User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Caption competition

If know of an interesting image and have thought of a humorous caption to go with it, let me know and maybe I will use it on my talk page next month. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected...

Protected your talk page for 48 hours to prevent some talk page trolls from hassling you for the time being. Please let me know if you would like the protection removed sooner. Cheers,¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that seems your protected till the 14th thanks to Metros. Once again, cheers...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Scratch again...edit conflicts :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Stub" vs. "Start" class

Just a brief word. I think that you want to insert D&D articles into the "stub" class if the main article page has some sort of stub tag on it, such as Abeir-Toril. Not trying to be obnoxious in my remarks, but to recommend sticking to what seems to be the conventions in doing this sort of tagging. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow you what you are saying, but I will stop assessment tagging anyway.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll try to elaborate. The Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Scale defines various classes of articles. I would suggest that if an article has a {{D&D-stub}} on the main article page (or a Forgotten Realms {{FR-stub}} template, or similar D&D related stubs), then you can use something like {{D&D|class=stub|importance=low}} on the talk page, instead of {{D&D|class=start|importance=low}}. (I have bolded the words just to point out the difference in the talk page templates.) This will categorize the article as a "Stub-Class" article or a "Start-Class" article depending upon which template you use on the talk page. See, for example, Talk:Abeir-Toril vs. Talk:Akadi and note the difference in the information in the project box on those talk pages. The first is classified as a "stub" and the second as a "start" article. However, both of those articles have a stub template at the bottom of the main article page (see the bottom of Abeir-Toril and Akadi). I'm not trying to discourage you from tagging the pages, but to tag them according to the assessment scale. hope this clarifies things a little, but please feel free to ask me more about this if it still doesn't make sense. But, please, carrying out assessment if you want to do so too. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Now I see my mistake and you are quite right. Apologies. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Saudade

I feel that a blanket template is better and less disruptive than tagging every paragraph. Mr. IP (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And I like your solution at the Gogol page and have applied it similarly at Saudade. Mr. IP (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good, I am glad it works for you too.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected Oncemore

I have instated semi-protection on both your userpage and talk page for a couple weeks. Feel free to leave a message if you want the protection adjusted in anyway.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again to you, Jéské and the rest of the anti-vandal team. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to your Edit Warring over redundant/unjustified templates

I've responded to your message on my talk page. Please be familiar even on some basic level with the topic of an article and its sources before throwing out accusations of POV Gavin. That's getting disruptive to myself and a number of other editors recently. And please note that both editors who removed the template gave justification for their actions, versus your claims that no reason was given.Shemeska (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have responded to you there as well, and I am happy to go for a WP:Third Opinion if you feel you vindicated in the action you have taken.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A question

If you don't mind me asking, why is it that you are focusing so much of your efforts on Wikipedia on a subject (Dungeons and Dragons) that by your own admission you know nothing about?

Since you admit you don't know, I'll explain why I removed the notability template for Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons). In the genre of fantasy, Elementals are very widespread, appearing in the Final Fantasy series, the Heroes of Might & Magic series, the Death Gate novel series, and probably many that I'm not aware of since my waining interest in the fantasy genre has me reading very little of it now.

Yes, I removed a few of your notability templates. I removed the one from Elementals, I removed the one from Demogorgon, and I removed the one from Lolth. In the case of articles like these, a lack of sources is just that - a lack of sources. Not an indicator of lack of notability.

I'm actually a bit concerned. I've been watching Wikiproject: Dungeons and Dragons for some time now although not attempting to participate, but I've seen that you focus exclusively on trying to force the deletion of content. Do you not like it? Because it is my humble opinion you should be focusing your attention on subject matter that you are familiar with. McJeff (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to step in here, although Gavin will probably reply as well. I'm a roleplayer and a fantasy and sci-fi fan. I can see that there should be an article on Elementals in fantasy, but that isn't what that article is. It's about them as D&D monsters, which is rather more specific. I made this point recently on the talk page of Golem (Dungeons & Dragons); there really ought to be one page on the creature in fantasy, and specific cases can be brought it. Common sense, which we are supposed to use, and guidelines defer to, would say that "Elementals (in fantasy)" and "Golems (in fantasy)" are notable topics even without coverage. The same does not apply to them as categories of monster in D&D. SamBC(talk) 18:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: I assume you were referring to Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons) rather than Elemental. SamBC(talk) 18:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You assumed correctly. I updated the link in my initial post to prevent confusion. McJeff (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PPS: Can either of you, or any passers by, think of a good place to bring up the idea of such mergers/moves in a lump, rather than trying it one-by-one per article? SamBC(talk) 18:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Either Requested moves or Proposed merges? Or perhaps the fiction noticeboard, or the WP:RPG noticeboard? Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RPG looks like a good place to start. I still think that the article is adequately notable, however, Elemental (fantasy) or something like that would be much easier to source and present more information. McJeff (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

