User talk:Hobit/Archive1

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please do not remove clean-up tags; please address issue

I have restored the clean-up tags you removed en masse. Please cease this disruptive behavior. --Jack Merridew 09:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are in good faith. You and a handful of others are tagging material you don't understand that has clear references and (internally documented in the article) notability. Please stop. Hobit (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reference for dapsone

Please provide the references for the treatment of ITP with dapsone. It is great that it helping your child but without references it is just original research (WP:OR), which is inadmissible in Wikipedia. I would like to note that ITP in children is usually transient, and some doctors advocate so called "watchful waiting" approach. So, most likely, your child would have been recovering fine without treatment. Thank you Paul gene (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And on the personal side, our daughter has been falling to around 6000 without treatment for well more than a year. Last treatment to get her above 10K resulted in a serious reaction (non-lucid for 12+ hours). Dapsone seemed to work wonderfully. There are a fair number of studies on it. I've included both one of the oldest and a collection of other references. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop Removing Notability Templates

Kindly refrain from removing the Notability Templates from articles that do not have reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability, such as the article Blackmoor (Greyhawk). Unless you are prepared to actually add such secondary sources to the article, I would be grateful if you would not revert my edits without good reason. Note that I will not revert your edits, I am not interested in an edit war. I do not understand your actions, as you seem to be ignoring the WP guidelines about etiquette. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's both notable and has secondary sources. Did you read the talk page? My sense is that you and one other user are putting improper templates on the material and not willing to discuss the specific cases. Please either explain why the current references and notes don't establish notability (and aren't secondary sources) or stop complaining when those templates are removed. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources cited are secondary sources, as they originate from the publisher of the World of Greyhawk, TSR, Inc.. The ghits you refer to on the Talk page refer to fansites, in which the primary sources are regurgitated, and are not considered reliable. I would suggest to you that this article has no claim to notability, and the Notability Template is highly appropriate for this article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Proposed decision

Hi, I've removed your vote - only Arbitration Committee members can vote on arbitration cases. Picaroon (t) 01:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop voting on this case. You are not an arbitrator, and therefore are not one of the people who are allowed to vote on arbitration cases. You may comment on the /Workshop page. Picaroon (t) 01:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I misread the heading. I'll stop. Hobit (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hand of Doom

I note that you have removed the Notability template from the article Red Hand of Doom. Since this article has no content, context, critisim, analysis or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Dungeons & Dragons, I would be grateful why you think this book of instrucitons is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, this isn't a book of instructions. Please have some understanding of the pages you are editing before you edit them. #2 ::*Quote "In library and information science, historiography and some other areas of scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed." These sources, both reviews and ghits are discusing information originally presented elsewhere. They are thus secondary sources. Heck, enworld is also about as reliable as you can get in this area. So, yes RHoD has reliable secondary sources. Please stop adding a notability template OR explain exactly what you want as a reliable secondary source in this case if a set of reviews doesn't cut it. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, adventure or module is a term for pre-packaged books or box sets that help the dungeonmaster to manage the plot or story of a game. The term adventure is currently the preferred term." However, in Plain English, you can boil this down to "Game instructions" --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The enworld source you cite [1] is little more than a product announcement; it cannot be classed as a reliable secondary source by a long shot.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read the page. The (rather long) reviews are found at the bottom of the page Hobit (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as my limited understanding of RPG modules goes, this one is definetly non-notable - it is even described as "generic". --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Generic in this sense means that it can be placed in any game world. please take the time to learn something about the articles you are editing... Hobit (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Red Hand of Doom

An article that you have been involved in editing, Red Hand of Doom, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hand of Doom. Thank you. Gavin Collins (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamat vs Psilofyr

if you were questioning me (meaning asking, not attempting to undermine my intelligence), about why Psilofyr is obscure and Tiamat is not then i will gladly explain. Tiamat not only was a prominent villian in the cartoon, but the queen/goddess of the evil dragons presented throughout the years in many books both novels and game books. Psilofyr, on the other hand has only reference in a few small places and seemingly ret-conned in to give a god to a specific race where it was felt needed for a specific and isolated adventure(s). if this is NOT what you meant, or i was not the one you wished to know if "he understands why this is obscure, but Tiamat isn't" then sorry for taking up your time and wasting space on your talk page. shadzar|Talk|contribs 13:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that wasn't directed to you. Sorry if it was unclear. Hobit (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the notabilty template from the article Lendore Isles

I know you mean well and have a great affection for these articles, but your instance on removing the Notability template from the article Lendore Isles is actually causes harm to the article itself. The template was put there for a reason: to highlight the lack notability both in the text or the article itself and lack of reliable secondary sources which provide supporting evidence of notability. If you remove the template, nobody will know that these issues need to be addressed.

