User talk:BOZ/Archive 2009

Happy New Year buddy

And thanks... I've got time on my hands at the moment haha. :) StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dragons of Despair

Hi, I've recently made a GA review of Dragons of Despair, which you appear to be interested in based on your activity on the talk page. I raised some issues and would greatly appreciate it if you were to address them, so I can promote the article. Thanks, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Boz

Happy New Year! Hope it's off to a good start. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New variety of PH

You know, I actually like this integrated version better — it integrates the in-universe changes with changes and evolution in the creative personnel, and just by its nature reduces a lot of biographical fancruft to pertinent, issue-cited specifics. And, as it happens, the official guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) now appears to be moving away from in-universe biography, such as WikiProject Comics' FCB.

Since you mention User:Hiding, whom I've always considered my role-model here, supports this, maybe it's time to make a formal Project proposal to do away with FCB, and do real-world-perspective PH's only. Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On this note, your input would be welcome here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abomination_(comics) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics

there's a degree of hostility from one user that may be able to be neutralised by several voices. I think he needs to grasp that I am open to change and that this new style is a work in progress. Asgardian (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dragons of Despair

I'm promoting this article, what cateogory should it be under? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that Sports & Recreation#Board and Card games is appropriate... there really isn't a good place for this kind of thing. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add it myself; if there's any problem, feel free to change it. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. :) Yep, I agree with Drilnoth. BOZ (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Minsc

Sorry for the delay, I've been busy and thinking what may be the best way to answer your questions.

To be honest though, I really don't know how to answer you. Minsc is popular as a character for, well, being the character he is. That's pretty much the same case with almost any title; Ivy's popular for being Ivy, Squall Leonhart for being Squall and so forth. What makes him "worthy" of having his own article is above the rest of the cast there's viable reception to cite. If Sarevok, Imoen or others turn up with any then they should probably get their own articles but thus far Minsc is the standout from the crowd.

Best answer I can give. Minsc is just who people think of when they look at BioWare. Kinda like how characters like Morte or Annah from Planescape: Torment are icons for Black Isle Studios (heck, Annah actually has plenty to build an article with, I've just been busy with three character articles already sitting on GAN at the vg project).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		The Socratic Barnstar is awarded to those editors who are extremely skilled and eloquent in their arguments. I REALLY loved your comments, Secondary_proposal:_AFDiscussion The picture you painted was so vivid! travb (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Giff article updated

Hi BOZ,

As you have been improving the Giff article, I though I would let you know that your good work on the D&D articles (especially this Spelljammer cornerstone of a monster) inspired me to put out a call for artwork on the Spelljammer forums over at The Piazza. (I wanted to add an infobox to match the Beholder article, but felt that I couldn't do that without getting hold of some fan art to fill the top.)

The thread where I requested the artwork is called: Wikipedia artwork request. I quickly got help from someone called Silverblade. He doesn't do wiki editing, but he is one of the best 3D D&D fan artists I have seen...as well as a big Spelljammer fan. So I was really glad to see him make a picture for me to upload.

There is someone over at The Piazza who has the user name BOZ. I don't know if it actually is you, but you might want to pop in and say hi to him.

As I said, Silverblade is a big Spelljammer fan, so if you have a list of Spelljammer related articles that could do with having art added, he might be able to help us get these articles improved.

Anyhoo, I've uploaded the image, and done my best to explain the fair use of this image on the image page. But, as I've had two images zapped before (and am not on Wikipedia as much as you) I would appreciate it if you could double-check my work.

BTW: I saw an interview on Dragonlance Nexus where Jeff Grubb was saying that he liked to add animal-headed humanoids to campaign settings and mentioned the giff. Is that something we should be using to add information about the giff's creative origins to the article? And would that sort of interview be enough to get rid of the 'notability' tag?

Thanks! Big Mac (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Article drive

Thanks for the note. Haven't we previously discussed this somewhere like the Comics Project noticeboard? I was ill and had to let it drop but we threw around some good ideas that I can't find. (Emperor (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the link but I was thinking about something 1-2 years ago. I established WP:CMC/ID for the improvement drive and discussed it on the talk page but can't seem to find it. I'm sure it was moved somewhere or I'm looking at the wrong page. (Emperor (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

I did more digging and found a deleted page move on the clean-up talk page and found it. (Emperor (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

I used your idea to use Google site search and found the preliminary discussion, what I hadn't realised was that the older Notice Board (with discussion) was superseded by a very similarly named one so when I went looking for the discussion it wasn't there, despite me knowing it should be. Mystery solved. Thanks for helpng - that would have niggled me to death ;) (Emperor (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Indeed. You did a great job of listing the articles that need some focused work back then and I'm glad that has all resurfaced when there seems to be a desire to really take things up notch. (Emperor (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes I saw - I reverted it twice because it was looking terrible and was left half-done. If there isn't enough material to do this or you can't do a decent job of it then really leave it to someone else to do.

Thanks for the comments I'll look them over in the next day or so. (Emperor (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

That one wasn't so horrendous, mainly because there has been little actual rewriting. (Emperor (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Oh dear. (Emperor (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

This is going to be his next "thing" isn't it? I haven't yet worked out if this is a problem with the articles he is picking (at random?) not being ready to be rewritten like this or if he isn't up to it. I have seen it done well (although some might need a bit of expanding like Cable (comics)) but that might be down to the article itself. (Emperor (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

And I think J Greb isn't a fan.

I suppose the only way to address this is to throw it out to the project. I know we need to try and work some articles so they have less in-universe material, but I don't think that means we have to put up with those... abominations. (Emperor (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Indeed - very aptly named. It could easily be deleted in its current state and there could be no great loss. I agree we need to make sure all the ducks are in a row. (Emperor (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

References

Indeed - I have actually mentioned something similar. I'll try and find the link. (Emperor (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Link is here. (Emperor (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Discussion: WT:CMC#Resources list. (Emperor (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Silver Age of Comic Books

I've been away (and not sober), what happened? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The reviewer put up some confusing information and then left? :) BOZ (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Best I can tell they have substituted a template (or copy and pasted some text in) but not done the actual review (which would involve changing the image tags to appropriate images. If nothing has been done in a few days then drop them a line. (Emperor (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

Cool tool of the month....

From this discussion, we get the box on the right - cool eh? Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ARS/Tagged

Coding: {{WP:ARS/Tagged}}

Ikip (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is awesome! :) Does it update regularly? BOZ (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely does update.

The only time it would not update is when you are looking at an old cache, which is solved by clearing the cache by adding this at the end of the address, then reloading the page: ?action=purge. See Wikipedia:Purge.

The cache is not going to an issue very often, if at all, because you won't need the list to update every few minutes. Ikip (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. :) BOZ (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Tomb of Horrors

Yeah, I noticed it had gotten to GA. Good work! I just polished a few bits. Isle of Dread looks pretty good already. Truly Trivial (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

List of minor company characters

You probably have the best grasp on the depth and breadth of our Marvel characters articles so I'd appreciated your input on what I say at the end of this section. It has come up in AfDs before where I have voted weak keep because there must be better ways of dealing with comics characters badly failing notability (like the examples I give), and this seems the best solution. We get to keep the information and work on it and then split it off later if we can improve the quality. (Emperor (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Dwellers of the Forbidden City

Hi, I am reviewing your article, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, for GA and have left some commennts at Talk:Dwellers of the Forbidden City/GA1. I will do a quick copy edit of a few MoS issues I spied. The article is well written and referenced but I am concerned about its comprehensiveness and tried to leave you with a few quick ideas on directions to expand it a little. Please contact me if you have questions or concerns. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I have no experience with the Good Article process. good number of sources and independant reviews. Edward321 (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ravenloft (module)

Thank for the notification. I'll take a look at the article a bit later. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man

I have started the review of Spider-Man and have mentioned my main concerns at Talk:Spider-Man/GA1. It is quite a overwhelming article. Perhaps some reorganizing would help. Please feel free to contact me with comments and suggestions. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I hadn't spotted recent developments. I'll leave some more thoughts on the talk page.

Also far-be-it for me to suggest anything about talk page management but you might want to think about archiving some of the threads here, it is a little unmanageable (you can lift the code needed from my talk page if you want to automate it). (Emperor (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Congratulations - good work. I was thinking it might no make it but it all came good in the end. I'll keep an eye opan for more sources and drop them when I find them (we might as well keep it rolling forward). (Emperor (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

Absolutely! :) BOZ (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Spider-Man

I think we're in agreement about what needs expansion and what needs cutting. My efforts to revamp the page weren't met with widespread approval by comics fans, so I decided to disengage (they hauled me over to ANI before over my disagreements with them before, so you can imagine why I'm hesitant to jump in on editing.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Applying wiki-style editing to enworld

I think they eventually got the idea - great way to make monsters....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, good stuff! :) "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." BOZ (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Spidey

What's going on, exactly? I saw Mattisse said something about rewriting for clarity. Above, I see David being taken to AN/I. Is it close? What are the hardest parts? I've been hesitant to work on it becuase, like my Jackie Robinson GA, its such an important subject it looks like a crazy amount of work. How many more refs do think it needs, for example? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Spider-Man

Thanks for the heads up. Tempest115 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Spider-Man

Thanks for the info. I did see some slight modifications that could be made, but it was usually just some reword/rephrase that wouldn't to anything to the content (e.g., is it really necessary to list 4 of spidey's foes in the intro? Wouldn't two or one suffice). I'll check the review page often to see if I could fix any of the issues that reviewer mentions. Good Luck! Kimu 20:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man Redux

Are you still working on Spider-Man? What concerns me now is the state of the footnotes. Do you want to try to clear this up or do you not care? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dork

Dork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.44.212 (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why... why would you say such hurtful things? :( *sniffle sniffle* BOZ (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If the shoe fits... I hope they don't look at my contribs. ;-) Of course, D&D players got all the girls at my school (and by girls I mean +5 vorpal weapons). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic Four

Will do. Seems to be going OK, although I'd leave the cultural impact section out unless you have something for it.

I also left some notes on One More Day at WT:CMC and given it a quick once over. Should be an easy one. (Emperor (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm sure some of those American holidays are made up on the spot ;) Anyway there doesn't seem much that needs doing to get the GA.

Anyway I have dropped you a chunk of FF material on the talk page, quite a lot of the Google Books can be read online (it might also be worth checking WP:CMC/BOOKS if any pages are missing - it still needs expanding but could be useful. I've already got some good stuff from it) so it should be easy enough to quickly sift out any nuggets there. Cameron Scott is worth talking to about the academic material - if it can't be used for FF quite a bit can be used elsewhere. The MA thesis is the one that could pay off digging out and might repay the effort (or it could be pretty thin stuff). Anyway something to chew over it is a bit of an info dump but I did some quick skimming and tried ordering it by usefulness (although there could be something mentioned in passing in something else that'd come in). (Emperor (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm not going to go crazy, but I enjoyed adding the little bit to Spider-Man that I did. What needs scholarly sources the most? Is it the FF's legacy, like SM? I can do a bit of research to help in whatever area. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I a bit rushed this week but will have a look for stuff - something I *do* have but will not have access to until friday is Modern Masters, where Byrne talks extensively about his work and the creative process in regards to the Fantastic four.--Cameron Scott (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There are four citation missing tags and the other media section looks under-referenced (I still say there is room to split it off). It is definitely coming on but the problem is it is a BIG topic and there is a lot of material (I suspect there are many more sources out there, even if I hope I've dug up the more important ones). You could put it up for GA review though (once those requests for sources have been addressed) and it might pass if you got the right reviewer. (Emperor (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Heh...

[1] :) -Drilnoth (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, indeed! He bores me in the extreme. ;) BOZ (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Topical templates

Hey; I was wondering if you could take a look at the proposed template in User:Drilnoth/Sandbox 5 before I ask for further comments at the appropriate pages, to even out anything that still isn't working quite right. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's fine; what are you trying to change other than making the templates more adaptable? BOZ (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not much; basically, my main goal is to allow categorization by topic... e.g. Category:Dungeons & Dragons articles with topics of unclear notability. It might be able to serve as a replacement for WolterBot's (sadly out of date) cleanup listings, and allow users to work on fixing up Wikipedia based on what they're interested in, rather than working by date. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Or finding good topics to delete. :P That is, if we don't merge or fix them first. BOZ (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh... -Drilnoth (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that having a category like that would help us find them before they get deleted, it's probably a good thing. BOZ (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll probably make a real proposal later today. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

One More Day

No problem - there's no rush. It strikes me that this'll be easier to make get up to standard than the FF just on the size front. I've left some thoughts on the talk page and will have a thorough read through of the article later and see if I can tweak anything.

I should be ready to propose Alex Raymond soon. I also spoke to | about Pride & Joy (comics) and left some notes on the talk page and when they're computer problems are fixed we should be able to get some more eyes on it and then we can renominate that one too. We should be able to have one or two on the go at any one time. (Emperor (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes it just depends on enthusiasm. It is handy to have someone go on point for the nomination (even if everyone pitches in). Hopefully when there is more momentum going we'll get more interest, ideas and volunteers. (Emperor (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Righto. I've been through Silver Age of Comic Books and done some minor copy editing and left a few notes on other changes. Looks like things are coming along. (Emperor (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes, looking through the alerts it is clear that in any fortnight there are half a dozen articles on the go (some as other media adaptations, but it all counts), we just have to keep ours churning over too. As we've still got some to run through the process (and I have my fingers crossed still for the Silver Age one) and I've flagged another half a dozen which look promising and could easily be produced with some copy editing and firming up the referencing. Hopefully, Jack kirby isn't far off - it is pretty solid but there is a major statement or two which needs sourcing but that shouldn't take long now and once that is done it is in pretty good shape. (Emperor (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

I'll read through it now and see if anything needs tweaking - I'd recommend starting a section on the Comics Project talk page and ask for a few more people to read it through and I'd say get it up for nomination in the next couple of days unless there is some serious issue I can't see. (Emperor (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

OK read through and done some tweaking. It looks good to me although I left a note on a couple of things that might need clarifying. Looks like we can get the ball rolling on this. (Emperor (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Thanks to you putting the time and effort in to get the momentum going. It should be possible to go through the ones that seem obvious but then it might be a might more hard work bringing others up to standard but if we focus on the 300 or so we've already identified as the most important we should be in a good position for when Wikipedia 1.0 rolls around (hopefully most would be up to a B by then which means they are of a reasonable enough quality for inclusion in an encyclopaedia). (Emperor (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

No I don't think we ever finalised 300 - that is a theoretical number we can shoot for but it'd be a bit rigid to finalise such a list without kicking it around a lot. We did get somewhere near 200 and I'd want to leave the door open to people suggesting others.

Looks like the One More Day is pretty much done - well done.

I made an edit to the Silver Age of Comic Books article [2] and it did improve the flow (IMHO anyway ;) ) but might need some tweaking (or using a different way of doing it). I've left a note on the talk page about what I've done so if you have any thoughts (or any others on that article) then throw them in over there. (Emperor (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Undermountain

thanks. been so busy with things lately, havent really had time for any wikipedia stuff. hope you guys were able to make some good use of what i started, and apologize if i was needed for it by the community, or for anything and havent been able to participate in my abscence. shadzar-talk 04:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

FF

My time has been limited this week and I seem to have got waylaid with other issues, but hopefully I can get some time aside to help out next week. Sorry. Hiding T 11:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Spider-Man: One More Day

I reviewed your GAN for Spider-Man: One More Day. As I said on the review page, it's really in excellent shape; I only have two minor things and then I'm looking forward to getting it up to GA status. Nice job! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• It looks much better; I think the photo in particular adds much to the article. I'm at work now, but I'm going to look it over in a little bit and I fully expect to pass the GAN tonight. One thing, just to make sure I'm clear though: when MJ whispered to Mephisto and arranged a deal so that Spidey's identity would be preserved, this deal was a SECOND, SEPERATE deal from the original one (which took away their marraige), right? Just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly... --Hunter Kahn (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, so here's the deal. I just bought the hardcover collection of the four One More Day issues, and I see that it includes both an afterward by Stan Lee (praising the story and remaking on how changes are essentially, blah blah blah) as well as a Q&A interview with Quesada by a guy named John Rhett Thomas. I've only combed through the interview, but it looks like it may be worth including some info from it into the story; at the very least, the Stan Lee comments should be added. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind if I wait a little bit to pass the GA, and if I go through these sources and add them to the article myself (or tell you what my proposed additions would be), then have you read them? If we come to an agreement, then I think we'd be finished with the GAN. I don't want to hold things up, and let me know if you really object, but ultimately it won't be that much longer of a wait and I think the article will be improved for it. Let me know what you think. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, I put in the review page what my possible additions to the One More Day article could be. I didn't want to just drop them in without checking with you guys what you thought of them, whether you thought they were necessary, etc. Please take a look at them in the review page and leave comments. Thanks! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I put them in and added some new comments to the review page. Check them out at your leisure. Also, I noticed too late your suggestion to shorten the one statement. I pasted it into the article as-is, but I agree with you that it could be shortened. However, I'm now late for work and must go. If I get to it first after work, I'll shorten it, but please feel free to do so yourself in the article if you get there first. Thanks! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
        • The article has passed. Thanks again for all your help and for your patience with me; I know buying the hardcover was probably a bit over the top, lol, but I think we've improved the article and I was happy to have heard about this and am glad the comic. Incidentally, although I haven't really been into comics in a long, long time, one day I'd like to be involved in getting the articles No Man's Land (comics) and Maximum Carnage up to GA and perhaps FA status. I plan turn my attention to these articles someday, and if you knew of any sources I could use I'd appreciate it, or if you ever decided to work on them yourself I'd like very much to be involved, so please keep me in mind. Thanks for everything once again, I enjoyed working on the article with you! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Just so you know, I have added your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Coordinators' working group as a co-coordinator of the D&D project, since you're pretty helpful and get a lot of the stuff organized. If you'd rather not be listed there, feel free to remove your name. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, that's fine for now; it's a role I don't mind taking on until there are more editors actively working on things, at which point I'd rather step aside. :) BOZ (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay... I just thought I'd let you know and make sure that you were OK with it. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's basically what I've been doing anyway for the past few months, or at least what I was trying to do until you came along to help. BOZ (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly why I thought that you should be on the list. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo

Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

You're probably feeling fairly paranoid around right now, but Raul has scheduled thru March 6, March 7 he said he might bump March 6's article to if Tony's Saxbe Fix article passes FAC, and March 8 is almost certainly gonna be Tubman. Can't you find something for late March?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic Four

I honestly feel Fantastic Four needs a lot of work before it can be considered for a GA nomination. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class discussion

Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll see what I can do! BOZ (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Chattur

I've undeleted Chattur and temporarily redirected it to Spelljammer. All yours! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Ms. Marvel

Thanks! That's awesome. Thanks for also finding that edit; I've re-added the information to the lead, which should be growing. I agree - the article is obsessively overdetailed, and I'm planning on trimming it. Since Ms. Marvel is an old character, I should be able to dig up a million sources about her. I guarantee the article will look brilliant. -- A ^talk/_contribs 21:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, BOZ. Would it be possible if you could give me your opinion on something that came up here? If it isn't too much of a bother. -- A ^talk/_contribs 13:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

		Cookies!
		Great work on getting Planescape: Torment to GA! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 10:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty happy about that. :) BOZ (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Megatokyo

Fred Gallagher has just replied to me to let me know he's going to try and do an original illustration, using Megatokyo characters, in time for the 13th. He's got to have a look at the contract issues regarding copyright, but he's hopeful it's possible. Hiding T 14:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, cool! :) How does he like the comic getting to the main page? BOZ (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He's pretty psyched. He wanted to know if he could mention it, and I figured that since it is public knowledge, there's no harm in it. Hiding T 11:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's no secret, and in fact all will see in about... 40-ish hours? BOZ (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Peanuts

Hey Jc,

Just to prove I'm not a total layabout, I finally got to having a look at Peanuts and added a note on the talk page. :) I have to say, I don't know what the sourcing looked like two years ago, but this one still needs a tonne of citation work and is not going to pass GA without it. You might want to get together with folks like Peregrine Fisher, Hiding, and Emperor and see what they can come up with; the sources have to exist somewhere, I'm sure, even if we're talking about primary sources in some places. The article itself seems pretty good, and if we can nail that after a few hours of work, then it can move on to FA as the next step without a doubt. BOZ (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing I would definitely not call you is "a total layabout" : )

Last time we went up for GA, Hiding rather impressively went gung-ho on the references.