D&D Wikiproject is currnetly trying to find a way todo away with most of the low end mosnters as it is and make them into lists. I wouldn't devote too much time changing monster related articles, as they may already be something looking into for deletion in favor of a more notable article on monsters as a whole, while the most notable ones would still have their own independant articles. Just a heads up prior to doing work you may not need to do. check the D&D wikiproject and its talk page for more information on this monster developement. shadzar-talk 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist in your unreasonable adding of templates

A lack of sources does not inherently mean a lack of notability, and when notability is easily proven, as in the case of the Tanis Half-Elven article, the notability template is unneeded. Please cease and desist in adding unconstructive templates. McJeff (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, please cease and desist in leaving cease and desist requests on my user page. If you have any one article that you specifically think needs a template, feel free to take it up with me, but only if you are prepared to cite why you do not believe the article in question is notable. McJeff (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Basically you are POV pushing. Please read WP:NOTABILITY which states that "a topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is presumed' to be notable. "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof. What this boils down to is that you should not remove the template unless you add sources to article that show the topic is notable. Your opinion is insufficient evidence of notablity.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Gavin, you may want to read this section very carefully the next time you feel like accusing someone of POV-pushing, especially the first paragraph. If you see a problem that persists, the second paragraph is also available to you, but continued accusations against other editors will only reflect badly on you until you can find a more civil way to resolve them. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am indeed going through this process.--Gavin Collins (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, please do remember that the first paragraph still very much applies to you, and will continue to apply to you regardless of the outcome of any dispute resolutions. Thank you for listening. BOZ (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have explained the position to him in detail, and he has ignored my explainations. POV pushing very much describes his activities. I don't think the removal of cleanup templates from articles with cleanup issues is constructive, it is actually self-defeating. On a personal level, it seems to me that McJeff is working his way towards getting a block for vandalism, and strong language is needed to warn him against this action. At the end of the day, I cannot control him, but I can make clear that his behaviour is unjustified, unwarranted and destructive so he knows where he stands, and why I take a strong objection to his activities. If he chose articles of marginal notability I could understand his actions, but to choose topics without non-trivial real-world content supported by reliable secondary sources is pointless.--Gavin Collins (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your concern for my standing with wikipedia, but to this date I have not had an administrator see fit to correct my editing habits, nor have I had an RfC put out on me. I am not concerned. McJeff (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering... do you feel that the civility rules do not apply to you when you are "right" about something, and someone else is "wrong"? Deal with McJeff or anyone else as you will, but if you persist in incivility, I submit that he may have just as much of a legitimate complaint against you as you may have against him. Your mileage may vary, though. I could speculate that there would be a lot less support in a dispute resolution case against McJeff removing templates, than there would in a case against you for being incivil towards other editors. BOZ (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would expect the opposite to the case. The removal of the templates are not justified; in fact removal is borderline edit-waring and vandalism. I think your own judgement may be clouded in this respect. I note the result of the deletion debate was no consensus to delete, a debate in which you you accused me of being uncivil there as well without justification. Perhaps that was because you feel that the civility rules do not apply to you when you are "right" about something, and someone else is "wrong"? Incidently, have you had any time to add sources to the article Artemis (Marvel Comics)? Perhaps you should consider adding a cleanup (notability) template to the article to encourage others if you cannot. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, before accusing McJeff of vandalism and edit-warring, you've come extremely close to breaking the 3 revision rule on the article you're in conflict with McJeff over. Your tone on the matter is also coming off as less than civil. That's not helping any sense of community on wikipedia, and you'll find that other editors will hold you in a higher respect if you're less acerbic towards others who have differing opinions or editorial styles than yourself. Please keep this in mind, because it's the source of a lot of animosity from other established editors (to say nothing of the 'channer vandals).Shemeska (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Which article is that? He says he is conflict with me over 3 articles.--Gavin Collins (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically the Elemental article. Looking at the article history, you escaped breaking the 3 revision rule by about 4 hours, and that was the 4th such revision you made to the article over a period extending back another day or so. I haven't looked at the other articles where he's disputing your tags, so I can't comment on those.Shemeska (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• While you are counting, how many times did Jeff break the 3 revision rule on that article?--Gavin Collins (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I never came close to breaking 3RR. I edited the article twice on the 12th and twice on the 13th. McJeff (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A correction of that previous statement. First, I'd like to point out that three of my four reverts were reverts of User:RobJ1981's edits. RobJ1981 has been on an extended campaign of harassing me and has never edited a D&D related article before, so perhaps those can be excused as reverting vandalism. But even were they not, they don't come close to violating the 3RR rule, which Gavin.collins insinuated I broke.

First and second reverts of Rob's harassment occured at approximately 5 pm and midnight the 11th. Gavin restored the templates on the 12th, I did not touch the article on that day. On the 13th, I reverted Gavin's changes at 5:30 pm, and an hour later reverted another piece of Rob harassment. My third edit on the 13th was actually to add a template, so don't claim that one as a revert.

