User talk:BOZ/Archive 2013-2014

Good source for Dragonlance articles

I'm too tired to dig into this right now, but this looks like a great source for multiple articles: the novel, the artifacts list, maybe the characters list. See what you think. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I have used it in small ways in some of the character articles; I could take a better look at it tomorrow, but I'm about to go to bed myself. BOZ (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to self - I need to go back to Space Gamer 85, which has a sort of auto-biography for Dave Arneson. Don't let me forget - busy looking through old gaming mags for DL novel reviews.  ;) BOZ (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Mind MGMT

I'm hoping to get this article up to GA or better quality, and any help or suggestions you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! :) It looks like you requested a peer review, which is a step in the right direction. If you follow the suggestions of the reviewer, chances are that you will be pretty close to GA-quality or even there already. The GA reviewer might give you additional requirements, and most reviewers are reasonable enough that if you meet their expectations they will pass. BOZ (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Asgardian_appeal

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#BASC:_Asgardian_appeal. As you were involved in edit wars with Asgardian you may be interested in commenting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Genie's Curse

Hi! I actually could find an article scan at http://www.kultpower.de/powerplay_testbericht_extern.php3?im=alqadim.jpg. I hope that helps. If you should have any questions about the German, just let me know. Daranios (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, I don't know if Al-Qadim: The Genie's Curse is quite GA material, but I think I could get a really solid B-class article out of it. :) BOZ (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, up for a rough mentoring job?

Hey BOZ, You came to mind as a good person for this job [1]. Any interest? I think you and RAN have a generally similar outlook on Wikipedia (at least in part) and you and he would probably do well together if you have the time/interest... Hobit (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, wow. :) I've never tried mentoring anyone before, so I don't know if I'm up for the job, especially if it is a "rough" one. But, that aside, two obvious questions come to mind which I don't see answers for: 1), does he actually want a mentor? and 2), has he exhausted the community's patience already? BOZ (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

1 is unclear. But I suspect it depends on the mentor. 2 is that he's exhausted some people's patience. He certainly did some really bad stuff (copyright violations in a large sense) but I felt a lot of people who philosophically disagree with him tarred him with a lot more than he's actually guilty of. He was a heck of a contributor and I'd love to see him back... I don't have the time or energy at all. I'm not sure how the mentoring would go, but maybe Worm [2] (now an arb) could give you some advice. He'd be my first choice for a mentor for RAN (by temperament and philosophy somewhat close to RAN, very experienced mentor), but he's got too much on his plate. If you are at least mildly interested I can float your name at ANI and you can say no if it looks like a bad idea. Hobit (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess the safe answer would be to say I'll have to keep an eye on the situation and see how it goes, then. Not promising anything just yet, but I'd first like to see if he even wants to be mentored, and what the resolution of the AN/I discussion is. I'm not completely sure what is involved in a mentoring job, so I think it's best to have answers to those two questions before really looking into it. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds quite reasonable. Unless you object I'll add a link from ANI to here indicating a potential mentor may exist. Hobit (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you can say we are discussing it. BOZ (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, just left a note on RAN's page. Hobit (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

File:NFHowlingCommandoes.jpeg

Hi, you restored the file File:NFHowlingCommandoes.jpeg about two weeks ago and probably intended to add a fair use rationale, but that hasn't happened yet. Do you plan on doing so? — ξ^xplicit 00:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. :) BOZ (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Chris Claremont photo

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the discussion on whether to include a 1990s photograph of Chris Claremont in his article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

As a veteran WikiProject Comics editor, you're invited to a discussion at Talk:Marvel ReEvolution#Merger proposal. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Mastermind in other media

Looks like the Mastermind in other media article needs to be protected, again. It was edited again, twice, as soon as the protection expired. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - you might want to keep an eye on whatever else it is that they are ranting about. BOZ (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Puppet Master (Marvel Comics)

Hello Boz. My move of this page to Puppet Master (Marvel comics) [3] was the result of a (short) requested move discussion on the talk page[4] and should not be overturned or moved unilaterally without another move discussion. Would you please undo your move[5] and, if you feel I have erred in reading the discussion, open a move review or, if you feel the page should be at a different title, open a new requested move discussion. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is controversial... please explain. BOZ (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding D&D titles