I have more than a few myself, but most are primary sources.

What would help, is to get an idea of what is needed, and I'll see about looking through my collection. (In other words, I'm not exactly sure of what I should be looking for to help with the article.)

Also, you may want to check out the discussion at Talk:List of minor characters in Peanuts.) - jc37 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's probably just a harsh criticism of myself; I don't feel like I do as much as I want to accomplish, but in the end it's probably more like I do a lot more than I need to. :)

Well, I did my best to identify the parts that need work; you just kind of have to look and go with your common sense to see if things look satisfactory and what doesn't. Look through your collections, particularly any notes by the editors or commentary from Schultz and other people, and go to town with the citations. Hiding can help, and the others I mentioned will most likely be willing as well. My time is limited now, so I just do what I can here and there. BOZ (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Comics Star
		For your recent work at helping organise the raw resources that are WikiProject Comics editors into the humming GA/FA machine currently underway : ) - jc37 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Incedentally, I had thought we had a "comics collaboration" barnstar around somewhere, but couldn't find it. (It's what I was intending to give, but the Project one does the job just fine : ) - jc37 19:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Super-powers

Boz, do you not have super-powers? Do you want super-powers? I'll gladly nominate you for super-powers. What do you think? Hiding T 10:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I meant adminship. Take your time thinking about it, the offer is open until I die. Hiding T 12:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There's many different styles of adminship. I'm not really that heavy myself on the admin tasks anymore, occasionally I'll go on a deletion run, but I think it's just as important to have admins who are active editors as it is to have admins who are active vandal fighters and the like. I doubt you're that likely to abuse the tools; there's not that much you can abuse, to be honest. And no, I'm not likely to dies anytime soon. Hiding T 12:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • On a cautionary note, I;ve seen rfa's flounder because some people have the oipinion that you need to demonstrate a need for the tools, like you will become an uber vandal fighter or whatever. Something to consider. In my day, if you were a good contributor, you were pretty much golden, as they say. Hiding T 12:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If Hiding, Emperor and I aren't enough to convince you, go poke Doczilla. I think he had similar concerns, and may help clarify. - jc37 19:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know that Doczilla and I had interacted enough for him to have an opinion about me. :) BOZ (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice!

Great work on those "critical reception" sections! –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure! I have more from the same book, but got too busy to add them. :) I've used that book for other things before, like novels and I think modules; it's technically not a primary source, but it's not independent because of who wrote it. BOZ (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it helps. As you said, it isn't really primary or independant, but it can still help if the article's other sources are also in grey areas. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Good Article Medal of Merit

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		BOZ, on behalf of Wikipedians everywhere, I award you this GA Medal of Merit for your consistent contributions to articles that result in successful GA nominations, one of the most recent being Planescape: Torment. Congratulations and keep up the good work! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I wish I could have done more! BOZ (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

LW/TSR

yeah, that is why i said someone needs to look at the site quick, and do some work to make sure the article states the truth where the Dille Family Trust website lies through its teeth. shadzar-talk 04:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics

Hey, BOZ. I've been cleaning up the WikiProject Comics/Participants list right now (which has gone completely out of hand), and I've noticed your not on the list. I was going to add you while I'm cleaning the list, but out of curiousity is there a reason why you don't want to join? I'm just asking for your permission before I add you. -- A ^talk/_contribs 17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not really a joiner. ;) I just do what I do in trying to make the project better. You can add me if you like, but I'm pretty ambivalent either way. BOZ (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahah, alrights. Seeing as you've been contributed to discussions a lot, your almost on an honorary level - you make the effort, which I have to thank you for. So no doubt your on the list. -- A ^talk/_contribs 23:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Becoming All-Powerful!

I get where you are coming from. I tend to use the tools the same way Emperor does, although occasionally I go on a deletion spree. My motive in asking was just that you're a good editor whom I would trust with the tools, and I think that should be enough. I don't care what you do with the tools. To be honest, I'm kind of half of the mind that we need a lot of editing admins to balance out the average. But I'm not sure how an rfa would go, I haven't visited the bear pit in a long time. I think at the end of the day, being an admin is all about judgement. I trust your judgement. I don;t know if being an admin changes people's perception; although it used to be true that if you were here long enough people assumed you were an admin, and were surprised if you weren't, I don't know if that holds up any more. What I think would be useful, is that you'd achieve more editing ambitions with the tools. I know I do. It would just mean that, on those occasions when you needed an admin, you wouldn't have to run to them, unless you needed someone neutral. But I think, looking at the thread of this conversation, that maybe you just don't see the need. Which is cool too. Sometimes I wished I'd never stepped up. The only reason I don't step down is that I know what I'd lose. Never having had them, you may well be better off. Hiding T 13:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gold Box

Hey, good adds! :) I wonder if it would make sense to use that link to source more things in articles like Pool of Radiance and Gold Box? BOZ (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure that it could be. Right now though I'm just making sure that the CRPGs mentioned all get a cite so they escape the fervor of the deletionists. ;-) —RJH (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dragonlance GA

I know it's been quite a while, but thanks for letting me know and for your hard work in improving the article. Ddcc 06:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

D&D articles

Nice work on the articles you mentioned - they are good quality articles now, lots of references, great stuff! Who is "we"? ··gracefool☺ 06:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. :) "We" are members of the D&D WikiProject, mostly myself, Drilnoth, Peregrine Fisher, and a few others who come and go. :) You're welcome to (re?)join the WikiProject, or help with our efforts, or just watch us work! BOZ (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a WikiProject page? ··gracefool☺ 22:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BOZ

Okay, I've got around to it. Apologies for the delay, I got caught up in the BLP issue. I think Drilnoth wants to co-nom, so we need to wait for him before we submit it to RFA live. Best, & good luck, Hiding T 13:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. :) I've taken a look at what some people, such as Emperor, did in regards to answering the questions and I think I've formulated some decent responses. BOZ (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• You'd better, it's live. ;) Hiding T 12:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA questions

Thanks for the Q's - those are some good ones, and definitely more up my alley than concerns of BLPs or how I would mishandle AFDs. ;) I won't be able to get to them quickly, as there are a few and I will need to think some of them through, but I do appreciate it! BOZ (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I finally got all of your questions answered. Got any more, go for it. :) BOZ (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Very nicely done, btw.

You made answering those questions look easy. (As it should be, but you might be surprised.)

If ever you get in a quandry about discerning consensus (or really anything about adminship...). Grab Hiding. He and Kbdank71 (among a few others...) were the main ones with the sledgehammers who taught me : )

(And honestly, most of what I know about blocking came initially from Hiding. I still have his initial advice copied to a file on my comp for easy access.)

We are fortunate in that we have several rather good admins active in the comics project. (Though I have to admit. looking back, it's sad how many good admins I "used to know" have faded into the past; at the comics project, at CfD, at DRV, etc.)

Besides those already mentioned, personally, I typically go to J Greb concerning images and "box" templates. And Doczilla (before he went semi-inactive) and Emperor (among others) are particularly great 3PO. Regardless of their personal feeling, they have an almost uncanny ability to remain neutral in contentious situations.

And of course (regardless of whether this succeeds, though it's looking like it will), feel free to ask me for help/assistance any time. - jc37 23:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't as easy as it looked, and every answer took some thought and work. :) (Thus why it took me two days to get 'em all!) I suppose the ever-growing "admins I used to know" category is a large part of the reason why RfA is still so active, and that why "we have enough" isn't really true - attrition is a natural part of life, I suppose. I decided to stick with candor in my responses, even if it may cost me an oppose or two (or twelve); I could have tried to give the answers I thought everyone would want to hear, but that's pretty disingenuous isn't it? I'll absolutely keep you in mind if I need anything, and you're absolutely right about the others as well. And, how ironically fitting that you got #50! :) BOZ (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Then a few of the reasons for my questions apparently were successful.

One being the "hope" that the nominee actually read the pages in question. All too often, people presume that they know certain things, and then make simple (though sometimes grave) mistakes that could have been avoided. (I've been there myself. Way back when, I was indef blocking IPs, which has been determined to be a no-no : )

That and, as I've mentioned to others, for me, assessing the answers isn't entirely on the answers themselves, but "how" the candidate answered.

I realise that there are those here who call RfA and adminship no big deal. And that's true to a point. But evaluating those those to be entrusted with those tools to not cause some big deals (among other things) seems to me to be a geneuine responsibility of every community member. Both for the community and the editor. To (badly) paraphrase Shakespeare's Henry V: When we purpose to accept their service, we purpose not their deaths (to drama or mischance or mistakes, etc.)

So I kinda take RfA a bit more seriously than perhaps others do (and possibly more than I should - c'est la vie.) It's also why I don't comment there much, though I read RfAs quite a bit.

One other thing, the consensus question is usually a deal-breaker for me (See User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria.) But your answer showed that you were not only in the neighborhood of understanding, but also (importantly) rather open to learning in practicum : )

Anyway, sorry about the length. I (as I think you may know) tend to type stream of consciousness. And I can go on and on if I don't stop myself : )

But since you seem open to constructive suggestions, I thought it was worth making the effort : )

And if I may be so bold, congrats in advance : ) - jc37 01:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I like to assume nothing, but... I'm at 95% with more than half of the time expended, and it would take something like an avalanche of 20+ Opposers to pile on at this point to knock me out. Still, I'd rather comment no further. ;) Yes, I have more or less read all of the major policy pages more than once, but since you provided links I availed myself of the opportunity for a refresher. :) I wrote my responses, then went into the policies and added a few things I had forgotten, but which I'd had experiene with. Yeah, I'm definitely open to learning, and never assume that I know everything... but when I actually know I'm right, it would take a lot to convince me otherwise. ;) Stream of consciousness is fine, and I do it plenty myself! Not so much at this late insomniac hour though. ;) BOZ (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, got it. :)

Userbox

For this user, sex is speculative fiction.

Looking through your contributions I found LGBT themes in comics, (which is excellent, by the way), and it gave me this idea for a userbox. I don't think it'll catch on though. :D All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 02:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice!

Thanks for catching that; looks like AWB has a bug! –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That probably had more to do with a messed up ref tag more than AWB, but you're welcome anyway. ;) I recognized the name, and I figure Emperor might want to look at that article. Might be merge-worthy though, but I'll let him decide that. BOZ (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Knowles

Thanks for the note - I don't think I've managed to look at my watchlist today and missed it. (Emperor (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Well we have talked about various things but coming her seeking clarification but I see a note above. I'd better go and make everyone see sense (preferably in slow-mo). (Emperor (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Start again!

Just in case you haven't been keeping an eye on things, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Round and round we go, on the enlessly spinning battleground. :) Eh, as long as it keeps a certain editor occupied I don't much care what happens with it. ;) BOZ (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wonder if it will ever be finished. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, not any time soon at least. When the most partisan of editors aren't saying anything, then the neutral ones are too disinterested to keep things going. :) BOZ (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hergé

The article Hergé you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hergé for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pmlinediter  ^Talk 11:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		For all of your work in bringing articles up to GA quality, I hereby award you this medal! Great work! –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Co-nom! – Quadell (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I can't take a lot of credit for Hergé‎ though, as most of the work was done by Fram and others before I got there. :) BOZ (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It was just a general medal; I just happened to see this GA notice and thought "Hey, you need a medal!" :) Seriously now, you've done a lot of great stuff with quality improvement. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me be the first

"He who does not keep peace shall lose his hand."

Congratulations. Now don't go chopping off anybody's hand... BusterD (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, congrats! –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I might chop my own off by mistake, is that OK? BOZ (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as long as you can use your superpowers to regrow it. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Never unsheath your axe unless you intend to use it. In other words, always remember to cover your axe! BusterD (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I might have to use my superpowers to grow something else, you know, for when all the ladies find out I'm an admin now... you know, I mean my rockstar hair, drives the rockin' chicks wild! ;) BOZ (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Con-gwa-chu-way-shuns : ) - jc37 12:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't be the first anymore, but congratulations just the same. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankee! :) BOZ (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no, let me be the retroactive-first! And as a reminder, it is now time to put your nefarious plan into action. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We decided on my talk page to do that on April 1. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No time like the present... ;) BOZ (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you agreed... –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Draw, partner! BOZ (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and block you for a few seconds, except I think that that would be frowned on for a new admin. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, if you actually did it. ;P BOZ (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Best of luck with the bit, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Request for Adminship

Dear BOZ,

I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and are aware of the items on the Administrators' reading list. Best of luck in your new position! —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I was browsing through my favorite weirdo-blogs today, and I found this image. Fitting! Now that you're an admin, you're cool enough to wear those shades. :D – Quadell ^(talk) 14:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. :) Brian Bosworth! BOZ (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, congrats on your RfA! Awesome, finally there's an administrator with a sense of humour. :) While I'm at your page, I'd also like to point out another success: the long-awaited review for Pride & Joy (comics) was worth it - it's finally a good article. -- A ^talk/_contribs 16:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome - good work!  :) BOZ (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming a sysop. I've seen some of the improvements you have made to D&D articles, and how you have remobilised some of the D&D community, so I think you really deserve the position they have given you. Big Mac (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• The reward for a job well done is a bigger job. Congratulations! Hobit (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! :) BOZ (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Congrats!!! Well deserved. Web Warlock (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, man. :) BOZ (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bane (comics)

Thanks for the heads up. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help me encourage cooperation between Forgotten Realms Wiki and Wikipedia

Hi BOZ,

A while ago I posted a call for formal cooperation between the D&D WikiProject Forgotten Realms work team and Forgotten Realms Wiki. I also posted the same call for cooperation over at Forgotten Realms Wiki.

I have seen you running around forums trying to mobilise people to help improve specific wiki articles. But only a small percentage of forum users even know how to edit a wiki.

There are a number of frustrated ex-Wikipedians who have moved to more D&D friendly wikis (like Forgotten Realms Wiki). These people all have the skills that Wikipedia needs and they all care about Forgotten Realms. I think that it would be a good idea to try to build links between wikis like Forgotten Realms Wiki and the D&D WikiProject.

I think that we could argue that Forgotten Realms Wiki's best articles function as a secondary source of Forgotten Realms information. So I think that improvements in encyclopedic information over there could possibly help underpin some of the related articles over here (against Notability claims).

But we can't save every D&D article. So I as well as trying to mobilise these FR experts to help get FR articles improved (on both wikis), I also think that we ought to ask for Wikipedia to agree to a "graceful exit" strategy for articles that are cited for deletion and can't be saved. Forgotten Realms Wiki wants to host a high level of detail of content about Forgotten Realms and I think that Wikipedia should have a "no FR article gets deleted without FR Wiki being offered a copy" policy.

I believe that you have managed to get articles temporarily undeleted, so that content could be moved elsewhere. That sort of thing could also be done for any Forgotten Realms articles that have already been deleted.

I think that if we could get this sort of cooperation going, wiki editors could help improve the FR content on both websites. And I think that given that Wikipedia doesn't want to have articles for all things D&D, that finding good D&D related wikis to act as caretakers for the "unwanted stuff" would help Wikipedia ensure that non-noteworthy, but good content wasn't wasted.

I realise that Forgotten Realms Wiki is only a tiny fish, compared with Wikipedia, but if the deltionists are going to argue that certain types of content should be taken off of Wikipedia and "left to other wikis", then I think that Wikipedia has got a duty to forge relationships with the wikis that have a similar care for detail to Wikipedia itself.

I think that this FR Wiki is the best organised independent D&D wiki I've seen. I hope you can help make some suggestions as to how the FR fans could move forward in a cooperative strategy. I think that if we can get this sorted with one campaign setting, we could then use that as a model for getting cooperation started up with the second biggest independent D&D wiki community.

Please drop by on both of the discussion pages I've linked to above and let people know how they can help without their edits getting trampled by the delitionists. Big Mac (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well hey, I'd be happy to help out. I understand that a lot of D&D editors left over the last year and a half due to persistent negative attention (IYKWIMAITYD) towards D&D articles. Getting them to come back has been like pulling teeth, but I hope to use partly the recent attention to Dave Arneson's article, and my RFA to see what kind of interest I can drum up around here.

I'm not really interested in getting involved with another wiki as that splits my already divided attention even further. But I'd be happy to help out with any cooperative efforts. I can undelete any FR articles which have been deleted so that they can be copied, but I don't think there are very many left - kind of got to most of them already. :) If you know of any, though, I'll be glad to do the honors. BOZ (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you could just help on the Wikipedia side (the FR team within project D&D) that would be good. The former FR project dried up and the page is pretty fragged. It needs to be shown some love and set up in a way that shows what FR articles are good and what FR articles need a bit of extra help. I wonder if there is a way to duplicate the stats from the front page, but filter them to only show FR related articles.