Accusing people of violating policy falsely isn't very civil. McJeff (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Why did you make all these reverts? This article has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability and the notability template is highly relevant to this article. It seems to me either (a) you know nothing about the purpose of Wikipedia:cleanup templates, (b) you do not intend adding any reliable sources, and are trying to pick a fight with me and other editors or (c) you are pushing the position that your POV supercedes everyone else. Now you have removed the cleanup template, please explain what actions you are actually going to take to add reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Why did I make all those reverts? Why did you insinuate that I broke 3RR when I didn't even come close? McJeff (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's count, shall we? First edit (which isn't a revert): April 11 at 4:52. 1st revert at 16:58 on April 11. April 12: 0040. April 13: 17:30 (removed all tags), 18:26 (back to reverting just the notability tag off). So that's a total of 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. 3RR is violated with total reverts in that period. A new day doesn't qualify as a new day to edit war, it's the 24-hours from the first revert. 3 total reverts is one away from a violation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I counted right. RobJ1981 (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You counted wrong. Very wrong. Maybe your mistake was treating the revert on 4/12 at 0040 as having happened on the 13th. But there were actually 41 hours between it and the first revert on 4/13. McJeff (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

both of you--we don't interpret the 24 hours as a license. Revert warring that comes close is generally treated similarly to the literal time limit. See WP:3RR. The way to avoid problems is to go to discussion after the first revert. DGG (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Response

Click on the Kacheek emote in my signature - I've responded. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 09:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and not vandalism

Removing maintenance templates a person does not agree with is NOT vandalism, and calling it so, as you did here, is a bad idea. If you disagree with the removal, you can replace them, but calling it vandalism is very much a biting of newbies. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• It is vandalism: see Jéské Couriano/Discussions for details. Note that the edit I reverted is part of a pattern of single purpose IPs deleting cleanup tags, and there is no likelyhood that a newbie would log on and reverting an edit on the first go. This pattern is repeated during the same time frame on the article Xan Yae which is now protected from editing by new IP accounts. If you disagree with my actions and the explaination of them, I suggest that you make your concerns known at WP:ANI. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist from from any contact with me...

any with your stupid "Please cease and desist" demands of other editors. i am so tired of you. Wikipedia does not belong to you. you need to stop trying to order other editors around. you have clearly violated many policies which you claim to try to uphold, and as far as i see these "cease and desist" nonsesne is above and beyond your rights as a user to demand anything from another user. as i have said, i do not know what procedure to take on wikipedia to get rid of your nonsense. i am highly suspect that due to some editing patterns i have seen that you are likely to be a sock puppet, or use multiple accounts in the interest of attacking editors of, and D&D/RPG related articles itself. you have no understanding of the material you try to improve articles on so jenceforth are in no way working in "good faith" to clean them up. you have been attacking users and RPG related articles since October 2007. for whatever reason you think you have the right to determine what those people think or how. you are not welcomed to force your opinons on others be it in wikipedia or life in general. you are not willing to work with any of the RPG related communities on wikipedia, so i do not understand why you continue to harrass them. any further coments on my talk page will be viewed as harrasment, as well as any further "cease and desist" orders you make to any other eidtors on pages i happen to watch. and when i find out how and where i will report your innapropriate actions to the proper authorities of wikipedia, unless someone more knowledgable of the ways has already done so. it makes absolutely no sense wy anyone would want to participate in any articles they do not have any knowledge of, and are unwilling to gain any knowledge of, other than to disrupt the process of those that do have knowledge of them. and you have clearly stated in the past you have little to no knowledge of RPGs or even what they really are, and do not care to gain any. so please get off your soapbox and take it somewhere else, shadzar-talk 18:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think you are refering to my request not to remove the Plot template from the article Kender, whose content is over 90% plot summary. Please examine your own actions that precipitated my request that you cease removing the cleanup templates if you do not intend effecting cleanup yourself. If you wish to contest the Plot template, could you at least choose to do so in relation to an article that has real-world coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism at commons

Hi Gavin.collins, someone using your name caused quite a mess at commons. multichill (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... the comments are the same as those used when someone was vandalising Gavin's userpage and this user talk page. I'm not sure what should be done about this kind of harassment/defamation across multiple wikimedia wikis, but something clearly needs to be done. I'm not sure where to ask, but Gavin, I want you to know you have my support on this. SamBC(talk) 13:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Do you think the user account Gavin.collins over a t wikimedia commons could be assigned to me?--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd hope they'd be willing to make an exception and allow it to be usurped, but it'd probably be best if it was renamed and then you registered it afresh (avoiding being associated with old logs and contribs); I've no idea of the policies or procedures, though, as I do nothing at commons. SamBC(talk) 21:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk on Commons - should not be a problem - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And poking about (:)) - when you do get it done nudge me & I will sprot your user page I think! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have filed a "Usurpation" request[1] at Wikimedia Commons as you suggested. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me (not sure what the fuss is about frankly). Were I a 'crat I'd have done it! If it gets bogged down nudge me & I'll push someone :) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Generic?

