Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
: Thanks; but yikes! Will try and clean this up a bit. Templates and categories seem to be making a mess. Being in the cats will attract attention… pity about the oldest ones, they were what I was most interested in; any chance this is just as far back as the deleted edits go? Cheers, ] 11:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
: Thanks; but yikes! Will try and clean this up a bit. Templates and categories seem to be making a mess. Being in the cats will attract attention… pity about the oldest ones, they were what I was most interested in; any chance this is just as far back as the deleted edits go? Cheers, ] 11:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
NB ] is showing up at ]. I suggest you do something to it before a trigger-happy admin nukes it. --] (]) 11:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 11:48, 18 March 2008
Thanks to all who defend this page against vandals
It would have helped if your first revert had been accompanied by a more detailed edit summary, I wouldnt have reverted back to the close. Also I had noticed a lot the reverts and I would have stepped in sooner. Gnangarra15:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree and will try and do things in proper sequence if something like this occurs again; i.e. better edit summary with link to anything. Thanks, again. --Jack Merridew15:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Verifiable sources
Re your comment on that page. How do you get around the fact that many if not most PhDs are either self-published or remain unpublished but in National Libraries for consultation. Presuming the individual gained his PhD and his thesis is not libellous, why can't it be referred to? Regards, David Lauder (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Sincere apologies. I did not look at what you had done carefully and assumed the whole block comment was by you. I have mentioned this subject on WP:Verifiability's Talk Page. Thanks. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability templates
Many thanks for your help and support with the appropriate use of cleanup templates (notability, in universe, no footnotes etc.) used on Project Greyhawk articles. I think there will be a long running dispute over their use, and I am grateful for your persistence in this matter.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You're most welcome. As I see it, there are many areas of Misplaced Pages where users are not focused on writing in an encyclopaedic manner; they are here out of fanish-interest and need education about what this site actually is. One of the complaints I see made all over the place is that "we" should add information, not delete it. This is really quite funny as deletion is one of the primary services that editors provide to writers. --Jack Merridew07:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Is imitation is the highest form of flattery? I note you have a doppleganger attempting to revert your edits. That is pretty cool - you are on your way to becoming a celebrity!.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This is really quite entertaining it certainly keeps me interested. Admins just have to watch for who's reverting me to find those needing blocks and reverts. Did your see this? best way in the world to endorse an AIV request. --Jack Merridew09:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ya, I know, but I figured it a necessary step. I hadn't gotten to notifying the anon who wrote the article... I've been looking at the prior AfD which seems to have gone amok over issues with Texas. I suggest you try again at some point. --Jack Merridew13:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Again out of interest, do we have an idea of what this site actually is? If there's an agreed clear definition, would you mind linking to it? It'd be a very interesting read. --Kizor13:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks yet again for restoring instances of unwarranted removal of the notability templates. I note that single purpose IPs are now being set up to remove templates on an article by article basis in order to avoid detection by admins; note also that the number of IP accounts have also been created to disguise these edits.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Some of it is, I expect, people directed to here from some off-wiki forum such as 4chan, while a lot of it is one or a very few irate D&D fan/wiki-editors thinking way outside the box.
I have been having (onsided) discussions regarding poor sourcing and dubious references in relation to this and other articles (Blackmoor, Lendore IslesBaldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal, Beholder and Death knight - see also the AfD), and I have had just about every puerile arguement put to me about notability you can think of, mainly along the lines that if a citation is not taken direct from the publishers of D&D, then it "must" comply with WP:RS. My advice to you is don't even bother arguing or getting into an edit war: go straight to RFC. Take the about turn that occured in a recent RFC debate. Once you subject POV pushing to wider review, the bullies fade away very quickly. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey jack...
...can you create a doppleganger account called User:Jack Merridou? I'll be using that account to create a checkuser log for him and his IPs, so we can have its other IPs blocked. —BoL23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
He seems to have gotten there first. I'm all for hobbling this character, but I don't see how my creating a new account will help. email me and he'll not have a chance to snag whatever name gets used. Thanks. --Jack Merridew06:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that you all should be careful pushing this one. You put it up for AFD, they responded by improving the article. Is it likely to be trouble later? Sure it is. Is it deletable right now? Probably not. You would build more brownie points for good faith by recognizing the improvements and withdrawing the nomination. If it immediately falls to hell, renominate, and you can point at the collapse as justification.Kww (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought about your suggestion and after reviewing the article and discussion, agree. I have withdrawn it and will wait and see. Thanks. --Jack Merridew15:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Not meaning to be your PR manager or anything, but I would put a message on its talk page explaining the withdrawal and your reasoning, not just on the AFD.Kww (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Who's the sockmaster for the purpose of blocking? It'll have probably been blocked by the time of this posting, but anyway. Best regards, Rudget.12:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Off-hand, I would say it's a good place to start finding unencyclopaedic, ah, "pages". I'm going to see what's putting stuff here; some template, I expect. --Jack Merridew11:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It is being added along with clean-up tags by User:Gavin.collins; see: for an example. I expect he has copy-paste text snippets at hand and this is a system for him to keep track of what he has tagged. I've copied tagging-text a few times, so I may have added a few of these myself (yup, ). The name of the cat would appear to reflect the view that such shite is unencyclopaedic. These pages need to either be clean-up or put-down. --Jack Merridew11:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . --Maniwar (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
signatures
I was thinking on updating my signature to something like this:
It's not the color that is the issue, it is the box. Signatures should not attempt to stand-out above others on a page. This is attention-seeking. If you want your post to stand-out, put the effort into writing something profound. I would suggest that you skip the box and border. You really don't need the talk or contribs links either, but I have no objection to them. --Jack Merridew07:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
My in-line experiment was an attempt at mimicking the e-mail convention. It seems it was not a great idea, so I’ll do as you ask and will revert to normal replying.
