User talk:Webwarlock/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pilotbob must be bored on Christmas vacation

Rod of Seven Parts is up for AFD again! BOZ (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, saw that. Working on it now. Web Warlock (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rod of Seven Parts

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rod of Seven Parts, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod of Seven Parts (2nd nomination). Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing RPG notability/AfD situation

Hi, Webwarlock. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind reading my take on this situation around here of late, with all the AfD stuff going on in the RPG sector. My user page article is here. Thanks in advance. Compsword01 (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's something where your specialty would be much appreciated: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability#Reliable Secondary Sources BOZ (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Accursed.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Accursed.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MyrmidonWitchCraft.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MyrmidonWitchCraft.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on the Orcus article

Very nice updates! Hobit (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! and also thank you for all your work today as well! I saw your name on a bunch of RPG articles as well. Web Warlock (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Independent sources

Hi, I have a suggestion. As you go through White Dwarf and other sources looking for D&D product reviews and such, if you see any criticism of the product, maybe you would want to make note of that to make the source look more impartial? It would add weight to the argument that WD is an independent source. Say if they rate a module as "exciting action adventure but the puzzles are a bit complex" or "well-put together but the art doesn't match the text" or stuff like that. I don't know, just an idea. :) BOZ (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks! Web Warlock (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice Work on Greyhawk and D&D Refs

Hey, just wanted to glowingly praise you for all the work you've been doing with references on Greyhawk and D&D. I'm sure you've been doing lots of good work on others those are the ones I've been tracking. Your example inspired me to sit down and work on the refs and body of the Lendore Isles article. Not sure why I picked that one but I'm fairly please with how it came out. Now if I can just track down the secondary sources I've found references to so I can address notability. Thanks again. -- Smcmillan (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually it is has been kind of fun to go through all those old White Dwarfs and rereading those early articles. I am working my way through to WD #100. Web Warlock (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you found a good index for White Dwarf that includes reviews? I found one online but it only seemed to reference gaming articles. I also noticed that you had used Different Worlds magazine in one article and I found an index for it that includes reviews. I'm going to hit OCLC today and see if I can find any libraries that might carry back issues or microfilm so I can request photocopies. The staff over at interlibrary loan are going to be hate me soon. :) Another thing I just thought of, especially in relation to articles on locations in Greyhawk, and maybe someone else has used this already, but a number of Greyhawk locations appear in Andre Norton's Quag Keep (and I'm assuming Return to Quag Keep). Those could make good secondary sources since they were published independently of TSR/WotC. They're not technically the same version of Greyhawk as that published as a gaming resource but they can be put in context in the articles and would meet (or at least give us a leg up) in the notability department. -- Smcmillan (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No I haven't, I am going through these magazines one at a time, page by page. For the others I have used, they are just what I still have laying around in my basement. I'll check the Quag Keep stuff out as well, I read something about that in one of the WD this morning. Thanks! Web Warlock (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

In regards to your recent edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:D%26D_Books such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:D%26D_Books&oldid=183195552 . I think it is good to leave in the red linked items as they are part of the IRL game, just not written about on wikipedia (yet). My idea would be to revert your edits but since I havent played the game recently, I dont know it they (the red linked articles) actually really exist in real life, or are indeed really important to the game. I think that just because the articles for wikipedia havent been written, that part of reality for those interested shouldnt be erased. Care to discuss ?

Thanks rkmlai (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I went ahead and removed them since some of those links were deleted pages. Generally it is not accepted to a large number of red-linked pages, even if the products do exsist in real life (I have many of them) if there is nothing to link too then why link to it? Also there is the general clean-up point of view. I work on a lot of these aricles, so if they do get created I can add the link back right away. Thanks for taking the time to stop by and let me know. Web Warlock (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"if there is nothing to link too then why link to it?" so I think I am of an "inclusionist" point of view and think (as stated above) that just because wikipedia dosnt have an article written yet, that the item in question does exist in real life and there for shouldnt be "deleted" from an encyclopedic article template. I further think that a general cleanup can, and really should, include red links to encompase the IRL reality. However I am not at all attached to you changing your position or reverting the edits you have made. I did feel that to remain silent when I had an opinion would be in error on my part. Thank you for rapidly responding, listening / reading.

BTW what is your views on "Wikipedians against notability" ? Would you be willing to explain ? I think I think similarly (to the headline at least) but I am not sure.

