Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:39, 19 February 2008

Archives

no archives yet (create)

Please cease and desist from harassing other editors

Please cease and desist from harassing other editors as you have done to User:Stextc. As you have every right to add a template, other users have every right to remove them. You appear to be POV pushing and disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a WP:POINT. You will stop your disruptive editing behavior in accordance with the WP:DIS and Misplaced Pages:Civility guidelines. Web Warlock (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken that I am harassing other editors, and your assertion is not supported by any evidence. In the case of Stextc, he has removed Notability templates from two articles with no reliable secondary sources, and has not provided reasonable justification for doing so. As you know, claims of notability must adhere to Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book or a person meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources. I have requested that the cleanup templates be restored to the articles Azure Bonds and Kate Novak which fail WP:BK and WP:BIO respectively; I have provided valid reasons for my request, and as such do not constitute POV pushing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are being abusive to push forward your own agenda. You have not been successful on getting articles through AfD so now you are resorting to bullying other editors. Web Warlock (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is my personal agenda: have a look at Misplaced Pages:Cleanup if you think cleanup templates are just my invention. They can justifiably be put on both of these articles at any time by any editor, since they have no reliable secondary sources. However, there removal serves no benefit, as they have been placed to alert other editors of the issues concerned, and taking them away merely hides an important issue that needs to be addressed. I feel that you opposition to the templates is actually have a negative impact on the RPG project; from where I stand, you appear to be a Bitter dino who resents the involvement of other editors. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You say "there removal serves no benefit" - but adding indiscriminately them serves no benefit either. It seems that you know you'd lose an AFD, so you add the tags because it's something you can make stick without need for consensus. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, the articles have no reliable secondary sources, so adding the notability tag is not "indiscriminate.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So AFD them. Don't just leave your territory mark on them and then revert anyone who objects. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is where I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of the cleanup templates. They are not indicators that the articles should be deleted; just they need cleanup. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's how they should be used. Are you prepared to clean them up? No. Do you think that someone will clean them up because you've tagged them? No. You are using them in lieu of an AFD that you think you'd lose. When you first came here and put a lot of articles up for AFD, you made a valuable contribution by getting rid of articles that needed to be removed. Now you're just marking territory. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a better idea then. Clean them up yourself if you are so concerned with the quality. But I suspect that you are not and instead using the tags to somehow call into the question the article's veracity or even it's reason for being. Web Warlock (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As you know, there are just too many RPG articles to be cleaned up by one person alone, as even so called "experts" can testify. However, if other editors get involved, then cleanup is more likely to take place. By removing the template, you are simply slowing down this process. If you are against cleanup templates, vent your frustration on the Village Pump, but I don't think you will get any support for such a regressive policy there. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Says the editor not doing any of the work to one of the five "heavy lifters" here. I am not asking village pump for anything I am asking you. You say you want to clean them up but I have not seen any evidence of that. You say you want to improve the articles but I have yet to see you even fix a typo. Plus there are many times you have added templates to articles that did not need them. No, you do not sound like someone that wants to improve articles. You sounds like someone that has a POV you want pushed and are grabbing at anything within the system to get that done. I mean really, weasel word templates? Listing the Manual of Style as a reason for deletion? That is desperate. If you are serious, then spend some time in another realm of articles. TV show episodes for example pretty much all need to be deleted, why not spend some time there. Think of it as a vacation. Web Warlock (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We're not against templates in general - we're against your inadvisably added templates. Sensibly added templates flag problems and should remain. Yours - widespread and indiscriminate - send the message "Misplaced Pages is rubbish, don't bother", and delay cleanup. I ask you again, if you believe an article should be removed, AFD it. If you believe it needs cleanup, clean it up. Don't scrawl over the articles faster than anyone can deal with them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"We're not against templates in general - we're against your inadvisably added templates". That statement is so POV that I might just put it on my user page so I can have a laugh every time I log on to WP :) --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am of course against anyone else's inadvisably added templates. It just happens to be you who's adding hundreds of templates, inadvisably, to articles that I happen to see. Would you care to reply to the rest of my comment? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your second point, I don't believe these two articles should be nominated for AfD; they just don't have any reliable secondary sources - hence the cleanup template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a reply to "If you believe it needs cleanup, clean it up". Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That comes after my review of RPG articles, during which I will continue to add cleanup templates where appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding them where appropriate would be fine. We're asking you to read the articles and think about them, and stop adding templates inappropriately as well. Most of the templates you add are added inappropriately, and those that are correct seem like coincidences as a result. Unless you start demonstrating some understanding of your actions, it's hard not to feel that the editors who unilaterally revert your edits are contributing more to wikipedia than you do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I chime in here? If an editor believes that an article needs cleaning-up, the onus is not on that editor to do so. An editor may feel, as I do, that many articles need clean-up and that if no one cares to make the effort to clean them up then the article is free to meet its fate; fates that can include merging, redirection, or deletion. If other editors do not wish particular articles to meet such fates, they can work to improve the articles by addressing the issues. If the issues can not be, or simply are not, addressed, then those who noted the issues in the first place have helped sort the wheat from the chafe. If editors merely wish the articles to be free of clean-up tags and do not addresses the issues they highlight but simply remove tags, they are little better than vandals who need to read WP:OWN. Fact is, this 'pedia has an absurd number of crufty articles about D&D and other pop-culture. Their days are numbered. --Jack Merridew 14:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the above conversation. No one has objected to the appropriate tags being placed on articles. The objection comes from the inappropriate and indiscriminant overuse of tags, especially when it is abundantly clear that the article in question was never actually read. And no offense, but you have not been around here long enough to know what Misplaced Pages will or will not do in the future. I have seen a lot of changes and lot of trends. Yeah some articles will disappear and then others will come back. It’s the way it has been for a while now. People come and go here a lot, articles typically stick around. Web Warlock (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"No one has objected to the appropriate tags being placed on articles". You are so busted! You have objected to the notability template, even on articles where there is a total absence of secondary sources: see Talk:Raistlin Majere. I don't understand your position: either you are choosing to ignore WP:RS, or you a POV pushing to give the impression you are an "expert". --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be an example of positive reporting. You can't claim that all your tags are appropriate, just because a few are. You add far too many tags too fast; some are bound to be right, but it's only by coincidence. It's not that we mean to be experts, but to point out that you give the impression that you don't know what you're doing; in many cases, you don't seem to read the article at all, but just dump a stack of tags on an article because it's an RPG article. You've even shown that you don't know what an RPG is; you seem to confuse it with a choose-you-own-adventure book, . And it's not just notability tags, either. I've spoken to you in the past about {{in-universe}} and {{plot}}. So please don't misrepresent us by claiming that we're objecting to your correct and appropriate use of tags - because the vast body of your use of tags is incorrect and inappropriate. That's what we object to. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case why is the precedent for the cleanup tags clear for the articles we have discussed? This whole discussion is based on three articles Azure Bonds, Kate Novak and Raistlin Majere where there is little or no evidence of notability. On the evidence of this discussion, it does look like RPG "experts" are nothing but POV pushers, so I am afraid I can't agree with you, nor will anyone who reads this discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I, for one, do know what an RPG is; see: Rocket-propelled grenade. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"So busted" what are you? 12? By your flawed logic we should carpet bomb the projects to remove a couple of kids dealing crack. Of course you would claim success in that you got them. You obviously have no wish to actually engage in discourse, which by the way is also more evidence towards you only being here to push your own point of view. Web Warlock (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If I did not wish to engage in discourse, I would not be replying to you now. In fairness to you, there have been occasions where I put a cleanup template which might not be appropriate to a particlar article, but that does not invalidate me as an editor, and nor does it mean that I am pushing a point of view. From where I stand, it looks as if you believe that the notability guidelines don't apply to these three articles, so the cleanup template are unwarranted. Is this where you are coming from? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability cleanup template and the article Erol Otus