Hey BOZ,

I have a question I think you might be able to answer that could give me some precedence regarding some of the D&D articles. In regards to campaign settings, for example, "Forgotten Realms", would you think that Forgotten Realms should be in italics, and, if so, would there be cases where it would not be? I'm seeing a mixture of "Forgotten Realms" and "Forgotten Realms", even on the article Forgotten Realms, and I'm not sure which one is correct. Steel1943 (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think we are trying to make a distinction between the campaign setting, that is, the product name, which would be in italics, and the physical world itself, which would not be in italics. It's a tricky proposition though, and one which I think gets a bit too complicated to keep track of in some cases. See here for a discussion on the issue with Greyhawk. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that TSR/Wizards haven't even been consistent with this. I haven't done any research into it, but it seems to me that the names of campaign settings are usually not placed in italics in D&D products and related material, so I usually don't italicize them. However, there is probably no wrong answer on this one. BOZ (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wikiality of Baalphegor

Allo BOZ,

I've been tracking this across the Web without much success; it seems that substantial portions of the Baalphegor article (relating to her age, her time as consort to Gargauth, her power level and her supplanting of Rimmon as Lord of Cania) aren't actually sourced from anything canonical - or if they are, the citation is absent from the article. This is a bit problematic, as other sites (including the Canonfire wiki, on which I understand you are also an editor) seem to be sharing the complete Wikipedia text, which as far as I can tell is the fanon work of the user who originally set up the Wikipedia article. As this user was noted to have inserted his own fanon on another consort's page, it would be useful to clear up for all the sites that use this as a reference whether there's any primary source backing up the assertions made in the article. I'll watch this space if you'd like to respond to me. Regards! 142.176.66.12 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC) TheUltimateEvil

Thanks! Unfortunately there is still quite a lot of content relating to D&D which is still unsourced at this time. When people (including me) added text like this years ago, it was common to do so without using citations. Often without even directly consulting the sources! So it is a problem that has been slowly corrected over time, but there is still a lot to do. I will try to clean this up as best as I can. I do have some books handy so I will see what I can do about that in a little while, and I can look at the rest later. BOZ (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If it helps, I've already checked all sources cited on the page with no success; the reason I managed to discover it in the first place is because any web search on the topic turns up text identical to that from the article. That list of sources covers... let me see here. Book of Vile Darkness, Dragon #28, Dragon #76, Dungeon #2, Dungeon #135, Faces of Evil: The Fiends, Fiendish Codex II, Guide to Hell, Monster Manual II (first edition) and Powers & Pantheons. That should cut down on the rest of the search.24.222.143.27 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC) TheUltimateEvil

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, BOZ. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Bill Biggart

Hi. Another editor who does not seem to understand that you cannot add material to an article that has nothing to do with that article's subject got into a prolonged discussion with me in which he argued why the material should be included for "context". In the article on Bill Biggart, whose notability is that was the only photojournalist killed while covering the 9/11 attacks, the other editor, Crtew, wants to include a list of all media-related deaths (not in the 9/11 article or a related 9/11 death list article, but in the article of just one of the victimn, Bill Biggart), because he argues, the passage that clearly states that Biggart was the only photojournalist killed while covering the event creates the false perception on the part of readers that Biggart was the only "media-related death" during the attacks. I tried to explain to him that this wrong, but he wouldn't budge. He agreed to a Third Opinion, so I called for one, and the person responding to provide a Third Opinion obviously agreed with me that that material does belong in the Biggart article. Nonetheless, Crtew reverted the article anyway, and is has now tried to start another discussion on the same issue further down on the talk page, completely ignoring Third Opinion, and the two other editors who have disagreed with him, which I believe is a blockable offense. Even if he wants to start a consensus discussion in order to open the matter up to more than three people, then he's still reverting during a discussion, which is definitely a blockable offense. When I criticize him for this, he accused me of being "disrespectful", and lobbing personal attacks against me by saying, " seriously cannot believe you are an administrator and you treat people like this", as if he's some kind of victim for merely being criticized for violating policy. I've warned him that if he does this again, he will be blocked from editing, but I need an uninvolved admin to keep an eye on him and do the blocking if it comes to that. If you could also warn him that he is indeed engaging in blockable behavior so that we can avoid actually blocking him, that would be even better. Please advise. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a case for WP:AN/I to me. If another admin gives him a warning and he is still causing trouble, I will block him. BOZ (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Richard Lee Byers, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Richard Lee Byers" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 00:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting bot! Never saw this one before. BOZ (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Dang, beat me to it!