Thanks rkmlai (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I see my self as an inclusionist as well, but not a universal inclusionist; that is not everything needs to be here, but generally more than most. I am also in favor of notability, but there is a lot of grey area and I am certainly not one to delete aricles because of lack of notability. I am an academic by training and nature, so yeah if I say something I want to be able to back it up. Web Warlock (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Microgames

Can I ask you a favor while you're perusing your old copies of White Dwarf and Dragon? If you run across any reviews of microgames (and/or articles in general about them or the companies that have made them like Metagoming Concepts, Steve Jackson Games, and so forth), could you please drop me a line on my talk page about those articles (like a quick mention of the magazine/issue that contains such an article)? I'm trying to beef up the Microgame article a little, in particular to add some sources there. As most of the microgames were printed before the internet explosion, it's difficult to find online sources about them that aren't considered "self-published" (i.e. fan pages, etc.) Thanks in advance! (And very nice work on the sourcing that you have been doing.) --Craw-daddy | T | 22:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider it done and a pleasure to do so!!! I'll even go back anf look a bit. I am sure I saw something from GDW around issue 45. Something Steve Jackson had done. I'll let you know. I usually do my searching in the morning before I go to work. Web Warlock (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Drizzt_Do'Urden#Removal_of_in_universe_tag

I'd appreciate if you could weigh in with your opinion here. You've obviously dealt with Gavin before and have an interest in these types of articles I think. Thanks. Rray (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. When I can get a chance! Thanks for letting me know. Web Warlock (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Death knight

Just in case no one else has said it, thanks for all your work on this article. We get busy sometimes doing our own stuff and forget to give kudos where kudos is due, but I didn't want to forget this time. You've put a lot of work into this one. Rray (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! And same to you on Drizzt! Any help you can give I'd appreciate. I have a few more but I think the article needs a bit of wordsmithing. Web Warlock (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a go. I hope I improved the phrasing of the article a bit. It might even need more polishing. Rray (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded - your efforts in staving off deletionists from some of our most important articles have been appreciated indeed! BOZ (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you both! I'll see what else I can do today. Web Warlock (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edits

I would be grateful if you would refrain from reverting my edit on the article Death knight such as [1], an edit which was made in good faith and not without reason (this is explained on the talk page). I know that you resent my involvement in this article, but this does not entitle you to blank out what I have written. Please restore the Dubious template, which whether you agree with or not, was placed their with reasonable cause. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I will revert any edit I see fit. Web Warlock (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not a reasonale explaination for your actions in my view, I whilst I respect your right to do so and will not revert your edits, I must express my disappointment. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the dubious statement[2].--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I could not fix it despite a couple of days of research. Web Warlock (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Graduation

Hi,#1 I wanted to say thank you for all of your work here. #2 As a faculty member who spent way too long on his dissertation (11 years though I was working for 5 of them) I'd hope that this isn't a displacement activity from the things you _should_ be doing. I see that a lot at work and want to encourage you to stay focused on getting stuff done. Sorry if this is out-of-line, but having done similar things from 1996-2000, I thought I'd mention it. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey! #1 and thank you for your work as well! #2 No worries. I have slow down here now anyway since a new term is starting. I was supposed to be done 10 years ago, but I also went to work and got married and had kids...you know the story. ;) I have really been enjoying myself going through all the old stuff again. Web Warlock (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I've got students working on lab3 in one class, and project 2 and homework 2 in another, so we've been going for a while. I forget there are sane schools that don't start in the first week of January. Best of luck! Hobit (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the Weasel template without justification

With regard to the article Beholder which is peppered with weasel statements of opinion masquerading as facts, I am not sure that your removal of the template can be justified. Classic weasel statements from this article include the following:

1. "A Beholder is an aberration comprising a floating spheroid body with a large fanged mouth and single eye on the front and many flexible eyestalks on the top; it was once described as "a big eye with a bunch of little eyes that eats adventurers for breakfast."
2. "The ultimate lackey caste of beholder society, from the Spelljammer campaign setting, these lack eyes and their limb configuration relegate them to roles of menial labor and cannon fodder."
3. Each beholder nation believes itself to be the true beholder race and sees other beholders as ugly copies that must be destroyed."