Thanks. It wasn't brave at all. At first, I didn't get their point, 'cause I think first of generic drugs, i.e. non-branded. From there, it's not hard to realize a narrow POV isn't enough. Thing is, inside the RPG community, they're right, & I guess it's hard sometimes to get outside a "reflex" answer. If it's the first thing you think of, it's easy to think it's the first thing everybody thinks of. Just need to get some perspective. Trekphiler (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (BTW, hope your vandal/account problem's cleared up. Yikes.)

This is a bit like the word "hoover", which is often used as a generic term for vacuum cleaner in the UK. Hoover has become so associated with vacuum cleaners, that we even refer to other brands (such as our home grown Dyson) as hoovers. However, the use of the term Generic is more questionable, especially when the product is actually non-Generic from a licencing and branding perspective.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not really the same at all; the term generic to mean "applying to a broad range" is attensted from the 17th century, and it's in that use of the word that it was used as part of the name of a particular generic game system (that being the Generic Universal Role-Playing Systems). Plus, Generic role-playing game system isn't an article about a product, it's about a class of products, of which GURPS is one. SamBC(talk) 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would agree with if it was not for the fact that Generic role-playing game systems are a class of produsts that are not Generic from a legal standpoint, and are not Generic from a marketing/branding perspective. In my view, you can't have your cake and eat it, twice. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• WOAH! Now let me ask you this. Maybe you will asnwer it where other quesitons are ignored. Are you saying that generic is proprietary because someone holds a copyright to it? if someone were to just make a book of races to be used with ANY RPG, then would that not be generic? what are you meaning from this "legal standpoint"? Legally nothing is generic in that someone will always own it unless it is in the public domain. shadzar-talk 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• If someone were to just make a book of races to be used with ANY RPG, that would be part of a Multi-system role-playing game. If I market that book under a trade name (such as GURPS) then it is a branded, not a generic product. If I sell you a licence to use that book in your game, that part of the Multi-system role-playing is proprietary, not generic. I hope I make myself clear. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• All of this is immaterial. The only thing that matters for Wikipedia naming conventions is what the most commonly used term is. Determining whether or not that term is accurate, in legal or lay terms, is outside of the purview of Wikipedia editors. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• That is just my point, its not commonly used, its a neologism. The correct and more commonly understood term for these gaming systems is Multi-genre role-playing game. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's actually a completely different kind of RPG, in which muptiple genres exist in one game. Like TORG, for example. TORG is not generic. It is set in the TORG universe (which encompasses multiple genres). Compare this with GURPS, a generic RPG system, which is not set in any universe. It is merely a set of rules designed to work in whatever setting the players pick. -22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Generic" is, in fact, the term used in the industry. I don't know if the word "generic" has a legal meaning, but if it does then it's certainly in a restricted mileu. Otherwise Steve Jackson Games would've been sued into oblivion for misleading marketing. But the most important point is that generic is the term used in the industry. SamBC(talk) 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• To expand on SamBC's reasonable explanation, using a term other than what is used in the industry is nothing more than original research. We're not here to coin new terms to describe subjects of articles. Rray (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Original research? And what is your viewpoint based on, precisely? --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If you're coining a new term to describe something that already has a term used to describe it, that's original research. The Wikipedia is here to present information that's summarized from other sources. We're not here to create neologisms because you disagree with what the rest of the world calls something.
  • You need to provide actual sources demonstrating that the word "generic" isn't what's commonly used to describe this type of game. You admittedly have little knowledge of the subject matter, but multiple other reasonable, good-faith editors do, and they've all explained what terminology is commonly used here. Your assertion that this isn't the commonly used phrasing in this context is erroneous. Rray (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have done just that at Talk:Generic role-playing game system. It appears that the term "Generic role-playing game" has a wider meaning outide the RPG project. What are your sources? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Since you asked, yes, all parties involved in a request for mediation have whatever input they need on what content issues are involved. I tried to comment on the talk page, but it would have messed up the numbering system. :) I believe that mediators volunteer to take a case, rather than be assigned, so there is no way to control who you get, but I'm sure you can always note if you think someone won't be an impartial judge. BOZ (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation filed

I have no idea if a bot will tell you, so I might as well post here.  :) Just remember that you must sign the request within 7 days or the case will be rejected. You may add any additional content-related issues that you also feel need mediation in the following section: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender#Additional issues to be mediated. BOZ (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Assumptions of bad faith and ultimatums

