User talk:AFigureOfBlue/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Some cookies to welcome you! :D

Welcome To Wikipedia! Hello, AFigureOfBlue, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the project and decide to stay and make constructive edits. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• My Talk Page (A Page That You Can Contact Me On)

I hope you enjoy editing here and have a great time being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your user name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page, I will always be willing to help you on Wikipedia so you can ask your questions on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Again, welcome and I hope to see you editing again! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 14:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Mmmmmmmmm......cookies good!--Lord Balin (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Greg A. Vaughan

A tag has been placed on Greg A. Vaughan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry... I'll be sure to keep that in mind. I've removed the link that I had put into Vaughan (surname) for consistency. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks!—Largo Plazo (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work

I just wanted to point out that it is great having someone else actively working on D&D articles again. It has been like pulling teeth to get people to want to work on them lately. You can see my user page for some of the monsters and gods articles I have worked on lately. I'm sure you've noticed all of the tags at the top of so many articles; these were part of the reason most people seemed to have given up entirely. Don't let me get in the way while you're on a roll though; thanks again for your effort! :) BOZ (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've seen a lot of tags that are kind out-of-date, so I've been removing and updating them when I can. Although my current main focus is on getting the Pathfinder pages up to par, I'll continue keeping an eye on most pages (and while I play Pathfinder and not 4th edition, I will contribute to 4th edition pages whenever I can). -Drilnoth (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, glad to have you around. I previously bumped up the assessments on some of the Pathfinder articles due to your contributions. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Thanks for the heads up about faerie fire. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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) 22:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have... there have been a few times where I've missed the tildes and then added them with an edit, and I haven't added them when I'm putting in "Merged article from X; see old talk page HERE" on talk pages for articles that I have merged other articles into. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What I've done

Hi there. I restored the categories on all the D&D articles that you recently redirected. I find that when browsing a category, it's nice to see articles that have been redirected. That way, if you need to find something under the edit history, it's a lot easier to find. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll remember to add in categories as I continue merging pages. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool, no problem. :) 71.194.32.252 (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Deity articles

As you have been merging and redirecting deity articles, I will also point out that a number of articles had been redirected in the past due to PROD, or because the notability template remaining too long. Additionally, I had also asked for a number of AFD'ed articles to have their edit histories restored in case someone wanted to merge the content in later. In that spirit, however you might wish to use them, I present: Blibdoolpoolp, Caoimhin, Daragor, Eachthighern, Emmantiensien, Gaknulak, Khurgorbaeyag, Kuraulyek, Maanzecorian, Nathair Sgiathach, Psilofyr, Squerrik, and Verenestra. :) BOZ (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll keep that in mind. Also, I've found that I can still access the edit histories of quite a few AfD articles that had been redirected, such as Ethergaunt (you can see the most recent non-redirect history here), so unless it's aganist Wikipedia guidelines (as I said, I'm still kind of new here so I don't know them all) I could try getting some of the previously deleted monsters and stuff together, too. If, for instance, a stub article about a D&D demon was deleted, I could just merge the deleted content into Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). If Wikipedia doesn't want that sort of thing done after a PROD or AfD, though, please let me know and I won't do anything like that kind of merge. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have another question. WP:MM says that when you do a full-content paste merger (like I've been doing) you need to note "merge content from [[article name]]" in the edit summary in order to comply with the GFDL. If I merge from a deleted article, should I have the link be to the most recent (redirect) version of the article, or should it be a link to the version that I'm actually copying the stuff from (which wouldn't use [[two brackets]])? Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll tell you what. Elaborating on what I said above, I asked the deleting admins on a few dozen AFD/PROD deleted deity and monster articles to restore the article's edit history, specifically noting that someone may want to merge the content into another article. Not one of them said "Um, wait, you can't do that." In fact, most admins said, sure here you go. So make of that what you will. :) I personally would point to the version of the article you are using, as I did above, since the most recent version is a redirect in all cases and you can't get much useful info from a redirect. :) BOZ (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'll keep my eye out for that kind of articles and merge them in where appropriate. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. And, if you find any article which has been deleted but not restored as I described above, all you would need to do is ask an admin to restore it, explaining what your intent is to do with the content, and I have thus far had no problems getting edit histories restored in this way. In fact, some admins seem almost grateful that I asked, oddly enough. :) Some require more explanation before they do it, but none have refused me to date. Scroll through my talk page from about 6 months ago for some example exchanges. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you like, you could give that a try with gnomish deities The Glutton and Gelf Darkhearth; I meant to get those sooner or later, but haven't gotten around to them yet. The deleting admin JForget has always been kind and helpful in that regard. BOZ (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing them out... once I figure out how to request un-deletions, I'll see if I can get those back. I think that there's also a dwarf deity that hasn't been restored. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

One easy way to figure out if an article once existed but has been deleted is to click on a redlink. That will display a pink box telling you that the article has been deleted. If there is no such box, then the article never existed and you can either create the article or a redirect if you so wish. :) BOZ (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'd figured that out. I've asked JForget and JIP for a few deity articles that they had deleted (there was one other, but it was deleted because of a copyvio). Thanks for all of your assistance! -Drilnoth (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See there, that wasn't so hard. :) I know I was pretty nervous the first time I tried that, but the results were encouraging. BOZ (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The response was much faster than I had expected, too. Thanks for pointing out that option. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're not entirely sure where to go from here, you could always look to the book Monster Mythology for inspiration. I've removed most of the gods you've already worked with. (note that a number of these are referenced into my first post above):

Gods of the Kobolds: Kurtulmak, Gaknulak

Other Goblinoid Deities: Kuraulyek, Meriadar

Gods of the Underdark (misc): Laduguer, Psilofyr

Gods of the Beholders: Great Mother. Gzemnid

The Interloper Gods: Vaprak, Gorellik

Gods of the Seas and Skies: Eadro, Jazirian, Koriel, Panzuriel, Persana, Quorlinn, Remnis, Sekolah, Surminare, Syranita, Trishina, Water Lion, Stillsong

Gods of the Scaly Folk: Blibdoolpoolp, Laogzed, Merrshaulk, Parrafaire, Ramenos, Semuanya, Shekinester

Gods of the Dark Folk: Cegilune, Kanchelsis, Mellifleur, Squerrik, Balador, Ferrix, Daragor, Eshebala

The Sylvan Gods: Titania, Oberon, Caoimhin, Damh, Eachthighern, Emmantiensien, Fionnghuala, Nathair Sgiathach, Skerrit, Squelaiche, Verenestra, Queen of Air and Darkness

Great work, I'll take a look at them soon. Right now I'm still working on Giant deities, and then I might take a break from deities and work on some monster stuff, but I'll be sure to look through those when I'm next working through deities. -16:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Drilnoth (talk)

Halfling deities

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Halfling deities, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Arvoreen. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Monster index

You'll find this useful for identifying sources.  :) I have used it extensively when adding the publication history sections to monster articles. There is probably an updated one, but this at least goes to the end of 3.5 and it may go even further by now. BOZ (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks very interesting, but do you know if there's a non-PDF version? Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought it was in MS Excel. BOZ (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh... I just saw that it was a .ZIP, and most all of the .ZIPs that I've downloaded have been PDFs. Anyway, it doesn't really matter... so far Wikipedia's had all of the monster lists that I need. Thanks for pointing it out, though. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep... I built most of those lists using that document.  :) BOZ (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Half-elf

Heya. :) I resurrected Half-elf (Dungeons & Dragons) for what it's worth, if you want to do anything with that. BOZ (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'd been looking for an entry on them. I'll merge it into Humanoid (Dungeons & Dragons) and add it to my template idea. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Various Discussion

Wow, Faerie dragon sure was a crappy little article.  ;) See if you can make any use of that... BOZ (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd expected a little more content, but I can merge it into Draconic creatures anyway. Also, I'm not sure if it's in line with Wikipedia policies or not, but do you think that you or I could alert everyone who's name is on the member list that there's been some more activity? I think you mentioned that a lot of people stopped posting after Gavin added all of those tags (many of which were actually needed, although some of them were just weird). -Drilnoth (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the tags, it's the way he agressively defended each and every one of them, stymied every argument with his extreme point of view, his lack of assuming good faith and civility issues, his aggressiveness on AFD debates, etc. I think that killed the enthusiasm for just about everyone on the project. The fact that he has been busy with other things for months hasn't changed anyone's mind to come back. When the 0.7 release was announced, I tried to rattle cages and get people to wake up and help, but response was very minimal at best. We'll see though - right now it's basically just you and me. :) BOZ (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay... maybe once the new template it fully ready and some more articles are merged we could say something. And about Gavin... I agree with what you said completely (I didn't want to be that aggressive without knowing Wikipedia's policies about things like that, but believe me that's what I was thinking). Also, I think that a more directed effort might be good... basically ask the members if they're still interested if things were cleaned up more, and then we could all focus on between one and three different articles at a time to make them as good as possible before moving on. Any thoughts? -Drilnoth (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you haven't noticed my userpage has a list of all the different pages I've compiled or am working on compiling. If you have any ideas as to where to go next, please let me know here. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You can give it a try. If you point out what you've been doing and invite people to join in, you might just get a response. Maybe go with Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons) next - I seem to remember seeing people debating if that page should even exist. :) BOZ (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the elemental page... it would need quite a bit of reformatting to allow for merging, but I'll give it a try when I'm done with undead. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How does this look for something to post on member pages?