This work I did, I did several months (if not years) ago. I created a Wikiproject for this back in the days too. All of this seems to have fallen into disuse and I do not contribute this anymore (I have to say there is no new information that I know of, by the way). So, no chance I would contribute more on this. I just wanted to justify the existing articles.
A lot of people do not appreciate that convention in email either. re the Forgotten articles: if they are going to have their (continued) existence justified, they're going to need much better sourcing and a fair amount of rewrite. --Jack Merridew08:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Be bold! Anyway, I removed the useless FUR for one image; the other one will get picked up as an orphan as part of the bot sweeps and will be deleted in a week, probably by me. I'm still on the fence about the book cover too, why don't you raise that question at WT:F? east.718at 05:55, January 22, 2008
The other big reason for removing the lightgreen colour is that vandals invariably change it for fun. If it isn't there, they are less likely to play with it. When you do alot of biology articles you'd be surprised how often this happens (or maybe not). cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of that on actor infoboxes. Maybe something along the same lines could be used for those (domains like good actor, bad actor, actress good on the couch). --Jack Merridew06:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirects
Thanks.
And not just me, it looks like, but several that I've done, yes. That's got me curious though – maybe I'll ask around and see what these templates/special categories are about. Actually, I think I have seen a redirect category on at least the Wikiproject: comics page now that I think about it, so maybe I'll just investigate. Not sure what the adding of stubs is about though? :) BOZ (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to educate people, this is not the way to do it. It's unhelpful, doesn't help solve the issue, comes across as confrontational and can constitute biting. Far better to outline what the issue is, and suggest a number of solutions, remembering the person at the other computer screen is a person. Have a look at our civility page, that might offer some ways of avoiding short comments which may be misinterpreted. I apologise for the header and opening statement, I admit I am being a dick to prove a point, but I think it is a point worth making. Anyway, all that said, all the best, HidingT16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. Please note that I did follow-up with the anon and offer advice on what I thought was a better approach. I also asked an editor whose redirect were being tagged with stub-templates and cats to get involved. My initial comment was terse, I know. I will seek to not be so terse/confrontational in the future. --Jack Merridew07:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate all the other efforts that went into resolving the issue, and I apologise for not mentioning that. I also appreciate it is hard to avoid being terse, I've been known to do it myself on occasion and am not claiming to be an angel. Good luck with the deep breaths. ;) HidingT20:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a new one on me too, but I think the section on subtopic categorization, specifically that Some subtopics of articles have well-known names and, over time, may expand to become separate articles. Many articles cover several topics that have been combined. This can happen following a merge of several related articles. Often there are redirects pointing to these subtopics. These redirects can be categorized. In some cases the categories for the redirects that point to the subtopics will be different than the categories for the entire article. may indicate that the anon's edits are acceptable. HidingT11:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Episodes and characters 2
I'm unfamiliar with the arbcom system, and I suspect that little will come of Episodes and characters 2, but I wonder if there is somewhere there that I should point out that secondary and tertiary sources do exist for the most popular TV shows. I've found a few lately, and have actually put them in articles. (Glenn Quagmire, List of The Fairly OddParents characters, List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy.) Will it affect the outcome of the arbcom if I point out that sources exist, and that these sources tend to be on the most popular shows, and that is how we ascertain whether or not a subject is notable? If I was to point that out, how/where should I do it? Thanks, AnteaterZot (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't really inclined against a merge for the first article -- deleting it from the parent list is an editorial decision which doesn't require admin involvement. Have you asked Mr.Z-man regarding the other article? east.718at 16:41, February 2, 2008
You're welcome. I think people should be able to disagree without taking the discussion out of bounds and it is really distressing to see these disagreements devolve in such a manner. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles07:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The naughty one does a whole lot of way outside the box thinking. There are at least a hundred sockpuppets and hundreds of throw-away IPs. Poor boy really needs to find someone to get off with in real-life. Cheers, Jack Merridew07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ya, I think this is all the same issue. I expect that there are a number of bad actors involved. I've stepped on a few toes out there. The IPs from all over the world certainly would indicate that whomever has a toolbox full of sharp tools that he then misuses. If it turns out that my userpage address has been code into some piece of malware that's gotten around, then I've a case for personal notability once it gets written up somewhere. <groans>I can't wait.</groans> Thanks for all you done re Grawp and the like. --Jack Merridew10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not done yet - I'm awaiting contact from Nwwaew; one of the IPs that attacked you turned up as a compromised computer on WP:OP running open router software and I asked him to provide evidence that will help me in the abuse report I filed against the most recent IPs. Sometimes I think these guys are pointy-headed. -Jéské10:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I agree that the article does not prove notability and the sources do not meet the requirements of reliable, third-party references. However, as you can see on Hobit's talk, I'm currently in sort of a general (somewhat related) dispute with him as well, so I decided not to re-add the tags myself. I noticed you just did, so I wanted to notify you that I filed for a third opinion. User:Dorftrottel 08:17, February 3, 2008
I'll look for what you're referring to on his talk page. He has been quite persistent about removing tags without understanding that the 'references' on most D&D articles abjectly fail WP:RS and most of the other relevant WP: links, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew08:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
As a note, I've removed less than 1% of the tags added by you and Gavin total in the last month. So I'm being very selective on my removal. Also, thanks again to Dorftrottel on your actions here. Hobit (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm well aware that you are focused on a relativle few articles. Please note that mostly it is Gavin adding the tags and I choose to defend against their removal without reasonable steps having been taken to address the concerns. --Jack Merridew15:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Tagging
Hello Jack,
Rather than having discussions over the 4 or so articles we are arguing over, I thought this would be a good place to discuss common things.