There is absolutely no question that you are helping to improve some of these extremely poorly written articles by canvassing them with notability tags. Your notability crusade is not without merit, though most others seem to think so. I personally welcome some of what you are doing here. A lot of these RPG articles are badly written across the board and need a lot of work and improvement. Some of them are crap and need to be removed once and for all. Your pointing this out is not really a bad thing, but you would win more support here if you:

(1) Were a bit less militaristic;

(2) Used a tone that didn't come across as arrogant, condescending, stubborn, insulting, and insolent;

(3) Actually rolled up your sleeves and assisted in cleaning these articles, if only in a token sense to demonstrate that you are not actually a gadfly.

(4) Learned something more about the subject matter as to not look as if you are desperate to have RPG articles removed at all costs using every nuance of every available policy as a leverage bar to do so.

Please understand that I do not think you are a gadfly, personally, nor do I think you are pushing some religious or personal agenda. Many others do think so, however, and you have given them plenty of reason to think this way! Was this your intention? I do not think so, so perhaps it is time you eased back a bit.

I personally think you have good intentions wrongfully executed. It does matter to get along with others and work well with others if you expect to get anything done. By my estimation you have gotten very little done here on Misplaced Pages as compared to the amount of effort you have expended. You have, though, managed to make a lot of people needlessly angry while at the same time inspiring cabals against you and your few allies and a swarm of stupid sockpuppets who have disrupted the administrators' work.

Think about it: Just about every article you've nominated for deletion has survived, and most notability tags are contested. Articles are being improved from all this mess and arguing, but it can be done a better way, don't you think? Would it not be better if people were united to get things sorted out on these RPG articles and not feeling like it was you and Jack vs. them?

Perhaps you don't really care about working and playing well with others, and that is fine. You may actually get some kind of a charge out of most people disliking your work here. I do not personally think that is the case, however, and if you changed you approach a bit and moved forward in a spirit of collaboration while still enforcing policy and guidelines, there would be less headache here on Misplaced Pages for all concerned.

Please give it some thought. Dicecollector29 (talk)

• These are sweeping generalisations that are not borne out by evidence, but there is evidence that you are making these statements in order to remove the cleanup templates without regard for the notability guidelines. I note that you have removed the notability cleanup template from the article Erol Otus on the basis that "starting cleanup - notability esteblished via reference of extensive tsr contributions and imdb". If you read WP:BIO it says that "Database sources such as...imdb are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion". Perhaps you have missed this? Whether you have or not, I can't say, but from where I stand, you are just not taking the guidelines seriously, and you twisting concepts like "collaboration" around to support you POV. Just because the templates are contested, it does not mean that they are not justified. I must request that you replace the cleanup template until reliable secondary sources are found.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have complete regard for these notability guidelines which is why I have not removed the tags from a couple of the other articles I'm working on. They are not ready yet. As for Otus, the IMDb, in this case, simply mirrors what information is available elsewhere (as far as Otus' credits are concerned on these video games). His credits on these games are clearly available in multiple sources, and the IMDb just reflects all that. That IMDb exclusion guideline is also less about credits and more about the IMDb trivia sections, which are often nonsense. In any case, the IMDb link on Otus' bio can be removed and still cause no harm to his notability. He is easily notable for his many works. The other references support that, and more references are coming. Again I say, contributing to these articles is much more fun than just posting tags and then spending hours and hours fighting over them. Dicecollector29 (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to fight about: the notability template is justified. Your opinion on its own is not enough to demonstrate notability. Please restore the template without further ado. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Your opinion on its own is not enough to demonstrate notability." Same to you, buddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.228.248 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not my opinion. Have a look at WP:NOTE. Assertions of notability have to be backed up secondary sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User Page

...and don't I at least deserve {{cquote}}s? :-) Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You would get them if I knew how. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This will do the job, but it doesn't seem to like having a url inserted in the last argument. <shrug> --Craw-daddy | T | 19:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• See: User:Gavin.collins oldid — Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sturm Brightblade

Hello. Would you object to my removing the {{RFCmedia}} template from this article's talk page? There hasn't been a move to remove the notability notice for a week. --Sturm 14:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it if you wish. Thanks for your comments as well.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist from adding the notability template without reasonable justification

Please cease and desist from adding the notability template to the articles Mary Kirchoff, Kate Novak, Chris Pierson, and Don Perrin, as these authors have written multiple novels and books which have each been read by hundreds of thousands of people. Claims of notability must adhere to common sense; it is not enough to simply be an instruction creep and a bureaucrat when these authors have written so many popular novels and books. There is no reasonable justification for adding the template which was put there to cause problems. Note that this is not to say that these guidelines should always be ignored; it is just that you are following the letter, not the spirit.