The other thing about cooperation is that some people will start editing on Wikipedia and then move over to FR Wiki, while other people will start editing on FR Wiki and then move over to Wikipedia. Allowing an exchange of editors will keep people wiki-editing, and retain the talent pool (even if some people don't spend as much time here or there). Big Mac (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

David Shepheard makes some very good points, and has done likewise at the Forgotten Realms Wiki. I would like to see Forgotten Realms articles on Wikipedia have a link in the "further reading" or "external links" section to their equivalent on the Forgotten Realms Wiki. If people want to keep reading beyond the limits of "notability" on Wikipedia, the wiki is an ideal place to do it. Lots of Wikia wikis are referenced in this way, such as the links to Wookiepedia on Chewbacca, Darth Vader and Han Solo. I do not think I should be the one to make these edits. I will only be accused of a conflict of interest, or unfairly trying to promote the wiki in some way. Perhaps you would be able to suggest this to the D&D WikiProject? There has been lots of talk of co-operation between Wikipedia and FR-Wiki on both sides, but so far, only action on the FR-Wiki side (there are a bunch of links back to Wikipedia for many articles). Fw190a8 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't object at all to adding such links to articles, and feel free to bring this up at the D&D WikiProject page. :) BOZ (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bane (comics)

Thanks for the heads up, i'll fix up as much as I can on the page. ^The  Jay  Experience  08:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry bout that.

i was just so shocked i went into comment mode and posted the smilie without realizing where i was doing so. you do so much work, you are good for the position. but guess it even adds more work for you huh? shadzar-talk 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's OK, I like the smilie there - it's an honest reaction. :) Doesn't really add more work, just whatever I want to do. BOZ (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Query

Is undeleting Arcane magic (Dungeons & Dragons) a good idea? It looks to me, looking through the page history and the AFD, that it was mainly copied (maybe not word-for-word, but pretty close) from the SRD; if that's the case, it would probably be considered a copyvio. A lot of your undeletions so far have been well chosen, but I'm just wondering if this one is a good idea. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't looked that closely at it. I was undeleting some leftover edits under redirects and existing articles. Lookng at the AFD, I see the suggestions that it is too detailed, but it's not clear if it's word-for-word and I hadn't made a comparison to see; it may be pretty close from what I remember. It looks like that text was added by User:Psyghost, so if I skip everything between where he started and after the AFD, I should be cool. BOZ (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good; thanks for taking another look at it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankspam?

CONGRATULATIONS!

Oh, no, if you're coming here to complain about RfA thankspam, I can assure you that you received none from me. ;) First of all, I'm not going to thank everyone who participated, and second of all if I did get you, then I've given some thought to what I wanted to say to you personally. :)

But hey, thanks for dropping by! ;) BOZ (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You could just give everyone something simple like this. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bo-ring. :) Nothing personal. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That was kind of the point. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, why take the easy way out, I'm going to force myself to be creative with my spam. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You earned it. It is people like yourself that keep this place going. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 02:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) BOZ (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have affixed "You're Welcome" spam to the top of this section. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Now that's unique. :) BOZ (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the mop... for there is always more messes to clean up than anyone might wish. Try to not let it get in the way of continued fine editing. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do my best, for sure. :) I'd rather edit than admin, so if I had to give one up I'm sticking with what I do best! BOZ (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just remember to use your powers wisely. (Emperor (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you, Obi-Wan Kenobi. :) BOZ (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! I've been feeling like I'd like to work on some more D&D related topics, but it's hard to know where to drop in. I'll probably end up joining in on those collaborations; thanks for the note! J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Herge article

As I posted on your talk page, Hergé has recently been promoted to a GA. Right now, we all should work to attempt to lift it to FA or at least A-class. I will work with you to help you in this job (will try to make at least an edit a day). And on another note, I would advise you to archive this talk page, it is taking a long time to load (over 3 seconds), though by judging the size of your previous archive, it isn't even half yet. :-) Pmlinediter  ^Talk 12:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

congrats

Congratulations on becoming an admin. I don't generally participate in RFAs, but I knew you'd be a great one because of your ability to build consensus and hear other people out. We all have our preferences on Wikipedia. But I'm impressed that you haven't become jaded, and shifted into a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Keep your head up, and let me know if you ever need any help with anything. Randomran (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sure! What's the most helpful thing that I can do? The article looks pretty well-referenced and comprehensive. Is it just a matter of improving the prose, or are there certain aspects of research that you want some help filling in? Randomran (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I've checked in at the D&D WP. As a side note, have you guys seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources? It's a really useful list for us video game folks. Often if I'm trying to prove that something is notable, I do a bunch of google searches on some of the most popular sources here. I'm sure there has to be a few websites that cover D&D from time to time, and that are reliable by most standards. (Just a quick roll through Dungeons & Dragons would show sources that have passed our highest standards.) Randomran (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the medium helps too. Video games are electronic, and so there's a lot of electronic WP:RS that deal with then. But there's bound to be a few solid online sites that deal with D&D, no? Or even just a few go-to print publications? It can't hurt to have a little list. Randomran (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Looks like you guys are already one step ahead. For the record, I have some video game books. But I went so far as to buy one just so that I could improve articles on Wikipedia. If you enjoy your hobby that much, I think you'll find it to be a great investment. Randomran (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Sounds good. Good luck! Randomran (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks!

No problem - it's really lucky I stumbled onto that thread; I was (pleasently) surprised to hear your request. :) -- A ^talk/_contribs 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No problems

Boz, I don't see how I will ever doubt my decision to nominate you for rfa. You are the editor I think I most wish to be like. I'm sorry I haven't been much help with comics articles lately, I've found myself sidetracked. I think I once commented to Jc something about how "no sooner do you get it all straight, have a few drinks to celebrate, put the chairs on the table and start mopping up than a whole new crowd walks in ready to get it all straight again". I'm kind of putting my priority on the BLP issue right this second, as best I can, and keeping an eye on a few meta debates you do well to ignore. Anytime you need me, you know where I am. And you'll do fine, I promise. :) Hiding T 19:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Vantine84's talk page.
Message added 07:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Against the Giants

It's looking good Boz, thanks for your work, it's a very tidy article. Someoneanother 13:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

On your adminship! Things are looking brighter for D&D!--Robbstrd (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Great news! I'm very happy for you, and for Wikipedia. Cheers and keep up the good work! Freederick (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming an admin, BOZ. I did notice this before, but only because I went to vote for you and found it was too late to vote. I'd pretty much given up on Wikipedia, but your work here has made me come back and put some time into editing it. I'm not nearly as active as I used to be, as Spelljammer Wiki needs me far more than Wikipedia does, but I probably wouldn't be here at all if it wasn't for you.

I'm trying to ensure that all Spelljammer Wiki articles are going to be correctly citated to their original sources. I'm hoping that SJ Wiki will eventually be seen as something that is a reliable secondary source, but even if it doesn't come up to that standard, I'm still hoping that the references sections of articles, will allow people in the D&D WikiProject team to quickly skim through the appropriate D&D books when verifying facts. I've also spent a small amount of time looking out for interview related to Spelljammer (I've put a link to one on the Spelljammer Wiki article for Jeff Grubb). I'm hoping that if I can find things like that, they will also help you and the team over here.

I think that both you and Robbstrd are much further ahead than me, with this sort of activity, but hope I can add in my own little bit to help you continue with your good work. Big Mac (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Allan Varney discussing his D&D work at The Piazza

Allan Varney has been discussing his Dungeons and Dragons work in a thread called Allen Varney here. You might want to keep an eye on his comments, just in case any of them are useful for adding information to any D&D articles. (He might even be able to give you specific confirmation of uncitated D&D facts).

You will find a list of other D&D authors (and any threads they are answering questions about their work in) in the Celebrities on the Piazza thread.

I hope that some of this helps you get the information to back up some endangered articles and also helps you provide some more background information about D&D. Big Mac (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for popping past my talk page. I can understand Wikipedia viewing forums in general as unreliable sources of information, but if we can veryfy that specific persons (i.e. game designers like Allan Varney) write under specific user names on specific forums, doesn't that allow us to treat that information as coming from the person? For example, in the thread over at The Piazza, Allan Varney corrects me when I refer to him as a TSR staff member and states that he only did freelance work for them. That would seem to be something that could be used to confirm the second paragraph of the 'Roleplaying games' section of his article (which says he started to freelance). (There may well be better sources to cite for this fact - I'm just using it as an example of something in the wiki article that wants a citation.) Big Mac (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the difficulty, often enough; sometimes the best sources we have for some types of information are forum posts. We can always use it for the time being, but if we try to take an article to GA we would probably have to remove it, and to take it to FA (Featured Article), we would definitely have to remove it. Of course, there are issues with BLP articles (biographies of living person) and reliable information, but if we could have some kind of verifiable proof that this is the actual person making these posts, then we might be able to get away with using it. BOZ (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the friendly head's up and congrats. I can now bother you too about silly Wiki-questions instead of just Emperor. What's the official Wiki-page-policy on describing fictional events in the past tense? I need a URL. No, seriously. 8-) Lots42 (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

On the RFA pass. I never noticed you were up for it, but I certainly would have gone support if I had. McJeff (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Congratulations on passing the RFA. Wish I'd known about it before-hand, I would have thrown as much support your way as I could. You've been the most level-headed, even-handed, well-spoken editor I've dealt with here (please forgive my effusive praise). I admit, I've been distracted of late mucking around with some "actor-related" projects, in the real world and here, but I'll find my way back over to the WP:D&D to help out where and when I can when I have the time. But, either way, congrats again. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Geez, BOZ, if I didn't know better I'd start to think you were a nice guy or something. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't let 'em fool ya. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Vantine84's talk page.
Message added 06:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blob/Dukes

Hello BOZ, I need to ask you a question, Can I add Fictional boxers and Fictional soldiers to Dukes. It's because he is stated to be a former soldier from Team X, and a boxer along with Wraith in Wolverine. In case you're wondering I'm JoeLoeb. Hi. (JoeLoeb (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

New category

Hello BOZ! I was just thinking maybe you and me could rally a group of comics fans and start a new fictional categories (Fictional characters with telekinesis). What do you think? (JoeLoeb (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

Hey Joe,

You can give it a try, but I don't recommend it because that one has been deleted before; it was discussed here and here, and ultimately it was determined that the category should be turned into a list here. It was recreated once since then, but it got deleted again. Before recreating it, you might want to start a discussion somewhere appropriate to see if people's feelings have changed since 2007. I won't delete it if you recreate it, but someone else might undo all your hard work. BOZ (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I'm not good at all these categories and protocols. I was just thinking out loud. Blame Sylar from Heroes. He's so cool I thought I could improve his categories. (JoeLoeb (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

No problem - you might want to see what you can fit in with Category:Marvel Comics characters by superhuman feature or ability? Just tread carefully, because too much expansion will lead to another wave of category deletion. BOZ (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

(moved from user talk:Ikip)

Now what did I say about not getting yourself into trouble over all the drama? ;) BOZ (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the welcome back. I have a lot of "friends" who watch my talk page, so I hope you don't mind me moving this here and watch my page. How can I protect myself from bad blocks? This was completly a surprise. Ikip (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL - no problem. :) I guess, just be more careful in the future - your "friends" don't need any more ammunition than they already have! :) Some editors should never be blocking you, just as some like myself shouldn't be unblocking you. Some may complain about needing to get an uninvolved admin, but hey that's the rules. Sure, it would be great if I could just block everyone who says and does things that I don't personally like, but my adminship would end pretty quickly if I lost my mind like that. :) The unblock was absolutely justified in this instance, but like I say, just be more careful. BOZ (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the advice, I will try to be more careful. congrats again on your adminship. Ikip (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK

DYK that User:Boz is a Conspiracy theorist? I thought it was you at first, then realized it was a different editor. Ikip (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL - OK, does that user even exist though? :) BOZ (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK that membership in D&D Wikiproject = "anti-Christian censorship of communist type"? lol Hekerui (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's half the fun! BOZ (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Leaving you my edit No. 6666, in keeping with the theme. Though I guess I have edits that were deleted from marking copyvio pictures. Can a normal user see those edits? Hekerui (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope! :) You have hundreds of deleted contributions. If you want more details - just ask! BOZ (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not sure if you want these...

 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here we go, BOZ

BOZ, after you see Wolverine, can I still talk to you about soldiers and boxers for Blob? (JoeLoeb (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

I'll have a look; I don't usually keep an eye on Wolverine so I don't know much about what's going on there. I think we can easily do something similar to what I did with Blob; most likely Wolverine is already overloaded with categories as it is. :) BOZ (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel like trying to figure it out; suffice to say, I think other media version-only cats should be on something like like Wolverine (X-Men Movies) than on the main article. But I don't see any new cats added in the past month, so I'm not going to try to figure them out. :) BOZ (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thx for your time, bro. :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Deadpool template

Can you create one, BOZ. With Blind Al, Bob, Agent of HYDRA, Taskmaster, Cable, Siryn, Weapon X, Wolverine, etc. :)(JoeLoeb (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

I've actually never created a template like that before, but it shouldn't be too hard. Just take a look at Template:Wolverine, and play around with the settings until you get something you like, and save it as Template:Deadpool. :) BOZ (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, BOZ. I don't quite understand, how does Wolverine template help with the Merc with the Mouth? :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

I mean, use the template as... well, as a template to create your own. ;) Take a look at how things are laid out on that template (or on any similar ones) and decide what priority items you should have on a Deadpool template, and then go for it. :) BOZ (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a prototype, it's not done, feel free to add. I'm late to see Wolverine. See you in a couple hours. :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Have fun! I have no idea when, or even if, I'll get to see it... still haven't seen Iron Man. :( BOZ (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, you need to see it (Iron Man, not Wolverine unfortunately):( Look the proto-Deadpool template is on Wade's page, but it's....disorganized. Please, help me fix it. :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Oh, BOZ, think of Weapon 11 as........Darth Maul. Yeah.... Agent Zero IS NOTHING like Chris Nord/Agent Zero but only in name, but Liev Schreiber is awesome as Sabretooth!!:) (JoeLoeb (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, I could imagine myself being disappointed on how some of the characters were altered for the Wolverine movie... I got that sense more and more as the X-Men series progressed. I did enjoy the Spider-Man series immensely though, and everyone who has seen Iron Man really enjoyed it. (I know I'm a Marvel boy at heart, but I really enjoyed The Dark Knight and Watchmen a ton.) I did take a look at your Deadpool template and I thought it looked fine. What specifically do you think needs work? BOZ (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, BOZ, since I'm a new Deadpool fan (I have a volume of classic Kelly Deadpool, which is fun), I would hope since your a Marvel fan you could clue me into more characters Jack (Wade Wilson) has encountered. I also want to change the template colors to be red and black. Oh, Watchmen is so underrated, it's not even funny, blame stupid American teens. Oh my god! A blue penis! Wow, so what? Goddamn Hanna Montana. :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Heh  :) Well, I read the first couple of mini-serieses and most of his first regular series (wasn't Christopher Priest involved at some point?), so I can pick out some more names and you can see whether it would make sense to put them in the template or not? Garrison Kane was more of a Cable character, but he definitely had stuff with Deadpool. Weasel should definitely be on there. He definitely had something going on with Bullseye. Sandi Brandenberg worked for him. I don't know much about Outlaw, but I think she had something to do with Deadpool as well. Not sure what else you might be looking for, maybe Taskmaster? BOZ (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I already have Taskmaster, Kane, huh, but thanks for that, BOZ. maybe I should add X-Force and X-Factor, because Cable is already in the template. :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Makes sense! Not sure about X-Factor though. BOZ (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

BOZ, I need to ask you a serious question. Who the hell was that small bald guy in green tights in the X-Men cartoon? Thanks. :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Umm... do you have a picture? :) I'm fairly knowledgeable, but off the top of my head I get nothin. BOZ (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. :( He's at the end of the intro, when the villains and X-Men collide. He's between James Proudstar, and Pyro.(JoeLoeb (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

No idea... Puck maybe? BOZ (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, BOZ :). Hey, just wondering what do you think of William Stryker in X2? Like him, hate him? (JoeLoeb (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

You mean as a character? He was OK, but I never read the original graphic novel he appeared in. BOZ (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

BOZ, I made a Spirit temp, and let me know your thoughts. :)(JoeLoeb (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

You mean the comics character? I'm not too familiar with that one unfortunately.... BOZ (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's okay, I did it out of boredom and the template is a little messed up. Can you assist me, BOZ :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Wow yeah, this will take some work - I don't have time at the moment, but I'll see what I can do later. :) BOZ (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Not so easy after all. Last one I'll do :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

MediaWiki_talk:Newarticletext#Suggestion_to_add_new_line

Could you consider adding this line to the text above new articles? there seems like small but unanimous support for it.

(I will watch your page) Thanks. Ikip (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Do you mean to put a new script/template on the page that pops up when someone tries to create a new page? If that's what you mean, it might have some promise. People might miss it anyway, but I think that's something even deletionists could get behind. BOZ (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently the existing text above any new page is:

Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title. When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references may quickly be deleted. To experiment, please use the sandbox, or create your own Special:MyPage/sandbox.

We suggest adding:

You can start your new article first here: Special:MyPage/BOZ/Archive 2009. You can get the article in shape, with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and only move it into the "live" Wikipedia once it is ready to go.

Discussion here:

Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Userfication_notice_when_editors_attempt_to_create_a_new_article

You can add this new line here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Newarticletext&action=edit

Would you be able to do it? Thanks. Ikip (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to look into this more before diving into making any such changes; remind me again in about 10 hours when I'm more available.  :) BOZ (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, much thanks. Ikip (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any time to look at this tonight? Looking forward to your response. (Please rsp here, not on my talk page, thanks in advance sir. Ikip (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah - ya caught me right before bedtime, but I did comment in that thread. :) BOZ (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for taking the time to comment, once again, I appreciate all of your many efforts. Ikip (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kirby

WOW! Awesome work on that article. :) I'd do the GA review but I'm a wee bit of a Kirby fan. :) Great work, and good luck at the GAR! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 03:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - mostly it wasn't my work, though. :) BOZ (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Neverwinter Nights 2

Doing the GA review as I speak. Hopefully I'll have it completed sometime today. Reading it right now, it looks pretty good, so far. I'll make my assessment at Talk:Neverwinter Nights 2/GA1. MuZemike 16:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for motifying me, I've already fixed some issues :) Hekerui (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've never played NWN2, so I won't be contributing. When you're working on NWN, BG, or BG2, I'd be glad to help out. Thanks. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to be addressing the issues that are still valid at the GAN? No one has touched in about a week, and normally, if they're not addressed within that timeframe, I cannot pass. The fair-use rationale is not that big a thing, but the verifiability is, and the two sections need to be referenced before I consider passing it. Thank you, MuZemike 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Savras

Thank you for the invitation to the Wikiproject, it motivated me. When they killed all the deities it was a little weird - what makes a better story than a prophecy? I listed the article on the Assessment page for reassessment, it's probably C by now (it's mostly in universe info but I don't know any extra-universe info, an article like the one on Minsc at least has had some coverage through the video game). Thanks again. Hekerui (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Olsen

Hi, BOZ. I have another question, does Jimmy Olsen know that Clark is Superman? (JoeLoeb (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

No idea. :) BOZ (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you fix The Spirit template yet. I'm not rushing. :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

Hey, haven't really had a chance to look at it yet. Not really familiar with the character either. You got a link to it? BOZ (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A link to what? The Spirit? (JoeLoeb (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

Nope; the template  :) BOZ (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's back on you MAY 6th post. :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Ah, right, here - what happened with the formatting? :) BOZ (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, BOZ :( Help? (JoeLoeb (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

I'll see what I can do; I'm busy a lot of the time, but just keep reminding me and I'll have a look. BOZ (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, remember BOZ. I'm not rushing, but I like the space program. :) Get it? (JoeLoeb (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Atlantis? BOZ (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No dude. Russian=Rushing. Space Program? Never mind. Work on The Spirit when you can. (JoeLoeb (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

Heh... Is it better now? BOZ (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yo are so COOL. Thank you BOZ! :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

Heh - no problem. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn you Davis!!!! R.I.P. Jimmy :( (JoeLoeb (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

BOZ, you like Smallville? (JoeLoeb (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

Actually, I've never watched a whole episode. I don't watch very much TV these days. BOZ (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. Most TV sucks except for Fox sundays. (Trust me I loathe Fox). Well, I saw the finale and well Doomsday is given a Hulk makeover and the human side (Davis Bloome) kills Jimmy, who later kills him by impaling him. It's a funny world we live in. :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

Never mind. Sorry to keep coming to you, but could you upload this picture {http://screenmusings.org/Batman/images/Btmn_0121.jpg} to the Vicki Vale page? :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Assessment

I don't know why I missed that. I'll look over the articles I assessed. :) Hekerui (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kirby

I appreciate your enthusiasum, but if you were aware of the defects in the article, you should not have put it up in the GA queue. It takes away time that the reviewer could be using to review other GA candiates. GAC should not be used to garner help for editing an article. I suggest delisting it for now. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Galactus Edit War Mediation

Hi. I'm trying to mediate an edit war over the Galactus article here. Can you chime in with your two cents? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. The wording and the smiley made your intention clear. And thanks for the headsup about the sock. Nightscream (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection insight

I don't want to get too explanatory for WP:BEANS reasons (though I'll try to clarify further if this doesn't explain well enough).