Could I ask you what promted you to remove the template? Perhaps we should reconsider replacing it? --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Prompted? It didn't belong there. Restore? No. I do not have to justify my actions to you. Web Warlock (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

TWERPS

I don't suppose that you came across any items about TWERPS when you were making your White Dwarf run? I'm sure that this little game was written about in several places when it was about. I never tried it out, but always wanted to read more of its little rulebooks to see if it really was funny or not. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing yet. I got up to #50 which was still early even for GURPS. But I'll make sure it is on my mental list! Web Warlock (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

One more source for reviews

Unfortunately, I don't have any copies of White Wolf Magazine (and didn't even remember that there was such a thing). Trying to search around online earlier, I stumbled across this index which is supposed to list reviews that appeared in this magazine at this link [3]. I wouldn't suggest "quoting" anything from this list without first locating a real (or virtual, i.e. online) copy of some issue of interest, but I thought that I would share this with you in case you have a much better local (or university) library than I do here. Alas, mine don't seem to have these, but I would have been more surprised if they had.  :-P I shall have to see if I can locate these magazines somewhere (without shelling out big money to do so), or if I can convince my university library to get them through their inter-library loan from some remote place that would have them). --Craw-daddy | T | 00:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll start checking these out as well. Web Warlock (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have ordered 31 back issues of Different Worlds magazines. (It was a general RPG magazine in the 1980's that covered the whole industry.) If you're having trouble finding sources for something, please drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll see what comes up in my back issues of Different Worlds. Rray (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks! Web Warlock (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Axe

I know you're pretty busy already, but here's yet another deletion that you might want to weigh in on: Axe of the Dwarvish Lords. BOZ (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Saw that. Thanks for the heads up! Gotta figure out where I stand on this one. Web Warlock (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been almost completely rewritten - take another look! The AFD is roughly split... Slaad was kept thanks in part to your helpful additions, by the way. :) BOZ (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have a look now. Web Warlock (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I figured you weren't talking about me.  :) I may have joked around, but what else can you do when people are trying to get under your skin? Fighting back without thinking will only get you into trouble. BOZ (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RPG Secondary Source Reliability

Hey, I'm outlining a strategy to deal with the question of reliability in a number of rpg articles where rpg news websites are being used as secondary sources by editors and deletionists are claiming they are fansites. I've outlined it at user talk: hobit#Merging Red Hand of Doom and Reliability issue. If you wouldn't mind, please take a look and see if you think I'm going in the right direction. If you'd like to contribute in any other way I'd be happy to have you on board, although I know you're very busy with other matters. Thanks. --Smcmillan (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do!!! Web Warlock (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist from removing the Cleanup templates without reasonable justification

Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template, in universe template as well as other cleanup templates from Tiamat (Dungeons & Dragons), an article which does not have any reliable secondary sources and is primarily comprised of plot summary that fails WP:WAF. There is no reasonable justification for removing these templates which were put there by me and restored by another editor. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as the explanations for removing the template are not supported by a rational interpretation of the notability guideline WP:FICT which applies to this topic. I have given reasons on the article's talk page as to why the article is in universe. I request that you cease removing the templates that I and other editors have placed there, and to restore them until such time as these concerns are addressed. I feel that as an academic, with a clear grasp of these issues, you would not wish to be seen to be POV pushing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No. You will stop adding templates onto pages you obviously have no understanding of. Web Warlock (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By reverting my edits without justifiable cause, you understand that this is effectivly an act of Censorship. As a potential PhD., you must understand the importance of these issues; if everyone is allowed to push their POV, we would probably revert to the dark ages. I find you behaviour in conflict with your academic backround; please reconsider your actions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No. By reverting your edits I am reverting acts of vandalism by an editor with an agenda. I find your behavior to be that of one confronted with a topic that you do not like and are attempting by your very limited means to supress it. You are the one attempting to censor information, I have only added to this body of knowledge thus keeping in spirit academic and educational freedom. You will take your jihad and your uncivil tone and leave. Web Warlock (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tiamat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tiamat.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jack Merridew 13:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Flint Fireforge

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Flint Fireforge, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Flint Fireforge. Deb (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Palace of the Silver Princess

BTW, good idea on getting to articles like Palace of the Silver Princess - might as well be proactive to stave off the deletions ahead of time when you can! There are probably a lot of articles that we can afford to lose, but there are many that can and should be kept. BOZ (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Car Wars