I note that you have said on my RFC page that you are unhappy about me nominating articles for AfD without good reason. By the same token, I would be grateful if you would apply your own principals and not make claims that the notability template is not required without providing evidence. Please have the courtesy to substantiate your claims, and then everyone will accept your edits as being justified. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO you place so many templates without explanation that the burden rests with you. Please don't add templates without explanation. Hobit (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your opinion to be mistaken in this instance, it is the application of the notability guidelines that is my concern. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The artilce itslef has no content, context or analysis to suggest that this stock location has any notability outside of the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, which itself has notability issues. If you choose to ignore the guidelines and remove the Notabiltiy template without good reason, that is up to you; perhaps you have great affection for this topic and are disinclined to consider that there is anything wrong with what you have done. I will not be drawn into an edit war with you; I am simply requesting that you restore the notability template which was put there for good reason. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not be right about the notability, I will again go back and look at that. But please learn something about the things you are editing. It is neither stock, nor part of the LGG (it comes way way before that). The wonderful thing is that is mentioned in the article you are editing. So let's make a deal, you actually understand (read) the articles you are editing INCLUDING doing web searches to see what they are and I'll take your edits and tags seriously. Until then it's like arguing about an NP-hard problem with someone who lacks the math background to understand it. It just makes things go in circles. You've been editing these articles for months, I'd think at this point you'd have learned something about D&D, its history and how it works. I don't need you to have a "PhD in D&D". I need you to have a clue about D&D. Go down to your local game store and play a game of it. Read a few books about it (or just one, an Idiot's Guide to D&D is actually pretty good) and then come back and make your edits. I think you will have a better sense of what's notable and what's not (and I agree, plenty isn't). This particular island chain has a long history in D&D and actually came before D&D. A whole group of books are set there. It's notable. I think the current sources are fine, but I really don't want to argue each one with you. I want you to learn enough to understand which articles are actually notable and then pitch in and help by merging (and perhaps deleting) those that aren't notable and fixing up those that are. Hobit (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No deal, and this is the problem: you are assuming that all D&D topics are notable, but unless you can provide evidence that they are, your claims are unsubstantiated and cannot be verified by other editors. I have read the article as well as Wikipedia guidelines, and I can see that this stock location is just not notable. You say this topic has a long history, but no information is given in the article itself about when or why this fictional location was created, let alone why it should be deemed to be notable. You are assuming that I am at fault, but it is the article that does not provide evidence of real-world notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm not saying they are all notable. I'm saying quite the opposite. But I am saying that I'm scared to actually start merging things (and I suspect others are) because you and Jack have poisoned the discussion and I don't believe you are operating in good faith. Rather than trying to actively improve things, you are randomly ripping things down. If you knew anything about the topic, you'd likely start ripping down the right things, which would be fine. I could do that too, but with you randomly flailing about, it seems crazy to work on stuff when you'll just try to destroy it. I think a lot of material should be merged and a lot of sources need to be added. But heck if I'm going to put in that effort while you and Jack are being randomly destructive. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a colossal assumption of bad faith bordering on personal attacks. I've restored clean-up tags you've removed and will continue to do so as long as you make no serious effort to address the issues. FYI, I don't "know" D&D — and I am certainly not learning much about what, ah, aspects of the D&D pantheon are notable from the articles I've read. --Jack Merridew 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you are the one supporting every single AfD on D&D no matter the actual underlining notability. The vast majority of those have been shown to be notable (and kept) but yet you keep at it. You are also rude. Of the 100's of tags you and Gavin are adding, I'm only removing a VERY VERY small fraction where I _know_ the notability is not in doubt. I've also been cleaning up the articles as fast as I can.

And on the bad faith. My sense is that many editors are feeling that you are causing problems and making it hard to fix things around here. That's not bad faith, that's my belief. I certainly feel that way. I have no doubt that you think the D&D stuff largely needs to shrink and the you are acting on that desire. However, there is another group that wants to go about this a lot slower than you because we want to estabilish notability rather than remove things. Both are reasonable good-faith activities, but they certainly lead to conflict. And that conflict makes it hard to get the actual work done here.