• Hi! I’ve been working on a lot of ‘’Dungeons & Dragons’’ articles lately and saw that you were a member of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons), and am inviting you to rejoin Wikipedia’s D&D group. Many of the tags that were placed by Gavin.Collins earlier this year have been removed, by modifying the articles they were in appropriately. In addition, I have been compiling related articles together so that the articles are longer, making it easier to remove tags and to have short articles on lesser topics by just putting it into another appropriate article. Check out the project here , and ask any questions that you may have here. Thank you for your time.

Any thoughts? -Drilnoth (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think if Gavin notices a user whom he's never interacted with before posting his name on people's talk pages, he might have a legimitate complaint. :) I'd recommend editing that sentence something like this: "I've been hard at work removing tags placed inappropriately on D&D articles, as well as modifying articles to remove tags that were placed legitimately." Keep in mind that the moderator has closed our moderation case earlier today, so I don't know what that means. If Gavin returns to targetting D&D articles though, based on past experience, that he will fight your attempts to remove his templates, no matter how well-intentioned you have been. If you want to get people motivated to help out, you can reach out to project members who have edited recently (if someone hasn't been around in a year, they probably haven't bothered to remove their name from the list), as well as anyone who's edited the project talk page, and anyone you've noticed that has made a large number of edits to D&D articles. BOZ (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I hadn't thought of your note about Gavin, but I have to ask, what do you mean by "Keep in mind that the moderator has closed our moderation case earlier today"? -Drilnoth (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See [1]. Gavin hasn't edited D&D articles since the early days of that case, but now that it has been closed due to inactivity, he may seek to return to finish off what he started. I'm crossing my fingers and praying that this is not the case, but we shall see. :) BOZ (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC

-Removed indent-Oh... that's interesting. I hadn't known about that. Well, if he does come back we'll just have to continue to fight any unproductive modifications that he might make by trying to enhance articles or explaining why certain tags don't make sense (I just found today a -Who?- tag in a sentence that didn't refer to a single creature or person, for example). I think that it should also be easier to handle in the compilation articles than it was in all of the shorter articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Finished posting my alert to appropriate members and other users.-Drilnoth (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in this, but since you posted there already I figured I'd let you know. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I was just stating my opinion because the article is the best-sourced stub that I've seen. Also, I was wondering about wikihounding... I was looking at the guidelines and couldn't determine if watching someone's recent edits so that I can fix up articles that they put cleanup tags on (and actually fixing the articles, not just removing the tags (unless the tags made absolutely no sense whatsoever)) would be considered wikihounding or not. That's how I found Dan Willis, but right now I've stopped after seeing those rules, and I won't keep track of anyone's recent edits if that isn't a valid reason. Your thoughts? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

From my reading of the guideline, it seems that it's only a problem if you take actions to specifically inhibit the person or harass them. It's not a problem, I think, to just keep an eye on what someone does and kind of follow up. Besides, if a person notices and has a problem with you looking at what they're doing, I'm sure they'll let you know. :) BOZ (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! As I said, I just plan to work on the articles that they tag in a fair way, using the contribution list to find them quickly. I don't plan to try to stop them from making edits, nor do I want to bother them at all. I just wanted to check before I started. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject D&D

Yep, I'm aware it's around, seeing as I created it! :D That said, I have not been active for several reasons, mainly that I no longer play D&D and that I had a philosophy disagreement with everyone else in that I think no monsters meet WP:Notability, at all. I think the entire thing is a giant pile of bloated fancruft, and though combating that was one of the reasons it was created, thanks to a policy which is probably too broad to be helpful, it became more of a place for people to circlejerk over what new fancruft to add to Wikipedia.

Good luck though! Piuro (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanted to let members know because things have pretty much ground to a halt. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still on the rolls dude, it was the Roleplaying WikiProject i signed off on. Didn't think it made much sense being my interest is in Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft...lol. I will continue to do what I can in the Project, but right now I'm taking a week-lomg vacation from Wikipedia. My step-daughter misscarried our grandbaby this morning, and my wife and myself are rather shook up. Kudos to all.--Lord Balin (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh... that's... that's terrible. I'm so sorry. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I thought that I had seen you on the D&D WikiProject list, but now I see that I was mistaken. I'm not sure how I managed to give you that reminder. I'm sorry if it caused any trouble. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wizards of the Coast GA

Hey man. :) I know you're busy, but since you play both D&D and M:tG according to your user page, I was wondering if there is anything you can do to help me improve Wizards of the Coast in my GA drive, it would be much appreciated. BOZ (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Right now I'm in the middle of a big project (that is User:Drilnoth/WP:D&D main page idea), but I'll see what I can do to improve the WotC article when I need a break from work on that. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool! :) Looks like a lot of work. You know the main reason I suggested the D&D navbox you were working on was so that I could use it to help get the WotC article to a GA. :) If you don't mind, I'd like to point out my intention to use it to the reviewer. BOZ (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to use or discuss the navbox template any way you want, although I'd rather that you didn't make any major edit to it or move it out of the User namespace without discussing it first. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do. BOZ (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any time limit on Good Article candidates to be finished? -Drilnoth (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll get started with more work on it sometime on the 10th. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) You added something that I didn't have access to: actual books with info about WotC. I only had web searches, and whatever articles people had already left for me to find. There's no specific time limit, but sooner the better - I think it's up to the whim of the reviewer to say "good enough" or "nowhere near, so I'm failing it". The re-review has already been done, so I think if we can resolve those last few issues listed on the GA page then we've got ourselves a GA. :) I'm going to do a little work on the lead in a moment, since it is kind of bare. BOZ (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What's unfortunate is that I only had the two books, although they are both chock-full of information. I could probably add a little bit more, but I didn't want to have to many references from the same thing... for example, the excellent The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible 2nd Edition" lists Wizards of the Coast as the top RPG publisher (although only due to their acquisition of TSR... the book was published in 1999). -Drilnoth (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

We use what we have.  :) BOZ (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, did you have a larger version you could use of the Magic card? It looks very tiny now on the WotC article, and very fuzzy on the actual Magic article. BOZ (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can come up with for the image... and also, why did you strike through your eariler comment? -Drilnoth (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded a bigger image. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I struck through the comment because I was wrong about the re-review - the reviewer had posted a few comments, but not necessarily re-reviewed the article. :) Thanks for fixing the image - much better. BOZ (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe I wasn't wrong after all. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

-Removed indent-Great! So what article will we try to get to GA next? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See project talk page for my thoughts, although you can discuss here as well if you like. BOZ (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms characters

Hey there. :) If you ever wanted to create a page of Forgotten Realms characters, as you've been doing with deities and monsters, there were a lot of them deleted. In fact, it was those pages getting deleted that I knew was the first sign we might be in trouble. You're busy at the moment, but keep this idea in the back of your head. I can compile a more complete list, but here are a few that I kept track of for starters: Arilyn Moonblade, Danilo Thann (edit history deleted), Dragonbait (edit history deleted), Fzoul Chembryl, Ityak-Ortheel, Kezef the Chaos Hound, Laeral Silverhand, Manshoon, Olive Ruskettle, Storm Silverhand, Szass Tam, Vangerdahast. BOZ (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks. I'll work on them once more of my non-compilation projects are done. That's a compilation article that I hadn't thought of doing before. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for [2]. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 00:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sanderson

Uh yes, thank you for undoing a copyright violation removal. I have know removed it again. Alientraveller (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yah, sorry about that... I had already undone it by the time I saw that you had been removing it due to copyvio. I'll try to be more careful in the future. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooze (Dungeons & Dragons)‎

Check the talk page for this article for the reasoning for the inclusion of the neutrality tag in the articleissues template that was updated to reflect the multiple problems with this article. It is always best to check the talk page and make sure to add a section to the talk page for any article in which a new tag is added, prior to removing to make sure all editors have a chance to discuss a new tag or the removal of a tag so as not to cause edit wars in an article. shadzar-talk 20:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that doesn't mean every tagged article you find will have any explanation on the talk pages, or even that people will read the talk pages should you add something about a new tag to them, but at least you have done your part in checking and/or providing space to talk about tags on talk pages as indicated by the tags themselves for people to be able to review problems with articles. shadzar-talk 21:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course; I'm still on the new side here so I haven't quite gotten the hang of everything yet. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Adventures in Blackmoor