But basically I think I've learned my lesson from long past when Hiding was trying to work through WP:DR levels concerning Asgardian. Indefinite protection sometimes may not be the tool to use, especially if further follow-up action may be required.

Also, there are those who really get upset if pages are protected for too great a length of time. ("The encyclopedia that anyone can edit.) I almost made it a week, but after re-reading the talk page, decided that 3 days+a warning should be enough.

If the dispute continues, we have other options. For example, removing the entire disputed section to the talk page, to not be re-added until there is consensus.

Anyway, I hope this helps. - jc37 11:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; and, actually, Asgardian ceased being the biggest disruption on Galactus some time ago, so I'm less than worried about him at the moment. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Asgardian in the present tense. I was saying that it was due to experience dealing with other admins and arbcomm (as a result of DR with and/or concerning Asgardian). Sorry for the confusion. - jc37 12:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right, I'll blame it on the fact that I was still waking up. ;) BOZ (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

Just making sure that you knew about this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I saw that. BOZ (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And the answer is? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The answer is 42. But that depends on the question, I suppose? I imagine I'll say "It was a combination of Whimsy, Impulse, and Free Thinking, no more no less. I took pity on yon article, saw that it was unloved, and decided to rebirth it so that some day, someone, some where may show it some love and nurture it back to health." BOZ (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that recreating an article that was legitimately deleted on grounds of notability is appropriate use of your admin rights, althought it may be appropriate if you are indending to provide evidence of notability. Is that your gameplan? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been legitimately restored through the WP:PROD process. Any article deleted through the proposed deletion process can be restored at any point in time. I suggest you withdraw the allegation of inappropriate usage of an admin tool and instead focus on the article itself. Hiding T 10:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Boz, what is your gameplan for this article? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hail Mary pass? BOZ (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

user:Georgezhao

i am not sure if i register account name ‘georgezhao’ before, i want to Manage my global account, but find this user name 'georgezhao' used different password, i cannot remember which one to use. i faided to merge my english account and chinese account. could you please help me to figure out why?

it seems no people is using this account‘georgezhao’ , please help me to change my user-name 'gzhao' to georgezhao？ thank you very much。 Gzhao (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not sure what you can do. That account was registered in 2007, but it looks like that one hasn't been used at all. If you think it might be yours, you could try requesting the password to be sent to your e-mail and see what happens? BOZ (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You may have better luck at Wikipedia:Changing username. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your quick reply, but i even not sure which email account was used for that account. i did not get any email from my current gmail account. i asked at Wikipedia:Changing username. please support me to change to that account, i merged every accounts on Chinese, french and other English project, en is the last one. i really want to get it done. thanks again.

Gzhao (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Blue Blur

BOZ, been a while. 5 days. Can you help me, I'm trying to add The Red and Blue Blur to Superman's aliases, and with your pull It can happen. Can you assist me? (JoeLoeb (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

I can't say that I honestly have more pull than anyone else. I just got admin-powers, which are neat, but don't otherwise make anything I say or do any more special. :) It's not currenly protected from editing by non-admin users, so why not try simply adding it and see what happens? If that doesn't work, a discussion on the article's talk page would be in order. BOZ (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've tried and nobody ever responds. It's been a month, and zip. :) I'll try. (JoeLoeb (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

Planescape

Did you three choose to bring Planescape: Torment to FA because it has its 10 year release anniversary in December? That's a good idea to boost a main page proposal I must say! Hekerui (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(comment from the sidelines) That actually wasn't the original reason, which was just that it was an article already in half-decent shape in comparison to many D&D-related articles. We only realized after that that the anniversary would be a good time for the main page. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I had absolutely no idea the 10th anniversary was coming up until Drilnoth mentioned it to me earlier today! :) I mean, I knew it came out in 1999 and I was vaguely aware that, yes, that was 10 years ago, but I didn't even make the connection in my mind. Now, as someone who's lobbied to get FAs on the front page before, I know that an FA less than a year old typically has a slim chance. If you look at the qualifications on the request page, you'll see that having a year or more old FA gives it 1 "point", and a relevant date (anniversary, generally) gives it another "point". However, a big anniversary, such as the 10th or the 25th gives it 2 points. Two points is about as low as they want to hear to be taking your request seriously, although you could probably sneak a one-pointer in there if no one is interested in the date you pick. If you want to increase the odds, then we should work with the VG project to keep any other requests off the front page for Nov 12-Dec 11, because we lose both of our points if we overlap within a month. We get extra points if it's been three months or more, but with so many VG FAs that's probably too much to ask. :) BOZ (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Drive

Yep works for me - I've thought this was a good idea for quite a while. ;) (Emperor (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Sounds like a plan. (Emperor (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Peer review limits

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). You nominated FOUR in one day. While the rules say that three of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, my bad! I should have looked at that first... didn't realize! Well, I won't do that again, and I'll wait some time before I request any more. BOZ (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we will remove more than four. It is a matter of limited resources (reviewers). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Al Williamson

Hey Boz, I noticed your good work on the Alex Raymond article, so this to invite you to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Al_Williamson/archive1

Cheers,

--Scott Free (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! :) I put a note on the WikiProject Comics talk page regarding that. :) I'll try to do a copy edit on that article, and Michel Vaillant for its GA review in the near future. BOZ (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey cool, thanks for spreading the word - I'll see if I can do some editing on Mr. Valiant, if that's all right.

Cheers,

--Scott Free (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, no problem. :) BOZ (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review requests

On 6 June you placed four requests for articles to be peer reviewed: Alan Moore, Jack Kirby, Peanuts and Fantastic Four. The rules clearly state that editors are limited to one nomination per day. At present we have a long backlog of articles awaiting review, and a desperate shortage of reviewers. Please decide which of these four you most want to be reviewed, then withdraw the others and reintroduce them at intervals of a few days. And, if you really want to help the process along, why not stop by and review another article youself? Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(comment from the sidelines): This was already discussed two sections above. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and resolved here, thanks. :) BOZ (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you've the time 'n' resources

BOZ,

If you've got access to 'em, could you check File:Dormammu.jpg against the various OHOTMU?

It feels like the image is from there, but the sourcing is woefully lacking.

- J Greb (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked the 1983 OHOTMU and the Deluxe Edition and it's not either of them; I'd otherwise be inclined to agree with you that it does look like an OHOTMU image. Obviously not the sort of picture used in Master Edition, and I don't have anything later than that. Why not ask where Asgardian got it from? BOZ (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

FoxTrot

It seems like every time I make a suggestion at a Wikiproject I get ignored. Do you have any suggestions as to where to find sources for FoxTrot? It's very hard to Google, and it's been tagged as needing secondary sources since July 2007. Clearly I'm the only person on the whole project who gives a rip about it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey TPH, believe it or not I actually noted your request on the comics talk page. Unfortunately (and it really is pretty unfortunate), I'm pretty clueless when it comes to finding sources; I didn't feel it would be helpful to jump in and say "No idea, but good luck." :) It does seem odd that a strip running for 20 years wouldn't be easier to source. With everything listed at List of FoxTrot books, I imagine at least some of those must have been reviewed at some point, so that could be a starting point. Maybe work through pages like Calvin and Hobbes, Garfield, Doonesbury, and other long-running contemporary strips to see if there are any general books about comic strips which might help? BOZ (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I found a bunch of news sources via Google News, but I'm kinda overwhelmed. Wanna give it a crack? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Where would I look, and what have you found so far? I might be able to find some time tomorrow evening, but I was about to turn in for the night. BOZ (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

D&D Project

Yup, it's moi from the good ol' Creature Catalog. I figured I could give a hand with the highly debated Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) page, like re-writing it publication history style like the Cloaker. I am willing to take on that huge task. You know me, a dragon junkie. Ravin' Ray (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hey, sorry about the (incredibly) late reply - I got rather bogged down with my work (and a relationship, oy), and didn't have much time to do much other than occasional anonymous Wikipedia edits. I apologise for not being able to have an involvement with the Gavin.collins RFC - did anything happen with that, by the way?

Oh, and are there any articles I might be able to help with currently? --Muna (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hey, great job on the deific ascension promotion to admin. :) The gods articles always seemed like the underdogs, so I'd probably be inclined to go back to giving them some attention...I don't suppose you could suggest any? Hum, I had an idea about merging Tyr, Ilmater and Torm into House of the Triad a while back...I wonder if there were any developments in those... --Muna (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I quit contributing to Wikipedia back in 2007 because of Gavin Collins nominating every single GURPS page that I created and/or worked on for deletion. So has Gavin been banned from Wikipedia yet? Seanr451 (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outside comment): Gavin hasn't been banned or blocked to my knowledge, but he hasn't interacted with the D&D and RPG projects at all since the RFC, except for some talk page comments and comments on deletion nominations that others started. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a god. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the response. Maybe I can start contributing to RPG articles again then. Seanr451 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry to do this, but I think Abomination may need locking for a good fortnight. I tried to make a case for why some of the fairly poor additions couldn't stay, and even removed tags (which I added) and asked two questions. In response I got another attack. I think we have here a case of two rather immature editors (take a look at their Talk pages) who can't see where they are going wrong. Anyway, you can read my comments on the Talk page.

On an unrelated note, I'm glad you also like Tomb of Horrors - it's my favourite module. Just a tad unfair, perhaps, as there are something like three scenarios where there is no saving throw. I once spent quite a bit of time coming up with ways to beat the killer scenarios...ah, the good old days. Asgardian (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I may lock the ol' A-Bomb again if edit warring persists, but at the moment it's not so bad. ToH is a good one, and I for one am glad we got it up to GA. :) BOZ (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have another question, and this one a tad tricky. Where does one go on Wikipedia if wishing to complain about the conduct of a moderator? If you look at Abomination, JGreb has taken a rather one-sided view of events there and is very quick to admonish me for perceived wrongs, and yet will not address the blatent attacks on myself by two other users. An objective look at the comments shows this. I just need some fresh eyes, and the article is unfortunately degrading. Perhaps an RfC, if it can bring in others? Asgardian (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to take J Greb (or anyone, for that matter) to dispute resolution, it's important to review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and give a lot of thought to exactly what you want to do. I'm not aware of any specific place to complain about a user's actions as an administrator (there probably should be such a place if there isn't), although such complaints can be made as part of whatever you decide to do. First and foremost is to talk to the other user and try to settle your dispute this way; if this has been attempted before without success, or if you feel that this is not likely to work due to some sort of extenuating circumstances, you may attempt dispute resolution. If you feel the problem requires the attention of neutral administrators, there is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; I recommend that only in the case of extremely serious behavioral issues, though. Better than that may be Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. If you have attempted some of these other methods and feel the other user's behavior has been particularly inappropriate and further discussion will not help, you can seek out Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct for community input. If all of that fails, there's the good old last resort of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee when you've tried the above.

Now, if you're still looking at it from the point of a content issue on the Abomination (comics) article, you have other options for that (which may be handled separately, or even in addition to, any conduct-related dispute resolution). You can go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment to get more input from the community on the various changes in the article. You can also seek informal mediation from the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or formal mediation from the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee if you need to take it a step further. Hopefully that helps give you a better idea of how to handle your situation? BOZ (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - you are a star. I had to make comment on ThuranX here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

as I was tired of the insults. Hopefully we can get back on an even keel. I've clashed with editors in the past and since resolved our differences, so hopefully that will also be the case here.

On another note, could you comment on the article Doctor Strange? I reworked this, and there seems to be an issue for J Greb. I broke down the edits as requested, but that still doesn't seem enough. I find this a shame given that no one (as far as I know) is doing these badly needed rewrites that take quite some time. The article is certainly much improved, and I don't believe anyone could dispute this. If it needs some minor changes, so be it. I don't wish to make a complaint about him, but to judge by recent comments he's being rather snide. Over to you. Asgardian (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you feel that J Greb has been rude, and you don't feel he will listen to you, you could try Wikiquette alerts as I posted above (never tried it myself, so not sure how it works) - I don't think that situation is hot enough for AN/I. :) I know you broke the edits down, and I saw that, but I think what he was looking to see was a more... shall we say, organic evolution of the article. If you edit bit by bit, paragraph by paragraph, it is more clear exactly what changes are happening and why, especially if you use explicit edit summaries and/or post your thoughts on the talk page as you go. That, I think, is the best way to edit an article. I think his complaint is that he's having a hard time following exactly what you're doing because you're doing so much at once, which is why he is feeling the need to blind revert you. I think he is trying to force a more collaborative edit style from you without using one himself, though - I think, with calmer discussion, cooler heads will prevail, although in the end it may be best for anyone with too much passion to step away for a while. BOZ (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops - just saw you have commented at Wiki:Admin. Noted and thanks. In the interests of flying the peace flag, I've invited comments on Doctor Strange and requested that J Greb advise on the errors and I will address them. There was a clash over the article recently - between Aidoflight and Cameron Scott (who I think was trying to be the voice of reason) - and I'd like to avoid a repeat. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Improvements notice board

Yep looks good. I'll need to go through previous discussions and make some notes, then I'll look into adding to it. (Emperor (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Hey, great work! :) I'm up and down, lately, but I can try and contribute. -- A ^talk/_contribs 16:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

G.I. Joe

Its not speculation its what we know based on the trailers it should be their its proven fact and source The Movie Master 1 (talk)

We could get a 3rd opinion if you like just ask an admin The Movie Master 1 (talk)

If you want it...

• Calling anything derived from the trailers "plot" is misleading. At best the header would be "Trailer", though creating that subhead for a 1 or 2 sentence paragraph is not a good thing.
• Describing each use of the character in the trailer is OTT.

And looking at the 4 you've revert BOZ on:

• Duke (G.I. Joe)
  • (minor) The character isn't IDed by name in the trailer. Though the link to the actor's article clarifies by appearance who he is. (in other words "We need a better infobox image")
  • "sigma suits" - I'm pretty sure in the trailers I've seen the body armor is noted as "accelerator suits". Better to use what is in the trailer than the jargon from the cartoons.
  • At best, without the header, and as a second sentence to the movie lead, would be "Duke is one of the characters prominently featured in the trailers for the film."
• Hawk (G.I. Joe)
  • Same problem with an unneeded subsection. At best that additional line would be "Hawk is one of the characters prominently featured in the trailers for the film."
  • The scene with him mentioning he'll "gather the team" is ambiguous. It is not clear if he is initially forming the unit or if he is going to be pulling an active team from the existing unit members.
  • There is absolutely no justification for the 12 blank lines.
• Snake-Eyes
  • Again, all that is needed is "Snake-Eyes is one of the characters prominently featured in the trailers for the film."
• Ripcord (G.I. Joe)
  • "Ripcord is one of the characters prominently featured in the trailers for the film."
  • "Delta 6", as far as I've seen, isn't uttered in the trailers.
  • (minor) A better image is needed.
  • (minor) Film titles are always italicized.

And as a side note... using the {{Infobox G.I. Joe character}} to create a secondary character 'box doesn't seem to be working well. It almost would be better to create "specialty" fields and have the film information show up at the bottom of the main box.

- J Greb (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfectly sensible third opinion from an admin... Now, if you want to describe this content as "this is what happened in the trailer", be my guest, but to think that whatever happens in a trailer is exactly what will happen in the film counts as speculation and therefore something specifically to be avoided. BOZ (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And on a related note...

It looks like there is a slightly misleading spam campaign at User talk:Salamurai; User talk:Blackwatch21; User talk:Drakesketchit; User talk:Jeffrywith1e; User talk:Sgetz; User talk:Cerebellum; and User talk:Christian Historybuff. I say misleading because the IP has only deleted the section 1 time at present. (Yes, at least one other difeerent IP has also removed the section, but the assumption is that they are two different users.)

And it's interesting to note that the one reply so far seems to agree with the IP... - J Greb (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting - and I agree with the IP as well. :) Reminds me of the Wolverine movie leak, but nowhere near as bad. ;) BOZ (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I already said it could be deleted as most disagreed with me its ok we'll just add the plot when the movie comes out The Movie Master 1 (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And it seemed to be two IP's blanking sections more than once The Movie Master 1 (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jarlaxle?