Issues as I see them:
Do staff reviews at enworld and related sites count as WP:RS? I'd say yes, as they have the backing of the site.
Do reviews in general counts toward WP:N? Again, I'd say yes.
Does Dragon magazine, while run by Piazo count as independent? That's more tricky. I'm told WoTC had veto rights on content, but couldn't dictate content. This is a pretty common thing to have happen. As it was Piazo's staff picking what to write on, not WoTC, I think coverage of material here is fine. Reviews of WotC material are more questionable however.
I'm going to give a brief reply now as I have to go. Overall, I believe notability requires much more solid sources than most of those on offer in the D&D articles I've looked at. I expect the reason that those are what's on offer is that they are all there is, and so they're offered-up in the hope that they'll be enough. I see the reasoning as backwards as editors such as yourself believe the articles should be here and that by finding what sources exist you've done your bit and sourced the article. My view is that if whatever sources exist are not seriously reliable and in depth, etc, then notability just isn't there and the article needs to go. If you want me to leave an article untagged for a concern for such as notability, then find a solid source. The New York Times, for example; something solid and not just a fan-zine or some guy's lamo-tripod site. To specifically address your three points:
enworld does not impress me as a reliable site; staff review, or mere user post
Of course reviews count; it is a question of who is speaking.
Dragon Magazine/Piazo/WoTC are all far too incestuous with the genre to count much. And thank for your frank comment re veto rights.
I would ask you to look at tagged articles as actually needing work and not to view the tag as the problem but to see the issue it is pointing out as the problem.
My basic position on some hundreds of thousands of articles on this site is that they are unencyclopaedic and need to go. This stuff belongs elsewhere; Wikia, or something like it. I see this sort of content as leaching on the good graces of largely uninterested editors who happen along and fix some spelling or apply a template. Thus one of the fundamental reasons that many editors prefer articles here vs over on some wikia subdomain is that here there are lots of people who help out. And I view this as unfair to these editors. --Jack Merridew15:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(butting in) - as a volunteer site I tend to think most folks only edit things they want to or don't feel too put upon to edit. I certainly don't push myself to edit things I am not interested in. I have used White Dwarf (produced by Games Workshop), which was/is an independent magazine (WRT D&D) with an international reputation and circulation, to place reviews for D&D material, though I wouldn't use its reviews for Warhammer as they are produced by the same company. The 80s was a time when D&D had a much higher profile and if I trawled through newspaper and magazine archives at the time I am sure I could find stuff to add. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hobit seems to have not edited much since he posted his query. Your post would mostly seem to be about my closing comments and I agree that editors mostly edit what they feel like; there is no real obligation to click any edit link. This is part of why I've vigorously opposed anything in the TV 2 AC case that amount to requiring (i.e. strongly encouraging) editors to participate in transwiki process; it's up to the interested editors.
I suppose what I was getting at above was that many editors here end up doing stuff to move the many unencyclopaedic articles along. By 'along' I don't necessarily mean actions that address any fundamental encyclopaedic question; I'm referring primarily to things such as reverting vandalism, fixing typos and spelling issues (an area in which the D&D articles are quite challenged), and techie edits such as fixing wiki-syntax. If, when the day is done, some article is deleted or buried in a redirect grave, then along with the edits that added whatever unencyclopaedic content, all the good faith edits by others are gone and I view that as a greater lose that of the effort of the fans. This is a key reason that I believe dealing with such issues is best done sooner than later; sooner means there is less time for passersby to stumble upon an unencyclopaedic article and waste their time on it.