I userfied and moved it to User:Drilnoth/Adventures in Blackmoor to preserve teh page history. If it can be made notable in its own right, then it can go back into userpsace, or have a look and see if it is more suited to a series or something. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made some modifications. Would you say that it is well-sourced for now? -Drilnoth (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

oooh, looking better. I have White Dwarf magazines from that era, which count as independent (they are Games Workshop and were not affiliated with TSR), and there should be a review in there (which would add some commentary too). Give me a day or two and once that is done I think it is safe to move back into mainspace. (FWIW I have White dwarf magazines from late 70s to around issue 100, I even got a monster (Weresnake) in the Fiend Factory Section in 1981 :))) ). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. I have found an image to add in once it's out of the userspace, but I can't put it in yet because it would be fair-use. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

D&D work

Hey, thanks so much for all your work on all of the D&D articles! Web Warlock (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I can only hope that Gavin doesn't destroy it all. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy

LOL, no problem. :) And try not to burn yourself out on unproductive arguments like so many others have in the past. Wikipedia has a very specific dispute resolution process. You have stated your case, as have numerous other editors (see the documentation on the mediation case), and have reported your findings to others. If the problem persists, we have Third Opinions, RfCs, and then ultimately ArbCom. If I told you I never expected Gavin's case to go that far, I'd be lying; everything else is only delaying the inevitable, but that is the course we must follow for now. BOZ (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan to burn myself out. I'll do whatever it takes to fight Gavin, but I'll also be continuing to do more productive things on Wikipedia. If anything, he might burn out first.

.

.

.

.

I agree, that isn't very likely. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. :) I love the smell of chaos in the morning! Gets the blood boiling... maybe the real reason that people stopped editing D&D pages is because without Gavin there was no conflict. ;) BOZ (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

HAH! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'd like to say - you seem to have come along at just the right time to get things started again, and colliding with Gavin's return, your attempts to get people motivated again seem to have really turned this project around. Your work on organizing the project brings something much needed. Just in case you needed any encouragement. ;) BOZ (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow... thanks. I really don't know what to say; I'm just sorry I hadn't started earlier so that we could have gotten more done before Gavin came. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He might be a hindrance, but he doesn't have to be an obstruction. Just work on anything he does when you start up, and the rest of the day is yours. :) That's what I try to do. BOZ (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll try it out. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Armando Simon cite on D&D

Hi, I reverted your addition of the fact tag on the D&D article. The Simon piece was cited and is an actual paper written in the 80s. It's also supportive of D&D so I'm not sure why you removed it, perhaps you meant to remove another piece? Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I know that it was supportive of D&D; I think that I had made a mistake and looked at 69.154.243.219's revision without seeing BOZ's (using the watchlist), and added {{fact}} without seeing BOZ's citation at all. Even though it is supportive of my views, Dungeons & Dragons is a featured article, so I thought that a source was needed. My bad; thanks for fixing it. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hey, awesome! Good luck with that process. I let the folks on the comics project know that you picked it up. You could have a chat with User:Jclemens, who did the EGG and WotC reviews, if you need some advice - he's done at least a couple dozen already. :) BOZ (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Since we've added another GA to the nominations, I thought that it was only fair that I help work through the backlog a little bit. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool, that's a good call. :) BOZ (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Psst, I don't think you're supposed to make any significant contributions to an article you're reviewing. Never hurts to point things out to people as suggestions though, I imagine. BOZ (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines actually say that if something needs fixing and is easy to do, BE BOLD and do it; it's just significant contributions that you aren't supposed to make. I consider restoring content that was both written and deleted within the past day to be relatively easy, and I think that it was actually deleted by mistake in the first place. I can, of course, revert my edit if I need to. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should read guidelines more often. ;) I got the impression that reviewers weren't supposed to be involved, to remain neutral. BOZ (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith.

Thought you might find this funny. [3] shadzar-talk 17:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

HA! Thanks for pointing that out. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll get in there and "vandalize" a little bit myself. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Nevermind, now I see what you mean. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

-Cross posted from User talk:RJHall-
Thanks for adding in that ref to a bunch of articles; any reliable secondary sources we can get are good, and books are even harder to come by then web pages! -Drilnoth (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I keep trying to find more independent sources, but they are hard to come by.—RJH (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Batman (film series) GA review

Thanks for reviewing that article. I'm not finished with the concerns, but I will notify you when I'm done. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! If you have any questions about the concerns, just put them in the GA Review subpage. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I think I finished off your concerns. I will now go to work on Batman & Robin. Wildroot (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! :) BOZ (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just barely finished with the re-editing of the Plot section for Batman & Robin. I think that's ready for GA-status as well. Wildroot (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll check in on it in a moment. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages on redirects

Hey there. I was under the impression that we were keeping track of redirected pages via having {{D&D}} on the page. I noticed that yesterday, Craw-Daddy had deleted a number of such talk pages I'd created. I've been trying to locate pages to apply the project, including redirects, but I'd rather not waste my time on that if it's going to be undone. I guess my question to you is, are these useful in any way? The ones that got deleted seemed to be only on pure redirects (as opposed to redirected articles) where the page had been moved and a redirect left in its place. Are there only some redirects we'd really want to keep track of? Let me know before I continue. Thanks! 71.194.32.252 (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do tag them. I'll talk to Craw-daddy. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll continue after he responds to you. From the Deletion log:

From the log

01:26, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:The Bane of Llywelyn (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:26, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Swords of the Undercity (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:25, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Swords of Deceit (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:25, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Sabre River (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:24, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Land Beyond the Magic Mirror" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:24, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Iuz the Evil (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:23, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Jade Hare" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:23, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Isle of the Ape (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:22, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Five Shall Be One (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:21, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Fate of Istus (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:21, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Earthshaker! (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:20, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Death's Ride (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 01:19, 26 November 2008 Kubigula (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Day of Al'Akbar (module)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 00:26, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:City of the Gods (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:23, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:In Search of Adventure (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:22, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Tomb of the Lizard King (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:22, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:The Marklands (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:22, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Rahasia (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:21, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Patriots of Ulek (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:21, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Lost Tomb of Martek (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:21, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Howl From the North (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:21, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Horror on the Hill (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:20, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Greyhawk Ruins (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:20, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Ghost of Lion Castle (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:20, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Duchy of Ten (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:20, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Border Watch (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:07, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Bane of Llywelyn, The (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 00:00, 26 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:The Veiled Society (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 23:59, 25 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Temple of the Frog (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 23:59, 25 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Oasis of the White Palm (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 23:59, 25 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Mystery of the Snow Pearls (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 23:58, 25 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 23:58, 25 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Castle Caldwell and Beyond (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 23:58, 25 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Ravager of Time (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history) 23:57, 25 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Test of the Warlords (module)" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Orphaned talk page of moved article; no substantive history)

71.194.32.252 (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I did ask for those talk pages to be deleted. I didn't see the point of having Talk:Temple of the Frog (module) (or whatever) having a tag that states it's a redirect, when the article Temple of the Frog exists *and* the talk page Talk:Temple of the Frog exists too, having a (non-redirect) D&D tag on them. Perhaps what I should have done instead was to update the Talk:Temple of the Frog (module) to *be* a redirect to Talk:Temple of the Frog but I didn't see the point of that. Basically it's like someone moved the page Temple of the Frog (module) to Temple of the Frog, but didn't move the talk page at the same time. I could recreate all those talk pages that were deleted, but I would recreate as redirects to the proper talk page, not as pages that would have the {{D&D|class=redirect}} template on them, as they aren't useful in any way. They way things were you have one talk page in the "Redirect" category and one in the "Stub" (or "Start" or whatever) category page, which is less-than-useful. I tend to reserve the "Redirect" tag for pages that are real redirects, e.g. the way that the *article* page Hall of the Fire Giant King redirects to Against the Giants. Hope this makes sense here. I genuinely thought that I was doing a good thing here in that sort of cleanup. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In other words, I would create them like Talk:City of the Gods (module), so that the talk page *is* a redirect to the talk page of the real article. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, having {{D&D|class=redirect}} is sufficient, as this automatically adds the page into the "NA-importance" category, so {{D&D|class=redirect|importance=NA}} contains a redundant "importance=NA" tag. Just thought you should know to save yourself some typing. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Thanks for the tip.