You were around when the whole thing was going on more (IIRC)... I'm suspicious that Artemis56 may be another Grawp sock based on the username and immediate interest in editing D&D articles. Any thoughts? Should we just keep an eye on him? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I saw the name earlier, but didn't even think to make a connection. I wouldn't assume trouble out of a user, unless we have a reason to do so - let's keep an eye on this one and alert C/U if anything suspicious comes up. One typical Grawp tactic is to make enough legit edits to get autoconfirmed, and then begin the monkey-business. BOZ (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's basically my feeling too. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Anon Block

In some form or another, probably. It happens, though - hence the vandalism counter on my userpage. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pool of Radiance

It's probably way beyond the scope of DnD, but I'm not a fan of Infobox VG and the way it floats the title above the rest of the infobox (I think book infoboxes do it the same way). Do you have an opinion on it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't all infoboxes float the title at the top of the infobox? Unless you're talking about the style used here. BOZ (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright & fair-use rationale of SVGified logo

You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions are very much appreciated Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 08:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks BOZ! Appreciate the lookout. :) Luminum (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BOZ! You're a sweetheart. ;)Luminum (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It does! I do! This is everything I've ever dreamed of! I'd like to thank God, this tiara, and my wish for world peace!Luminum (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Woo!!!Luminum (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Foil

I just made a comment at an AfD, and I want you to know that I consider you "one of the good guys". The comment isn't really directed at you. Abductive (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? I assumed that your opinion of me was much lower than that. Sarcasm can be hard to read, so shows what I know. :) I see redirecting articles as an acceptable compromise in certain situations - a redirected article is not an active article, but it is still available under the edit history for those who want to access it. It's not my ideal solution - that would be to fix an article, but fixing articles is time consuming and I can only do one at a time. I've been slowly (very slowly) adding publication histories to articles on fictional elements and rewriting them in an out-of-universe style for a while; I know this alone does not satisfy the notability guidelines, but hopefully it makes them both more palatable to those who care about notability, and more informative to anyone possibly interested in the topic. :) BOZ (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Because you are working within the rules I respect all of what you are trying to do. Abductive (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There's more to life than follwing "rules" - I'm far more interested in building articles that are useful to the people who want to read them. If the rules help me do so then great, and if not then there are other options. BOZ (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Always check the page view stats on an article before nominating it for deletion and before going to the mats trying to save it. That should be a rule. Abductive (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think page view stats are irrelevant. We're an encyclopedia, and the role of an encyclopedia has always been to include information on the less read as well as the more--the role of a condensed encyclopedia can be limited to that most in demand. from WP:N: N≠Popularity. DGG (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be a rule so one doesn't get burned nominating something popular for deletion, because popularity indicates that it is notable (and will have reliable sources) in some way that one hasn't discovered. Conversely, low page views generally indicates that the topic is not notable. Notability and reader interest are intimately connected, since the people who create secondary sources do so because they are interested in the topic. Abductive (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's actually an interesting way of looking at at, and I can't say I disagree with you - popular subjects will always be supported, even when they don't currently have the proper sourcing, and unpopular subjects will be neglected and likely not improved (and hardly anyone will miss them when they are gone). There are quite a few editors (many with deletionist attitudes for certain, but even those like DGG on the oppostie end) out there who would disagree vehemently with the "popularity indicates that it is notable" statement without having existing proof of reliable sources, so I can definitely respect where you are coming from, there. I try to add reliable sources whenever I can, although my resources and skills in that regard are limited. BOZ (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Pool of Radiance ref.

For an additional reference, you could use the review in Computer Gaming World, Issue 49, pp. 20-21. There is also some mention in Computer Gaming World, Issue 63, pp. 8-9, 49. it would probably be best not to link to the URLs, however, per their notice.—RJH (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Blood war et al

It would help tremendously. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your responese at Talk:Blood War#More original research is requested. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sauces

Hello Boz, wanted to drop you a note thanking you for your work in citing old game articles with RPG magazine cites, it's the sort of thing regular VG editors would not be able to get their hands on. After the Amiga Magazine Rack proved useful I wanted to discuss it further and a couple of other sources with you in case they might come in handy.

The AMR is even more useful than it first seems. As well as scanning amiga reviews the contributors there scan entire multiformat magazines and enter them into the database, it would be easier for them to just stick to amiga but they've taken the harder option, to their credit. This makes the rack an excellent wildcard if you're looking for sources on games from other systems which were released during the amiga's lifetime, such as SNES/PC/Megadrive etc.

World of Spectrum offers a similar service, amongst other things, for the ZX Spectrum computer. This is mainly focused on British gaming at the time. A lot of games released multi-format during the spectrum's lifetime will have appeared on the Amstrad, Commodore 64 and Spectrum, meaning it should be possible to get sources for any such game (as well as Spectrum games in general of course).

Allgame is a database of games, largely US-centric, but it covers older systems as well. The writers randomly write overviews and reviews for games listed there. It is very random; there might be nothing more than a few technical details, or a very short overview, or a very long overview or even a review as well. Like the AMR it's another wildcard for older games.

Just thought I'd pass those along, since you might be interested in further video games which are related to RPGs outside of the D&D universe (though at least some of the D&D games will be covered by those above). Keep smiling :D Someoneanother 15:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks, that's useful! And no problem - glad to help! BOZ (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Vantine84's talk page.
Message added 11:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A request

Hey BOZ,

Back on an old version of my userpage, I had a short essay on my views of deletionism. But, I had my userpage deleted because there was personal stuff (age, location) on it, and lost the essay along with all that stuff. I don't want to have the entire page restored, but would it be possible for you to copy/paste the text of that section onto my talk page or userpage? Now that you're an admin you should be able to view the deleted revisions. Thanks in advance. McJEFF ^(talk) 13:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hell

I just looked over WP:PR and "From Hell" caught my eye. I thought of the movie of course. Pity I don't know anything about comics or else I would have helped find sources etc. I don't like horror stuff and that movie was not exactly a fairy tale, but it had an interesting conclusion. On the other hand, the good fairy in my favourite childhood fairy tale (Frau Holle) is said to be a leftover from the goddess Hel after which hell was named (possibly). Anyway, I meant to say: Someone gave me a PR on Ram Narayan and asked me to do one for someone else. If you start another PR sometime or find one you think I can help with, tell me and I'll hopefully be able to contribute. Hekerui (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Pool of Radiance, Bob Kane, or Daredevil (Marvel Comics)? :) BOZ (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"for the heck of it" - you're always so funny! :) As for Pool of Radiance, I'd look over it but the peer review says there's stuff from someone else to address and when that's not over I'd probably (perhaps) find the same things, right? I haven't looked at the article much yet, but I'm certainly willing to read it carefully. Also, can you delete my user page Sandbox? It's all just test edits and my old computer freezes when I look at a history of many edits. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Big admin you

Can you switch Girlosophy (book) and Girlosophy? It's unnecessary dab'ing, and I think that means an admin needs to do...stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Easily done. :) BOZ (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pool of Radiance

I understand about the lead. It does need to total rewrite, though. Gameplay, like I said, needs a few more drafts before it's in really good shape. As for Plot, a game guide isn't totally necessary; for example, I just found a reference that you can use for the ending: [3]. When there's no other choice, sometimes you have to get by on the barest minimum for plot cites. Plus, it can be used as a citation in Legacy. Which, by the way, is definitely necessary if you're looking to take this to GAN. An article about an influential game that doesn't have a section discussing its influence is not comprehensive. Plus, I've always found that Release sections in articles where they aren't completely necessary, as they are for stuff like Halo 3, are a waste. Most of the information in them is better off other places, or not included at all.

As for Reception, I've put in a query at the WPVG "Reference library" to see if anyone has the ACE review. You have a fair amount of reviews already, but not enough to really be called comprehensive, particularly if you're going for FA. If all else fails, I did manage to find a loophole while writing Ultima Underworld that probably contributed to the article's current FA status: foreign reviews. All you need is a decent internet translator and even languages like Swedish can be cracked. It's a slow, laborious process, but it worked for me. For some reason, it was easier to track down foreign publications than English ones; who knows. Finally, you are still going to need to deal with that Dragon magazine review. And try to cut down on its use in the article; where possible, replace it with a different source that displays similar information. This keeps the article from looking like it wasn't researched, which is something you don't want at FAC or even GAN. As for its use specifically in Reception, I'd say that the second and third paragraphs can be axed entirely. Merge a few details from four about random monster encounters into Gameplay; if I remember correctly, you don't really detail that in there. Paragraph five can be condensed into two sentences that you can tack on to paragraph one: The reviewers criticized the performance of the C64/128 version, but believed that the MS-DOS version was far superior in this regard. However, they found the latter's lengthy installation to be an annoyance. Something like that.

As a side note, this might contain some interesting information. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• The game contains random encounters, and it has been observed that they follow the encounter tables of pen and paper AD&D game manuals. - Something like that. I admit that the last part, which I omitted in this version, looks too much like a random observation than something worth including. As a side note, the ACE review was within reach, but it slipped away again. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Looking through the article again:
    • Like you said, thorough copyedit to fix grammar, redundancies, MOS violations, unclear phrasing, etc. It probably won't pass GAN unless this is dealt with, and if you're going for FAC, not a chance.
    • Big problem: the screenshots. I hadn't noticed this before, but the two screenshots currently in the article are extremely unhelpful. Do we really need to see the final encounter? No. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the game. The NES screen is interesting, but not of critical importance. Delete these two screenshots, because you're going to need two more. The article needs a screenshot that depicts the camera perspectives consistently referred to in the prose: overhead and first-person. Get these screens, and make sure their fair use rationales are robust, because the GAN/FAC people are real sticklers about that.
    • Enthusiast knowledge:
      • As fighters progress in level, they gain the ability to make three attacks every two rounds, and then two attacks every round. Fighters could also "sweep" low-level creatures, making attacks against a number of such creatures equal to the fighter's character level in a single round if surrounded by them.
      • Characters (or enemies) that retreat from combat are vulnerable to a free attack from each adjacent enemy.
      • As in a regular AD&D game, successful combat earns your characters the right to search captives, the lame, and the dead for whatever they might possess. - Firstly, second person (your). Secondly, this can be abbreviated to "defeated enemies", so that it makes sense to someone who doesn't play D&D. And axe the "as in a regular AD&D game".
      • Magic-users are given a set number of spells to memorize and cast per day. Mages receive one new spell per experience level, and they can also learn new spells by transcribing them from scrolls found in the unsettled areas. Upon casting a spell, the spell is erased from the magic-user's memory and must be memorized again before reuse. Memorizing spells requires hours of inactivity from the characters, which means setting up camp; camping also restores lost hit points. - Really overdetailed. Try "Magic-users may learn new spells from scrolls, or by increasing his or her level. A magic-user may cast a limited number of spells per day; once cast, they must rest to regain them. Resting also restores lost hit points."
    • Plot still needs references of some sort. Won't pass FAC, or maybe even GAN, without them.
    • This is entirely unreferenced: This version was different from the other releases. It featured original music, different graphics, and a unique interface. It lacked certain features of its computer counterparts, such as editing character icons. It also lacked areas from the original game to explore, most notably the randomly generated creature lairs found on the wilderness map. Battles in the NES port were also considerably toned-down, partly because the NES had trouble with a large number of sprites and partly to lower the difficulty.
    • Do to Reception what you did to Gameplay: clean up the stray paragraphs, merge the small ones into the medium-sized ones, and standardize paragraph size.
    • In the final paragraph of Reception, you refer to "Andy" and "Doug". Refer to them by their last names—it's more professional.
    • Remove the sub-headers in Legacy. They aren't necessary.
  • That's a brief look. It's getting close to GAN material. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
    • All right. As for Plot, I know it's tough. Ultima Underworld was released in 1992, so I feel your pain about finding plot cites. I recommend looking at what I did about it, because it was apparently good enough to get the article to featured status. The screen shots should be simpler. I can't really help you there, because even though I do have the game lying around uninstalled somewhere (gamefest release), I'm too busy currently to go through the process of getting screenshots. But the process is fairly simple, and if you look at fair use rationales used in recent FAs (File:Halo wars-combat.png, File:Ultima underworld 1 screenshot.png, neither of which written by me), you should have an idea of what to say. If you have the game, it's a simple matter of taking the screenshots with the print screen key and pasting them into MSPaint, Photoshop or equivalent, giving them a descriptive name and resizing them. If you don't have the game, then you're going to have it a little harder. The key will be finding images that display the info you need, without watermarks. Watermarks will get your image deleted pretty much instantly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
      • • Yeah, you could use the NES screenshot for that. It's good by me; I don't know if they'll mind at GAN, but it has my approval. Hopefully someone can help you get your hands on a first-person, exploration screen. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• The lead has improved, but you also added a little extraneous information. For example, "The adventure module Ruins of Adventure was based on the same scenario as the game, as was the Pool of Radiance novelization", and "Pool of Radiance primarily uses a first-person perspective, with the screen divided into sections to display pertinent information. This mode is used for exploring, and for interacting with non-player characters to further the storyline. The game display switches to a secondary top-down perspective for combat encounters. Combat is turn-based rather than real-time, and each character class features special abilities which aid the characters in combat. Enemies and monsters are taken from the pen and paper AD&D game manuals". This is detailed gameplay information, taken almost verbatim from the Gameplay section. Try a simpler summary, and focus on the game's most important elements and achievements. I hate to sound like a broken, self-promoting record, but see Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss for a good example of this. After the lead rewrite, and new image, I recommend taking it to GAN. The article has progressed enough since its peer review that you are not at risk of being quick failed. A GAN reviewer should be able to give further assistance in improving the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Daredevil PR

Oh, arrgh! Sorry, Boz. Mea culpa. It was late in the evening, and I rushed to judgment. I will strike my erroneous comment from the top of the PR, add a mea culpa there, and continue with the review. Thanks for your patience and kind note, which, amazingly, showed no hint of anger. Finetooth (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Vantine84's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

P.S. It's your friendly neighborhood archiving nag! I know you hate archiving your talk page, but it's a pain to load. Think about it. Vantine84 (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Pool of Radiance

Man, I love that adventure, I played it when I was about 12. Nice to see there are other D&D'ers here. Ikip (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I do a bunch of work on D&D! BOZ (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I need to finish another article review first. It'll probably be middle or the end of the week before I can get to Pool. If you haven't heard from me by Sunday 16 August, please drop me a reminder. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 12:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the delay. I'll get to it as soon as I can — hopefully later today. Scartol • Tok 13:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Phantasie

Hi, BOZ. You added a review about the game Phantasie from Dragon magazine and said the mag gave it four stars. Could you provide more context (i.e. was that 4/5 stars or 4/4 stars)? Thanks! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 10:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wired.com

I think they did an artilce on Ravenloft, but they're links aren't working.[4] I saw your edit to AtheG. Do you know how to fix it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons

Hi, Boz. I know this may seem random, but since you seem to know a lot about D&D, I figured you might be able to give me a tip. I'm in a campaign that's gone in a direction that no one, not even the DM, had expected; one of the PCs is about to be tried for treason. But the thing is, we don't really know how to go about it. Are there any sources on how the judicial system works in D&D (3.5) or is it just kinda make it up as you go? Minaker (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Boz!  :) Minaker (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

[Check this http://www.myjones.com/code/limited.php?campaign=wizards]! Hekerui (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Sweet. :) BOZ (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Williamson GA nomination

Hey, Boz - 'sup - FYI - the Al Williamson article that I've been pimping has been nommed for GA (see 'Miscellaneous' section) --Scott Free (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons)

FYI. You contributed the most to this article. Ikip (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC) ‎

Yep, a lot, and recently! Thanks. BOZ (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I added some possible sources to the talk page. I was too lazy to add them, though.- Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Icewind Dale II

Hello, BOZ. That sounds good, I'll contact you again when I'm ready. 70.106.205.159 (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, BOZ, this is 70.106.205.159, though my IP has changed. The article is ready to be nominated for Good Article. Thank you for doing this. 71.244.162.25 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, glad to hear it! :) I will nominate, and when the review is picked up, I will notify the VG and D&D projects in case the reviewer states that any additional work is needed. BOZ (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Just thought I'd say hello and advise that I've been cleaning up a lot of the little articles with no images and little info of late. I have a laundry list of these non-entities I'm working through, but please advise if anything stands out. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S - don't go near those curtains! If they are ripped they turn to green slime!

Or maybe it's a mimic? ;) Brain Drain looks good (well, the article not the character.) BOZ (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

CGW reviews

Well, I kind of started the project over two years ago, and haven't worked on it for a variety of reasons (grad school), so a second pass will be kind of desirable once I get through the first pass (which, at the current rate, will easily take another year or so). Thanks for the tip, though. Nifboy (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft FAC

Please be assured that I haven't forgotten the review. It normally takes me a few days to return to an FAC, especially when a large backlog of planned reviews is combined with attending college full-time. I'll take a look at the changes either tonight or tomorrow (probably the latter). Giants2008 (17–14) 22:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review procedure

I have archived the Graphic novel PR request due to the current cleanup banner. The nature of a peer review is clearly outlined in the introductory paragraph of the WP:Peer review page. The essence is in the wording: "...is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." Lower down, in bolded print, is the stipulation about cleanp banners. Although there is currently no formal rule, it is reasonable that PR nominations should be limited to those from editors who have themselves done substantial work on the article being nominated. Please remember that peer reviewing is done voluntarily by ordinary editors, some of whom are prepared to sacrifice a lot of their online time helping to improve articles. I am sure that your efforts to bring articles to PR have been in good faith, but for the future it is as well that you should be clear as to how the system works. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I applaud your energy and desire to help improve comics related articles. In an ideal world, every article could have a peer review as a guide to anyone who might want to improve it. In the actual world, scarcity of reviewers means it works much better if articles that are actively being improved get a PR. I have also found that as my experience improving articles has grown, I can handle much of the routine stuff on my own (this needs a ref, lead should be expanded, images are OK, etc.) and then the PR actually becomes more helpful as it can focus more on the harder things like language and organizational structure. Congrats on the GA too! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin hat issue

'lo guys,

I'm cross posting this to BOZ, Doczilla, Emperor, Hiding, and Jc37 because I'd like some additional admin-level input on something that ThuranX dropped on my talk page.

What he posted is at User talk:J Greb#I'm not saying I told you so... and it deals with information that' come up at Talk:Red Hulk#Dates while describing the plot. ThuranX's post provides a direct link to the touch off edit/confession.

Frankly, I find the information more than a little frustrating. But before moving forward I would like some input from other admins that have had to deal with these two. Admins other' than the one (Nightscream) currently involved in the edit war on Red Hulk.

Just try and keep this in one place I've set up a subhead under ThuranX's post to mey talk.

Thanks in advance for any input you have to offer.

- J Greb (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mop needed, isle 5

Hello Mr. Boz. I have never asked you for anything, but you came to mind for some reason.

I am a little concerned by this personal attack,[5] and was hoping a non-involved admin could drop a short line on this editors page, as I feel any further contact will be meet negatively.

Thank you sir in advance. Ikip (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Heya. :) Not sure what else to say about that, other than people will be rude when they don't want to respect others. Doesn't seem quite "personal attack" caliber, but not exactly civil either. Don't know what I can say, other than you warned him to play nice, and if he decides not to play nice with you, there are various outlets through dispute resolution to deal with that. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for taking the time to comment. Ikip (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Against the Giants PR

It doesn't really need one. The pub hist needs some reffing care (mostly primary), and then the whole article needs a couple for c/e sweeps, and it's an FA. Or else, there's you PR. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt, I figured. :) It'll be a bit longer that Ravenloft's at FAC, and I figured you weren't nomming something else until that's over, so I said "Why not?" :) BOZ (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. We'll see what we get. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just getting back

Hey, BOZ! Sorry for not responding sooner; as you probably surmised from my contribution history, I've been away for several months. I plan to return to Wiki-editing regularly (if not often), and it's good to see some of my old and treasured colleagues still here fighting the good fight. With kudos and regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As well you should be! Congrats!