So what to do? I am aware you've done some work formatting citations, and I'd love it if you did more of that. I'd also like to see from you is _some_ help with the articles you and Gavin are editing so heavily. There is some sorting work that doesn't require actual knowledge of the material that would be VERY helpful. Plus the citation editing. Plus filling in public-domain statements (or bringing them to the discussion if you don't feel you can. I'll post stuff in the the D&D project page where we could use your help. If we had your help (you and Gavin) I think we'd end up with a much better set of pages. I know we'd still disagree about detail and content, but I think this can be a rational discussion.

Finally, if you are going to spend as much time as you are on editing D&D pages, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask you to learn something about it. I'll go out and buy you a copy of An idiot's guide to D&D (no insult to you on that, it is a good book) if you tell me where to send it. It's not even close to what I'd like you to know, but it seems a small time investment to avoid some of the misunderstandings that go on because you don't understand the vocabulary. This offer is good for you and Gavin! Hobit (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me thanks - it is just a primary source, one of hundreds of primary sources quoted in the various articles which have no secondary sources. I suggest you save your money and buy a book (not published by TSR or its affiliates) along the lines "Notable things about the Lendore Isles" and add references to the article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The offer was about the broader issue, not just this one article. Sorry if that was unclear. My hope is to lower the level of conflict, and I think part, and only part, of the problem is that you and Jack lack even a basic background in the area. That makes it easy to miscommunicate and raises the odds of further conflict. Please let me know if you're interested. I suspect we can even come up with a way where I can provide the money on Amazon and never learn your address if that's the issue. Oh, by the way, buying a book by TSR would be very difficult at this point unless it was from ebay. TSR doesn't exist any longer. Good Day 141.212.111.116 (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of MU

Hi.

For what its worth, the "trainwreck" referred to the AfD, which had become difficult to even see any points made, not the article itself. The article itself proved no assertion of notability, which is deletable under A7 (as "web content"; a lulu.com page is no assertion of notability). Google hits and webviews aren't either, as there is a possibility of skewing the results. There would be an assertion of notability if there was some story in a notable news source, or it was the most viewed story on a popular website. Will ^(talk) 19:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understood the trainwreck note. But it certainly doesn't hit A7. It must be clear that it isn't notable and no reasonable person would disagree. That certainly isn't the case here. The arguments made were poor, but this does appear to be the first of its kind (professional writer writing an on-line serial) as far as I know, not to mention the large number of ghits indicate that the subject may be notable, even if the article as written was not. Thus, it really should make it through a full AfD. I'd appreciate it you'd relist it and we can start again. Hobit (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beholder

Could you explain to me why you have removed the Notability and in universe templates from the article Beholder? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, a quick web search (or reading of the article) shows a great deal of notability. Further, my expertise in the area lets me know that this is quite notable. The article itself doesn't do a great job of providing sources, but that's a different problem, and not the tag you put there. Further, the article, IMO, isn't in universe hardly at all. I don't see a rational argument there at all (nor did your provide one when you added the tag). Hobit (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal

Could you explain to me why you have removed the Notability template from the article Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. A quick web search shows how popular the game was and how discussed it was. I also added a ton a reviews (you know, 3rd party sources etc. etc.). Hobit (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A ton of reviews" or links to gamesites which you added are not reliable secondary sources and if they do not support any claim of notability, then the notability template should stay. Please cease and desist from removing Cleanup Templates from articles that have cleanup issues. Where in doubt, I suggest you confer with the person who placed the template there for clarification, rather than acting on impulse. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cease and desist" is legal terminology. The use of that phrase implies a certain amount of legal standing to a request, which doesn't exist in any way at the Wikipedia level. I also think that telling people to "cease and desist" is contentious and contrary to the spirit of building consensus. You should be able to make your case without using "bullying" language. Anyone here, including User:Hobit, is encouraged to be bold and make edits they think are appropriate. Your consistent attempts to tell other people how to edit are becoming disruptive. Rray (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly be interested in hearing why reviews from major computer game sites by paid staff aren't reliable secondary sources here. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please note I added the references after you'd placed the template. I honestly think they clear up the problem, so I didn't see a need to do anything other than remove it. Please be so kind as to identify the problem when adding a template when it isn't obvious. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link to an article does not provide evidence of notabilty - see WP:RS for further information. You must cite the source before you can claim you have added references, in the same way that you must buy a lottery ticket before you win the jackpot:) --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we disagree on policy here. My understanding is that the existence of relevant reliable secondary sources is enough to establish notability. As such, the tag you placed was no longer appropriate. While I wholly agree that citing them would be the right thing to do, I didn't have time for that (nor do I know anything significant about the topic) so I added the sources and removed the now incorrect tag. That the article doesn't cite the sources is true, and tagging it that way would be fine. Hobit (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be Careful