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		I was about to add The Shackled City Adventure Path to the WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons watchlist, but you got to it before I had a chance. You are definitely on top of your game with that watchlist! Steel1943 (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. Didn't see that you added it yet, so I figured I would take care of it.  :) BOZ (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Heroes voice actors

Please, explain to me: How is an OFFICIAL video featurette posted by the developers on the OFFICIAL Marvel Heroes YT page featuring all the actors saying "yes I voice this character; here are clips of me performing the voice" not a sufficient source? ESPECIALLY considering the other editors who reverted my edits have added material with even less sufficient sourcing in the past. I even went back and replaced the bare YouTube link with a secondary source reporting on it so as not to rely on primary sources or violate the supposed ban on YouTube video links. (Which doesn't exist, BTW. According to WP:VIDEOLINK, "There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable secondary sources, such as the Associated Press's channel. These official channels are typically accepted. Content from Vevo is an example of a primary source that might be used." This video went up on the game's official channel run by the developers, and thus falls under a reliable source.) With that said, I must insist my edits be restored. -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I protected the pages to stop your edit warring. I figured that was nicer than blocking you, considering how much edit warring you had been doing. If you want to use these links in the articles, please discuss this on the article's talk pages, or another good place to discuss this is here at the WikiProject Comics talk page. If you continue to edit war without gaining consensus from discussion, blocking is the next logical step. BOZ (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think that's a great idea, but the primary person responsible for reverting my edits doesn't seem to think so. Regardless, I've started a discussion, and would appreciate feedback from a neutral party, if you wouldn't mind adding your two cents. -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Concensus on WPP Comics so far seems to be that their inclusion is warranted. Since I can't make the change myself due to the protection, would you be willing to restore my edits? -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, just make sure to examine the advice given at that discussion. BOZ (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a photo in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Perkins

Note to self, work on Christopher Perkins (game designer) today, to avoid deletion... BOZ (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

More to examine: User talk:Paul Erik#Christopher Perkins. BOZ (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI nothing good on HighBeam. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. BOZ (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Web Enhancement article created

I was amazed to find that Wikipedia did not have an article for Web Enhancement, so I created one.

I've been wondering about editing the Sue Weinlein Cook article to show that she was the inventor of the Web Enhancement, but I'm not too sure where to put that factoid. Monte Cook said she invented them around about 1999, but I'm not sure of an exact date. Big Mac (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good!  :) BOZ (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Quinton Hoover

Reminder to self, must find a source for his recent death which does not originate from Facebook. BOZ (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark Millar Infobox Photo

Hi. Can you offer your opinion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Hope you had fun trying to "unearth" what you saw as dirt and to throw it on me. That was very low of you, and quite obviously outside of any WP rule of behavior. Trying to get me blocked for having been blocked on other WPs ? Trying to frame me as an "international WP criminal" ? For real ? :) I had a good laugh. Since you've let yourself express what you really think of me, here's what I really think of you and your group: User_talk:Folken_de_Fanel#RFC.2FU_discussion_concerning_you_.28Folken_de_Fanel.29. What you'll find there is only the truth that hurts, the inconvenient truth. Maybe you'll be strong and reasonable enough to face it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. When did I say I was trying to get you blocked? BOZ (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think anyone else would believe you're not actively trying to have me getting blocked, when you open an RfC in which you falsely accuse me of "disruptive editing, going against consensus, edit warring, POV pushing, personal attacks, harassment, threats and taunts, and bad faith accusations", which are all serious and blockable offenses on WP ? And what with the whole business of accusing me to be nothing more than an "international troublemaker" and to suspect that if I'm not editing WP I'm surely not up to anything good (without you having the guts to request an actual checkuser) ? "I guess the community found that input useful, because lo and behold, both users were eventually banned and remain so. So yes, everything I have found for this case is very relevant." You don't have to pretend, your intentions are very clear.