The reason why I ask you to stop adding the template in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as the explanations for adding the template are not supported by common sense and the policy that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, which applies to all of Misplaced Pages. Unless these articles are actually not notable, I would be grateful if you would remove the template immediately.--NotabilityMan (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• NotabilityMan won't be following up on this, at least not with that sock account. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  Was he actually a Grawp sockpuppet? Or was that just the excuse to shut him up? (If he was, block away, but I distinctly remember an earlier attempt to falsely claim Rray and Hobit as suckpuppets too which was absolutely without base). But in any event, regardless of his status as such or not, he did have valid points about non-justified template use and POV pushing.Shemeska (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  Go ask User:Daniel Case who tagged the userpage, or User:East718 who blocked the account; both referenced Grawp. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I personally don't think he is a sockpuppet of Gawp (sounds like a D&D location), but his editing pattern is very similar to another vandal, the anon IP 134.139.148.100 who has been blocked: see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/NotabilityMan for details. As regards his arguments above, I think he now knows that reliable secondary sources are required as evidence of notability although he can chosen to ignore this fact. I hope other editors who remove cleanup templates without justification learn from NotabilityMan being blocked; vandalism its against the rules and spirit of Misplaced Pages. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that certain editors would do well to realize that Gavin.Shemeska (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious...

How would you recommend adding secondary sources to the Planescape article? Many of the assertions you have tagged as requiring cites, references, or as original research are basic foundational ideas of the setting. I will clean up certain of the tags, but certain others seem tagged indiscriminately. Snuppy 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is because Gavin randomly adds the tags; he doesn't actually read any parts of the articles he tags at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.136.165 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I must commend your work on the article Planescape, I think the work that you have done has brought tremendous improvement to what was a terrible article that is now improved beyond all recognition. For secondary sources, I would recomend Google Scholar , where you might find more substantial secondary sources than are quoted in most of the RPG articles. If you see any instances of indiscriminate tagging, please feel free to discuss them with me. I am a bit sensitive to broad critisms about my editing style, as from where I stand, this is the way RPG editors like to try to make groundless attacks against me. However, given the opportunity to explain my individual edits, I can provide justification should you so require. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

that is why each article has a talk page so you can explain your individual edits and tags, et all. you just blanket articles of one topic with numerous tags and wonder why people see an agenda, when you don't care to provide reasoning for those tags or do minimal research on the subject matter? that is why people feel you are doing something in bad faith or possibly not fully good faith. you add nothing but tags with no commentary or effort to clean up as your tags suggest is needed. so if you want a chance to explain each of your edits, then use it at the time of the edits and visit the articles talk pages to explain any edits that may seem to have been done for vague reasons. shadzar|Talk|contribs 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Planescape, this issue has already been raised by other editors on the talk page. Its not down to me to do research in the first instance: all editors that add content are obliged to add citations for verification and secondary sources as evidence of notability. If there are no reliable secondary sources, then the notability template clearly applies. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good & Bad Edits

And as I've said before, three good edits in hundreds doesn't make the majority of your edits right. Shall we go through your contributions, tag by tag, and look? If you think that the majority of editors agree with your edits, I suggest you re-read Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than tag by tag, lets go through my edits article by article. I heard your assertions that these edits are not appropriate many times, so I would like to see specific examples. Rather than basing our discussion on your sweeping generalisations, please give an example of an article, and then lets talk about the edits on that article's talk page. Lets limit our review to edits that currently existence, rather than ones that have since been overwritten. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, let's not limit ourselves that way; if you've made a bad edit of course the tag will have been removed. I'll work on compiling a list and get back to you; this may take a while. And, since there are likely to be a lot of edits, and since we are discussing your poor editing history, I think this page is the correct place to look at them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If we don't disuss the cleanup templates in the context of the article itself, I fear this will just end in nick picking and a bun-fight. If you have any interest in the articles themselves, then we should talk about them there. If this is going to be a "get Gavin" exercise, then I would prefer not to participate. Name the article or articles you have concerns with here, and then when we have discussed the problems of each, I concede that we can return here with our conclusions.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have is with your edits, not with the articles you've edited. While most of the articles you tag deserve deletion (not tagging), the tags you apply are generally not relevant to the articles in question. Since the problem lies here, it makes sense to discuss it here, and once I've finished my list of edits I have a problem with, we shall. This isn't a "get Gavin" exercise; I don't want to see you punished, I want to see the quality of your contributions improve. I want to be able to see that you've tagged a page for cleanup, and believe that that means you've read it and worked out what cleanup it needs. But since the templates you apply bear little relevance to the articles they tag, I can't believe that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's becoming clear that there are far too many of your bad edits for me to list, so here's Spetember 2007 as an example of what I mean:

1. - Books template on non-book article
2. - Books template on non-book article
3. - Books template on non-book article
4. - in-universe tag on not-in-universe description
5. - in-universe tag on not-in-universe description
6. - in-universe tag on not-in-universe description
7. - in-universe tag on not-in-universe description; subsequently removed
8. - in-universe tag on article with no in-universe content
9. - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with short, not-in-universe description
10. - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with no in-universe content
11. - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with short, not-in-universe description
12. - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with short, not-in-universe description
13. - Books template on non-book article
14. - Books template on non-book article
15. - Books template on non-book article
16. - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with short, not-in-universe description
17. - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with short, not-in-universe description
18. - Books template on non-book article
19. - Books template on non-book article
20. - Books template on non-book article
21. - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with no in-universe content
22. - Books template on non-book article
23. - Books template on non-book article
24. - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with no in-universe content
25. - Howto tag on article with no howto content
26. - Books template on non-book article
27. - Books template on non-book article
28. - Books template on non-book article
29. - Books template on non-book article
30. - Books template on non-book article
31. - Howto tag on article with no howto content
32. - Fiction template on non-fictional article
33. - Books template on non-book article
34. - Orgs/Company template on RPG article (this is so odd it must have been a genuine mistake)
35. - Books template on non-book article
36. - Books template on non-book article
37. - Books template on non-book article
38. - Howto tag on article with no howto content
39. - Books template on non-book article
40. - Howto tag on article with no howto content
41. - People tag on RPG article
42. - Books template on non-book article
43. - Books template on non-book article
44. - fiction template applied to real-world description of real supplements
45. - Books template on character article
46. - Books template on character article
47. - Books template on location article
48. - Books template on location article
49. - Books template on location article
50. - Books template on location article
51. - Books template on character article
52. - Books template on location article
53. - Books template on non-book article
54. - Books template on non-book article
55. - Books template on location article
56. - Books template on location article
57. - Books template on non-book article
58. - Books template on non-book article
59. - Books template on non-book article
60. - Books template on non-book article
61. - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with short, not-in-universe description
62. - Books template on non-book article
63. - in-universe tag on article with no in-universe content
64. - Books template on non-book article
65. - Books template on location article
66. - Books template on location article
67. - Books template on location article
68. - Books template on location article
69. - Books template on location article
70. - Books template on location article
71. - Books template on location article
72. - Books template on location article
73. - Books template on location article
74. - Books template on character article
75. - Books template on location article

As I say, the tags you apply don't seem to indicate that you've read the article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good & Bad Edits: Response

I disagree that they are "bad" edits, far from it. In a few cases I am happy to acknowledge mistakes. In response to you my points, my comments are as follows:

1. Bunnies & Burrows: I must disagree with you as this game clearly comes in book form (ISBN 9781556342370);
2. Basic Role-Playing: This is refered to a "system" in the article, but in reality is a set of rules published in a book form (ISBN 9781568821689), but I see you have removed the template without justification, I have now restored the notability template until reliable secondary sources can be found;
3. In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas Again this game is published in book form (ISBN 9782914849104), and again I have restored the template as sources cited are not reliable.
4. Castle Falkenstein (role-playing game) I would agree that the in-universe content is not significant, but nonetheless I see it has since been removed (e.g. "Magic exists and works, and has allowed technology to stretch in unexpected directions");
5. Star Fleet Universe timeline: This is clearly in-universe, and I have restored the template accordingly;
6. RuneScape: I agree that the in universe template does not apply;
7. Federation and Empire: I agree that the in universe template does not apply, but I have added the notability template to address other cleanup issues;
8. Forbidden Kingdoms: I agree that the in universe template does not apply, but I have added the notability template to address other cleanup issues;
9. Conspiracy X: Again this game is published in book form (ISBN 9781891153532) and I note that secondary sources have been added;
10. Unisystem: This is refered to a "system" in the article, but in reality is a set of rules published in a book form (ISBN 9781891153679). I have restored the notability template;
11. Federation and Empire: see 7 above
12. Federation Commander: Again this game is published in book form, with various accessories. I have restored the template so that the lack or reliable secondary sources can be addressed.
13. Fudge (role-playing game system): Again this is published in book form (ISBN 9781887154123) and the template is relevent;
14. TWERPS: This is a tough one to crack, as the Basic Rule set seems to have been self-published. However, I think the book template applies, if only because TWERPS it has a book-like cover.
15. Exalted: Again this is a game in a book form (ISBN 9781565046238). More than 27 references have been added to the article since I placed the template!
16. Mutants and Masterminds: Again this a game that comes in book format (ISBN 9781932442526). More than 15 references have been added since I placed the template!

I will respond to your other points as and when I have time. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)