Greetings Web Warlock! I don't know if you have ever run across any reviews of/articles about Car Wars as you were perusing the old issues of White Dwarf and/or Dragon, but if you have done so I would appreciate the addition of some appropriate material to that article. One editor (you know the guy...) seems to feel that winning the Charles S. Roberts Award for Best Science Fiction Game isn't sufficiently to claim that this is notable. (And this is why I keep getting more discouraged in editing Wikipedia...) --Craw-daddy | T | 10:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will do what I can. Web Warlock (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Craw-daddy's statement is a misrepresentaion of what I have said to him on the article's talk page. I don't just feel that the award is insufficient; I gave reasons why the removal of the Notability cleanup template was not justified. The removal of this template without good reason is in my view is POV pushing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Pyramid

Just thought that I would give you a heads up that I have access to the online version of Pyramid and its archives. I think it includes most (but maybe not all??) of the print back issues too. (Only $20/yr, so not bad I guess.) I used it in one or two places already, including today in the Car Wars article. So I'm open to suggestions, and will try to use it in other places too. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That is very cool. I only have maybe 4 or 5 paper copies myself. My first guess is use Pyramid to find refs on the D&D articles since we can't (and really shouldn't) use Dragon on those. Now what I have been doing with White Dwarf is just through them issue by issue. Sure I find something every once and a while, but more importantly I am enjoying reading these old articles and remembering the "good old days"! ;) Web Warlock (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A comment on this... I'll see what I can do. It's not going to help for any of the stuff in the '70s and likely much of the '80s (Pyramid started in 1993 after all). I'll look for some stuff on the newer D&D things and have added one or two things I think already. I merged Return to the Keep on the Borderlands into The Keep on the Borderlands as it was mostly merged already, and I thought that it made for a better article. Of course it'll likely be reverrted soon enough even though I left a comment on the redirect page (and I updated the FUR for the Return image). Over the weekend I found several articles from 1999 where they were naming things like "The Millennium's Best RPG", "Best Card Game", "Most Underrated Game", "Most Influential Persons" (in gaming), etc, so I found myself inserting all kinds of references for those games and people. In any event, I'll see what I can do.  :) P.S. Do not feed the troll!  ;) --Craw-daddy | T | 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I am glad you have found those. And yes, you are right; feeding time is over. Web Warlock (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

White Dwarf

Great work you guys have been doing. Here are some refs to White Dwarf articles I pulled off an index I found. Thought it might be better than just wading through issues one at a time, although that's fun too as you pointed out. Anyway hope these might help some:

White Dwarf 33 - September 1982, pp. 12-13 "Open Box" ref. for Slave Lords module.

White Dwarf 35 - November 1982, pp. 18-19 "Open Box" ref. for Lendore Isles and L module series.

White Dwarf 42 - June 1983 pp. 28-30 "Fiend Factory" refs. for Garl Glittergold, Kurtalmak, Lolth though they probably won't be secondary sources.

White Dwarf 78 - June 1986 pp. 2-3 "Open Box" ref. for B-10 Nights Dark Terror module

White Dwarf 85 - January 1987 pp. 2-4 "Open Box" ref. for Queen of the Spiders module and Lolth.

--Smcmillan (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check my issues to see what they cover. Web Warlock (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

No it's not "a man with three buttocks" but something that may me laugh out loud when I saw it. It's an RPG called Best Friends: A Role-playing Game about Girlfriends and all their Petty Hatreds. There's actually a Pyramid review of it.  :) (If I can find another review of it somewhere I shall have to write an article for it...) It was designed during the 24 hour RPG Project (a contest, actually). I just wanted to share this as I found it rather amusing and needed a laugh after all the hoo-hah of today. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Another game of interest that you guys might enjoy is called Nicotine Girls. Funny stuff too, that. Rray (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That is too funny. I gotta play that game sometime. It's like an RPG version of Teen Girl Squad! Web Warlock (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, Macho Women with Guns? BOZ (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I LOVED that game. Stupid, silly fun!! I even liked the d20 version. Web Warlock (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Erol Otus

Hello! I see you added some material to the Erol Otus article. I was wondering if you had some information on his date of birth, or maybe a picture of some sort. I should have access to my old reference material in a few days and will look myself then. Thanks! - Dicecollector29 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing yet, but I am still digging and doing it with my kids at home on holiday. But when I find something I'll see how best to wrok it all in. Thanks! Web Warlock (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also