I think all sources such as fan magazines are on the light side. Such things are largely self-promoting (not of a specific company, but of whatever genre or hobby). No, I don't think the NYT is the be-all and end-all of sources, but if somebody serious who is out-of-universe comments on a D&D band of dwarves (example), then you've got something interesting. A lot of the rest is just guff (or worse, a cite of a tripod site). Cheers, Jack Merridew09:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If I were to just remove the image from Star Wars Expanded Universe, someone could just add it back citing the rationale given on the image page. I could just remove the rational per Bold, but, again, someone could dispute/revert that. By tagging the rationale as disputed, someone may review the rationale and, if they call it as bad then the issue may be definitively sorted. Thing is due to be sorted sometime after today, so we'll see… The whole concept of an Expanded Universe is a rather dubious one, to me. nb: EU refers to European Union. --Jack Merridew09:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the clean-up, Jack! The problem with user:JayHenry/hippos was an old trick that got fixed in a recent update to the MediaWiki software. You used to be able to hide a <ref> inbetween <includeonly> tags or inbetween <span style="display:none"></span>. If you did that, the reference would still show up in the {{reflist}} template, but wouldn't show up anywhere else. Useless in articles, though it made for a nice way of storing references on my /hippos and /rhinos pages. Thanks again for cleaning up the code! --JayHenry (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Double PRODs
Heya, As the rules for PRODs are quite clear that the same article cannot be PRODded more than once, restoring the redirect was the right thing to do. Just mentioning for future reference, and thanks! BOZ (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at the undoing of the redirect as skipping the restore of the prod. Redirecting an article with a prod on it would seem to be an endorsement of the concern (but not of the prod itself) and if the redirect is later undone, the prod should return, too. As I said, I'm fine with it being redirected and am glad the Catchpole suggested it. --Jack Merridew13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Happy Valentine's Day!
User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!
For someone who has -repeatedly- said they are leaving and want nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, he sure does blather on endlessly about the 'injustice' inflicted on him by those attempting to get him to follow our rules. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
He has been hammering away at his talk page for something like four hours. I was considering suggesting a courtesy blanking, but he'd have to stop and I don't see that happening until he's exhausted. --Jack Merridew13:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; it happens a lot and I'm fine with it being semi protected for long stretches as needed. This is a botnet attack; there's a post above about it. I'll add the IPs to the report on it and drop you a not with a link to it. Cheers, Jack Merridew07:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
At first glance that article does not appear to have established much notability. The site links look like fans sites or primary sources. Maybe The New York Times or some other reliable source has commented on this, ah, tactical starship combat game system. FWIW, notability establishing sources do not have to be in the form of praise; if someone has done a high profile lampooning of this, it might help your case. Cheers, Jack Merridew15:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's my impression that board games which are published by reputable companies have by and large been given articles here. The board game category is full of examples of this. i do appreciate your suggestion though, just not sure if it is the main issue here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for assistance on RPG articles
I note that you have been working hard at reverting vandals, sockpuppets and POV pushers who have been removing cleanup templates, and I would like to thank you for your assistance. In my view, the templates are starting to have a beneficial effect as these issues are not being addressed, sources are being added (some of them are non-trivial) and discussion about poor quality articles have started. I hope the benefits of your work will continue to increase. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As I see it Grawp and the others tagging-along with his style of editing have made this personal, so I redouble efforts. I, too, have seen real progress made on some articles that have been tagged. When I see serious efforts made, I generally move on; I may even tick the article off my watchlist. FYI, I'm currently using that Broadway Tower image as my wallpaper. Thanks & Cheers, Jack Merridew12:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a rationale on the page, please check it yourself. If you have any objection, I suggest you figure out what it is, and articulate it, and if possible either fix it yourself, or seek help from somebody who is qualified to help. I'm trying to stay retired from Misplaced Pages, and I'd like to stay that way, and I simply can't help you when you're posting inaccurate boilerplate messages without explanation. In the hopes of staying out of this further, I'm posting a question about this image to Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use. You may wish to address your concerns there. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You are mistaken. A rationale has been on the page since it was uploaded. Please see and even . These date from 2007. Thus your complaint that there was no rationale, added in 2008 is clearly in error. Please do folks the favor of reading more carefully before adding tags, I'm sure it will be much appreciated. In any case, if your only problem was the wording of the rationale, your warning message on my talk page was clearly inappropriate. You could have easily made that fix yourself without involving me. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you know it says "Please consider, as an alternative to deletion, fixing the description page, if possible." Was it not possible to fix it yourself? Or are you not realizing that it was your mistaken claim of no rationale that was the problem? I suggest that you either read more carefully in the future, or speak more carefully. If you'd simply said what you'd specifically like fixed about the rationale, I'd have been much more pleased to do that, instead of being met by a discourteous claim that there was no rationale at all. I sincerely hope you start considering such in the future. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I've added a rationale for the use of the image at Vampire (Dungeons & Dragons). Please let me know if you consider it adequate. If not, please identify what concerns you do have on the appropriate talk pages. Sorry for claiming there was a rationale on the page, I should have been more careful myself. But I've added one anyway. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Was this you? I reverted that; some uninvolved admin will review the issue. If you want to understand the reasons for these taggings, read the tags and the links they offer, read my edit summaries, and read WP:RAT. Again, it not on me to provide rationales for all the endless missing and bogus claims out there. If you want the images kept and/or used on specific pages, do the work yourself. --Jack Merridew08:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, there is a burden on you to actually consider your actions, and see if there's a better way to work with your fellow wikipedians. Given that you have explicitly missed one rationale that I've seen, I'm inclined to say that you may wish to try using {{fairusereview}} instead of a deletion template. If that's not acceptable, then try WP:IFD. Choosing to use a template that declares it will be deleted because you dispute it? Not good, and not friendly when you haven't even asked others about it. Try working better with folks in the future. Seriously, I see your declaration of "do the work yourself" as quite unfriendly, and it didn't help that you started off with me in error yourself. An error which you've still failed to admit. Try talking more with folks. Try less drastic action. I've put them both on fairusereview. Perhaps you can bring up your concerns there. You certainly haven't convinced me that deletion is right or necessary. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I've not admitted my error because I've not made one. I did not miss any valid rationales. I've tagged image without rationales and disputed ones where I see a bogus claim being made. It's as simple as that. Up to you to provide valid rationales if you want. Cheers, Jack Merridew08:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Jack: Hello... sorry to do this, but I've restored one item to the "Trivia" section at Scarecrow. The comic book characters are quite notable, especially the DC Comics one. That character has been around for almost seventy years, appearing in the 'books, television shows, and even a movie. (I feel bad about restoring it, as there seems to be a bit of a tussle going on there, but the character could probably be incorporated into the article.) --Ckatzspy10:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