If you really intent for us to "work together" as you wrote, you'd have to recant both the RfC and the talk page, and to consider what I've written on my own talk page as to the true reason why our relationship soured. Outright saying that proposing to have "your" articles merged is an "agression", is certainly not going to convince anyone I'm the only culprit here, and you know it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait a second, "our relationship soured"... did we have a positive relationship at some point? Am I misremembering something? I don't remember anything positive about any time we have ever interacted. BOZ (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably your inclusionist bias which led you to see any dissent as "agression", then...Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So we did have a positive relationship at some point, and I just didn't notice it. BOZ (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added by Theopolisme at 13:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposal at TAFI talk

A discussion that may interest you is occurring at Wikiproject TAFI's talk page at: Proposal: use Theo's Little Bot to automate the schedule and queue. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm

As usual, no warning from this user. Another breach of etiquette that I should brought up at the RFC/U, I suppose. BOZ (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Making forgetfulness a "breach of etiquette" worthy of an RFC/U...I'm afraid this won't have the effect you're looking for, and will make obvious to others you're trying to use every little excuse possible to portray me in a negative light rather than having a real case on me (just like resorting to 4 years old disputes and extra en:wiki activity), which effectively creates a more toxic environment than I could ever do merely with my deletionist approach. Posting a message on your own talk page with a vague threat and assuming my bad faith instead of coming to to me straight away to tell me "hey, you forgot to notify me", doesn't seem to me the attitude of someone who wants to round out the angles. For what it's worth I really did forget to notify you and will be careful as to the article creator for future AfDs, but given you always find your way to AfDs and I didn't hide it, this was really nothing.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to "forget" to notify the article creator just about every time you start an AFD, unless I am the one being forgetful here. But I accept your promise to be more careful in the future. BOZ (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Good stuff

Need to put this stuff to good use when I have more time.

• http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2013/05/24/the-new-dungeons-dragons-goes-to-print-in-ghosts-of-dragonspear-castle/
• http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110329#73644
• http://www.ofdiceandmen.com/
• http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlg45jhml/fan-favorite-dungeons-dragons-adventures-2/
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2012/08/20/whats-next-with-dungeons-and-dragons/#
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2013/05/24/after-a-year-playtesting-a-new-dungeons-dragons-whats-next/
• http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dnd/201204outsider
• http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4alum/2012Oct2

BOZ (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Restoring after AfD

Hi. While reviewing the dispute at Talk:List of Dragonlance characters, I saw this comment from you: "An article can even be restored after an AFD related to notability, if sufficient sourcing can be found after the fact, and contacting the closing administrator in that case is considered an obligatory courtesy, but even in that case contacting the administrator is not required". It is unclear to me if you mean unredirecting (AfD closed as merge or redirect), undeleting, or recreating. Would you clarify? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't really recall what I meant, and not totally sure what you're asking, but I suppose my comment would apply to any of those situations. I think it was more of a general hypothetical, and not really related to basis of this case, since none of the character articles there had ever been subject to AFD to my recollection. If I didn't answer your question in a helpful way, please let me know. BOZ (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll break it down into separate cases:

1. unredirecting after merge discussion closed as merge or redirect – This case was covered by the discussion and is clear.
2. unredirecting after AfD closed as merge or redirect
3. undeleting after AfD closed as delete
4. recreating after AfD closed as delete

If I understand your answer correctly, with "sufficient sourcing", you would do all four of those without contacting the closing admin? Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I would always contact the closing admin to restore an article after an AFD - whether the result was merge, redirect, or delete - if I found sufficient sources to do so. I was saying that contacting the closing admin before bringing an article back should be done as a courtesy, but that I don't understand it to be an absolute requirement. If I am wrong, and it is a requirement, then I concede to being wrong on that point, but like I say I would always extend that courtesy first. BOZ (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notifications are good. FYI, 2 is similar to 1 (WP:Non-deleting deletion discussions, WP:ND3), and 4 is covered by WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Darlene Pekul

Expanded Darlene Pekul wiki, but it's still mainly based on primary sources--there don't seem to be a lot of secondary sources about her work or life. Guinness323 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts!  :) BOZ (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for T-Dog (The Walking Dead)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. BOZ (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Vincent M. Ward