While I agree with the spirit of what you seem to be doing, your methods will get you into a lot of trouble. I'll avoid being more specific than that. Don't want someone with his heart in the right place to get into big trouble! BOZ (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BOZ. Thanks for the warning, but I'm honestly not sure what you are saying. If you think I'm using the D.Dwarf as a sockpuppet, the answer is I'm not. Hobit is my only account on wikipedia (though I have edited as an IP address from time-to-time). If it's something else, please let me know. I realize I'm being a pain about some issues (Gavin mainly) but I feel he's following rules to the letter but being a WP:DICK trying to make a WP:POINT. Hobit (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that, but sinking to someone else's level (or below it) is a sure way to get yourself in trouble, if not the other person along with you. BOZ (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I think you, (as well as Jack and Gavin actually) have a good point here. I think I behaved in a minimally acceptable way and that's not the level I want to be at. By the way BOZ, I think I've actually met you in real life a few years back for breakfast. I think we were the first people there before a gaming gathering in Chicago. Not sure if I have the right person, and frankly I couldn't pick you out of a lineup, but I recognize the handle. In all cases, thanks for the advice, it was timely. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Games Plus? Been there a few times for EN World events, but not lately. :) BOZ (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, a few years back. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I definitely believe you were not using sockpuppets; you couldn't possibly be this stupid. :) BOZ (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing templates

Just a quick thanks to you for reviewing the massive number of templates being added to the RPG articles lately and removing them where appropriate. The volume of tags and templates being added makes it clear that these aren't being given a lot of thought, and they should be removed when they're not accurately added, in spite of the "instructions" that users like User: Gavin.collins like to leave on people's talk pages after they change any of his edits. I still haven't figured out why the "weasel words" template has suddenly become so popular in these RPG articles. These aren't controversial subjects where weasel words would even come into play usually.

I'll grant that many of the tags being added are correct, but that's no reason to let the incorrect ones stay. So keep up the good work. :) Rray (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the article Sarrukh for an example. It is the worst article I have ever seen. It has so meany weasel words in it, you will be coughing fur by the time you finish reading it. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin, I don't argue that some of your tags are correctly placed. I do think that some of your tags and templates are incorrectly placed, but your repeated instructions to editors to not remove your templates are unreasonable. You're not infallible, and multiple messages on user talk pages telling them not to revert your edits don't justify your tags. You should be prepared to defend any template you put on an article on the talk page for that article.

My note here on Hobit's talk page was to give him some credit for working on these articles in a thoughtful and constructive manner. If you want to justify specific edits you've made or tags that you've added, do so on the talk page for the article in question. Rray (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show an example of what you mean? I'm not seeing any thing I'd call a weasel word, so it's impossible for me to address your concern. (Well for that article, it's impossible because I don't know anything about Sarrukh as the Realms are something I know nothing about. But in general I can't fix a problem I don't see so any detailed descriptions would be helpful here.) Hobit (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take for example the article Dinosaur (Dungeons & Dragons) which I note you have also removed the template from. Note the following phrases:

"In some settings, they are merely added for kicks, but some settings provide an actual explanation as to why dinosaurs are present; in Eberron, there has never been an ice age, and hence there is no reason for dinosaurs going extinct."
"Most D&D settings have a location where dinosaurs are known to dwell, and seeing as they coexist with intelligent races, they are often depicted as tamed, with such things as armored T. rexes being used in battle and Velociraptors used as mounts".
"They are known to inhabit the Talenta Plains, among other locations, and the Talenta halflings tame them as mounts and beasts of burden".

