge article that cannot be tained by subjectivity. So trying to argue in AfDs that articles should be kept when they obviously don't meet the notability criteria is disrespectful to the community which established these principles. I hope you realize that these principles are not gonna change just because 1 user in 1 AfD is opposed to them. So if you really want to change things, you should try to lead discussions about the notability criteria or the deletion policies themselves, instead of wasting the time of those who comment in AfDs. AfDs are not made to argue that AfD are a bad thing. And I insist that it is time for you to understand that because WP:AFDFORMAT allows me to start a process against you if you don't follow these principles.

If you are so convinced that the content is good, even though they are not notable, then you can always propose a merge. But stop proposing to keep content that obviously doesn't meet the notability requirement, this is not good for the cause you're advocating.

Also, as I told you before, AfDs are the perfect place to discuss whether to keep, merge or delete an article, because it allows everyone to have a say in it, and not only D&D fans. But not all articles on WP can just be "kept and improved" and you know that. There is no way to improve an article that doesn't meet the notability criteria and doesn't have secondary sources. If the content is valid and present some qualities, it can always be merge into another article, but a non-notable article cannot be just kept. The only way to improve a sourceless article is to find sources, and if it can't be done then the article is deleted; going first through the D&D project is a waste of time since there will be a need for an AfD to delete the article if the project fails to find sources anyway, and an AfD also allows for improvement and sourcing propositions from members of the D&D project to be made (when it is possible).

So I will say it again, one last time: don't vote keep if you don't have good policy-based reasons for it. If you do it because you just like the topic and just refuse to let it be deleted, then it is an inappropriate behavior, AfDs are not made for that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folken, dispute resolution on Wikipedia is not something for which you "start a process against" someone, it is a system for resolving disputes. It offers many possible solutions for resolving disputes, to help users work better together, rather than to be used as a threat to stop someone from saying things that you disagree with. Most of the steps in the process involve merely discussing the issues, and it is only once you have exhausted the limits of what can be done through talking that things come up such as WP:RFC/U, or failing all else, arbitration. If either of you does wish to use dispute resolution to resolve your issues and avoid one of the more serious applications involving user conduct, then I advise you to check out what options are available to you. BOZ (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Folken, but I reject your assertion that I am not allowed to vote keep on articles. As I clearly said to you, other editors are able to listen to you or me or to ignore one or both of us. AfD is about discussion. It is not a voting system, so other editors are quite free to totally ignore any keep I submit on any article or any discussion I or other editors make for or against the AfD. In the three AfDs I've interacted with you on, you seem to act as if you are authorised to judge how other editors should act and you seem to think you are entitled to tell other editors that they are not allowed to advance certain arguments for keeping an article. If my argument for keeping that article really is irrelevant, and I don't believe it is, my only 'crime' is to waste my own time. I don't need to be threatened with action, told to stop voting keep or accused of doing anything.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The long term goal for Wikipedia is to become better than Wikipedia was in the past. I see no reason for aggressive instant decisions on things that you can infer a possible notability on. If you can infer a possible notability on a subject, the best option is to reject an AfD and to notify any interested parties about the lack of good sources. Actually the best option is to try to improve the article yourself, and the second best option is to look for interested editors and ask them for help locating sources.

You do confirm that locating secondary sources are important, so I don't understand why you are so adamant that you should bypass a group of people that could assist with this and why you would want to try to go straight for the most drastic option (deletion). You say that going via WP:D&D would be a waste of time, but I see no issue with this. The world is not about to end in six months if we don't cull 50 percent of WP articles, and, so long as an article is not obviously spam, it does not matter if a poor article hangs around for a while, to give editors an opportunity to fix problems. Deletion of possibly good articles goes against the principle of improving Wikipedia, because once an article is gone, editors need to go back to square one to get the subject back up. Wikipedia is not a job and some articles advance slower than others. But when you do have a Wikiproject to focus editors on a subject (and that can be any subject) it means that there is hope for articles to be improved on some sort of timescale. That timescale is dependent on the number of editors that are assisting and the number of articles that need attention.

Tagging a page as 'lacking sources' is enough to alert the reader that the article is less reliable than a good article or a featured article. I think that tagging articles and notifying previous editors and appropriate Wikiprojects of problems is an excellent way to encourage improvement in articles you can't fix yourself.

The reason I think that WP:ILIKEIT is not something you can label me with is that you made this bad faith assertion against me after one interaction in one AfD. I do not universally like all D&D articles and were a Wikipedia article to come up about something like the 'grapple mechanic' I would almost certainly not be suggesting a keep, as it has no connection to culture outside gaming culture. But where something in D&D does tie into culture, that is a totally different situation and it will make it more likely that the subject is notable.