Please consider your tone in discussions. I have noted an increasingly hostile tenor in your participation. Lately, you have made repeated ultimatums which is considered bad form in consensus making. You have also, in a show of bad faith, accused others of suspect motives as you did in this thread. You make note that the editor in question had not made any edits to the article prior to removing the clean up tags. However, it should be noted that you had not made any edits to the article (and many others) prior to installing the clean up tags. I think your effort to improve the encyclopedia is commendable and I support the tags that were on that particular page, but your attitude has inhibited the collegial environment that is of paramount importance in working on the encyclopedia as a team. Ursasapien (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am sorry, Ursasapien, but I cannot discuss this matter with you in a sober fashion. We have already had a disagreement about whether your removal of cleanup templates is appropriate or not on your talk page. I must decline to continue that discussion here using the article Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons) as a proxy for our disagreements.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless of your ability to discuss this matter, I hope that you will put some thought in to what I said. It is not so much what you are doing but how you are doing it. Becoming antagonistic and overly emotional does not help the situation. Perhaps you should take the fact that you cannot discuss this matter with me in a calm and sober fashion as a sign that you need to step away from the keyboard for a bit and gain some serenity. Wikipedia will still be here when you get back and perhaps you will be better able to work out these disagreements in a rational and peaceful manner. Ursasapien (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please post any further discussion you wish to have regarding your interpretation of original research or your efforts to paste templates on every D&D page here, at your talk page. Thank you, Ursasapien (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page per my explicit instructions

I have quoted Wikipedia guidelines in support of placing the cleanup templates. What guideline says you should remove a cleanup template when no cleanup has been effected? --Gavin Collins (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You are now playing dense to prove a point. I asked that you continue this conversation on your talkpage. I have it watched. I will only reply to comments on your talkpage or the article's talkpage and I will summarily delete any further comments from you on this page. I hope you find a way to constructively add to the project. Cheers, Ursasapien (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry Ursasapien, if you are not will to discuss matters in a civil fashion, lets not disuss these matters, and assume we will have to agree to disagree. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As any editor can clearly see, I have attempted to engage you in discussion. You have great potential, but your insistence that you are right (even in the face of a host of editors that disagree with you) gets in the way of rational discussion. We can agree to disagree, but I would prefer to talk it out. I see your interpretation of original research as singularly peculiar to yourself and I am not alone in this contention. I have agreed that the articles in question do not have proper inline citations, but that in and of itself does not signify original research. The articles have references that demonstrate that the characters exist. You are not able to demonstrate a particular passage or section that does not appear in the references. Please consider your part in this. Ursasapien (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT

I tried to get them to use a draft page a little while ago. It's.. a bit crazy over at WP:FICT right now. I wouldn't worry too much about it, though, and don't let Percy get to you. -- Ned Scott 10:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not bothered and in a way a bit of venting is quite healthy.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I promise to go reread WP:CIV and take it to heart, if you promise to do the same with WP:TEND --erachima talk 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

While you are at it, could you remove or strike out your comment, this would be very much appreciated :) --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nofootnotes

Hi. I am not sure if I understand that you mean. What I think I am doing is moving {{Nofootnotes}} at the bottom of the article, in a place it should be. Can you be more specific? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the article Fyrefly, where is now a space in the Article Issues cleanup template. If you have a look at the article now, you might see that the template no longer functions properly. Maybe only I can see this, in which case, appologies. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am using Firefox and looks ok. I just opened with IE7 and look fine as well. I hope nothing is wrong because I think I did the right job. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nofootnotes is an unnecessary cleanup tag on such a short article to begin with. --erachima talk 20:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I removed some during this session. Please be bold. I am working the while day for this fix. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• It must be a fault in my browser, unless spaces in the template cause it to fail such as

| notability

as opposed to

|notability

In anycase, it seems to be fixed now.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice picture you've got up top

and you must know I took it. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 13:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• LOL, I could not say that for sure. Welcome back, and remember to keep your head down (beneath axe level).--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  There is fairly widespread agreement beyond my say-so that commons:User:Davenbelle was me. fyi; see the tree on the left? About 20 seconds before this pic was snapped, the whole framework that they're carrying that on crashed into it and took out a 10cm chunk of bark. Terima kasih. Note also, they take down the power lines that cross the street for the day and this puts a crimp in some local businesses such as internet cafes. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• About your user page: plz can wez have more lolcatz?--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist from adding the Context template without justification