You cannot alays substitute the italics for "some argue that..." or "critics say", but the effect is the same: some annonymous critic, person is making an a statement of opinion, either directly, or it is implied (e.g. "are known to dwell by some person or critic"). The result is the same: weasel words being used to add weight to statements of opinion in a ponderous fashion. It is subtle to understand, but once you realise in pervades a lot of D&D articles, you will realise its a big problem that needs to be addressed, not ignored. I would be grateful if you would replace the templates in question; when this problem is addressed you will see there will be a great improvement. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia (nor the WW guideline) prevent general statements. I chose to jump to todays featured article. It reads (in part) "Lava and ash reached a thickness of up to 10,000 feet (about 3,000 m) in some areas," This is very very similar to your first point. "Glaciers existed throughout the park area during most of the Pleistocene " this is similar to your second point. I had to jump to the last featured article to find "journalist who is best known for his critically lauded novel My Little Blue Dress (2001) and for his satirical magazine essays." which is darn similar to your third point. If you have problems with this language, I think some fairly obscure article is the wrong place to start.

I'm not meaning to be insulting here, but is your first language English? I suspect that may be were the problem lies. Hobit (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have understood the point I was making and that you have removed the weasel words from Dinosaur (Dungeons & Dragons). Next time, remove the Weasel words template after, not before you have improved the article so that you actions are not misunderstood. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the problem from the get-go. But I removed the WW template because _that_ wasn't the problem IMO. Hobit (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you should be informed of this

You might want to see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man since your username was specifically mentioned. My advice, however, is that you probably shouldn't really make any sort of reply as it's not necessary (I personally don't believe that you're using any of the sockpuppets). I think it's unfortunate that your name was mentioned here. I don't think you need to dignify any remarks on that page by responding to them. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did choose to drop a brief line there. I think I managed to remain civil :-) Hobit (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews and such

While adding links to reviews is a useful first step, I think it can be even more useful to include attribution to those reviews, short quotes, etc. in the articles. Otherwise they don't directly help establish the notability of whatever is under consideration and/or they will likely lead to the insertion of a {{nofootnotes}} tag, for which it would be most useful to then integrate them into the main body of the article. Just a suggestion that I thought of, so take it for what it might be worth. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But time doesn't always permit and so I'm trying to show that they exist and hoping others will integrate. With the monster of the week thing, I'd obviously want to be a lot more detailed... Hobit (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft

Are you sure Fancruft isn't a "valid term or anything"? Think again: Wikipedia:Fancruft ― LADY GALAXY 17:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but just saying "fancruft" isn't a reason to remove anything per the link you provided. Sorry i was unclear. Hobit (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD Again (You voted before)

The article formerly known as VP:Admin Abuse is back up for a MfD, in spite of its new title and greatly expanded sections highlighting great admins. (The MfD is believed to be a veiled personal attack.) The new page is WP:What Were They Thinking? (or simply WP:WWTT). The deletion question is here. Please visit and voice your support or, if your opinion has changed, opposition to this article. As you'll recall, it was a UNANIMOUS KEEP the first time around. Thank you for your time. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less common dragons

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adult-child sex

Attacking the arbitrary decision to delete that violated all consensus established in 15-20 polls and also the most recent one takes place here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 23. --TlatoSMD (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, mind telling me why it worried you that I told you above? I didn't meant to worry you. --TlatoSMD (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you are going to bring a "voting" issue to people's attention, you should bring it to everyones, not just those that agreed with you last time. I haven't found one person who wanted to delete that you told about it (I also didn't look hard). Hobit (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reserved people rules

Generally, an AfD debate should be closed if the article under consideration has already been speedy deleted. Usually, the admin who deletes the article does this, but occasionally a debate will remain open for an article that was deleted. In this case, NawlinWiki had speedied the article under WP:CSD#A1. As the article was already deleted, I closed the debate citing the deletion, the criteria, and the deleting admin. Since further review of speedy deletions takes place at Deletion Review, per WP:DRV, the AfD debate became moot. A successful DRV could result in the article's restoration or a new AfD debate, so that would probably be the appropriate venue for discussion on this article in particular - which I would support. My closure was purely procedural, and I did not (and do not) voice any opinion on the merits of the article or its deletion - which makes sense, since I never read it (since it was deleted). I hope this helps, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different Worlds

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) 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! Hobit (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacen Solo

Partially as a result of your vote to keep the article, the AfD resulted in "no consensus". Since you are convinced that Wikipedia should have an article on Jacen Solo, please stand by that and help get this article to the bare minimum encyclopedic standards. This includes a complete rewrite from a non-in-universe perspective, accompanied by reliable, third-party secondary sources.