I did pass my four-year mark in June, and so coupled with my number of edits I can hang the Senior Editor Platinum Star on my user page. Hey, it's something!  :-) -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion in which your participation is requested

Hi. I know this was discussed this past February, but after we had an edit dispute on Red Hulk, Asgardian and Peregrine Fisher requested that we have another one, so I'm going to try and contact as many people as I can to hopefully hash it out once and for all. Can you participate in the discussion here? Thank you very much. It is most appreciated. Nightscream (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Improvements noticeaboard

I hadn't, er, noticed it (ho ho ho!), but I've got it bookmarked now — it's a good idea to have a page like that. I made a couple of copy edits (following Strunk & White's advice to go on a "which" hunt) and added a couple of important comics creators whose pages need attention. Nice add, BOZzie! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you know me better than I know myself!   :-) —Tenebrae (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't, and there's a lot to wade through on your page. In any event, I've got The John Romita Sketchbook in front of me, and I'm hittin' ol' JRSR! -- Tenebrae (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an impressive list. I hope we can get some of the major, too-often-unsung comics creators on there soon. I'm working on it! With regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A thought

Dear colleague, I was tad suprised and disappointed to see this comment [6] added to the discussion here [7]. It was a legitimate reversion as the changes had several flaws, which I pointed out to the editor here: [8]. As a result, there has been no more revision of that section in the article.

I respect your input, so if in doubt about any of my edits, please just ask. Asgardian (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like yet another example of two editors disagreeing on how something should be written. It's not a big deal, and happens all the time with all sorts of people - practically everyone at some point. If two disagree, the best thing to do is either leave it the way the other editor prefers, or discuss it until some sort of agreement happens. It's the reverting/arguing that gets people into more trouble than anything, because that's antithetical to how things are supposed to work around here. I don't see where any mention of Danleary25 or his comments is made on J Greb's talk page though. BOZ (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lívia Rusz

One perhaps for your good article drive, Lívia Rusz? Don't look at me, never heard of her. Hiding T 21:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of her either. :) But that is interesting - hopefully someone with some knowledge can work on that one! BOZ (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Against the Giants FAC

So, you gonna take it to FAC? I think my next FA is going to be White Plume Mountain after I finish Jackie Robinson. You should do AtG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe. :) I've never done one before, and I'm not sure how ready I am for all that. :) Maybe if I can hunt down someone with a copy of that DW review, we'll see! BOZ (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little disappointed

I mean...c'mon man. Gavin.Collins was an appropriate subject for an RfC but A Nobody's is a partisan witch hunt? I don't want to pull the whole "you have to agree w/ X if you agreed with Y" but gavin's was another case that could have ended with the same old shit (as it were) but didn't because people were determined to find some resolution. I don't want to hassle but that hurt a little. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

As an editor who I respect greatly, I would love your opinion of the RFC off wiki, but I see you don't have email :( No need to provide your opinion here. You are welcome to email me though. Ikip (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, to tell you the truth, there's not much more to say about my opinion of the RfC/U that I didn't already share on the page already, or more at length in my response to Protonk - I think it's a waste of time because the battle lines were already drawn before it got started. :) I wasn't even planning on commenting at all, but I had a moment of weakness. ;) (Unless you mean my opinion of the other RfC, which is about the same, per my comments on Protonk's talk page.) BOZ (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your comments, I cant think of anything more to say :) Ikip (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Marble Madness review

Per your edit summary comment, I would like to know more about the Marble Madness review in Dragon #131.

PS- I haven't gotten a chance to say this yet, but I think it's great you're taking the time to offer your magazine resources. I've already spotted a few other games I would like to work on in the future. Thanks for all your hard work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

If you could email it to me, that would be awesome.

Have you considered moving your review list to a sub page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library? You might get more requests that way. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, I just checked my email. Quick question. I see that the game was reviewed by Hartley, Patricia, and Kirk Lesser in the March 1988 (131) issue of Dragon, but do happen to have the page number of the review too? Just curious, the info I already have is already enough for {{cite journal}}. Thanks again. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Asgardian and Awesome Android

Hi, BOZ. I promise I'll pitch in on the Spider-Man peer review. In the meantime, would you mind taking a look here. You might remember some time back an Arbitration that went against User:Asgardian for, among other things, his edits at Awesome Android. He's not making similarly wholesale edits that contradict Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars / Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance. If you get a chance, would you mind taking a look in your capacity as admin? I fear a repeat of an edit war I thought was long settled. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm there ([9]) and have commented. Plus ca change.... -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

FF review

I will endeavor to get there. By coincidence, I was touching up some things there this morning! -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For you

		The VG Barnstar
		In recognition of all your efforts to improve Wikipedia's older game articles, one review at a time, I award you this. Keep on truckin'! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! :) Glad to know it's appreciated! BOZ (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Just wanted to let you know that you have two new peer reviews for spider-man here. // Gbern3 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Great - thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You're always saying "danke" :) Hekerui (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting! And congrats on the cool feature! Hekerui (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, BOZ. I've started making some of the peer review's suggested edits. I was going to offer my own thoughts, but the two editors offered very thorough comments. I might add my own at some point, but for now, I'll concentrate on incorporating the major suggestions. Good call, to bring this significant article up to snuff. -- Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sokoban

Please you can digitalize the review of sokoban: Lesser, Hartley, Patricia, and Kirk (April 1988). "The Role of Computers". Dragon (132): 80-85.

Dragon Magazine reviews

Hey, just wanted to drop by and tell you: I think what you're doing is fantastic. Having quicker access to Dragon's reviews will make people's lives a lot easier, when they start working on those articles. I had to dig long and hard to find Dragon's review of Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss; once I did, getting it involved several days worth of downloading. Interested parties now know when the magazine reviewed a game, and can just check the history to see who added said review. It's great; keep up the good work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, Wikipedia's coverage of classic games is depressingly lacking. You'd think there would be more interest within WikiProject Video games to improve these articles, but apparently not. Maybe, with such readily available sources, people will start writing more FAs for the classics. I'm trying to do my part, too; I started the Online print archive recently, in an attempt to allow people access to those Mid-Late '90s, Early-Mid '00s print reviews that have, for the most part, escaped the project's reach. Hopefully both of our efforts will make a difference. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

GA drive

National Cartoon Museum looks like it could be worth pursuing. Hiding T 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC) See also: No-Prize, should be up your street? Hiding T 13:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL! That would be interesting, if I knew where to look for sources. :) BOZ (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a think. Put them in the peer review queue? Hiding T 10:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I kinda swore off on requestin peer reviews for any articles which I had not personally done some work on. :) BOZ (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Message

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/D&D.
Message added 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FA co nom?

My latest FA has finished. Do you want to do a co nom on Against the Giants? It seems like it's prett ready. Maybe cut down on the plot per the PR. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great! BOZ (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to just throw it up as is. Do you think we need to work on anything beforehand? I think I'll leave the size of the plot up to the reviewers, at this point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. :) The ENWorld folks found a review or two for us (not sure on the second one yet, need clarification) so we can add that before or during the FAC I'm sure. I'm kinda winding down, so if you don't add the TSG44 review then I'll do it tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work with the old mags. I'll wait a bit before I put it up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get the DW one up within the next few hours - it's a big 'un. BOZ (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy German-American Day!

I had no idea there was such a thing :) Hekerui (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we learn something new every day!  :) Thanks! BOZ (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Thanks for the heads up about the Signpost article about the D&D WikiProject. I found it interesting. I understand the problems the three of you discussed; they stress me out as well. On all too many occasions I wonder why I bother; knowing editors like you are out there fighting the good fight helps keep my morale up. I'm glad you're pushing forward with thr project. I prefer to stick where I am: randomly striking when and where the mood takes me, so I probably won't ever formally join the project, but I support you. Best of luck in your future editing! — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Do you watch pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation? The fiction ones are deader than I've ever seen them. I think we may have run out of delitionists (you know the editing numbers are declining). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? Are you pulling my leg? :) Are you sure people haven't just been lazy about organizing deletions though? I don't think we'll ever run out of deletionists, and they do still seem to be around in numbers though I do feel that they have been less active. I think the average deletionist loses steam over time as they realize the more aggressive they are the more people will fight them (I think most of them start out by thinking that people won't care if certain articles will be deleted, but like all naiveté that is eventually dispelled). Do you mean that the editing numbers of the whole Wiki are declining, or just those related to deletion? BOZ (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Couple people are blocked right now. The reason deletionists never run out is that they, being newbies, believe the rules about encyclopedias requiring secondary sources, rightly think that an AfD is the correct course of action, and are outvoted at the supposedly non-voting AfD. Then a new editor comes along, sees an unsourced and unsourceable article, and the process begins again. Abductive (reasoning) 16:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There's been a general decline. Graphs at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-03/Editing stats. With the way articles are becoming fuller and fuller of wikimarkup, the only easy thing for a newbie may be AfD. Never thought of that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3#Additional statement re Meursault2004

Just drawing your attention to my statement on the matter.—Kww(talk) 17:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - I'll study when I have a bit of time. BOZ (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As a note, JM has changed his stance on the RfA. I don't know how you will interpret the change, but I interpret it at least partially as a statement that KWW ought to (and has, in some respects) learn from the Revi/Mersault business. Protonk (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That is what Jack seems to be saying, yes, and I saw others in the Support column echoing that Kww can be trusted but has some things to learn. Given that, I have suspended my original judgement on that case in my further clarification to my earlier stance. Other items of concern remain unresolved to me, which I also elaborated on; I have to consider whether I wish to switch to Neutral or remain on Oppose though. As I stated, opposing someone unless they are really out there kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and my impetus to even add my name there in the first place was due to Jack's posting. I had concerns the last time Kww ran, and they remain about the same now; at the previous time I said nothing, and I have to consider whether to revert to silence or to address my reluctance to see Kww with the bit. Can you give me any advice? BOZ (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Meersault thing is an incident; what I'm really concerned about are the trends. BOZ (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we may be like ships in the night, because I see the trends moving in opposite directions. Had his first RfA not been a foregone conclusion, I would have remained neutral based on how it appeared he dealt w/ sourcing and notability concerns (meaning his framework for analysis). That has changed radically. Apart from the fact that he (like myself) has been pretty much absent from fiction AfDs since FICT fell apart, his viewpoint has moved to reflect (roughly, as I can tell) his answers in 15/15a/15b. He has articulated a position, but has also noted that his position could almost never result in a decision rule that would improve the encyclopedia (specifically I'm looking at the answer to 15b. That's an actual change in his position since/during the last big attempt to push FICT as a notability guideline).

Generally, I'm having a lot of trouble accepting the fact (though I know it to be true) that if this fails (as one editor has promised it will) that KWW will effectively be denied the mop for having said this in April of last year. There are only two lessons to be drawn here. One, never say anything like that, even if you believe it. Two, if you do say something like that, abandon your account and get the bit on another one (The excluded third option of resign yourself to never having the bit isn't so much a lesson as it is just an outcome). That's depressing. We can argue about whether he should be an admin (which may or may not relate to the quote), but the likely result in a world where he never said that quote (even if he felt that way) is that he wouldn't have been. Protonk (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not particularly concerned with his answers to questions like #15; being an admin doesn't make anyone more right on their particular position in regards to inclusion. Yes, I would be concerned if someone was using their viewpoint as a means to affect the closing of AFDs (you'll note that I've stuck to avoiding doing that since issues brought up at my RfA, and will continue for the foreseeable future) for example, or using the tools in some attempt to "overrule" consensus. I'm not concerned about him doing anything like that, because any admin on one of the extreme sides of the debate is going to be watched like a hawk for that sort of thing and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth anytime something they do even comes close. Like I say, I'm not concerned about the partisan divide when it comes to who is and who is not an admin (although if one "side" becomes overbalanced, things could get messy, so it's best to have them keep each other in check).

My apprehension involves something different, something which would easily keep me from supporting an inclusionist from being an admin as well. I would never, for example, vote to support Ikip, or Pixelface, or A Nobody if one of them was going for admin (and let's face it, snowball in Hell there) because although I feel their hearts are in the right place, their temperaments are not. It's the controversy factor; some editors just seem to draw controversy by what they do and/or say. Controversy keeps the battleground going, and it keeps admins from being effective. I feel an admin, as a person, should be as uncontroversial as possible, because as it is just doing our job can draw controversy to us. But it's really not just that, because maybe Kww isn't that controversial. Maybe it's just that our philosophies on things not relating to inclusion are so different. One comment, like the one from April that keeps getting pointed to, should not be a reason to keep someone from being an admin (unless maybe you admit to wanting to have sex with Hitler while killing babies or something), but what it does is expose a thought process. One cannot know exactly what someone means by what they say without some mind-reading ability, but a person's words give us something to think about. Think about this one, if you apply it literally: "I'm pretty a much a "take no hostages" kind of guy on that topic. No exceptions. I would happily treat people creating such articles as vandals, as opposed to editors, and honestly believe that to be the case." The context seems to be, I can assume, that he is referring here to people creating articles on non-notable subjects? Early on I started quite a few articles on subjects which were later found to be non-notable. Would that mean I fell into the "vandals, as opposed to editors" category? Should I have been banned instead of made an admin, if one assumes that this is what he meant? Yes, this is a quote from a year and a half ago, and yes, it is wide open to all sorts of interpretation, but one has to wonder if he really did believe that as he asserted, and if so how far is his current philosophy from that point? The age of a quote does not invalidate the reasoning behind it per se, unless the person who said it can tell you they no longer feel that way. If he hasn't strayed that far off the point he was at back then, then that leads people to wonder if they will suddenly become targets of admin action due to differences of opinion on inclusion? Now, I doubt that really will happen, and I'm sure ArbCom would become involved if it did, but that sort of idea can easily lay the seeds of apprehension.

But like I say, one comment alone should not be enough to sink a ship. I mean, it could be something taken out of context, or of course it could be an attitude that has changed over itme. RfA can be a very politically motivated contest, and we know what can happen to politicians when a dirty little secret or an embarrasing statement get leaked to the press. But there is more to RfA than politics. It's the attitudes of the candidate to consider. Kww's suggested means of dealing with people go beyond one single comment; I've seen more than a few suggestions of blocking and banning and this and that. Maybe it's because I prefer a softer touch in regards to blocking that such a hardline stance makes me recoil - it makes me imagine Kww as getting the reigns to kick ass and take names. Yes, I know I am exaggerating, and yes I know if he goes all AMiB on people ArbCom will deal with it, but why take a chance? The blocking tool, in my opinion, is best given to someone who doesn't like to use it, because you know that person won't be using it lightly. Someone who has shown an eagerness to have it applied - don't you find that a bit worrisome?

That's one of my biggest concerns, but another is the unbearable sense of "I am right" that I get from Kww. That seems like an unsuitable stance for an admin; it's one thing to be decisive, but it's another thing entirely to think you have all the answers. Admins are servants of the encylopedia and its users, not their rulers. When we have a difficult or possibly controversial decision to make, we owe it to the user involved to discuss with other admins (admin noticeboard for one thing) before taking some kind of action. Blocks should be handed out only to obvious serious vandalism (as defined by policy, not subjective feelings on what is vandalism) and similar problems, and to those who have ignored properly applied warnings. It's very important for admins to discuss, and to listen.

But, like I say, a lot of this may just be philosophical differences we have, and maybe I am blowing things out of proportion. I have to assume that Kww is an intelligent person, and just because he can be demonized for feeling the way he feels does not mean he will necessarily act on his feelings the way some of us feel he may. I'll continue to have a thought on it all. I an teetering between sticking to my guns and sitting down on the Neutral bench. Maybe I will come up with some questions and his answers can help me decide. BOZ (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to comment Boz, I have your talk page on my watch list since your RFA. I am really trouble by something I see here, and thought I would comment.

Protonk, how can you accuse A Nobody of "badgering" other editors in the RFC you created when Kww has contacted the following editors who opposed Kww's nomination:

1. User_talk:Jack_Merridew
2. User_talk:Garion96
3. User_talk:BOZ
4. User_talk:Coffee
5. User_talk:TreasuryTag
6. User_talk:FeydHuxtable
7. User_talk:DGG
8. User_talk:Balloonman
9. User_talk:Jclemens

This is after Kww wrote in the current RFA Kww 3, "I don't badger opposes"[10]

And Protonk your helping Kww, by your own definition, "badger" editors here...

And Kww said himself that "I primarily endorse the above description," which included the badgering accusations.[11] Ikip (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now I have to butt in too (sorry BOZ). As I tried to say in A Nobody's RfC, I had no problem with his badgering people in AfD discussions, and view it simply as passionate rhetoric. People want to believe that other people are good, but misguided, and that they might change their minds if the other position was explained to them enough times. We all badger to some degree or another. Abductive (reasoning) 03:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I don't need no stinking badgers. (gnaw gnaw!) Actually, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't feel that Kww is badgering me. I did much the same thing with anyone who voted on my RfA with a neutral or oppose - some even changed their vote after I discussed with them, such as Jennavecia (I came to respect her a lot through that, and had to drop her a note of encouragement after what she's been thought lately). I'd say Protonk is more badgering me (hey, hey, I keed, I keed!) but I'd be lying, because I tend to enjoy the conversations I have with him. Talking with people who feel differently than you do about things allows you to reevaluate why you feel how you feel. My opposition to Kww's adminship was never a strong one; although I'd be happier if he were not given the tools, I won't lose any sleep if he does get them and would be happy to change to Neutral if his answers to my just-posted questions can alleviate my concerns a bit more. BOZ (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. In responding to some of your points above I do want to say that I shouldn't try to convince you to ignore a gut feeling you have. Advice which implores you do to so (if it can be called that in this situation) is rarely helpful or accurate. I will say that your gut feeling is not one that I share. If there is one refrain from this RfA it is that Kevin understands and respects the strictures surrounding adminship. I also would encourage you to investigate and explore some of the claims made by the opposition. Just as you noted that the 'badgering' by the candidate isn't actually badgering, I think an exploration of some of the stronger claims made by the opposition will show reveal that fail to stand up to scrutiny. I think there is a difference between holding an opinion about policies (and it should be clear that is the opinion he holds, not about a subset of content, as has been alleged) and holding the opinion that the admin bit allows one to change or act in place of those policies. If there were evidence that the 2nd or 3rd contention were true, I would be opposing. Protonk (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, Protonk. I will make my final decision this evening. My only real gut feelings are that I can't support Kww becoming an admin, and that I am uncomfortable enough with some tendencies to want to oppose - that doesn't mean I won't back down in the face of a good argument, though. I don't dispute whether other people are right in opposing him, but I may be in the wrong as I am citing mostly philosophical differences in approach. BOZ (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. Which makes me uncomfortable in mounting an argument that you should abandon that gut feeling. :) Thanks for listening. Protonk (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's been a productive and worthwhile conversation all the same! BOZ (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ARAH List

Hey, would you like to chime in on this discussion? I'm trying to explain to someone why characters from other lines (Sgt. Savage, Extreme, etc.) don't belong on the List of G.I. Joe ARAH characters, but can't seem to get through to him.--Ridge Runner (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with those characters; are they a separate toyline, or a subset of ARAH? BOZ (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither. When the ARAH line was discontinued in 1994, those two lines were what replaced it. They were still marketed as GI Joes, but were quite different in size and flexibility. EMFreyre thinks that just because there was a crossover in a recent comic book that means these characters should be included in the ARAH list. He fails to understand that by using his logic, all Transformers toys would be included in the list as well since they crossed over in the original comic books.