Please stop adding the Context templates from articles, such as Outer Plane, whose lead section provides adequate context about the literary origins of this fictional location. There is no reasonable justification for inclusion of the cleanup template which was put there by someone who has a long standing history of abusing and misusing. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be adding inaccurate templates disruptively, as evidenced by the fact that WP:LEAD indicates that the intro is well written. Unless you are going to familiarize yourself with both the subject of the article and the article itself, I would be grateful if you would refrain from carelessly adding templates, as while templates serve an important purpose in article cleanup, unnecessary and inaccurate templates are counter-productive and interfere with other editors ability to read the article in question. McJeff (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would have to disagree with you that the lead is well written. For instance, it does not explain that the Outer Plane is a fictional location, who created that location and why. Form a real-world perspective, the lead section is completely misleading, because it fails to address the context its origin or development. From a fictional perspective, it does not explain what role or purpose this fictional location plays, either within the Dungeons & Dragons game, or whether it plays an role within a story generated by the game. I note that you have never edited this article until now, so your request that I should refrain from carelessly adding templates can just as easily be applied to yourself in terms of removing the template. Since the Context templates is necessary and accurate, I believe that you are oblidged to replace it, since we are both agreed that cleanup templates serve an important purpose in the cleanup process. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd also disagree that the lead is well written, but I'd also agree that there is sufficient context; the elements you describe, Gavin, are described in WP:LEAD in a list that includes context as another element. It's clearly fiction from the text saying things like "from Dungeons & Dragons" (paraphrase), and the context allows those not familiar with it to understand it; I'm not familiar with it, and it seems clear to me. To show that something is fictional, it is not necessary to use the adjective "fictional". SamBC(talk) 16:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

dropping by, i actually agree with Gavin on this. There are any number of articles like this where i have had to go pretty far in in order to find out the context. Further, it makes sense in searching of navigating that the title give some idea of what the article is about.I think everything with a generic sounding name that is peculiar to a particular fiction should say what it is . Otherwise, the D&D folk will recognize this, but nobody else will. DGG (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

thread on ANI about you

Just to let you know as no one has taken the time to do so, there is a thread about you on ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive413#Users_taking_advantage_of_Mediation_restrictions. Merkin's mum 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mum! Although I am now informed, I had better not participate in the discussion, otherwise there is the potential for the thread to overshaddow the mediation process at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender, but it is kind of you to keep me informed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs, I just thought I would let you know, and best wishes with your editing, you have more persistence than me lol:) Merkin's mum 13:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Two Things to Address Please

When I mentioned the other day that you had been avoiding several issues and questions posed to you on a number of occasions, you said that you would address them if directly asked on your talk page. So I have two issues for you to comment on, and openly and fully answering will go a long way towards letting other editors maintain good faith in your actions and motivations in editing. First, over on the talk page for Githyanki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Githyanki#RfC:_Reliable_sources_.26_FAQs you opened up an RfC based on the statement that "Shemeska claims that a FAQ qualifies as a reliable secondary source such that it provides evidence of notability". I never made that claim at any point, and while this was pointed out on the talk page by myself and others as demonstrably false, you never retracted that false claim or the RfC it was based upon, nor did you apologize for putting words in my mouth that I never said. When I'd removed a template of yours I added a trio of sources, none of which were an FAQ (there's a link to an FAQ in the footnotes, but it was there well in advance of my edits).

Secondly, and you've been asked this question by multiple editors, including on this talk page before, but hopefully you'll be candid this time since you said you'd address all of my concerns. Many editors working on the Wikiproject D&D (and other RPG related subjects) have questioned why you have chosen to specifically target RPG related topics rather than any other topic, especially when you have admitted to having little to no knowledge of said topics, and have thus far demonstrated little effort to improve that. It has certainly stretched many editors' willingness or ability to assume good faith in your placement of tags, which comprises the substance of your edits as I'm familiar with them. So why have you chosen this spread of subjects for so much of your time spent on Wikipedia when you don't have any connection to nor knowledge of them, especially when you would seem to have much more knowledge of accounting for instance, and would be able to make many improvements on that topic with your time on wikipedia (and certainly be the subject of less drama)? Given that focus and lack of background, it certainly could give the appearance of some manner of POV pushing or bias against the topic on your part (and it's something I've seen suggested on a few RPG and publisher forums online). I'd like to believe that you've chosen the subject at random and honestly want to improve things, but given what I've mentioned, without some explanation on your part, it's easy to have that assumption stray - especially in light of the editorial conflicts you've had with many editors, and the tone you've taken towards the same which led to the earlier RfC and the current RfM.

Please take your time, read over this and when you've got a moment I would appreciate a reply. Thanks man.Shemeska (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Response Thank you for taking time out to discuss these matters which I will split into the two sub-topics.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Githyanki

This is the way I see developments from my perspective.