If however the article has not been brought up to this bare minimum within the next 4 weeks, I will consider resubmitting it for deletion.

Regards, User:Dorftrottel 02:42, January 30, 2008

Re: Jacen Solo

Frankly, I'd suggest you fix it if it doesn't meet your standards... Hobit (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you fucking kidding me? I did try fixing it, the only possible way — by deletion. You and the others prevented that, talking about "sources might exist" and other non-reasons to keep. Obviously, you believe this can be a proper article. I do not and I'm going renominate it unless someone actually proves (as opposed to asserts) that it can be properly written and referenced as demanded by policy and guidelines.

On a related note: The attempt to rebuild and mirror the structure of the fictional universe is imho totally unencyclopedic anyway. We should strictly stick to covering and discussing the real-world franchise, only occasionally splitting off one or the other article about e.g. a fictional character or concept when the parent article gets too long.

But I did occasionally try to improve SW articles, see also my lengthy post here. Regards, User:Dorftrottel 04:23, February 2, 2008

Response on talk page for Dorftrolttel. Hobit (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi there Hobit. Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Voted for Kodos: If you say that it meets WP:N then you are saying that it passes WP:MUSIC criterion #1, because it's essentially the same thing. Hope that helps. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template without reasonable justification

Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template (and other cleanup templates) from Bahamut (Dungeons & Dragons), an article which does not have any reliable secondary sources. There is no reasonable justification for removing the template which was 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 why the secondary sources cited in the article cannot be classed as reliable. I request that you cease removing the template that I and other editors have placed there, and to restore the notability template until such time as these concerns are addressed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Red Hand of Doom and Reliability issue

Given that there's not alot of information regarding RHoD I'm not sure I agree that it deserves it's own article. Given that I do think it belongs in Wikipedia, and suggest merging and redirecting it with a new article on other similarly-themed D&D modules. This would have the advantage of 1) allying yourself with other editors with articles in this category, and 2) being able to gather all the secondary sources in one place to address notability concerns. I was thinking about this last night and had the idea that it could fit with 3rd edition modules with a generic setting. That would be a pretty good list of modules; take a look at List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures, and we should be able to gather a good number of secondary sources. I'd be happy to put in work on this.

Also I'd like to get the issue of whether or not some of the secondary sources being used by D&D editors that the deletionists view as "fansites" are indeed reliable sources. I'll be happy to put in the work or collaborate on this if you would gather up a list of the disputed sources you have been using. I think other people, such as user:webwarlock, might be interested also. We could submit the case to wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and then notify Jack and Gavin so they can see what's going on and make their own arguments. If it can't be resolved there then we can kick it up to informal mediation by the mediation cabal. I believe this action alone can go a long way toward settling many of these issues for a number of D&D and other rpg editors. What do you think? --Smcmillan (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago

Hey! I just heard from BOZ that you are in the Chicago area. Me too! In fact I used to live in Mount Prospect and I Still go to Games Plus a lot. Shoot me an email. Web Warlock (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Protas/Martha Graham

Thanks for voting to keep the article about Ron Protas. By the way, I was wondering what you meant when you said you'd cry if you saw the company dance again. Are you sad about its current state? Or is it just not your style? Funny comments. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I went to see them dance a few years back. Not a huge fan of modern dance, and that show was beyond painful. I walked out and waited for my wife (a big fan of modern) just outside. She didn't care for it either. Felt like performance art, not dancing... Hobit (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

40 Days For Life

The result was a keep, thanks for your vote. - Schrandit (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come build something constructive!

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) 22:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTTF timeline

The DRV actually does show a consensus that the merge decision in the AFD should be endorsed. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the DRV, there's a clear consensus that the closure of the AFD was correct. The DRV closer endorsed that result based on consensus. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knights DRV

Hi Hobit! I have added a reply to your comment there, which I hope clarifies my concerns. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Just had to say that I saw the "tag" at the top of your user page and it gave me a good snicker. :) Thanks for that. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman Chronicles

Just a friendly question on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman Chronicles. You found a bunch of reviews that escaped my notice -- did you do anything special on the gsearch (like more than just "Superman Chronicles" -wikipedia), or were you just more patient than I was? I'm always looking for more efficient ways to source and determine notability. Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease and desist from removing cleanup templates without reasonable justification

Please cease and desist from removing the cleanup templates from the article Salamander (Dungeons & Dragons), an article which has various cleaup issues, such as lack of secondary sources, weasel words and original research.