They may be notable, and if so, cover them in whatever articles. I'll look at what you've done in a sec. I would suggest that you incorporated them into the main prose if you want them to remain mentioned in the article. Cheers, Jack Merridew10:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hand phone
Hi, Jack Merridew. Here's my suggestion for the hand phone issue on HP (disambiguation). The dab does not list everything that simply has the initials HP, which is why Arcayne deleted it. If you have any citations for the use of "HP" for "hand phone", you could restore that mention on the Cellular phone page with the reference. Once it is (back) there, you could add it to HP (disambiguation). Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you -- which is why I added HP there without a citation. But since another editor has objected to its uncited inclusion, well, here we are. Best, -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Might I suggest you do something to improve the article rather than just tag them? I mean, anyone can just tag them, but, Misplaced Pages is more about contribution than detriment. Besides, what you're doing could be considered as vandalism as well, given that you've changed several subsection headings and deleted appropriate references. Kyle C Haight (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
First off, I have in no way vandalized that article (or any other). I've just finished restoring link-format improvements that you reverted. As to improving the article, I am. Were it not for the current injunction, I would 'improve' it all the way to being a redirect to the list of episodes. Cheers, Jack Merridew09:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I would've stayed away from any notability tagging on articles related to television, whether or not they are under the letter of the injunction. I think you're probably fine with those, but I would refrain from tagging any more until the injunction is lifted. seresin | wasn't he just...?14:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
First, let me apologize for borderline edit warring with you. My apologies.
Now then. I explained my opinion that the Abberation page should not be deleted on its talk page. A quick synopsis - it was rated mid-priority and served as a useful list to many different articles. (However, I highly anticipate a counter argument of "but most of those articles are non-notable, will be deleted, and then the list won't be of any use).
I did actually search the D&D project pages for a discussion on pruning and merging the creature type pages into each other, but I didn't find one. If I simply didn't find it, it'd be cool if you could direct me to it. If there isn't one, there probably should be. McJeff (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, although I personally believe the article should be recreated, I won't do so again as of yet. McJeff (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I see this as having been merged; undoing one side of a merge forks content in large blocks. See here and here where the article was merged. The prior merge notice indicated discussion, scant, at Talk:Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons) which I see you commented at.
Yes, I feel that most of the leaf-nodes are utterly non-notable; this is what lists are for (and those lists should largely consist of unlinked critters). The D&D 'verse has a near-endless number of named denizens and linking every one of them to a stub is absurd.
Here's an ideal side-project you may enjoy - important life-changing articles on politics and health
I just thought, I noticed you are quite good at wikifying things and very conscientious in layout and formatting, so I figured that something like this below may be of worth. I am a real slob with layout so thought you'd be way better at this than me:
I figured that folks could be potentially harmed or WP embarrassed by incorrect info on these type of pages rather than esoteric gaming material, even just some tags on more dubious info may be useful.
Also gives the gamers some time to hunt around for sources...] (] · ]) 08:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Off to the cardboard boxes of old magazines in the garage? I fixed a few bits of redink to deleted pages — I guess they got some attention. Cheers, Jack Merridew08:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The other page is this one - Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikify - layout and judicious (rather than effusive) bluelinking...] (] · ]) 09:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What have you started? . User:J Milburn has nominated more articles for deletion in a week than I have in my entire time editing WP. Well at least I won't get the blame for this; I can redirect all the complaints to you ;) --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at what was put up for nomination though Gavin. Virtually all of those AFDs have been nominated from a much more informed position. They're not poor nominations, but rather they're things that truthfully aren't important to the topic, and don't need their own article. I wouldn't say the same about a large number of your own nominations, if past consensus and discussion by other editors are any indication. Shemeska (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Shemeska. Almost all of what he, shadzar, and BOZ have nominated are Pokémon-esque articles, stuffed with cruft, game guide, and general detritus. None of them are even borderline. -Jéské02:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(Clarifying: I don't believe I've ever nominated anything on here for deletion - it's not my style.) BOZ (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I commentedafter he nominated most of the current crop of low-fruit. I made about the same comment on maybe half a dozen AfDs and was a wee bit concerned that I'd take some flak for it. That I've not indicates, to me, that folks are generally in agreement that there are too many non-notable stubby articles in D&D-land. There are a huge number of entities in D&D (which is a core concept in the design of any fantasy setting; see Tolkien). I see their future as being in lists; this is where non-notable stuff belongs. Cheers, Jack Merridew08:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I left a note as I couldn't find anything in WP space that fit the bill. I'm intrigued as I'd like to learn if it's possible. ] (] · ]) 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; I've commented there and expect someone will take it up. Please don't think me pointy, but let me ask again; who owns this burden of work? In this case, ownership is limited to the admin-caste. Cheers, Jack Merridew08:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can move a page, but only admins can delete a page. The rather convoluted process described on the thread thus far could only be done by an admin and looks rather more work than what its worth. That's why I just put the largest page and the redirect. figuring that was all the information that was required. As it stands, both pages contain what they should, just that the history of one is a little, erm, truncated. When I get a period of uninterrupted time I'll have a go, just been a little busy of-keyboard.