Basically, I just want someone else to chime in in case he tries to add these characters that have no place on the list.--Ridge Runner (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thor's Family Tree

Sorry, I'll try to fix it. I have a widescreen monitor didnt realize it ran so wide.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the kind words, BOZ! I've got the new '70s-horror-comics issue of Back Issue, and there was a recent Alter Ego with some Werewolf and Man-Thing material, so that might not be a bad idea. I recently found about a dozen 1970s issues of The Comics Journal a couple of 1980s Comics Features, and a copy each of the truly obscure Whizzard (with Chaykin and Steranko interviews) and Graphic Story Magazine, so I've been combing through them for usable historical material. Now if only the latest round with Agardian doesn't chase me away again for a few months to recover...! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Savage / Dragon

Hi BOZ, thanks for the Dragon citation at Savage (video game) - there's a few bits of information I think should go in: Which platform did the reviewer use (I'm guessing it wasn't the Spectrum), and briefly what their main priases and criticisms were. Thanks! Marasmusine (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Savage Dragon? Well that was a quick response! Sure, no problem. BOZ (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that really helps the article! Marasmusine (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh - thanks, and I said it before, but I do mean it - I hope it goes better for you next time! BOZ (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ruins Of Adventure

Actually, to be completely honest, I did not know of the WikiProject Dungeons and Dragons. I am in the process of reading the interview between you and the other two editors now, though. And thanks for your approval on my additions to the Ruins of Adventure article. Macai (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope your D&D project flourishes. I might even join in on it. To be honest, though, I've always been more of a World of Darkness, guy. At any rate, thanks again, and you enjoy editing wherever you edit, too. Macai (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dragon magazine reviews

Don't suppose any of them have anything on Dragon Warrior or other Dragon Quest series?陣内_Jinnai 06:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, especially if you can find anything on DQ5 and DQ6. I'm actually surprised they did not review Dragon Warrior as it has been cited as the most influential game for video-game rpgs ever. Just use those search terms above for any year 1987+.陣内_Jinnai 20:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm am truly surprised they never once had an article on the games considering it has had an indirect effect on how future game systems were made.陣内_Jinnai 16:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Blazing Lazers review in Dragon

Is there more stuff in that review? If so, I could certainly would like to see more from that review to expand on the article a little more.

Also, they didn't happen to review The Guardian Legend by chance, did they? (Such a review would have been somewhere in early 1989 which was when the game was released in North America.) MuZemike 04:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RFCU

Hi, BOZ. Let me know if there's anything I need do. I admire your wherewithal. This isn't easy. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to direct it, but the impetus needs to come from more than just myself. :) The talk page is open to all who are involved or merely observers! BOZ (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Another rpg-ish game that could use some lookup

Kiki Kaikai - I am doing the GAR on this and will likely fail it if it does not get some print sources (or electronic copies of such, ie like the CD-ROM) as it was obviously a popular game given the number of ports and yet the reviews, which are from a more recent look, are all negative and therefore it almost certainly fails WP:NPOV since companies don't port unpopular games.陣内_Jinnai 03:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

D&D Wikiproject

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Nutiketaiel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thagomizer

How likely do you think it is Thagomizer would pass a GA? Hiding T 14:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Forgive the pun, but you think size is important? Hiding T 16:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I get your drift, but how much more comprehensive do you think it could be? By which I mean, doesn't it say it all already? I guess we should add it to a list somewhere, because it's really pretty damn good for what it is. Hiding T 16:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

See what you think about Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy as well. I don't know how things stand with this sort of article. Hiding T 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look later - don't have time at the moment. BOZ (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I pulled it down to C on your say so. The main article is already a GA, so that one would shoot for FA, which is something for the back-burner. Nearly have all the assessments done, just picking off the strays at the minute. Then I guess I'll start merging all the articles at the bottom of the popular pages list. Hiding T 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Toolserver. See here for the list which is growing as I keep adding to the list. :) here's the bottom. Hiding T 20:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

quick one

Am in the middle of a mess right now, but I think I have a desired outcome for Asgardian RFC. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, I think the desired outcome would be to instigate the old arbitration restrictions indefinitely, restricting Asgardian to one revert per week, or possibly topic banning if an administrator feels Asgardian has been disruptive. Hiding T 10:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Al Williamson

Hi, it seems that User:Scott Free has been blocked by User:Brandon apparently relating to User talk:BOZ/RFCU Asgardian draft. It might be useful if you could sort out the lead. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes I won't rush to close the review in the circumstances. It would be good to get it sorted in the next week. I did notice the edit by User:Al Williamson. If indeed it is the article subject, it would seem that he wants to leave his personal life out of it. It would be best if anything about his personal life is thoroughly referenced. If nothing can be found then omit it all entirely. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help, BOZ. I've got a copy of The Art of Al Williamson, plus Maurice Horn's encyc. of comic strips (and just between you and me, Al inked a series I worked on), so I'll go in now and see if I can contributed. Thanks for asking. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, it'd be a disappointment! I don't mean to be mysterious; it's just sometimes on these pages it's easy to forget oneself, and just think you're chatting at a con with fellow aficionados. I guess that speaks to a certain comfort level among us. And I think WikiProject Comics really has grown in expertise and sophistication these last couple of years, what with editors like you and some of us other battle-hardened vets!-- Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You are so gracious! [12]. Thank you kindly. -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Credit where credit's due! BOZ (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

At's-a lotta C's! How on earth did you ever tally those up? However so, that's a good jumping-off point. -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have TCJ90 with a Williamson interview, will digest that. I'll see what else turns up in Journals. Hiding T 13:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I did. I have no suitable response at present. However, do feel free to run your eye over my recent contributions of today. Hiding T 13:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Icewind Dale II, BOZ

Hello BOZ, this is 70.106.212.170. I can't believe Icewind Dale II passed GAN. A ton of thanks for nominating it for me. 70.106.200.51 (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Believe it! You put a bunch of work into it, and it was rewarded. I'll nominate any other article on which you want to do the same. Good luck in the future! BOZ (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Userfy please

A lot of editors point to this deleted article as everything that is bad with inclusionism. I would be interested why: Telepathy and war to User:Ikip/Telepathy and war thank you in advance. Ikip (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As I recall (vaguely), User:Peregrine Fisher spent quite a bit of time arguing for that one. Request granted - use it wisely! BOZ (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

thank you very much, I will let Fisher know too. Ikip (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian again

At Juggernaut (comics) today, he removed another editor's "Fictional character biography" subhead to mash together PH and FCB. I also wrote about this Juggernaut-like unstoppable tendency a moment ago at Talk:Adam Warlock, if you'd like more detail of the problem as demonstrated on that page. I can't believe after all the discussion and all the editorial consensus not to mash up those two sections, he's still doing it. -- Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

hes also doing it to rhino (comics) Ghidorah (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, to be quite honest I'm not sure what to do about Asgardian other than to come down hard on him, which will be met with complaints and denials and for all I know probably overturned. Talking to him clearly doesn't accomplish much, which is why I was pushing the idea to do an RFC so that we can generate some community consensus regarding him. If you want to help me with that, then I think it will go a long way towards working in a more positive manner overall; and of course if that fails then ArbCom can set some more concrete boundaries for him. Hiding has been doing some work for the RFC, and I was hoping to see more participation (what with all the complaints I've seen from numerous people) - if you want something to be done, then I encourage you to help me with that and drum up some additional support from people whom you know will have helpful input. BOZ (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do, starting tomorrow. A previous Arbitration had him placed on probation for a year. That is a precedent. Thanks, BOZ. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And this is exactly why you place yourself on dangerous ground. You make assumtions and sweeping statements, such as Gentlemen, to be quite honest I'm not sure what to do about Asgardian other than to come down hard on him and Talking to him clearly doesn't accomplish much and I encourage you to help me with that and drum up some additional support from people whom you know will have helpful input. These comments - particularly the last one - hint at some secret cabal that have ownership rights over comic-related articles at Wikipedia and can form a witchhunt and impose sanctions on a whim.

The fact that Hiding's effort failed should tell you that everything that is being offered up is opinion. There are no rules against bold edits, and as I've stated, the Guidelines are tinged with grey. Recheck the discussion here: [13]

Also, this comment what with all the complaints I've seen from numerous people is somewhat farcical. Who? An editor who suffers from a medical condition and makes irrational statements? A blind reverter who was exposed as a sockpuppet? Another editor who is either very young; has a medical condition or is a sockpuppet? The fans who insist on huge summaries of games and TV shows? I can offer evidence of attempting to reason with all these people.

In short, I think there is an overreaction by a very small group of editors who are perhaps not open to discussion of new ideas. Please also note - and this is important - that these repeated attempts at comment/sanctions can undermine your own credibility and may imply that this is a grudge. Asgardian (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. - since this is BOZ's page, here's something for him to contemplate that I found at the MOS page: [14]. The sentence reads:

The structures suggested in this section are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article; they are not meant to enforce a single, binding structure on all articles, nor to limit the topics a fully developed article will discuss.

Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See, you notice that what I’m saying is merely my own personal opinion – or in some cases merely exasperated sighing – rather than any actual intended statement of fact. "Not wanting to come down hard on you" is exactly right – block ‘em and book ‘em is not my style, and I prefer to reserve that sort of treatment for vandals and legitimate troublemakers. Besides, as I said, that would bring about from you accusations of things such as "secret cabals" with a "grudge" out to get you, coupled with "but I didn't even do anything wrong" – so basically, a heavy handed approach would only make you upset, make me look bad, and solve nothing – I think JGreb and Hiding for example have tried that with you and gotten only contempt. I say that talking to you doesn't accomplish much, because you seem to then go on your merry way as if to stick your fingers in your ears and say "I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you" when someone tells you something you don’t want to hear. Not to say that you never listen, but only when you choose to be receptive.

As to the theory of a small group of people on a witchhunt against you, well that’s one good reason to have an RFC. If it turns out that a small group of people are persecuting you for no good reason, then the community at large will recognize this and the people involved will look pretty bad, wouldn’t you say? If as you say, there is some secret cabal that think they have ownership rights over comic-related articles, then wouldn’t it be in your favor to have this exposed to the community for what it is? Or if, instead, you fear that there is something about you which will be exposed, then maybe you really do have something to worry about? An RFC cannot impose any sanctions that its subject does not willingly agree to – look at the recent one on A Nobody. Nor is it necessarily, and properly, a prelude to ArbCom – unless the community at large agrees that the person is very much in the wrong, and the person continues in what the RFC determined to be wrong behavior. Complaints I’ve seen against you, Asgardian, stretch back years and from many people – this is not a new thing, not recent by any means, and not from as small a group as you seem to think. I was hoping that by now, and still am, that you will see how much difficulty other editors find in working with you and that you will learn to work better with those who are willing to be collaborative so that we can all work together to build something good. I would rather see that any day than to see some actual sanctions be forced on you – which is the main reason I argued to go with an RFC over another ArbCom. See it how you will, say of me what you will, but to me RFC is the best thing for this situation at this time. BOZ (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In agreement with BOZ. As I've repeatedly had to note to Asgardian, the guidelines give Publication, Teams and Fictional objects as distinct sections. Publication history and Fictional character biography or Fictional team history are not blended into a single section. Asgardian has countered that, "The structures suggested in this section are intended to serve as a starting point." That doesn't mean one can do whatever one wants — it means we can adjust the subhead title's wording for particular cases. But the guidelines clearly spell out that we don't blend fiction and real-life. -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Note to BOZ re: BOZ's 10 November 2009 comment

You make a good case. In fact, you are one of the few to be wholly truthful and not "holier than thou" at any stage. I will take this on board. Asgardian (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - and one thing that a lot of people seem to forget about an RFC/U is that it also contains a built-in platform for the subject to post his point of view as well; often enough a full-on rebuttal of all the points brought up (see Gavin.collins RFC #2), although a sensible respondent would also acknowledge any legitimate concerns to gain the sympathy of the onlookers and show that they are willing to work with whomever they need to. A properly done RFC/U should never be an attack on the person - that's what AN/I is for. ;) BOZ (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

All the above notwithstanding, Asgardian is involved in an edit war over the same mash-up issues at Juggernaut (comics). -- Tenebrae (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that... makes me want to lock the page again, but that sort of thing just seems to postpone the edit war rather than actually end it. BOZ (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't. BOZ, you might like to read this [15]. I thinkTenebrae shot himself in the foot on this one. If you also cast around, you'll see I am trying to work with consensus on many things. I may disagree on some things, but I think we can all do without someone jumping up and down and shrieking that someone is supposedly offending when much of the time it is just opinion. It also doesn't facilitate the reconcillation process. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

BOZ, further to this, I've asked User:Ghidorah directly if there is a personal issue [16]. If there's no response and just more blanket reverting, go ahead and lock the page. I'm also asking for a Checkuser to be run. I suppose it will probably come down to the user being exposed and blocked; eventually blocked for disruption or just losing interest (possibly a very young user) because they can't revert anymore. Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Added to draft

Will add more. This is a start. -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

First of all i think this pages needs some archiving :). Secondly thanks for the support and for the offer of Drilnoths help it greatly appreciated. Salavat (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh and secondly, im right on top of adding covers to that massive list of your over at WP:VG. Salavat (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bombuzal article, "Amiga 2600".

Hi there,

I added a section in the Bombuzal talk page for you to check out. InternetMeme (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

TaskMaker

Could you please add more info from this review? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 06:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sam & Max

Yes, please. The more reviews the merrier, though there's no point merely having the information that its been reviewed without any of the points made by the review.-- Sabre (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got it, though I'd suggest that you find a more reader-friendly way of giving out the info for future, such as emailing scans of the print source or something. That "column of text" is unfortunately rather hard on the eye. However, I do appreciate it, these articles really do struggle for reviews due to their age. -- Sabre (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you've got a PDF file, then perhaps you could send me that? The Wikipedia email system doesn't allow for that, so I'll send a reply email so you can attach that and mail it to me the conventional way. Would that be ok? -- Sabre (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that works. Thanks! -- Sabre (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

D!Zone discussion

Hi, I think you've probably been on Wikipedia a lot longer than me, so apologies if I've sounded condescending in that conversation at Project Video Games talk page. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't say so. BOZ (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of putting the D!Zone information into the Expansion Packs section of Doom II: Hell on Earth, hope you don't mind. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that - why would I mind? :) Good deal. BOZ (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For taking the time to rescue Sword of Aragon from foundational copyright violations. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Put into article space, and thank you very much. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting more detail on the "Eye of the Monitor" review of Final Fantasy II

First off, a big thank you for all your work going through those old reviews, I love seeing your progress updates on the VG project talk page. As per your edit summary on Final Fantasy II, I would like to ask for any more detail you might have from that review (November 1993, issue 199). Thank you! --PresN 16:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I got it, thank you very much! --PresN 02:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your incredible, long-running work on finding reviews for classic games in Dragon magazine, updating and creating articles as needed through 15 years of reviews, I hereby award you this barnstar! --PresN 16:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo!  :) BOZ (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow

You've been here since early 2006 and not come across a Crat before? I tip my hat to you. Wikipedia's built on content contributors like you, so it's lovely to pop in and say hello. From a Crat. Oops. Don't click that link, it'll sully you :-) --Dweller (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I'm sure I have met a crat before. Although I have had minimal to no contact with all the folks in that list. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1830

OIC, but I think the full title of the board game is 1830: The Game of Railroads and Robber Barons. See this page. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yum! BOZ (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Space Hulk

Thank you, but it was your finding of Dragon reviews (though not this one, it was the earlier Alisia Dragoon addition) that inspired me to look for Dragon and other reliable sources to revamp this page; so take some credit for yourself too. Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't need to take any credit for that - I got a couple of barnstars for it already. :) BOZ (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

RFCU

Happy Thanksgiving, BOZ!

Do you think the Asgardian RFCU is ready to go to the next step? His edit warring hasn't abated, and I've just added information on his latest attempt at circumventing mediation at Juggernaut (comics). You have to read it to believe it. -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to try to find time to review it over the weekend. BOZ (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving. I think Mr. T needs to unwind a tad. Almost everything collated is opinion and tainted with more than a little bias. Also easy to prove if push comes to shove. Continually adding to a draft that may just go the way of the last effort tells me (and probably any outside party) that he's holding on a tad too tight, and it unfortunately smacks of an obsession, irrespective of what I do.

Now, I like the way you have handled yourself to date, and you haven't been petty in any shape or form (something I unfortunately can't say of everyone), and took your advice on board. Recent edits will tell you as much (it was two things actually: one was your advice, the second the fact that on close examination none of the featured comic articles really passed muster. If we don't work together they never will).

As to my "latest attempt", I'll throw the matter over to Jc37, as he's now involved and we (as another editor supports the revised version and there's been no debate otherwise) are dealing with what I can only assume is an immature and probably obstinate editor.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think over this coming week I'll have a lot more free time than I was expecting to have; I think I can finally look into getting everything in order to get the RFC/U up and running. It will take me a little while to look at everything thus far involved. BOZ (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Asgardian's assertion notwithstanding, there has been much debate on the Juggernaut talk page, readily avaiable for reading.