I note that you did not make any improvements to this article nor did you not provide any reasonable justification for removing these templates; 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 respective Wikipedia guidelines which apply to this topic. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hobit, take another look at the Salamander article and some of the other things I've been up to lately. :) BOZ (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see that! And I am hoping those sections will expand. :) BOZ (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aghabullogue GAA

I didn't merge in the names, as sporting club articles generally list only current and notable players. However, I don't see any reason why the names should not be included in the article if it is expanded. Black Kite 12:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixie (Dungeons & Dragons)

I note that you have recreated the article Pixie (Dungeons & Dragons) without citing sources, setting any context in the opening section. I note that the article appears to comprise of orginal research with an in universe perspective. Since you are now the creator of this article, could I ask you to rectify these problems and outline your plan of action for doing so. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Minsi

Hello, Could you explain your call on Camp Minsi? My understanding is that it was speedied under G4 but as it was more-or-less rewritten from scratch, it isn't a speedy candidate by rule. so irrelevant of consensus (which was split) isn't the prime issue here. Or at least that's how I read it. Hobit (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus that the page should be undeleted. Therefore no action was taken. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASIOC

And one more...

What was wrong with sending to AfD and semi-protecting the page as had been proposed? The article was quite well written and notability was the only issue (for reasons I don't understand, as it clearly meets WP:N). So insisting that the article be rewritten seems like the only wrong call.

Sorry to hit you up on two of these. Hobit (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with my decision on this, but I can userfy the page to a subpage of yours if you like. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the decision? I don't understand why you are asking for the rewrite of a good article. Either it's notable or it isn't (which I think should be handled in an AfD that's semi-protected). But no one had any issues with the article itself, yet that was what you effectively asked be changed (per Speedy delete G4). I just don't see the logic. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the decision I made properly reflected the consensus of users, giving appropriate weight to comments while discounting those from socks or single-purpose accounts. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to keep beating on this, but I really don't think you are answering my question. Sorry if I'm being unclear. Could you please explain how you got "rewrite the page" out of that discussion? I don't think anyone proposed the solution you closed with. Hobit (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the decision I made properly reflected the consensus of users, giving appropriate weight to comments while discounting those from socks or single-purpose accounts. I'm sorry that you don't think I'm answering your question. You are not being unclear, merely re-asking the same question over again. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also unclear as to how you interpreted my closure as "the article has to be rewritten", particularly when I've offered to move the deleted article into your userspace. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, did you get a copy of the NASIOC page in your userspace? If so, can you link it so I can copy out the source? Thanks! Beethoven05 (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very long

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guitar Hero tapping

I replied to your contribution on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guitar Hero tapping. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation?

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin Collins. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template on top of your userpage

I liked it so much I had to "borrow" it. McJeff (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Your message on the AfD was replied. Please try to answer if you can. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that. Please see again,:) Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

email

please either activate your email or email me from my talk page. DGG (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Rivera

My mistake - I read the opening date of the AFD as 21 June. I've restored it. Black Kite 06:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion place names

Hey! No worries about letting these AfDs play out if that's how editors want to handle it. Thanks for bringing this up. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Enforcing Foundation image policy is exempt from 3RR - see WP:3RR#Unwanted_edits. Black Kite 17:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for assistance

The guidelines you wanted are here: Wikipedia:Talk pages. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health And Safety Act 1974 deletion

Thanks for the message, but I'm quite happy with the deletion. It was a copy of this page, which looks covered by copyright to me. In any case, the HSE website you pointed me to is covered by Crown Copyright, which isn't public domain. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 22:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didier

Just a note - as I pointed out twice, at the AfD and the DRV, the 16 Chicago Tribune stories on the case are online, although not free. Cheers,John Z (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HPC deletion

No, we have a content not complying with policy problem. FCYTravis (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it after two editing attempts at making the article conform to this condition in the AfD closure: Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP were summarily reverted. FCYTravis (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]