2)I understand your position, but it does seem to be the general consensus of the project that those articles should be tagged. I think that BOZ and 71.194.32.252 have been adding {{D&D}} to them, and I've been updating the description to say they're redirects. I think that this is important to the project because all articles on the public watchlist should probably be tagged, and those articles are on the watchlist. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I still think it's the wrong way to go for the reasons I've stated above. When City of the Gods (module) was moved, the talk page should have been moved too (but wasn't for some reason), which would have left a redirect on the article talk page like the one that I created above. I would suggest this to other members of the project and see what they have to say about it. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have posted on the project talk page with a link to this discussion. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Craw-daddy's G6 tagging is inline with common practice on these no-content talk page redirects. However, if the project identifies some value in them, then I have no problem doing restorations.

On a related note, I have to say that I also see very little value in redirects such as Temple of the Frog (module). Certainly, no one is ever going to search under that title. It seems as though someone created these specific titles in the anticipation that disambiguation would be necessary. However, preemptive anticipation of disambiguation is usually overkill. In any event, let me know if you want me to do anything.--Kubigula (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer; I think that the project can actually handle it. There seems to be quite a bit of discussion on its talk page. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Allright, would it be OK to start adding the template back to redirects yet? I'm expecting a lot of free time in the near future. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing; if there's any other trouble just let me know. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, when you tag redirects, do you think you could assess them? Basically, just put, {{D&D|class=Redirect|importance=NA}} on the talk pages instead of just {{D&D}}? Then other people don't need to go through to assess them. I find copying and pasting the longer tag to be the best way to do it. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sorry about that - didn't mean to give you more work. I was just trying to get through them quickly, since there were so many. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind; just thought I'd mention it to you. It is really fast if you just copy the longer line and the use Ctrl-V to paste it (if your computer and browser allow that). -Drilnoth (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, here's another template: {{D20}}. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep; I think that navbox is kind of obsolete at this point, but I'll add it to the watchlist. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Restore PRODs?

Hi, I restored the history of the Pharaun Mizzrym article, behind a redirect to War of the Spider Queen#Characters (like you suggested on ^demon's talkpage). The most recent version of the history is at [4]. - Bobet 11:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what?

Since it seems there is little to do in this war that is being thrown at people, just find the proper warning, and place on the user's talk page and revert the vandalism accordingly for each occurrence (as was done with Ansalon). Each tag contains some information, but the user's failure to address the specific concerns that were the reason for placing the tag, in the placing editor's opinion, on the talk page of the articles in which the tags are placed means either of a few things, one of which could be seen directly as vandalism and/or disruptive editing. shadzar-talk 23:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about that, but technically Gavin's edits AREN'T vandalism, and none of the user warning messages cover what he's doing specifically. If you'd like to help out with the situation, User:Drilnoth/ANI draft has a current draft of what I want to post at AN/I regarding his actions, and you can edit it to make it more accurate and comprehensive. Otherwise, I will not comment on the addition of user warning templates to his userpage. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

subst:uw-vandalism3 Does include the "Please stop your disruptive editing", but also calls for a block on the way, which requires an admin I think. It is quite clear that the case is a matter of disruptive editing as can be seen here. I think it is clear signs of overall disruptive editing and things stated there should be done to prevent such disruptive editing. That is why I am placing the warnings to make it clear there is an attempt at compromise, since the article talkpages are always ignored when these tags are placed, so even adding something there would not even reach an editor in question who refuses to use the article talk pages. shadzar-talk 23:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position on this topic and reasoning for the use of the template messages, but at this time I do not feel comfortable adding that kind of tag for his specific actions. I will, however, do what I can when it comes to AN/Is and ArbComs. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Something that may or may not be of use for the rcfu shadzar-talk 01:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep; I've been keeping an eye on that conversation. However, until Merridew actually returns to the mainspace, if the ArbCom goes in his favor, I don't think that we can really use his involvement as a part of the argument (and even then he'd have to return to his old behaviors first). -Drilnoth (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean this particular line "I admit not really understanding Wikipedia procedures". I admit that may be a big part of the problem dealing with behavior or conduct, or it may not, but it may be something in that statement that could help wikipedia, its readers, and editors. Also I just saw something somewhere about wp:spa that I want to track down and will bring back to you to look over and think about if/how to use it. shadzar-talk 02:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh... that's nice. I hadn't really caught that. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

~remove indent~ User_talk:134.139.148.100 is where I saw mention of WP:SPA so don't think it will help that much from an IP account that may just be a sockpuppet or SPA itself...so don't know much if anything in WP:SPA is relavent or not. As I tell BOZ, I am just a research monkey, so read the things I find and make your own conclusions as to whether or not they are of any use as I also don't know much about procedures around here other than working with consensus, even if you guys want to merge DM -> GM, and it just don't feel right to me. =P shadzar-talk 02:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good find but, as you said, considering that the account is an IP in addition to having been blocked multiple times. I think that the later carries much more weight. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was considering WP:SPA itself as the more focal point rather than the IP user, considering what it says and how something seems contradictory in a way for an accounting expert to be so focused on fiction articles. But it is just my opinion that SPA might have some relevance. Hopefully not. shadzar-talk 02:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly a valid point, which I think that all of us have thought of many times before. However, he does make enough non-D&D edits that I don't think WP:SPA applies; this does not, however, preclude WP:POINT from being a possible reason for his edits. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this as an example of trying to disrupt wikipedia process or procedures? [5] shadzar-talk 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find that nearly as rude as his response to my removal of it on the talk page: [6]. That's something that I might mention during the RFC, although I don't think that it should be on the RFC itself. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

~undent~ WP:OWN? "I realy need citations with footnotes; vague references which don't support the text of this article won't do." shadzar-talk 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes; I found it rather amazing that he said that, especially while we're drafting the RFC/U. I've already added it, and will be keeping an eye on that page to see if he ever cares to respond. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Any further attempts to disrupt us from setting up that page should be noted as well (perfectly fair to let the first one slide as a misunderstanding). However, we should be open to helpful and useful suggestions from him. Keeping that in mind, the case we make is our point of view, and unlike with setting up the RFM terms, we are under no obligation to use anything he wants us to add or change. BOZ (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's basically my view of the subject, too. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

~undent~ AN/I closed/archived by bot, current location shadzar-talk 03:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages of redirects which existed for one day

Following your post to my talk page regarding deletion of the D&D Module redirect talk pages, the user who had requested deletion recreated all of them. I have posted at my talk page why they are utterly useless and should stay (and new be re-) deleted. I am inclined to delete them all again. Please advise why and how these talk pages of redirects that existed for one day total could ever be useful.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Book of Artifacts

Hey, thanks for the C-rating. ;) I'm trying to fill in some blanks here and there, and 2nd edition stuff is often woefully underrepresented.

Today, I'm going to make an effort into working on the Ravenloft module article. I'm taking a short break first, though. :) BOZ (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome; it looks good. Happy to see some work on 2nd edition.

Good idea to work more on Ravenloft (D&D module) (I'm assuming that's what you're referring too); without a peer review having been done, I think we'll want to just nominate it for FA status pretty soon. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

See what you can find here! http://nightmare.org/dnd/gallery/main.php?g2_page=6 BOZ (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean that I could search for images there? Because now that you mention it, the Wizards site probably has some. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

They might, I haven't checked. That site seems to have maps for other books, but not sure if they have one for EtCR. BOZ (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm; I just looked. They have the art gallery, but not the map gallery. I'm still searching right now, though. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I found some pretty cool maps from House on Gryphon Hill, but of course they aren't mentioned in the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There it is! I found the map gallery for Expedition, including the 3D-style maps mentioned in the article. I'll just upload one and replace the book cover. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Great work. :) BOZ (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The map image has been uploaded and added to the article in place of the book's cover, which I've tagged with {{orfud}}. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for copyediting

Hello again. Would you be interested in copyediting the article Ralph Bakshi? It is currently up for featured article candidacy. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

Well, right now I'm trying to get another article promoted to FA status, but if I have the time I might see what I can do to help you out. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey, did I ever point out my first barnstar to you? ;) BOZ (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I can only assume that that was given out per WP:SIRH, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines on the topic? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course! :) Feel free to mention that anywhere that it might be helpful. Also, here is a "discussion" you might want to keep an eye on. BOZ (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U creation

Thanks for pointing out the WT:FICT discussion; I'd noticed it earlier. As for the RFC/U, I'm not sure how the barnstar could really be made to fit into it, both because it was given so long ago and because it seems to be a (mostly) isolated incident of WP:SIRH. If you can find a way to work it in, though, please do. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'd like to try my hand at reorganizing the evidence section later today if I can find the time. BOZ (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of it almost looks like picking nits, and those are mixed in with the more serious obviously bad stuff, which I don't want to get lost in the shuffle. I'm going to see what I can do about ordering them better. To tell the truth, most of his "bad" edits aren't even that bad, it's the sheer volume of argumentative and nasty-toned remarks that form the problem. BOZ (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that the most important things are his accusations (COI, vandalism, etc.) and his obvious misuse of certain tags (such as {{Who?}}). -Drilnoth (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I found most of his infamous "boilerplate" talk page warnings from Feb-Apr of this year. The tone sounds hostile enough, and accuses the user of POV-pushing. Time for a break - I also looked through the Paladine talk page archives, and will look through some of the other articles I mentioned in the RFM as time allows. BOZ (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