Vincent M. Ward is now INCUBATED. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Rick Remender

Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Rick Grimes article

Hey, BOZ. I just reverted an IP with regard to this. But the same person, using the same IP range, changed the infobox to present Rick's first appearance as being in Capes. Considering that I'm still not too familiar with the comic version of The Walking Dead and I don't know what the Capes comic is about (haven't Googled it yet), I was wondering if you, as someone significantly more familiar with The Walking Dead comics than I am, wouldn't mind looking into this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to confess, I'm not as familiar with the comics as I seem to be. Based on a Google search, it looks like he may have appeared in a TWD preview. While that would be worth noting in the article, we don't generally consider previews to be the first appearance of a comics character. You might want to inquire at WT:COMICS for further clarification. BOZ (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, BOZ. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Pyraimd articles

Boz, the Pyramid archives are no longer available online, and I no longer have access to them. So I'm afraid that I can't really help you out. Sorry.. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, man. I wonder why that is. I will have to ask around. BOZ (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move

Greetings, BOZ. I have volunteered to oversee and close the WP:RM discussion currently taking place at Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move. I have also agreed that, given the contentiousness of the issue, it would be good to have a panel of admins close the discussion as a committee. Your name was suggested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move, and my experience with your work leads me to think that you would be an excellent and appropriately uninvolved member of such a committee. My intention is to draft a proposed closure once the RM has run its course, and present it to you and the third admin on the committee (I intend to ask User:Kww also), for evaluation and revision. Please let me know if you are interested - it would be a great help. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration! It is going to be a busy weekend for me, with limited internet access, but I will certainly be available Monday and Tuesday. I am somewhat aware of the Bradley/Chelsea Manning issue, but not so much that I think it would affect my objectivity regarding reading consensus. Do what you need to do, and then let me know. :) BOZ (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will keep you posted. Cheers again! bd2412 T 14:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have created a notepad in my userspace where I have made a tally of !votes and put down some thoughts regarding the arguments raised thus far. So far this is very rough, and may contain some errors (User:SlimVirgin has made a tally that is somewhat different from mine, because she has discounted votes of apparent SPA accounts on both sides), but please feel free to make any comments, corrections, or adjustments that you think are merited. Of course, the discussion will not close until Thursday, August 29, at 15:30 UTC, so this is not an urgent matter. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I will have a read of that. It's long, but not as much as all of the discussion which has taken place so far.  :) I tried to read a big chunk of the discussion as it stood a couple of days ago, but even by then it had gotten pretty excessively long. BOZ (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry, it is also highly repetitive. I'll try to put together a highlight reel. bd2412 T 21:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up that this discussion will close in about 12 hours. My plan is to close it right on time, put the headers and footers on, and indicate that the result is PENDING. I have updated my sandbox draft with the latest votes, and a brief summary of the rationale behind each vote (I think most of these are self-explanatory, but let me know if my abbreviations are too cryptic). Whenever all three of us are available thereafter, we can discuss and determine what consensus there is, and what it means. Given the breadth of this discussion, and the passion on both sides, I think we should try to come to a unanimous agreement on the closure if at all possible. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, great! I will review your sandbox draft later today when it is more complete. BOZ (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind, my sandbox draft deliberately does not reach the ultimate question. I have tried to lay out the issues, and suggest the direction that I think they point, but I have tried to avoid making up my mind about anything while the discussion is still going on. bd2412 T 14:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The move discussion is now closed and I have moved it to Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request‎. I am open to discussing the closure anywhere that suits you and User:Kww. bd2412 T 15:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wherever is fine by me. I will probably be too busy to take a good look at anything at least the next five hours, but I will try to find a good chunk of free time this evening to get into it. BOZ (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Great - I will look forward to hearing your views, then. bd2412 T 16:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Send me an email through my user page, and I'll add Kww in the reply. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel

I'm having problems with this user, and I noticed the RFC/U is closed on this user, but I am quite frustrated with this user's hostility and wikihounding by merging newly split of pages, and then taking an aggressive and drastically incorrect application of policy to AFD or Merge them. This user is experienced and appears to be engaged in the exact same behavior that resulted in the first RFC/U. I was wondering what can be done, because I've asked him to not be so hostile and not make personal attacks, but he dismisses it and continues to become more involved in my work over the course of the month. The two pages Timelines of Gundam and Cultural impact of Gundam are fresh split off the Gundam franchise page, but this user also gone as call my removal of an improper Note-tag as vandalism.[6] The card game has persisted for 14 years with over 45 sets being released, is played internationally with currently ongoing and upcoming tournaments in Taiwan. Clearly, it meets N, but I am concerned about this behavior and I was hoping you could advise on what I should do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I am quite happy with not interacting with this user, and would prefer to keep it that way. However, I understand your plight, as I have been there before. While he does have some fairly extreme opinions, it may still be possible to reason with him, so I recommend starting with that. As you might see on the Summary section of the RFC/U, the closer recommended that those in the dispute with him should allow him time to reflect on the RfC; I would like to think we have done this, and that he has moved on to bigger and better things such as getting Panzer Dragoon to GA, and focusing on things he likes such as anime and video games. The closer recommended that that if the problems with him continue (and I see no reason to limit this to users who have had a problem with him in the past) that we approach AN or AN/I regarding his behavior, so that may ultimately be a recourse for you as well if you are unable to work out your differences with him. Hopefully that is not necessary, and this can be worked out between the two of you without having to resort to bringing him under community scrutiny again. You may want to consult Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more advice. BOZ (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, going to my talk page and "forbidding" me to interact with you is one thing, but then complaining about me to other users behind my back is certainly not what I would call civil. Other users notified you (here and here for example) that your preferred editing method of splitting sections might not be the best one and runs afoul of WP:AVOIDSPLIT, so my remarks are no news to you and complaining about it might turn to your disadvantage. I think I've been very patient with you when I posted a lengthy comment to your talk page to clarify to problems with your splits, and all I go for an answer was "no thanks" and mass reverts. Your refusal to cooperate is duly noted and I won't waste my time anymore. There are on-going AfD and merge discussions, you might not be happy about it, but you should let them unfold instead of stirring drama behind the scene, and wait for the result to see who's right or wrong.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking on the task with the other two admins in resolving the RM issue at the Bradley/Chelsea Manning article. I know that this was a difficult task and applaud all three of you. GregJackP Boomer! 04:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes thank you for your hard choice in closing the move discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - it was definitely not easy. BOZ (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Writing a piece about the Manning close

I'm writing a blog post about the Chelsea Manning decision, and as you're one of the closing administrators, I wanted to give you the opportunity to review it for factual inaccuracies. You don't seem to have "e-mail this user" enabled, so if you don't mind dropping me a line via the e-mail from my userpage, I'll send you a draft - I'd rather not circulate it publicly prior to publication. I'm intending to go to print with it early this week to an audience of 5,000 or so (though my last piece on Manning - unrelated to Wikipedia - has 9,000 direct page views). The piece is rather harshly critical, but I would like to be absolutely sure that it is not inaccurate in any way. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Email?

Hi, I notice that you don't have 'Email this user' enabled here, and so I wonder if you could do me a favor and email me so that we can have a private chat?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

List of multimedia franchises

You might be interested in this article that I have just begun - I intend to create as comprehensive a list as possible of true multimedia franchises (i.e., franchises that have several different works in each of several different media). Cheers! bd2412 T 19:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty cool, thanks for letting me know!  :) BOZ (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked around quite a bit, and was really surprised that we don't already have such a thing. It should be a mainstay. bd2412 T 21:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! OTOH, we need South Park and X-Files. BOZ (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are probably a dozens more that are needed. I haven't even added Indiana Jones! bd2412 T 21:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Highbeam

Sorry but my highbeam account expired some months ago but I forgot to update my page.--Moroboshi (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Pyramid online reviews

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Alan De Smet's talk page.
Message added 03:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFAR:Manning naming dispute - Formally added as party

The drafting arbitrators have requested that you be formally added as a party to the Manning naming dispute case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Now we know why we are parties