As far as burden,...well, it's no-one's really as it is a volunteer project. Folks just try and do what they do. I, for instance, do this for relaxation and enjoyment, if I don't get a good feeling, I lose interest fairly quickly, and hence why I don't participate in AfD too much. I am also a slob and get bored trying to format stuff if it gets too finicky. Anyway, there's nothing stopping you from running for adminship. ] (] · ]) 09:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the delete and selective restore process as being for admins-only. I agree that such burdens are only voluntarily assumed; many in the tv-bickering case advocated that such burdens were the responsibility of the deletion-minded. As to your last suggestion, I've no interest and certainly no expectation of the hoards I've crossed not scuttling such a bid. Cheers, Jack Merridew09:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
How is it a bad faith nomination? That seems like a pretty knee-jerk claim... Yes that first nomination appears to have been by some sock-puppet of someone you cheesed off for whatever reason, but does that make any subsequent question of its notability out of line? If the topic is notable it'll survive (at first glance it seems way too obscure, but I'm not voting because I don't know the topic enough to feel justified in weighing in).Shemeska (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It is bad faith because Pixel is targeting it because I created it. Ask Wayan Sukarmen if it's obscure. I have no doubt that it will survive; it's already had an infobox and logo added. Cheers, Jack Merridew07:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair use of Lady of Pain image
Jack, I don't really see your reason disputing the fair use of that particular image, but let me explain my reasoning here, and some additional info.
As one reason for the dispute you claim the image is a crop from the magazine the image appeared in print in, except it's not. That version of that image by R.K. Post is the entire image as produced by the original artist, and has been available in that form for public download from paizo publishing's website. The image as it appeared on the magazine cover of Dragon #339 is available in full w/ accompanying text and headers here: http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/TSR/TSR82339_500.jpeg for public download. However that version is more representative of the magazine rather than the Lazy of Pain, the subject of the wiki article.
Further, the image you dispute fair use of is one of only four full images of the fictional character in question, and to my knowledge the only one that has been available for download as a whole image without overlayed or adjacent book text or magazine cover headers. If there's going to be an image, that's the one truly viable candidate.
I'll be updating the fair use template this evening with the additional information, sourcing details, and rationale. That should remove any reasonable objections to its fair use within the article in question. Shemeska (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The image you linked to above would be an appropriate one for the rationale currently on Image:LadyofPain.jpgifLady of Pain were an article about the magazine issue rather than about the character depicted. I see that the image I've disputed the rational on is not a cropping; magazines covers rarely have nothing but the art. I have no idea what the original uploader meant by I posed for this. I'll strike the bit about being cropped. I would suggest a rational that has nothing to do with the magazine; they, presumably, got permission from the artist; indeed, they may have commissioned it. nb: just because there may be few good images extant does not mean WP is entitled to claim fair use on one of them. Cheers, Jack Merridew06:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The original uploader apparently meant just what she said, she posed as a model for R.K. Post when he painted the original image. I don't see any particular reason to doubt them, though having spoken to Mr. Post in the past, he's easy enough to get a hold of to ask if you wanted to fact check on the OP's statement. Assuming good faith, and the content of the OP's modeling website, I don't doubt the claim. And yes, Paizo publishing did in fact commission R.K. to draw that image specifically. Shemeska (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I just tweaked my comments on the image page including adding a link to the model's site. She probably has no right to post the image. Cheers, Jack Merridew06:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to help me understand your continuing concerns for the image, what would constitute fair use to you? The only other images suited for the article appear either on the cover of 'In the Cage: A Guide to Sigil', copyright TSR and unavailable AFAIK except for a full scan of the cover image including overlayed text and title; an image in the background (overlayed with text) of 'Expedition to the Demonweb Pits' copyright Wizards of the Coast; or an image present on a page in the Planescape Campaign Setting by Tony DiTerlizzi (a scan of which has been present in past versions of the artist's website). The R.K. Post image is the only one which to my knowledge has been released by the original commissioner (Paizo publishing) in its original form without accompanying title or text overlay. The image was available for public download.
I have no idea what those other images are or what their FU status might be. See WP:FUR for guidance on fair use rationales. I have no interest is chasing down artists and publishers; the onus is on editors who wish to include content to source it properly. Cheers, Jack Merridew07:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've accurately reflected the source of the image in the FUR. Between Shemeska's edits and my own, I believe the FUR covers all conserns raised so far, so I have removed the di template for now. -- RoninBKTC08:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your Campaign to mark a large number of Fantasy-related articles with the Notability tag
Having read your User page, I now understand that you are a zealous follower of Deletionism, and therefore, since I do not share that view, we are going to have persistent disagreements about what is and isn't worthy of inclusion. However, I do think that we have a great deal of common ground which we can agree on, especially in the area of marking up articles to denote them as needing better sources. I hope that you will work with me towards this common goal, instead of persistently combating me on the points which we disagree on. In the Talk:Paladine (Dragonlance) discussion, you seemed to imply that you are willing to engage in edit warring to advance your campaign, and I hope that does not mean you are so zealous that you are unwilling to pursue meaningful compromise on these issues. Thank you for your time. Dalamori (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Campaign? Zealous? And an assertion that we're going to have persistent disagreements? Hardly an auspicious way to start a dialogue. Excuse me, but I'm having a little trouble with the assume good faith thing here; please help me out. You show up on pages in the last few days after a 23 month hiatus from editing, with that account, and speak knowledgeably about current notability and policy issues?