But, I'll do that a little later. Further suggestions: strengthen positions like COI and vandalism claims, hostile tone, dissmissive of other opinions, ignoring consensus, and other violations of civility, AGF, and the like. For interesting reading, check out the Exploring the issues portion of the RFM. BOZ (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll probably work on that more tomorrow. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Good additions, BOZ. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, looking at the current version, I have to point out some items that we should consider either removing or using in a different way. I take the "Evidence of disputed behavior" section to be a list of things that the person shouldn't be doing, rather than suspicious or borderline questionable stuff. Items #3, 6, 9, 11-13 are interesting, but I don't see how they belong in this section - perhaps there is somewhere else we can use them? The diffs under #8 seem kind of weak, so not sure; we could use stronger examples of ignoring consensus. We could also use some diffs that illustrate edit warring over templates, so I'll try to look for those. Items #10 and 15 I guess we can keep, but since those are content disputes rather than conduct disputes, I would make sure you have the most concrete examples possible and toss any weaker or questionable ones. 16:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC) (previous comment by BOZ. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

I'll take a look. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that those are all important points listed, although I agree that they need either more concrete examples or they should be put somewhere else in the discussion. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's another way we can use the less behavioral ones that are descriptive of his thought process or where the dispute stems from, let's explore that. One thought is, most of that is referenced in the "Description" section. Is there any specific reason we can't put links and diffs there? If not, that would be perfect for some of these. BOZ (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could; I was just following the pre-made template. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Did I read somewhere that said there was no specific way it had to be formatted, or was I imagining that or thinking of something else? :) BOZ (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You can probably change it around. After all, you just have to use the basic outline and be able to understand what is being discussed. Feel free to move things around, for the most part. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do - I'll get into that in a few minutes. :) BOZ (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm done with what I wanted to do regarding the setup. I could go on and on looking, but this is RFC not ArbCom. I say fire it off whenever you feel it's ready. One admonishment I would make is that you try to find more recent late-November early-December diffs for the "Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute" to show that not only was he still talking the same talk, but walking the same walk. You know, diffs of him adding the notability template where we have the importance and/or primarysources, etc, that sort of thing. Shouldn't be too hard since you'll be focusing on the last couple hundred edits or so. Other than that, not sure we need anything else. BOZ (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that later today or tomorrow and get the RFC started! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's about time! BOZ (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would personally change that to say regarding rather than against :o ;) BOZ (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

DOH! I think that I put "regarding" on his talk page, but not on all the others. Well, I've already notified quite a few people (including Jeske, Vassyana, Webwarlock, Shadzar, ColorOfSuffering, and Metatron's Cube), but I'll change that for future notices. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Good, that's fine. When you get through the "usual suspects", I'll see who else needs to be advised. BOZ (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I got everyone that I can think of. While looking around, I didn't see any active users who would probably be on Gavin's side to let them know, although if you or I notice any you should probably make them aware of the RFC/U for the sake of fairness. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Toss up a note on the D&D talk page if you haven't already, as well as the RPG talk page. BOZ (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Goblinoid Deities

Thanks for all your work in cleaning up/consolidating the goblinoid deities. I spent some time a while ago trying to track down source books and enter all the details, but eventually got disheartened by all the notability tagging going on. It's such an easy way to vandalize a page without having to justify the tag. The argument could be made that many Wiki articles don't fulfill the exact requirements for notability (e.g. this or this), but it seems that some people have specifically singled out D&D articles. Anyway, good job! Maglubiyet (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm trying to do whatever I can to establish notability, whether that is adding sources or merging articles. Any help with these topics would be appreciated. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Before you respond...

Remember, calm, reasoned, rational. Read it a few times, then respond later. ;) A quick, visceral response feels good, but looks bad. BOZ (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Very good words. I'd just hit "Preview" when I saw the big orange bar. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Heroic Worlds

I should have checked back sooner, but if you haven't seen it already: [7] BOZ (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, great! Thanks! I'll add those in later today unless you (or someone else) already has. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope that was helpful. :) If you need me to ask anything else, let me know. BOZ (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly was; I added in the page number and removed the one reference. Thanks again for your help! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Categories

Alright. Thanks for letting me know, then I won't make the same mistake twice.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Pluralization on the monster lists

Hey there, just a note; when you see the monster names pluralized or not pluralized in the monster lists, that is intentional. I tried to write the names as written in the product in question, rather than how they may be commonly known. So, when Orc is written as "Orcs" for the White Box, that's because all the monster names there were pluralized. BOZ (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. I'll fix it up; thanks for letting me know (I also alphabetized the lists; I think that makes them much more useful as a reference, even if its not in the same order as in the books). -Drilnoth (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, alphabetizing the entries is fine, since we have page numbers. Some works don't have page numbers though, so maybe those should stay in the order they appear if it's irregular? BOZ (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey, my first Barnstar. Cool. Thanks.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Merging

I set up Flanaess and merged a few of the already-redirected articles into it. I didn't link to every article that should probably be linked to it, but I'll probably come back and hit that at some point.

My next goal is to make List of Forgotten Realms characters look more like List of major Dragonlance characters. :) I'll get started on that in a little while. BOZ (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look as well when I get a chance, it would be nice to be constructive and proactive instead of chasing tags. Web Warlock (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far! I'll help out when I get a chance; there's a lot on my to-do list right now. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool - I just finished merging the first wave of undeletions into the FR characters list page, and boy do I need a break. :) I'll see if I can dig out my copies of Hall of Heroes (1E), Heroes' Lorebook and Villains Lorebook (2E) to see what I can add in terms of sources and more characters and such. BOZ (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I found my big box of FR supplements, including the ones mentioned above. :) BOZ (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice! -Drilnoth (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Small note

I added a note over on the discussion page for Demodand that might help that particular article. You've been making a bunch of contributions to random D&D articles of late (which makes you awesome) so I figured that I might mention it to someone capable of editing the article (I'd do it myself, but per that note on the discussion page, it might cause a tempest over perceived COI that one or two editors might jump on in a fit of wikilawyering).Shemeska (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for mentioning those. A quick question, then: Where might I find a source for the demodands being in The Great Beyond? Since you're the author I believe that you're telling the truth, but something needs to be published already to be able to cite it. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ravenloft module

Just a quick note - keep an eye on this thread and this thread. If you need me to ask/mention anything there, let me know. :) BOZ (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I knew about the one thread, but no the one about the Acaeum. I'll keep my eye on them. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Turned up maybe something useful here? BOZ (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll mention something at the FAC. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As requested, I've added some additional content from the White Dwarf review of Ravenloft II. Please edit my contribution for consistency and length, and let me know if you need anything else from the early White Dwarfs. (Or from any Ravenloft products -- I think my Ravenloft collection is fairly complete.) Ant Brooks (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks. One other thing that would be nice is if you could clarify the PC's goal in the original I6 module; that's one of the requested things for the FAC, and I don't have the module myself. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... what do you mean by their goal? Their initial motivation for traveling to Barovia is a letter from the Burgomaster pleading for assistance in dealing with Ireena Kolyana's "affliction". (The letter also alludes to "much wealth" to motivate less philanthropic PCs.) This turns out to be a fake created by Strahd in order to lure the PCs into his kingdom, and Strahd's motivations for doing this depend on the result of the fortune telling process with Madam Eva. Once the PC become entwined in Strahd's plans, their goal is presumably to destroy the vampire and free Ireena Kolyana/Tatyana, but that's never specifically spelled out as such in the module. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ant Brooks (talk • contribs) 07:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's basically what I was looking for. So the module itself doesn't really say what the goal is, either? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do they ever? :) I think they kind of rely on the players to figure that out (when it isn't completely obvious), although I suppose it is sometimes spelled out. "Oh, you mean that guy who's doing all this evil stuff, I guess we need to kill him and take his stuff." ;) BOZ (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

True. Very true. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much what BOZ said. Once they have been lured into Barovia, the adventure seems to assume that they will be motivated enough to investigate the castle and confront Strahd based on the nudges they get from the villagers and the fortune-telling scene. As an aside, what are the Wikipedia requirements for images? I think the article might benefit from more pictures, and I could probably take a photo of a selection of Ravenloft products through the ages (say I6, I10, the main 2nd Edition boxed set and Expedition to Castle Ravenloft) if that would be useful. (Although it would be on my phone, so the quality wouldn't be fantastic. Ant Brooks (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