The cultural link is relevant, as it does help indicate that certain parts of life are culturally significant. Take for example elves. These are legendary creatures that have been made popular by D&D, Lord of the Rings and other fantasy fiction. In some ways the fantasy versions of these creatures is more notable (at this moment in time) than the mythological creatures they are based on. Anyone interested in elves is going to want to look up elves in an encyclopedia, and it is Wikipedia's 'job' to educate people about elves in culture, as well as legend. The same applies for many other fictional creatures from mythology and culture. It also applies to some of the other elements from RPGs, such as psionic powers, which also exist in pseudo-science.

Merger might be an option for some of this. I've never advanced an opinion that anyone should be banned from proposing a merger. But it is up to me - not you - to decide if I should call for something to be merged or kept in an AfD discussion.

If you really think that merger would help improve Wikipedia, I think that the option of merger is something you should discuss with Wikiproject:D&D. They obviously have a number of editors that are working on similar articles and if you think that a 'monster in tabletop gaming' model might be more suitable for the reader it pretty much is your civic duty, as someone who clearly cares about Wikipedia, to go to them and bring your ideas to their table. They may or may not agree with you, but if they do agree with you, it is possible that you could get them to help you improve a larger number of articles, in less time.

However, I think you need to consider your words and the way you talk to other editors. I've never spoken to you on other article talk pages (to the best of my recollection) and yet you came across to me as pretty aggressive from your first comment. You also seem to be pretty aggressive towards other editors that have voted keep. And you even threatened someone who notified a couple of people that formerly voted keep on articles. (I find this odd considering the fact that you also seem to have notified someone who previously voted delete in an AfD.) I think you should go back and re-read your words and consider how they may offend other editors. I think, specifically, that you should refrain from telling other people what they think.

As I said, I'm not interested in initiating a dispute resolution process against you, but if you are like this with other editors, I think one of them is going to do this to you sooner or later.

As for me voting keep, I will continue to do what I think is in the long-term interest of Wikipedia. If that includes voting keep on an article that is problematic, at this moment in time, so that there is a chance it can become a good article or a featured article in the future, then I will vote keep. And if the rest of the community listens to me or ignores me, I will accept that. That is how the Wikipedia process works.

But thanks for your suggestion that I advocate change in any of Wikipedia policies that are not in Wikipedia's own interest. I shall give that suggestion due consideration. If we are loosing good content because of illogical policies, then those policies should be changed. Big Mac (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! BOZ (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge proposition for Lamia (D&D)

Hello, as you took part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention a discussion on whether to merge or not that has opened on the article talk page.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up Folken. And thanks for the improvements in the (mythological) lamia article. Big Mac (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D&D monster list

If you are concerned about preserving information on D&D monsters, you may be interested in joining the discussion at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more interested in later versions of Dungeons & Dragons, but think that coverage of this edition is important to the study of D&D as a cultural phenomena. I've added my thoughts. Thanks for letting me know about this. Big Mac (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the changes we are discussing will affect all editions equally. BOZ (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (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 Christmas!

BOZ (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.

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". :)

Big Mac

That you edit as David Shepheard but sign comments as Big Mac is IMHO not helpful to collaboration on WP. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this, Bmclaughlin9? I am known elsewhere as Big Mac and my signature links over to my profile. Big Mac (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (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.

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". :)

Removing an image from an infobox

FYI,

Here is how you would remove an image from an infobox. The following is an excerpt of the current code:

{{Infobox person | name = Caitlyn Jenner | image = Bruce Jenner.jpg | caption = Jenner in March 2011 | birth_name = William Bruce Jenner | birth_date = (1949-10-28) October 28, 1949 (age 75) | birth_place = Mount Kisco, New York, U.S.

To remove the image and caption, you just have to remove the value for the image and caption parameters:

{{Infobox person | name = Caitlyn Jenner | image = | caption = | birth_name = William Bruce Jenner | birth_date = (1949-10-28) October 28, 1949 (age 75) | birth_place = Mount Kisco, New York, U.S.

Alternatively, you could delete the image and caption parameters altogether:

{{Infobox person | name = Caitlyn Jenner | birth_name = William Bruce Jenner | birth_date = (1949-10-28) October 28, 1949 (age 75) | birth_place = Mount Kisco, New York, U.S.

However, in an instance where a photo was being removed and a photo would later replace it, simply removing the value, rather than the entire parameter, would be a better solution, because it makes for less work later on. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Big Mac (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Your recent editing history at Caitlyn Jenner shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (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.

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) 18:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, David Shepheard. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (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.

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) 01:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, David Shepheard. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, David Shepheard. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, David Shepheard. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spelljammer creatures has been nominated for discussion

Category:Spelljammer creatures, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TTN (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Giff image.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Giff image.jpg. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]