I'm not sure if Asgardian is referring to me or to Ghidorah as "immature and probably obstinate," but either way, his use of insulting incivility is ... well, what can I say that hasn't already been said? Jc37 wisely, I believe, protected the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you know who I'm referring to. How do you explain this person's conduct, considering the many attempts at discussion? Asgardian (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll definitely have to look into some of the more hotly contested articles, such as Juggernaut, Abomination, Rhino, etc., to get a better read on who exactly was involved, how, and when. I think everyone knows good and well that what we currently have on the RFC/U page is not the end all and be all of the dispute(s). :) BOZ (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

GAN

Howdy, BOZ. I'm handling a GAN on which the reviewers are no longer around (Boys' Ranch), and the original nominator has stepped back as no longer inclined to work on it.
As you might remember, you worked on getting a couple of articles while I was reviewer to GA previously (Dragonlance & Winnie Winkle), and everything went well. I wondered, if you had time, if you might be able to lend a hand with the article under review? I'll leave a note at the relevant WikiProject, too; it'd be a pleasure to have you on board if your time allows though. Thanks, and have a good weekend. –Whitehorse1 13:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Whitehorse1 & BOZ:  BOZ dropped me a note, and I'll be glad to help. I have Evanier's recent Kirby book, plus several issues of Jack Kirby Collector and other resources. I'll stop by Boys' Ranch in the next day or two. With regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sword of Aragon

Thank you for the compliment. I had a twange of nostalgia (having fanatically played the game long ago) and decided to check if the project has an article on it, thereby seeing the copyviolation instantly. Since you have pointed out Dragon's review, I decided to search for more sources (surprisingly there were) and flesh the article out. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary protection

I believe this protection is unneeded. The anon, unexplained reverts were over, one revert with an explanation was made, and it was then already taken to Talk and tagged appropriately before the protection was levied. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Re this: Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul Jaquays

Hiya again! Got the photo OK'd (as was prerequisite) and tightened up a bit here-and-here with thorough checking twice by Jaquays himself for facts, etc. Amusing to see http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/days-of-high-adventure/6847-Gamings-Renaissance-Man online, too: Paul did mention that was forthcoming and was going to note there was nothing for him on Wiki'(!)... just after I mentioned to him that I was looking to finish the edit I'd started nine months before. Good timing, or what? ;) Could you have a check through vs. the quality standards, please, aiming for B-ish or thereabouts (slightly shorter, more factually correct and about equally referenced compared with Dave Arneson's article at that point). Many thanks, David. Harami2000 (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; I /was/ going to add "time permitting"... oops! ;) +thx for forwarding for checking. Nice of the Escapist article to give me the DYK refhook I was looking for (not just curriculum creator but also co-founder for The Guildhall at SMU) as was known but couldn't obtain a definitive reference for. Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Busy, busy over here! ;) Hopefully there's no 15 minute update lag on Wikipedia this time...

Thanks again for forwarding: I've added a DYK hook to Template talk:Did you know, if you might have a check and nudge that forward if it looks like a good one, please (and for project visibility in general).

I'll have a check on Peregrine's suggestion re. in-line artwork in the article, albeit somewhat wary following mass deletion of relevant pics from Dave Arneson's article by one editor out several tens of thousands of views. Dark Tower with a caption hook into Dork Tower (+citation) seems like a good option for that, perhaps. Best wishes, David. Harami2000 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Shining in the Darkness review

I would like to see more info from the review in Dragon. And the one on the Atari Lynx too, if you could.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just received the copies of the reviews in my e-mail. Most awesome! Thanks for sending them to me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

500 Comicbook villains

BOZ, yes. What a difference. The book itself is actually a very interesting read, and unlike some comic efforts Mike Conroy actually knows what he is talking about. This will help with dozens of characters. I also have a few favourite DC villains and will tackle them in coming weeks. This is definately going to help the standard of a great many articles.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I also had a peek at the Heroes version, and it makes me realize how lacking many of the articles are. Check out the addition I found for Dormammu - it explains everything in one paragraph. The only way from here is up! Asgardian (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Yes, I like the irony. Although to be fair to the rest of us, certain parties wanted to wipe the articles in their entirety. Anyway, onward. Asgardian (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

It's your birthday! All the best for your day of honor and much health for the next life-year :) Congrats on the feature today, too! Hekerui (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Planescape: Torment

Congratulations on making the front page. I remember how hard the D&D taskforce worked on that article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'll throw in my WOOOOOTTTT!!!!!. Nice job! Hobit (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

46,000+ views! Hekerui (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what a TFA will do for you. :) BOZ (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Juggernaut

I hear you.

Might it be possible for you, as an admin, to protect the article once again? There's edit-warring going on, which began a single day after the last protection was lifted.

Courage. -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I'll talk with you re: matters, but be careful who you listen to. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in hearing why the edit warring has resumed, just interested in seeing it end. BOZ (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'm dealing with a very immature editor; another who has admitted to having a medical condition and insists on incorrect changes another who should never have gotten involved in the first place. I'm taking steps re: the first two. Asgardian (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah there we have it again. Using even the medical condition as a weapon. Classy. As for the rest, all that matters is the matter-of-fact list of your many offenses. I've tried to give you plenty of chances to prove yourself trustworthy and willing to change for the better, but you never do, nor abide by the agreement between us. You have a long list of among other things edit-wars, misleading statements, consensus-violation, and even sockpuppetry readily available, and not nearly limited to myself or the other editors you're mentioned, so this does not appear to be about us, but about you. The "steps" you wish to take as ongoing threats (even against Tenebrae of all people) have also been well-documented as generally unfounded. Dave (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Draft RFC / WQA

The draft Asgardian RFCU has been cited in WQA [[17]]. I know nothing about the past history of any editor involved here but it strikes me as odd -- it's a draft so it's none of my business but it's cited on WQA so it is?? Gerardw (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's because Asgardian has been an ongoing problem for years, and never stops no matter how forgiving we try to be, and been involved in conflicts with an awfully wide amount of people, so it's worth a shot to actually list some of his offenses for once, so we have an easily overviewed coherent pattern to refer back to whenever he starts again. Dave (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

On an aside

Other matters aside, I'm actually going to tackle four DC villians that are favourites of mine as there is some good 3rd party stuff. Let me know if there are any out there you like that need a touch up. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem being that you think things like this make all your neverending ongoing offenses, manipulations, and violations ok. No amount of inserted "Regards" at the end of your sentences can hide your track record. You are also consistently tying up a lot of other editors (to keep us from continuing to help out elsewhere) through your behaviour, or even destroying most energy to continue. Dave (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

David, please, calmn down man. BOZ (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dave, am bending over backwards to try and accommodate some of his additions, but despite requests he doesn't seem to understand (eg. Mjolnir) why things like incorrect formatting (eg. "vol. 1") and power match-ups can't stick. He's also going for the blind reverts which are wiping new additions such as sources. I've been very accommodating, and will keep trying. Asgardian (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No you have not. I have shown repeatedly that I have absolutely no problem with formatting and leave in all of your new references. Almost the only thing I'm always interested in is when a fact source is incorrect. Anything else is accident, not ideology, and resinserted as soon as I discover it. (I kept them all in the last edit as far as I'm aware, and didn't intend it othervise.) In this case you repeatedly wiped out the mentions of instances wherein machinery was unable to move the hammer (whereas I left in the one wherein it did), and for some reason reinserted the inaccuracy that Union Jack was drained of and had his life force restored (Actually it was one of those instances wherein Marvel "science" got too weird, i.e. Thor "drained" him of _lightning overload_, even though current just passes right through things per definition), or speculation about draining the energy being Presence of such, instead of using a general "energy" (which, you know, technically could include "life force" if someone feels like it, but it hasn't been explicitly stated as far as I'm aware). "Matchups" is not the case in this instance (Well, there is a minor "used a more extreme instance as reference source at the end of the sentence" for the "god blast" capability, but I long since wiped out any explicit mentions of what exactly happened in the issues, to be mediating, since you had a problem with it), not disallowed per any regulation, impossible to avoid, and you swtich between using them yourself or use the term as a justification depending on convenience. To truly "bend over backwards", or more specifically adhere to honest editing techniques, you would have to strive for the same thing as myself, i.e. integrate new accurate information into what already exists, or make genuine adjustments of inaccuracies. Dave (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

On another note, I've made some fairly solid additions to Galactus, adding another lead paragraph for context, a great 3rd party quote and tidied up some language and an incorrect source. Also occurs to me that there's no Biography, so will put in more work on adding all the important issues in the PH, then let the B explain who the character is and what happens after. Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Good additions to Galactus - that one is finally starting to look more like the article it should be! BOZ (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, on a funadmental level I have a very hard time synchronising the discrepancy that we all know for a fact that Asgardian is recurrently very dishonest, and the fact that we let said user edit articles people depend on for accuracy... (!) Dave (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, Dave, I've going to have to ask you one more time to tone it down. BOZ (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to tone it down, and used to go to extremes in this regard for a while, while giving him yet another chance to prove himself trustworthy until he started to violate our deal repeatedly, but someone also has to state the (entirely accurate) main problem here. There has to be some resembalnce of sanity, justice, and consequence. Still, I have said my piece now, and will try to let it be more. Let's see if anything happens for once. Dave (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. :) BOZ (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Task force invititation

Hello,

I have noticed that you have recently done a lot of work to try to improve the articles of some older video games, and so I was wondering if you would be interested in joining the new retro games task force.

AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Another note

I saw the comments here: [18], and responded on J Greb's page : [19]. Tough one. Asgardian (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian RfC

I'm not sure what the exact historical scope is for the behavior by him you wish to include, so I'll try to limit it to three examples from this year:

The first thing I would think you might find useful would be the ANI review of my block of Asgardian in February 2009, his fifth one overall, which was, IMO, incorrectly reversed. The reason I think you might find it useful is because I detail, with a copious amount of Diffs, many examples of his behavior. Of particular interest is the Points of Contention section, because I respond to a number of Asgardian's own statements in order to refute them, and highlight his lies, his use of logical fallacies, his double-standards, etc. It's a lot to slog through, BOZ, and I apologize, but the amount of material is determined by what Asgardian provides us. If you go through it and verify the Diffs, they may prove valuable.

The second thing would the Red Hulk matter from a few months ago. I'm not sure if it was already mentioned on the RfC page, or not, but here it is: During that incident he continued his behavior of reverting during a consensus discussion, even though that's what his last two blocks were four, including his last unreversed block. You'll notice that it's a continuation of his issue with titles, issue numbers and dates from the above matter in February. One of his claims that I refuted in that matter was that there was a discussion pertaining to this that supported his view on them. I not only showed that the discussion had nothing to do with this, but I jumped into that discussion, and the others not only told me that they never discussed this, but that they agreed with my viewpoint about occasionally mentioning them. But now in September he was again removing them, despite this. I tried to start another discussion on the Red Hulk Talk Page to accomodate him, and he continued his behavior. He insisted on September 3 that we needed yet another discussion to bring it to a wider audience, so I again went to the Comics Project page. Among the things that occurred during the Red Hulk discussion was that he was again arguing against a "laundry list" or "minefield" of dates and issue numbers that he felt would make the article unreadable. I tried to point out that no one would favoring littering the article with them, but only to mention them occasionally, a nice middle ground between his preference for none of them, and the notion of having too many. When I tried to ask him on September 3 if he understood this, he evaded the question, saying we should discuss that on the Comics Project page. Naturally, he never answered this question there either, an example of him stonewalling when his fallacies are rebutted. I should also mention that during the course of this, I protected the article in order to encourage discussion and consensus. It was opined by the others that I shouldn't have done this because I was involved. I apologized for this, having not known that it would matter (though I've since heard contrary opinions on this). In any event Administrator Mangojuice tried to desysop me for this on the AN Board. here is my post in which I defend myself, and in so doing, I detail Asgardian's behavior with respect to ownership of articles and consensus. Reading that and the Red Hulk Talk Page discussion may prove useful.

Last, he claimed in October that he doesn't "ever" make blind reverts. In fact, here is one example in which he did do so, during the aforementioned Red Hulk matter a month prior, and here is my revert of it. When I pointed this out (as it was only one month to the day prior), he reacted badly, leaving these silly taunts on my Talk Page, implying that my pointing this out was not proper admin conduct, was something for which I could lose my admin privileges, would "go to an overall pattern", and so forth.

Hope this helps. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll take some time to absorb that. :) BOZ (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'll go through what you have and then if I can think of any other good examples I'll hunt them down (although with an eye on the fact that it is impossible to be completely comprehensive as it'd take someone weeks to go through every single incident, so I'll aim for the ones that best show the problem). (Emperor (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

What I've primarily noticed is him removing cleanup tags, usually the primary sources tags. Sometimes there's no explanation, and sometimes he says "All comics articles are like this" (which, by the way, they aren't). I know he's done this to the Eternity article, but there's far more I can't recall at the moment. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to dig into this in the next few days and help out. ThuranX (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant to the topic of this thread is a problematical situation on Dormammu, an article to which you have given a brief period of protected status, including in the process the edit summary, "please discuss on talk page rather than edit warring." This is a move that is both inapplicable and ineffective. Central to the situation is, as you say, an edit war primarily between two editors, Asgardian, already under discussion here, and David A., a pair of established registered editors who would not be affected/blocked one little bit. Furthermore, there has already been a lengthy talk page discussion here, the results of which Asgardian refuses to acknowledge at all. --Tbrittreid (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Got any better ideas? :) I suggested some to Asgardian below. I have begun the user RFC, by the way, if you wish to comment on the situation there (and included this most recent edit war in the "evidence" section). BOZ (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'ts not just me. I've made plenty of adjustments along the way, and have consensus on my side. Also, don't forget that Asgardian also started a thread at the general comics forum, but after I modified the column according to the response there, and he got no support, he simply refused to acknowledge it as usual, and continued to revert and delete virtually every reference in there. He also tries to make it sound as if the OHOTMU is far more prohibited than it is, simply because he considers his personal opinions superior to those of Marvel editorial. As long as it is contrasted to plenty of other sources and has a disclaimer it is fine. The reason for having a limitation at all is due to that people used to simply copy all the description text from one of them, rather than use a multitude of sources. Although in the last edit he for once only tried to delete this part (which is what he long used as justification for censoring the other unconnected references as well). Dave (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I will be digging in and reading through everything I just haven't had the spare time over the festive period to give it the attention it deserves but will be able to do so from now on. It is an important issue that has been rattling along for too long now and it needs resolving, thanks for putting all the hard work in on this. (Emperor (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

Re: LOL

Woh.... i dont even remember that nomination. My viewpoint has definatly changed now that it obvisiously exists, hope you can save it. Salavat (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for letting me know. Obviously, this is nothing I can respond to in 5 minutes and with Xmas upon us this will take time. I suspect much of it will be shown to be POV by some (and there are counter arguments), but let's get it over with once and for all. Regards

Asgardian (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Constructive criticism

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Asgardian#Evidence

I note with dismay once again that you do not have e-mail. I would like to privately discuss your evidence section, I have some constructive criticism, and I think it is better that I say it before anyone else does. Ikip 17:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

From user talk:Ikip:

I do have e-mail set up - you should be able to contact me that way. Let me know if you continue having problems with that.

I also want to thank you for what you did on the RFC talk page - that was very helpful. BOZ (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No email button to the right...Dont worry about it. Your welcome to email me. Glad I could help, best wishes. Ikip 21:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dormammu

BOZ, I noted you locked the article for now. I really have tried and tried with Dave, and made concessions where possible. He, however, wants to argue everything right down the wording of each and every sentence. Unfortunately, he's also wrong about the use of the OHOTMU and got to let that go. My reasoning (right up until the lock) is all at the Talk Page. I'll post it elsewhere and hopefully once again get some support. I like Dave, but he's got to be a tad more flexible (I also don't know to what degree his medical condition is effecting his judgement).

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The revert war isn't the way to go, though. To be honest, I'm 100% uncaring as to the why it's continuing, it just needs to end (and not just on this article). The best thing for you and he both is to step back, leave it alone for a bit, and just not engage. If you can't talk it out, maybe seek an article RFC or mediation or something, but reverting over and over is unacceptable. BOZ (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So basically Asgardian is saying that he's just going to continue starting threads wherein nobody agrees with him and then ignore the results as usual, and also tries to make me sound much more unreasonable than I am because I have a serious handicap, also as usual? Dave (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC

It looks like you've got enough signatures (more than enough, in fact) now; I suppose I'll just add an outside view since I sort of backed away from this one a while ago. You would definitely, though, want to talk to Nightscream who initiated the one you linked to. He would have a lot to add, and might even sign under "tried and failed". However, given that he was asked to stop blocking Asgardian because he had gotten too involved, maybe an outside view from him would be best. Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I added my endorsement, and since it has gained three signatures within 48 hours it is now active. Asgardian should be notified. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to commend you, BOZ, on being good enough to take on this time-consuming effort. It is such a big undertaking, and yet you've remained focused and diligent and kept everyone else's spirits up through what could have been a debilitating process. Some editors, I'm afraid, see Wikipedia as a competition and not a collaboration, as a zero-sum game in which sneakiness and feigned reform are used to wear down others. You haven't let that happen. Your have strength of character, and I'm proud to work with such collaborators as you and some of the other veterans here — all of us anonymous, none of us doing it for anything other than the giving of knowledge and the satisfaction of seeing the wider world get facts straight. Kudos, my brother-in-arms. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've participated in this type of endeavor before; I'm unfamiliar with how this works. Should I move my edit from several hours ago to the right page? Nightscream (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence of that post kinda does that; perhaps I could separate that and put it on the bottom as a closing comment, along with the "Users who endorse this view" thingee? Nightscream (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And it should be noted that this comment came from Tenebrae, one of the genuinely most honest and sensible editors I've met here (the time he had a problem with me it was probably warranted), so it was not simply a suck-up response. Dave (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. DrBat (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BOZ. It's all in the Edit Summaries for everyone. Very clear. Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to hear it; you both need to knock it off. BOZ (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I received your message but to be honest I have no clue how to answer the queries you mentioned...and to avoid any confusion, I am talking about it in the technical sense. I'm not sure how exactly I edit the page to add my input; I'll read the pages again and try to figure out the procedure later on when I have the time. Thanks. Mobb One (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, BOZ. I've been looking over the page, and wanted to know if I should add my name to the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" and "Other users who endorse this summary" headings. What is the difference between the two? Why do the users leave their name under one and not the other? Is signing both of them not recommended? Nightscream (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but when you say "the dispute", does this refer to a specific recent dispute that lead to the RfC (a sort of straw that broke the camel's back)? Or does it refer to having had a dispute with him in the past, one of the ones mentioned further down on the page? Which heading would be more appropriate for me to sign? (Sorry for all the questions; I just wanna make sure I understand this.) Nightscream (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So in other words, if you've been involved in disputes with Asgardian, you should sign the "Certifying the basis" section, whereas the "Endorse" section is for uninvolved people who haven't been in disputes with him, but who read and agree with the summaries? Is that it? Nightscream (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As usual, Asgardian has started to delete almost all references at Dormammu to replace it with his own opinions again, even ignoring the general comics talk input he engineered in the first place. Could you protect the page once more? Dave (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Will page protection serve any purpose this time other than to delay the inevitable? BOZ (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless we perm-ban Asgardian, probably not. He ignores anything and everything, and is dead-set to delete these (entirely accurate) references. Dave (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Extra eyes...

...would be welcome on Bizarro with regard to the edit history and this comment I've left on Asgardian's talk page.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)