-removed indent-Thanks for the offer, but I think that any additional images would have to be free (i.e. not of the products themselves). Take a look at the FAC review for more information about the images... the article used to have a lot more images, but the fair-use rationales didn't work. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Article hits page

Neat! That's a really cool idea. There's got to be a way to get a bot to do it (I sure wouldn't expect anyone to do that by hand for more than a few articles, and even then) but that's a damn cool idea. The original boxed set is actually getting more hits than I expected. ;) BOZ (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on putting a few more of the major articles that just aren't Top-importance on it right now. It shouldn't be too hard to do by hand, just once a month. Maybe an hour at the most. Some of the results from High-importance articles are actually quite surprising. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Going off the list that they made for the 0.7 project and picking off the top 20 with the most total hits, I'd suggest considering Faerun, Alignment, Dragon (the monster, not the mag), Drow, Death knight, Planescape, Beholder, Illithid, Ravenloft, Eberron, Lolth, Dark Sun, Magic of Dungeons & Dragons, Tiefling, Bahamut, and Tiamat. :) BOZ (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and can't wait to see how that turns out! BOZ (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas. I'll take a look at them. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I've finished updating it for now. It's rather sad how much orange and yellow there is. I guess we'll just need to fix it! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep! :) It's interesting how high Death knight is on the list, but I suspect that has a lot to do with people looking for something other than the D&D creature (WoW, probably). BOZ (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's probably right. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I got tired of looking, but I found a couple more 7000+ hits articles: Raistlin Majere, and Dungeons & Dragons (TV series). You really do need to see if there's a bot you can run - maybe filter the whole watchlist into the thing and see what comes up where! BOZ (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add those two to the list if you haven't already. I'll look into finding a bot. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect category?

Do you know if there might be something wrong with the redirect category? I recently added Talk:The Knights of Myth Drannor Trilogy and Talk:The Parched Sea but they don't quite look right to me. :) BOZ (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

ARRRRRG! It had been fixed! (for context, see Template talk:WPBannerMeta#NA importance error?) :) -Drilnoth (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, don't mean to be the bearer of bad news. ;) BOZ (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this has been fixed. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Gygax FAC

Hey there, did you see my latest comment? :) BOZ (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Now we can get that ref figured out a bit better. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, hopefully. :) I'm going to take a look at that, and a lot of the other interviews and sources, over the near future. BOZ (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, about all I can say is that we should focus as much as possible on known reliable sources. How about that Game Inventor's Guidebook - I'd milk that for as much as you can, as with any print source you might have access to. Where possible, we should replace cites from longbio and any sites of unproven reliability with cites from known reliable sources. I know I added a lot of longbio stuff today, but I just wanted to get that in there and we can worry about swapping out sources later. :) (see the article talk page for a bunch of additional stuff.) I'm going to look over the WotC website links and the obits because those might be some of the most reliable stuff we've got, and make sure they are as maxed out as they can be. Most of the other sources I've used have been questioned, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily unreliable, just uncertain. BOZ (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try and get what I can out of The Game Inventor's Guidebook, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible, Dungeons & Dreamers: The Rise of Computer Game Culture, and 30 Years of Adventure: A Celebration of Dungeons & Dragons. I'll probably work on that tomorrow; at this point I'm getting a bit tired and don't want to do anything too brainy. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Right on - good work so far. :) BOZ (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged if this doesn't make it on the first try. Dungeons & Dragons didn't make it until try #5. :) BOZ (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I know; I think that failing an FAC only makes the next one more likely to pass. There's so much critiquing of the various errors that they can be fixed up and the next one can go more smoothly. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep; the main difference between a GAN and a FAC (besides getting pickier) is that you can have several people picking it apart to find the stuff that needs fixing. BOZ (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've been busy tonight... just wait until you see. :) BOZ (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy - was I ever! Wait until you see the watchlist... and that was just from one source! I've got a dozen more or so (most with less info to be added), and although this was a primary source, most are not. I managed to get a few edits in on Gen Con while I was at it. Time for sleep. :) BOZ (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That's awesome! Keep it up! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm hardly done. :) I'm going to milk these sources for all they're worth... BOZ (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Kyngdoms, did you see the note I placed on the FAC page? BOZ (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although it looks like the Dragonsfoot site isn't reliable, either. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, merely unproven... although, in the end, there's really little difference. Guilty until proven innocent. ;) BOZ (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Time for a short break - I've got some RL stuff to do. :) I've dug through some primary WotC-provided sources, but there are a number of EGG obits, and interviews, and other sources that I have piled up to pick through for details... fun. :) BOZ (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! -Drilnoth (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I went and added a bunch of citations to info in the Believer mag article. I really didn't add anything from it, except a few incidentals and some rearrangement, but figured it wouldn't hurt to back up things already in there with something that agrees. :) Feel free to remove any of those cites which seem like too much. I did use the source to add information to a bunch of other articles, which I figure wouldn't be hurting anything. A shame that they didn't want to consider that a reliable source, as it is very detailed in places, and includes a unique feature: most of the time, you see Gygax talking about Williams and Blume and getting only his POV, but this guy actually went and found them to hear at least part of their side of the story. I'm done for the night - Merry Christmas. :) Don't know when I'll be on tomorrow, but Friday is another story. ;) BOZ (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Friday it is - I'm on for a moment, but that's about it. :) Hope you had a good one! BOZ (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Don't know if you're done for the night. The last source I'm going to look at again was the Kyngdoms interview. Since it was totally shot down as a reliable source for FAC, I'm not going to add anymore cites to it in the GG article as I did with the last one. Instead, I'm just going to see where it can be used in any less-than-GA articles. Hey, a questionable source is better than no source, I figure, and we could always replace it later if need be. BOZ (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[responding to December 26th comment] I had a good one, alright! Hope you did, too!

[responding to December 27th comment] Sounds good. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm completely done with that, exhausted, and have no interest in pursuing it further at this time. :) I think it's likely that I will edit Gary Gygax's article little if at all until the next FAC comes around... BOZ (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message

Hey, thanks for your message. I know the basics about wikis and editing, not a problem. But I have to admit that I don't know how to make a good profile for myself. If I can join the D&D projects, I am resolutely a classic D&D player: I play BEMC and RC rules almost exclusively, and am mostly interested in pre 3e stuff. So I'm not sure exactly where to start. C-Blade (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a place we can list what resources we have access to in case people have questions or need references? For example, I have the Cyclopedia, and I'd be happy to help someone out if they needed me to look up a reference. C-Blade (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Start anywhere! As for a reference listing, I'm hoping to make something like that in the near future. There's a lot going on right now, and there are other things that are higher on the to-do list (like the current Featured Article candidacy of Gary Gygax). If you'd like to join the project, that would be great! Players of all editions are welcome. You can join in here if you want. As for making a profile, I could help you out if you'd like (I assume you're referring to your user page).

If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Review of Lynn de Silva

Howdy! Thanks for reviewing Lynn de Silva! I've been waiting quite some time for a review, and I'm glad the article finally got one :-). I'm wondering why it was rated C-class though, as it seems to me to fit all the B-class criteria. It's been thoroughly referenced, too. Thanks for your time! Ldesilva (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; and good job! It looks live you've put quite a bit of work into it.[8]. I gave it a C-Class rating for a couple of reasons, although I don't think that any of them would be too difficult to fix. Here's my advice:

1. Some of the references are doubled up... references 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 appear to all be used only once and all for the same fact. That many citations aren't necessary in the lead; could you use information from those sources to reference other information in the article?
2. Some of the Harvard references (like "Quoted in (Hallett 2007)") link to other footnote references; a bibliography (like in Edgar Allen Poe) or using the {{rp}} template would probably be better.
3. There may be a few too many quotations; typically, longer quotations from other sources should only be used if doing so would better illustrate the point than prose would. Could some of the quotes be converted into prose? Additionally, some of the quotations aren't referenced.
4. The list of publications could probably be trimmed, so that only the most important ones are included.