Were you aware of this site? Bretts RPG Magazine and Zine Index Sees like a nice source of reference material for some of the old non-digital RPG stuff. - Dicecollector29 (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know if I ahve seen that or not. Most time I just flip through the old mags I have here. Web Warlock (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Very telling

"When you say that I "refuse to listen to what people are saying", its because I have heard this repeatedly from many editors, but frankly when it comes to POV pushing it just goes out the other ear." - that quote tells me that what I've long suspected is completely true. "Discussions" with certain editors are completely pointless. :) Since anything which does not agree with his POV is "pushing someone else's POV" it is irrelevant, and will be ignored. What some people fail to realize is that on Wikipedia, consensus is all-important, moreso than any guideline or even policy, and even more important than "being right". If a dozen or so editors disagree with you and you alone, then the problem lies with you and not them. If a problem exists, then you seek mediation rather than fight with everyone else. BOZ (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not suprised at all. Pointless really. Well at least now I know I can save my time instead of talking to some people and just editing articles. Web Warlock (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. BOZ (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Chicago

Hey, I thought I had seen somewhere that you indicated that you were familiar with Chi-town, but I just checked out your user page (by accident, really) and found it to be true.  ;) Heya, neighbor! I think Hobit also said at one point that he had met me in Mt. Prospect at one point, but I had to confess that I didn't remember him. BOZ (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

HEY!! I used to live in Mt. Prospect for 10 years. I just moved to Palatine. Shoot me an email, it's in my profile somewhere. Ever been to "Games Plus" in Mount Prospect? Web Warlock (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Games Plus is where Hobit said he ran into me, at an EN World gameday. Haven't been there in awhile though, may not be for awhile again.  ;) BOZ (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have my e-mail stored in my preferences before, so I'm waiting forever for their silly confirmation e-mail.  :) I'll probably be removing it again, because I would really only want to hear from certain people upon request. BOZ (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Still there

The article I mentioned is still standing - fascinating! Perhaps it's not being watched after all? Let's stick with the "wait and see" for now. BOZ (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well how about that. Wonders never cease. ;) Web Warlock (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

actually, it was

re your edit summary relax Jack, that was hardly vandalism on this edit in reference to my prior edit; it was vandalism - part of an extensive campaign of harassment by Grawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to undo a great many of my edits. See here for the edit I was reverting. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake then. Web Warlock (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Critters

List of Dragonlance creatures might be a good model for an alternative to deleting articles. BOZ (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Webwarlock, just a heads-up on Mishakal.

You've been active in the Paladine discussion, I also noticed from your talk page you have a history of working on various Dragonlance Articles, so I wanted to make sure to invite you to the discussion on Talk:Mishakal. Initially, I didn't think that Mishakal would make the cut for notability, and proposed a merge. Now, having read some of the comments in Talk:List of Dragonlance deities, it occurs to me that given my lack of knowledge about the events after the Dragons of Summer Flame, Mishakal may deserve of her own article after all. You have a history of being able to dig up references, and are familiar with the subject matter, so I thought maybe you would have something to add to the discussion. I intend to conduct my own search, too. Dalamori (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tucker's kobolds

You might be interested in this; WP:AN#A case of merge and delete and the GFDL

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

List of D&D monsters

Hello, we've been busily working on how to make tables for a D&D monster list page, and could use your input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Negotiable concepts. BOZ (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look when I get a chance. Web Warlock (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Come build something constructive!

(I know you're busy, but I still felt like including you anyway with my generic cut-n-paste message. :) Maybe if you get some time for some of the books with fewer monsters? We're not trying to be complete, but the more we have done when we go live the better. This list should have existed a long time ago, but of course the sheer volume of the work is staggering.)

Instead of trying to keep things from getting torn down, why not help build something up? Take a look at User:BOZ/List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, check out the pages it links to, see what's been done already, and see if there's anything you want to add. BOZ (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Love to! When I get some free time I'll stop by. Web Warlock (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider your attitude towards other editors

I am not sure that your attitude towards other editors who do not share your point of view is not appropriate. What sort of a statement is this? I have been used to being brushed off by you on a regular basis, as I can understand that we have had many disagreements, but now you are dismissing the observations and suggestions of other editors as well, I must bring this to your attention after your comments at Talk:Githyanki. As an educationalist, you must receive respect and courtesy for intellectual contributions all the time, even from people who not agree with your viewpoint. Please consider responding to other editors with opinions different from your own in the same way as you would have them respond to you. I would be grateful if you would set a better example for others to follow.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)