1. The article Githyanki is a member of the Category:Dungeons & Dragons extraplanar creatures which I have reviewed for cleanup issues during March 2008. The article had not been edited for just over 3-months when I placed cleanup templates (notability, in universe, no footnotes and context) on the article so that readers and other editors would be alterted to the issues which I had identified. In retrospect, one of the templates was technically incorrect; as there is one footnote, the no footnotes template does not strictly apply, although the article would be much improved by additional footnotes. This point is important, and I will come back to this later.
2. In April 2008, the notability template was removed by you on the grounds that you had "With the added 3rd party references, the notability tag is getting nuked from orbit because it's the only way to be sure. ;)". Although you "Added two 2nd party references, and a link to an interview with Charles Stross", there were no footnotes to link this material to the article itself, and also the references you had added are not classed as reliable sources, as they cited the character's creator, Charles Stross, which makes him a related party, like the publishers, Wizards of the Coast. From my perspective, the removal of the notability template, although maybe well intentioned, but was not justified.
3. Your provocative comments "If there's still a dispute over that tag (for whatever ungodly reason) take it up here before trying to raise it from the dead like a moldy cat in Pet Cemetary" (which could only have been directed at me) on the talk page[2] suggested that whether or not the removal of the notability cleanup template was justified, you would oppose its restoration. Rather than enter into an edit war with you, I initiated the RFC[3]. As there was no other source cited in the article which had footnotes to support its content other than a FAQ[4], I presumed you were basing your claim for notability on the strength of this citation, otherwise your claims would not be evidenced by any sources at all. By removing the template, you were implicitly claiming that FAQ qualifies as a reliable secondary source such that it provides evidence of notability.
4. As regards your assertion that I should apologize for putting words in your mouth, I view this as a second provocation, and it would be better not be drawn into debate about personal disagreements, when in fact the issue of concern is the article's content. From my perspective, these comments are as much an insult as they are a request for an appology.
5. In order to restore confidence in each other, I feel that we have to go back in time. Firstly there has to acknowledgement from you that the cleanup template may be justified in the first place. I am not asking you to resotre the template, nor to agree that it should be there at all. What I am asking is that there you acknowledge that the template was put there in good faith, even if you disagree with it.
6. I would like this comment[5] struck out or removed. I acknowledge your dissatisfaction with the templates, but the comment only serves to annoy me and does not put you in a good light. If you had indicated to me that you would like the template removed, I am sure we could have come to a civilised accomodation and probably still can. The fact that you chose to remove the notability template, instead of the no footnotes template, suggest to me that, although dissatisfied, you are focused on removing the templates, rather than improving the content of the article.
7. I am happy to revise the wording of the RFC, if you feel words are being put into your mouth. However, I would like your accusations of falsehood be removed or struck out.

In closing, this is just my perspective, and in no way do I claim this to be "the truth" or "an unbiased" viewpoint that is better than anyone elses. If I have over-reacted to any of these events, I appologise now. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Role-playing game

I can't answer all of your points, as I acknowledge not being an expert. However, having read hundreds of articles over the last 6-months on Role-Playing Games and the fictional elements represented within them, I put that lack of expertise down to the poor quality of the articles, rather than ignorance. It seems strange that I have read so much about them, but learnt so little, which I attribute to these articles being of such poor quality compared with other subjects on Wikipedia. I feel almost duty bound to add templates for cleanup to make other editors aware that this important genre needs the attention of editors who can add sourced content, rather than copy and paste stuff from internet fansites without questioning its origins, style or meaning. Contrary to what you might think, I am very partial to games, particularly a genre known as RTS. Futhermore, I am interested in games on an intellectual level, and acknowledge that most computer based games are based on the rule systems designed to represent role-playing strategies that were developed for Role-Playing Games. I have chosen this RPG because I am genuinely interested in them, and would like to see the articles improved over time.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor understanding of Role-Playing Games

Strange.... You state you know little about RPGs, and yet you attribute this fact to the articles being poor instead of your understanding being poor. As you are clearly not a role-player, then there is nothing to "bind you to duty", nor any reason to do what you are doing. Secondly, as a self confessed neophyte, who are you to judge the quality of the articles? I dont understand much about quantum physics but I am not about to label those articles as being poor in quality simply because my understanding is lacking. It seems a little bit self deprocating to believe that any lack of my ability to understand must indeed mean a lack on their part... perhaps role playing games are just beyond your comprehension, or not of interest enough to you to see and understand the value of those articles? Would it not be more likely that you are in error rather than an entire community having spent years on those articles being poor in writing? A simple case of Occums razor I think. Enigmatical (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not behoove you to blame the articles (poorly-writ as they may be), Gavin, any more than I can blame a knife for robbing someone at knifepoint. And not all RPG articles are poor quality; indeed, Dungeons & Dragons is a featured article, and you have someone who plays it on your page right now, writing all this down. The only reason I stay away from creature articles is because I use custom material almost exclusively and thus know less about them and campaign settings than one would expect. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for refactoring your comments out of the above (one to one) discussion with Shemeska. I am not blaming anyone for the poor quality of role-playing games as everyone (including "experts" on the subject) is finding it difficult to find reliable secondary sources in these articles that would help resolve content issues I am highlighting. There are many hundreds of articles that fail basic Wikipedia guidelines, but there is no easy solution to making these article compliant without effecting large scale mergers which Boz has started. If you have a practical suggestion as to how the content issues can be resolved, I am all ears. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, you might want to rephrase some of that, because unintentionally or not, that "experts" line comes off as a veiled slap in the face to some editors. It sounds condescending, which isn't ideal at all if you're hoping for a good faith understanding on issues from those same editors you've butted heads with repeatedly.Shemeska (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Content issues with articles on fiction