I do feel many articles need various clean-up and tag them as such; notability concerns are one form this takes; so are tags such as refimprove. I did not say I would edit war, I said I would maintain such tags against their removal without the issues being addressed. This rather more akin to reverting vandalism than edit warring. Cheers, Jack Merridew07:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It's an opinion piece, but maybe you will find it insightful? Or just something to get a laugh out of - or both. :) BOZ (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I have seen all sorts of POV pushing on RPG from vandalism by sockpuppets to deliberate disregard for WP guidelines, but this takes the biscuit. Instead of removing the Template:notability, I see Dalamori has decided to replace it with a template of his own. What is the procedure for having this template deleted? Disputed Notability is basically POV pushing via the backdoor. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Come on now. Calling someone who disagrees with you a sockpuppet without any evidence such as a similar IP or location to someone else is just out of line. Heck, there are people who think that one of you is a sockpuppet of the other given how you tag-team (unintended irony there), but that doesn't mean it's true just because you share an editing viewpoint. Not everyone who has a different perspective on editing is part of some nefarious cabal out to get you and incite nerd-rage over the fine and sacred points of wikipedia rules.Shemeska (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I noted your environmental concerns, in which case, pages like these should probably have some more sobering balanced information....I did plan to do more on Australian environmental weeds at some point, especially ones still used in gardens. ] (] · ]) 12:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Smile Foundation of Bali
Dear Jack, I am happy and encouraged to see that in consideration of our past disagreements we were nevertehless able to work civily and constructively to improve that article. Hopefully it will be the first such successful collaboration. All the best! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Discussion comments
Please cite some policy or guideline in support of your editing of my good faith discussion comments. Indentation is a normal way of interleaving comments in a long discussion point and its use is a matter of style. Interfering with another's editing talk/discussion comments seems generally unwise because it disrupts our ability to discuss matters in a civil and sensible way.
While I write, I took exception to a comment of yours in the Xena AFD which seems to be pure heckling, I think he likes the saw-toothed look of the indenting. This again takes the matter to a secondary level which gets in the way of the primary discussion points. I forbore to respond in kind because this would add to the problem.
I review the talk page guidelines to which you link above and then used the Interruption template which it recommends for such a context. You have amended this again - please explain your impertinence. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Was walking today and someone had been spraying Silly String everywhere - what a complete and pointless waste of CFC..the sort of article which needs more highlighting of the environmental issues maybe...] (] · ]) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Kind of into the AfD thing at the moment... have you read about some the shite the US Navy gets up to with Haylons? They like to practice refueling jets on aircraft carriers as fast as possible. They release huge clouds in order to cool the hot engines. Each time they probably release more Earth-killing shite than all the Silly String ever. Extinction is inevitable; we could live just long enough to experience it. Cheers, (The basis of optimism is sheer terror)Jack Merridew13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That is too depressing to think about. And with that I must sleep. ] (] · ]) 14:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Qilin
Okay. That doesn't change the fact that the section in question is *not* a trivia section. Misplaced Pages:Trivia sections refers to things like the "Trivia" sections that used to be plastered all over film articles: random facts about the film which have no connection to each other or to the rest of the article.
A section on contemporary media references is legitimate, especially with regard to the Qilin, a mythical animal that has found new popularity in the West primarily through its usage in anime/games/comics. Sad but true. As you can probably see, that entire section is (1) internally consistent and (2) logically flows in the overall scheme of the article. It is not a random collection of disjoint facts. For some other examples of "media portrayals" being a section in diverse articles, see, for example, Forbidden City, FBI, Napoleon (films section). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As I've already explained, this is not a trivia section. The mentions of the Qilin in, for example, the Pet Shop of Horrors, is definitely encyclopaedic and probably even important. The other items are, to me, less important, but it is conceivable that they would be regarded as encyclopaedic by others.
As I've pointed out above, a "trivia" section is a section of disjointed random facts. This section is both internally consistent and relevant to the rest of the article.
OK, if one plays in the sandpit, then one gets dirty...
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion is by nature a place where relations are strained and it is very easy to become aggravated. I find that I can be alot more collaborative with people if I don't go there as it really brings into sharp focus some of the less savoury viewpoints etc. of others with different views here.
I still don't know why there is a preoccupation with crufty material - it doesn't hurt anyone nor is it self-aggrandising nor will anyone find it who is not looking for it. Yes I am very frustrated precious few people are putting in references, but I am familiar with the depth of third party material and am not too worried. I try to correct the sloppy prose and layout where I can, though a Sword of Damocles of AfD is a pretty good disincentive.
You've pointed out others..god I keep finding more such as Cestrum nocturnum, which is a noxious weed here in Oz.