Otherwise, it looks good! Once those are resolved, I think that the article would be a solid B-Class, and probably not far from GA. Keep up the good work! -Drilnoth (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms locations

Hey there. I think I have found most of the non-merged FR-locations that had been simply redirected without merging. Regardless, I'm tired of all the warnings (some of them seemingly misplaced and confusing) on my talk page regarding that (especially after the last couple of days), so I've been thinking about it and I don't want to bother bringing any more back, and maybe shouldn't have done that many as it is. I merged a few of them into Abeir-Toril to beef that article up a bit. I think a lot of them should probably be merged into somewhere appropriate, but I'm not sure where. Faerûn seems inappropriate, as that would overly bloat the article, and Geographical index of Toril likewise. There were some regional articles previoulsy, but those got redirected as well, and some still are (namely Northwest Faerûn, North Faerûn, Northeast Faerûn, West Faerûn, Interior Faerûn, East Faerûn, Southwest Faerûn, South Faerûn, and Southeast Faerûn), so that may not be the way to go either. Maybe create some lists like List of Forgotten Realms locations (or just Forgotten Realms locations), List of Forgotten Realms cities, or something like that? Let me know what you think and I'll work with you on whatever might be most appropriate. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching your page; I think that many of the warnings are misplaced. People see you removed a lot of content from an article when you're actually splitting it and just assume its vandalism. For what should be done with the articles, I think that maybe having a few articles similar to List of Forgotten Realms countries, List of Forgotten Realms cities, and maybe another list for other locations, would be the best course of action right now. Maybe formatting them like List of Forgotten Realms characters would make sense? If you'd like I could create one or two stub articles for you to start merging the articles into. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think consolidating articles like these is part of one of our goals. :) Yeah, like the list of characters is the way we should go, which I think worked well. I like the idea of a list of countries and cities personally, and maybe some sort of page that merges all of those Faerun regions into one page with links to the countries and cities? Looking over the cities, I'd say Baldur's Gate (city), Neverwinter, and Waterdeep (city) are the most viable and should probably be kept as is, with most of the rest merged. Zhentil Keep would probably be worthy of its own article as well, if anyone had bothered to develop it. :) BOZ (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds about right. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If I have some time later, I might be able to help you out with that. Nice work with the template, BTW! BOZ (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It's going to take some time for all of the categories to get up to date, and there'll probably be some red ones until the current rename discussion ends and they're moved. I'll be listing most of the changes at WT:DND once most of the things are properly set up. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave you to that, then. :) BOZ (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look around at what articles and redirects there are, and see if I can map out a plan for consolidating this stuff. BOZ (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a few redirects remaining under Faerûn, so it'll take some time and doing for me to get through those to see what's what. Some are simple redirects, and some have content underneath. However, I don't think that's any reason not to press on with merging some of the stubs we have up now, and hitting the current redirects later. BOZ (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My conclusion would be that we could take the text under the above-mentioned redirects (Northwest Faerûn, North Faerûn, Northeast Faerûn, West Faerûn, Interior Faerûn, East Faerûn, Southwest Faerûn, South Faerûn, and Southeast Faerûn) and merge it into a single article, like List of Faerûn regions or something. To that, we would merge other articles that are non-country lands of Faerûn, and other mostly uninhabited geographical features (perhaps in a separate section?), for example: Anauroch, Chultan Peninsula, Cold Lands, Dalelands, Dragon Coast, Island Kingdoms of Faerûn, Lost Empires of Faerûn, Moonsea, Old Kingdoms (Forgotten Realms), Savage Frontier, Shining South, Silver Marches, Sword Coast, Unapproachable East, and Vilhon Reach. Those are places but not nations, which would include things like Amn (Forgotten Realms), Calimshan, Chessenta, Cormyr, Halruaa, Moonshae Isles, Mulhorand, Sembia, Tethyr, Thay (Forgotten Realms), and Unther. BOZ (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If you'd be willing to start up List of Forgotten Realms cities and List of Forgotten Realms nations, I'd be more than happy to start merging articles into the lists with a quickness. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

All-righty. I'm finished with another round of sourcing (my remaining sources were deemed unreliable, so I won't be using them in the FAC, and possibly not in the GANs either), and I'm not quite ready for bed, so I might as well get a start on the nations list page. :) BOZ (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll add a few more, and then really get going when I have some more free time. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll start the cities list in the fairly near future. BOZ (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, that one's up and running too. :) I'll start on the last one either tonight or tomorrow. Note that I suggested calling it List of Faerûn regions because places outside Faerûn are already mostly covered in the Abeir-Toril article. Do you have any opinion on what to call it, or should that suffice? BOZ (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I might go with List of regions in Faerûn, but it's up to you. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and probably even better. I'll get to that when I get to it. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"I'll get to that when I get to it." I know what you mean. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I probably have a comparable list... but since I don't usually write them down, I often forget them. :) Sure, often enough I will remember later and then get to it... BOZ (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've put about as much work into that as I care to. :) I'll get back to sourcing tomorrow (when I'm not too busy Christmasing). FYI: [9]. BOZ (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Just so's you know, there's a response. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have responded. I also responded on the AFD - I seem to remember last year around this time there was a round of AFDs from one of our dearly missed former aggressors. Merry f**ing Christmas indeed! :) BOZ (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, here's an interesting read. BOZ (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That certainly is a, sadly, interesting read. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Palpatine

That was a good catch! Maybe we should get a list going of fictional elements (characters mainly, but I don't doubt that other types of fictional elements have gone through, like Spoo) which are at FA level, so we can see what examples we can point to for quality level. Off the top of my head, Batman and Superman were both there, as were Homer Simpson and Bart Simpson - even Troy McClure. :) Note that, of course, not all FA's have been on the front page yet. Maybe one day Drizzt Do'Urden, Strahd von Zarovich, Lolth or Lord Soth will join them.  ;) BOZ (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:C. M. Eddy, Jr....

Just a note, not sure if you noticed my reply... - Adolphus (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've responded there. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

PRODs

I took a look at the anon who you warned, and noticed that the anon had mostly been adding PRODs, speedies, and notability templates to articles which had been created within the last 24 hours - so new articles are precisely what they are targetting! BOZ (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh. That is interesting. It's perfectly within his/her right to do that, although I hope that he/she does so carefully. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. BOZ (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Gen Con GAN

Hey! :) See my recent comments on the talk page. BOZ (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have put some work into this one. Not sure what we can do about the history in between the early days and the internet era - most of that info is arcane in nature, and a lot of what is sourced is sourced to things which would probably be unsuitable for a FAC but which might pass the GAN. As it is, I'm not sure if it can even pass the GAN, but it's like 10 times better than it was. :) If there's anything else you want to do with it then cool, but I'm not sure what else I can do with it. BOZ (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks much better now! I'm not sure if it will make the GAN, but now we know for future reference. Good work! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn

I would strongly advise against pointing out policy to Hrafn in AfD discussions--he has his own interpretations, which are generally not community-supported when they diverge from actual consensus. In my experience, such has never resulted in Hrafn changing his position--attempting to win him over has, in my experience, at best resulted in him failing to acknowledge such arguments or attempting to shift the burden of proof; at worst, it's a recipe for frustration and may prompt you to lose your cool. My experience-prompted advice is to simply not respond to Hrafn in AfD discussions. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I see, thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sound advice - I try to do much the same when dealing with certain other editors. :) BOZ (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep; that's why I haven't responded yet there. Seems kind of pointless. :( -Drilnoth (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No need - this one is almost certainly heading for a Keep as it is. You've got three deletes (counting the nom), one merge, and 12 for keep. I have yet to see a 4-1 lose. :) BOZ (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You've been quiet lately

Any thoughts? :) BOZ (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies; I've been working on other stuff lately. I'll take a look. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. :) Been busy myself! BOZ (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill

Here you go:

I10, Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill

Hickman, Hickman, Cook, Grubb, Johnson and Niles, artwork by Caldwell and Easley

Scenario for character levels 10–12, sequel to I6, Ravenloft. Gang written just before deadline by the whole TSR design staff. The vampire Strahd returns in a gothic adventure of Thing Man Was Not Meant to Know. Includes descriptions of the town of Mordentshire, some haunted moors, and a manor house, mapped in perspective.

004-484.1/900-86 48 p., large color map, outer folder. TSR, 1986.

From page 102 of Schick (1991).—RJH (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting!