couldn't agree with you more about the source of the problem, and I;'d extend it to most of the articles on other sorts of fiction as well. What we need in plot summaries is quality or writing and selection of appropriate amount of detail. DGG (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for refactoring your comments out of the above (one to one) discussion with Shemeska. I did not know that topics other than Dungeons & Dragons articles were having such problems. Perhaps more of your input is required at WP:FICT to get this proposed guideline out of draft and into a final version. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't seethe point until there is some agreement on the basics of what Wikipedia is trying to do, or some willingness to find a middle ground about it. It's not a matter of wording. I worked there for the first one-tenth of the argument -- and then gave up on it. If a substantial number think the coverage should be minimal and a similar number think exactly the opposite, then there is not likely to be hope of agreement except on a compromise, and so far both sides have refused to do that and intend to fight until they win. They will end by both getting exhausted and not deciding on anything or else one side getting temporarily exhausted resulting in a policy that few will actually follow. DGG (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re WT:NOT

Thanks for your comment, Gavin.

I must admit that, while I've watched (and thoroughly enjoyed) Pulp Fiction four or so times, I still don't have a clue what it's actually about! I haven't actually checked, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if ten or more completely different plot summaries existed in reliable sources, and I think it would be entirely proper for WP to discuss these different points of view (while avoiding OR, of course). Similarly, if RS agree on one or more aspects of the plot, then it would seem to be a "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" (per WP:ASF), and we can assert it as such. Personally, I'd favour insisting on secondary sources for all plot summaries, but I'm not sure whether we'd get consensus for that. It might be worth proposing a "strongly encouraged" type of recommendation, though... Jakew (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you that plot summaries should fall wholly under WP:RS, and this would largely solve the problem of how to summarise for non-linear plots like Pulp Fiction (film). I don't know why it is not done in practise - heaven knows there are enough film guides on library shelves, so adding sourced content should be relatively easy.
However, this very much goes against the grain at WT:NOT, where there are a many editors who are trying to get rid of WP:NOT#PLOT althogether. Although mainstream movies are a media which is relatively well covered by secondary sources such as film guides, other creative works, such as comics have not. It is very difficult to source an article about a comic from secondary sources, so most to them are comprised of poorly source content and plot summary. As a consequence, a lot of comic articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT by a mile, and getting rid of this policy has become an obsession for some editors. However, I see this an example of the tail trying to wag the dog; I don't think policy or guidelines should be changed to accomodate a genre of fiction in which undue weight is being put on elements of fiction with unproven notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure that I'd agree that there are "many editors" who wish to get rid of PLOT. I've been mildly involved in the discussions for the past week or two, and have been observing for some time previously, and I think that the overall consensus is that PLOT, in some form or other, should stay. There may be some disagreement over the precise wording (I personally favour a stronger wording than the current version), but I suspect that what we have now is a good compromise between different views, and I'd be surprised if it changes drastically. Maybe this is one of WP's "growing pains" that we have to endure as we "grow up" and take our core policies more seriously.

I think there's little difference between this situation and an editor trying to get rid of WP:NPOV because it prevents them from adding material. Ultimately, we have to ask: why is it so important to add this material that in order to accomodate it we have to discard half of our policies and guidelines? Could it be that the editors insisting on it simply haven't grasped what WP is all about? We'll see. Jakew (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that it is important not to discard existing policies and guidelines, and I think you should continue to make your opinion known at WT:NOT. I have recently started a thread proposing that plot summary be better sourced in line with WP:V, and I hope in will bring out the close relationship between WP:NOT#PLOT and the rest of WP policies and guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, it has been repeatedly held that RS for V for plot is the primary source itself, that is, the fiction--are you trying to overset that, or just to improve the accuracy of our quotation of the location. Remember that V simply means verifiable, capable of being verified. If something can be checked by viewing a movie, its verifiable. DGG (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Curious about your intent

I noticed that you placed a Notability template a while ago on an article that had quoted at least 15-20 third party external sources on the subject. Thankfully someone has since removed it but why you put it there in the first place is an astounding mystery to me. I have read through your discussion page and noted that you have been doing this quite alot in the passed. I have to ask... what on earth posessed you to put it on a page that specifically had noteworthy sources already stated? I dont mean to seem rude, but it just seems purposefully destructive and I would rather understand your reasoning behind it than make a simple assumption based on how it appears.

Enigmatical (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article does not cite any reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability, hence the cleanup tag. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was going to notify members of WikiProject: Forgotten Realms today of the MfD, but then I noticed you beat me to it. :) BOZ (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Joke

Now, who are you picking on more; kender, Ellen, or Canadians, or is it just about even?  ;) BOZ (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I like all three, but the illustration "invited" me to make a joke[6] while we are still in the sandbox phase. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:Unable to Move

Jéské Couriano had added +sysop move protection on top of the previous protection instated by myself or someone else. You should be able to move it now.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10