The whole thing I had a problem with was, hypothetically, if one were a vandal whose aim was to remove as much material from wikipedia as possible, whether as a spy from rival company, say, born-again chrisitan with an antithetical viewpoint to alot of it, or someone with a really big axe to grind, there would be no better way than what has been achieved by TTN in the past year. Start with the sloppy stuff which there is some opposition to anyway, attract a few impressionable editors and away you go. I am glad I am wrong about a few people who since all this has started have begun editing and doing things more constructively, really I am.
I'd hazard a guess and say that if you're an anglo-saxon person living in Bali you may have a somewhat different world view on what's important than a large number of editors here- better to emphasise the positives with collaboraitve work rather than differences with trench warfare at AfD. I don't know. Anyway...plenty of environmental weeds need tagging...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I certainly see that time spent advocating deletion, redirection, or even just trimming of crufty stuff garners a lot of ill-will. For the most part, I shrug that off. I really feel that there are some hundreds of thousands of articles that don't belong here for a variety of reasons; they are non-notable, fail a bunch of policies and guidelines and are created out of obsessive fandom and not because there is anything encyclopaedic to say about them. You will never find me proposing the deletion of a real plant, or animal species, or the Mona Lisa or anything else with real merit. Such articles are what this site is for. On the other hand, Bloop ball should only be covered at www.BloopBall.com, but not here.
The Pumpkin guy seems to take great exception to this, which may be a factor in your born-again comment. I told him that is so-not me (religious fanaticism). Your comment brings to mind the gay Teletubby#Tinky Winky controversies. FWIW, I think such controversies are highly appropriate for coverage here. I'll also note that Tinky Winkyhad an article but it's long-redirected. Good-on.
I noticed TTN last year and this brought the whole realm of crufty stuff to my attention. Wow; something to clean-up. You may have noticed I often use the edit summary tidy for assorted clean-up. I am not much of a writer — prose — but I'm quite experienced at things like memos where you have to make clear and succinct arguments that hold up to challenge. Thus I edit a lot of talk and other discussion pages. I'm also good at editing, in the copy-paste and text-manipulation sense; any substantive tweaking of article text I do in an external editor. Incidentally, I have engaged in no off-wiki email communications with any of the usual editors about planning coordinated activities. It's all on talk pages or a result of noting what they were working on.
I came across WP:NOHARM today. Beyond what that says, there is the namespace issue I brought up with you before. Inappropriate articles underfoot is of concern for many reasons. I'm sure when wikipedia was smaller, the view was more enthusiastic re new articles; great, that makes 101,000 articles. We're in the millions and scalability issues surface when things move into big numbers. The fans who create such articles largely don't do the maintenance on those articles. Sure, the larger fandoms have a few editors who will create navigation templates and such (even if just by copying something), but a whole lot of stubby articles are created by short-term redlink accounts or anons and are then just left for others to deal with. Some of those others clean things up, others seek to take out the trash. Consider Bloop ball; some spammer created this and a bunch of others have to spend time discussing the merits of the damned thing (gotta watch those religion-derived intensifiers)? Shite like that should be speedy deleted without bothering so many people.
I seek to address these concerns in an expeditious manner because the first thing to do with a recognized problem is to stop digging the hole deeper.
A new issue of The Yak came out today (theme: The lighter and darker sides of Bali, Asia's fashionable playground). You, living in Sydney, probably have a better concept of what Bali is like than do most of the American and European editors. I think White Cat's view of the place is more like Gilligan's Island and that we only have internet access here when Gilligan peddles the bamboo bike. Part of my world-view, from here, is a lot different than that of folks in the trenches of the western rat race. That is what Bali is about.
Rather amusing mag that...I haven't been to Bali (though been to many places around it I suppose) nor have I left Oz for a few years but did travel a bit before that. As far as Bloop ball, can you imagine the authors (if not allowed to write on this wonderful game) turning around and contributing to, say, Postmodernism(hey, oh gosh there's a nice tag on that one too - bet this article's had some interesting vandalism). The article name is probably the biggest problem you've highlighted so far but not a biggy really. Anyway, off to sleep again. (sound of head hitting keyboard) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzCheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: But seriously, it's your call. If it is more important to you for whatever reason to keep in the trenches so be it. I can see another way as outlined above. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Mostly The Yak is about shallow fashion stuff. It does have a lot of interesting bits in it, though. I suppose an argument could be made to allow the cruft-focused editors their shite in order to keep them away from encyclopaedic articles. I believe that's what Wikia is for; it's certainly not about serious stuff — and ask me about my COI concerns re links to Wikia (related to the transwiki concerns I voiced in tv2's workshop). While I expect you really mean the other tag, the one that caught my eye was {{globalize}} and its link to WP:BIAS, which I've looked at before, but not in-depth. It has occurred to me that they may need a few more cleanup templates; namely one that says something along the lines of;
This article or section deals primarily with a trivial leisure activity of cosseted members of affluent hegemonic societies and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
OK, it wouldn't let me go past June 07 for some reason that way. You may want to stick some nowiki tags around it. If you need anything else to resurrect or improve let me know. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; but yikes! Will try and clean this up a bit. Templates and categories seem to be making a mess. Being in the cats will attract attention… pity about the oldest ones, they were what I was most interested in; any chance this is just as far back as the deleted edits go? Cheers, Jack Merridew11:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