It got a whole lot of looks while it was up for AFD. :) I'm going to check out a few more articles for the Article Hits page. See the talk page for some notes I added. BOZ (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh; not something that I expected to see. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it's still getting a lot of hits! Don't know if that's just residuals from the AFD ending or if that one's going to be more popular than I thought. :) Over 100 hits per day would put it on the Artice Hits page for sure. ;) If I'm not busy, I'll update that tomorrow around this time. BOZ (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A hundred hits per day would put it in at about 3,000 per month, certainly good to keep an eye on but not necessarily to be on the list itself. I was planning to work on that update, too. Regardless, I think that we should have a new table for each month so that we can easily look back at previous months' counts. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if that's how you wanted to do it. Sounds good, then we can make comparisons. I'll let you start that off (you can really start it at any time, and just plug in the numbers any time after the Wikipedia clock hits New Years) and then I'll jump in sometime tonight or tomorrow. :) BOZ (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is one to keep an eye on - think of it as the opposite end of the spectrum from Gavin. I'm considering tossing up an outside view after enough people have signed off on naughty Pixel. ;) BOZ (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting; I might check in on it every once in awhile. At this point in time, I'd rather not get involved in discussion regarding another dispute, but I will say that your outside view is excellently worded. It almost makes me want to go help at WP:FICT a bit -not like Pixel does, of course- and the only reason I haven't yet is because of proximity to Gavin. Wikipedia policy discussions should definetely include people on all sides of the issues; I'll probably look more closely into policy/guideline work for a little while. Hope all goes well on that RFC! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved with it personally myself - that's why I used the outside view. ;) Just figured it would be good to speak my piece, and getting an endorsement from Protonk definitely makes me warm and fuzzy. :) As far as getting involved in policy discussions, yes they can use support from someone like you. I won't encourage you to do that though, as it's really nice having you working on D&D, so it will have to be up to you how you handle that. :) BOZ (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry; I'm still going to spend most of my time on Wikipedia on D&D stuff. Policy can be on the sidelines and mainly focusing on the guidelines and proposals that affect the D&D project more than other projects. I'm not going to start conversations at WP:NOT or WP:V anytime soon, but perhaps at WP:FICT and WP:WAF. And I'm not even sure if I'm going to work on it at all. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's cool either way, I'm just being selfish. :) Wikipedia needs you more on policies than it does on D&D articles, but you must work on what you want to do. :) BOZ (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Treant

Please see Talk:Treant for the rationale behind why I changed the redirect. The intent was not to suggest it's simply a ripoff of Tolkien's Ents; rather, I wanted a place where discussion of the topic could take place without seeming out of place. Paliku (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but someone looking up Treant would presumably want to see something related more to D&D; a Treant is similar to an Ent, but they are different creatures, so I think that having one redirect to the other wouldn't be as useful for a reader. Additionally, in my opinion, having conversation on most D&D creatures in one place is a better solution than having one or two discussions on other pages that aren't even a part of the D&D WikiProject. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, is there a page more appropriate than a release list of D&D expansions? That was my main concern - being redirected to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–1976)#TSR 2002 - Dungeons & Dragons "white box" (1974) would still leave a curious reader asking, "So what is a treant?" The only description on the list is "Tree-like creatures able to command trees". Paliku (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a Plant creature (Dungeons & Dragons) page to contain all the stuff that used to be on Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and all the other plant critters out there. BOZ (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Not exactly; some of the other monster lists may include more information on the creature, but the D&D project tends to redirect monster articles to the earliest edition that they appeared in. It's not the best solution, but it works for now until we can come up with something better. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

BOZ's idea sounds good. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If this comes to fruition, feel free to change the redirect and re-link Treant on the Ent page. I made sure to note on the article talk page that my assertion wasn't that "WoW > D&D" or something, and also made the redirect more specific (for now) to where the term Treant was already bolded. Paliku (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been on my "To Do (eventually)" list for some time now. :) BOZ (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dragons of Despair

The article Dragons of Despair you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Dragons of Despair for things needed to be addressed.

Yes, I can help with White Dwarf #60, what do you need from that for Dragons of Despair?Ant Brooks (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I can also check WD 60 later today/tonight. Web Warlock (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The reviwer said that this line sounded like it might not be NPOV, and if the citation was quoted exactly rather than paraphrased it would be much more neutral: "It was seen as well written and presented with a unique feel to the world it is set in, even if it was felt the plot of taking a powerful magic item to the heart of the enemies defences was lifted straight out of The Lord of the Rings.[8] " -Drilnoth (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I de-lazified myself and got some threads going: [10], [11], [12]. BOZ (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The exact quote from the review is "The adventure itself is very much taken off from LotR with a powerful magic item to be taken at all costs to the aggressor's innermost defences and through them. The characters will have to get past a nice new race of humanoids as well as a couple of other monster-concepts. The artwork (aside from the cover) is good and usable in the adventure. Another good product!"Ant Brooks (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks. I've added it to the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... having now actually looked at the article, you may need the rest of the review. The entire review is only two paragraphs. I've reproduced the second paragraph above, so here's the first: "Tracey (sic) Hickman, designer of the excellent I-series, has come up with another very reasonable set of scenarios - DL1 (Dragon Lance (sic) series Dragons of Despair. She (sic) has got hold of a concept and designed a world an a heroic adventure to go with it. The world of Krynn and the heroic adventure is heavily based on... Lord of the Rings. But never mind all the parallel plotlines, there's enough difference in the world to put such minor considerations out of most players' heads. Like gold, for example. Nice stuff, eg? Pity its (sic) worthless on Krynn. Fancied playing a cleric for a change? Sorry no clerics in Krynn for 300 years. Pleasantly enough, these changes don't destroy the feel of the scenario, whilst creating a very novel atmosphere. A lot of work has gone into designing the groundwork before the adventures were detailed, I'm sure, and it is a pity that more couldn't be shown in appendices etc so that the atmosphere could be more fully appreciated." And having typed that in, I must say that it is a dreadfully written review, and I feel almost guilty for assisting with a reference to something so poorly written ;) Ant Brooks (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure how that could fit into the article at this time, but thanks for the info. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: [13] BOZ (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow; quite a bit of conversation there! -Drilnoth (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything you want me to add, to get the topic back on track? ;) BOZ (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't really think of anything... it looks like the nomination's going to pass, anyway, and at this time I don't really know how else to improve the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Reassessment Question

Thank you once again for the welcome. Several days ago I filed the Avlis article, spanning the namesake campaign setting and Neverwinter Nights persistent world, for reassessment within the Video Games WikiProject. I got a fairly helpful reassessment. Where do I request reassessment for the Dungeons&Dragons WikiProject as well? In this very case it is more a matter of synchronizing its standing in both projects, before reworking the article. --VoidHamlet (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out WP:DND/A (I hadn't thought to add in a requests section before, although I will now). -Drilnoth (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WOTC FAC

Just so you know, I added several refs tonight that I found from other articles. If any turn out to be unreliable, you may remove them. BOZ (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep; I noticed. I, personally, think that they all look pretty good. Nice work! -Drilnoth (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Coolness - feels like a productive day, then. :) BOZ (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Dragons of a Lost Star.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dragons of a Lost Star.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Backlogged?

Just a quick off-topic comment... so much for the notability template not being a ticking timebomb for deletion; User:B. Wolterding is PRODding/AFDing all the Sept-Oct 2007 notability templated articles one by one. BOZ (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yah, that's what I thought caused the backlogs to be resolved... just removing articles from them after a certain time. Personally, I think that his rationale ("No evidence of notability given, none added in more than one year") is pretty weak; the notability part could make sense, but Wikipedia is not on a timer. Deleting articles simply because they haven't had their notability established in over a year doesn't mean that their notability can't be established; rather the backlogs exist for the exact purpose of cleanup, not deletion.

That said, did you know that {{importance}} adds articles to the same category? -Drilnoth (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as much; at least all the year-plus tagged articles are in much less danger of immediately being nominated. I suspect that they'd all be getting put up by BW right now if the templates hadn't been switched out. That will give us a lot more time to deal with the less notable ones and get them merged or whatever, or just not worry about it on the ones more likely to survive an AFD. :) BOZ (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, admins seem generally willing to restore articles for merging and improvement, as long as we can keep track of all the previously deleted articles. That's also part of the reason that I, personally, probably won't be working much on the less important articles until Gavin can be a little more understanding of others views, since the article's can be restored and important articles are... well... more important. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right; that's why I'm not too worried. I will personally probably focus some of my own efforts on merging things before Apr 1, just because that will leave less things open to him and others who share his interests. BOZ (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, but wouldn't three months since Gavin signed Casliber's proposal be March 10? -Drilnoth (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he mentioned April 1 as an end date. BOZ (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I guess I just missed that somewhere. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

heh. BOZ (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. You know, Gavin's proposal on the talk page for that specific change had no consensus for it that I know of (I haven't checked it since yesterday, though). -Drilnoth (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A few hardcore deletionists supported it; everyone else said "no way, dude." That's why it got reverted, which stuck. :) BOZ (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To be expected. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't often participate in policy discussions, but... BOZ (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for pointing that out! I'll add something shortly. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done -Drilnoth (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, AFigureOfBlue. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orphaned non-free media (File:Wizards of the Coast logo.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Maintenance

Not at all. I keep an eye on most of them, but I am on indefinite wikibreak, so it makes sense to remove those templates. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I just thought I'd ask first. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Percy Shaw Jeffrey

Thanks for reviewing Percy Shaw Jeffrey (you gave it a C). If you had a minute, would you mind giving a few pointers on getting it to B class? I pretty much wrote the article single-handed, so it would be great to have a fresh pair of eyes look over it. Cheers! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done; I've left some comments on the article's talk page. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've improved on all the points you've mentioned. B-Class perhaps? I'm working on getting a picture of him which should help for the GA. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! I've responded there. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5