The drafting admin is proposing that we violated BLP as a "finding of fact".—Kww(talk) 06:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:BOZ and User:Kww, I would be inclined to revisit the thirty day limitation, and (since it doesn't seem like any relevant change will occur in the next few days) roll it back to a "four-week" limitation, which would allow the new move discussion to commence tomorrow. bd2412 T 18:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any desire to stir the pot: everyone expects to start in three days, and two days isn't going to make any substantial difference.—Kww(talk) 18:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That is true. I would like to head off any dramatic efforts to disrupt the launch of the new discussion at its scheduled time, but I may be overthinking things. bd2412 T 19:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned, unless you think he may be seeking some kind of sanction against us? Or to overturn the no consensus before the new discussion starts. BOZ (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

He's proposed "vacating the decision" as one of his remedies. I'm concerned about people going "look ... even they thought their decision was invalid, because as soon as Kirill threatened to vacate it, they caved." I don't think that's true for any of us, and I have no desire to send that message.—Kww(talk) 19:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I stand by our decision. I am concerned that some effort will be made to impose a fiat solution on this matter, which will backfire dramatically. I am not alone in having this concern. bd2412 T 19:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm confident that Salvio and Newyorkbrad see the problems with that, and I believe that most of Arbcom will as well. As far as Kirill goes, I wonder if I would get anywhere claiming that once I was added as a party, Kirill had to recuse himself due to this?—Kww(talk) 20:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful. bd2412 T 20:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Didn't think so. The way those things work, I will remember his efforts to ban me long than he does.—Kww(talk) 20:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

How about now? They are one vote away from unleashing a new level of chaos. bd2412 T 13:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way (@BOZ and Kww), since there appears to be some confusion as to whether we, as the closing administrators, found a consensus that the original title was not a BLP violation, I propose that we issue the following addendum further explaining our determination on this matter.

Of the approximately 335 editors who expressed an opinion of some sort (and of the 150 editors who supported "Chelsea Manning" as the page title) 37 specifically identified WP:BLP as a basis for that title. This included several editors who alluded to the "spirit" of BLP, as opposed to the content of the rule itself, inherently acknowledging an absence of mandating language in the letter of the policy. By comparison, a far larger number (about a hundred) cited MOS:IDENTITY. A number of editors who supported reverting to "Bradley Manning" also made specific and well-reasoned arguments as to why they believed BLP did not mandate the contested title change. Because 37 editors asserted that BLP mandated a certain title, and 170+ editors asserted that the proposed title was not mandated, there was a clear consensus against the proposition that BLP mandates the title in question. The fact that approximately 110 editors raised other arguments in favor of that certain title does nothing to upset that consensus.

Cheers! bd2412 T 02:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time we've had to share internal logic, and my logic didn't really work that way. MOS:IDENTITY really is rooted in WP:BLP: we tend to honor people's self-identification because that builds on WP:BLP's foundation of respect for the individuals covered. However, WP:BLP does specifically state "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves". That leads me to weigh an argument of "follow secondary sources" about a living person more heavily than an argument based on "what the subjects have published about themselves". So, my books it was wasn't 170 to 37, it was more like 170 vs. (somewhere between 37 and 137, with the difference relying on a weaker argument). Same result, but a slight different path to get there.—Kww(talk) 03:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we are better off letting the decision lay as it is, then. bd2412 T 03:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's required: if all three of us arrived at the same conclusion, the fact that we used different paths to get there isn't very important. Concurring decisions are very common in courts (and Arbcom, for that matter).—Kww(talk) 04:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my lack of response; I am just now noticing this. Where are we currently lying with all of this? I see a fairly favorable result regarding our decision on the proposed decision page, and I also see no consensus to prevent a new move discussion from beginning tomorrow. Please let me know if I am missing something as I have not been following the ArbCom case with any closeness. BOZ (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that one arbitrator is all alone in wanting to call the close into question, and that the move discussion will begin as proposed. bd2412 T 18:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like all is well, then. :) BOZ (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

BOZ, I've been reviewing whether the editors named in the proposed decision for this case have been participating in the case or not. I noticed you had not participated on the PD talk page, but had participated in this discussion here on your talk page. I also noticed you said you had "not been following the ArbCom case with any closeness". I will try and ensure you are notified by the clerks if necessary if there are changes affecting you, though I see you have already asked Kww and bd2412 to keep you updated. In the absence of any comments, we will presume you are aware of and don't object to the decision - if you do wish to contest any part of it, the place to do so is the proposed decision talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll have to admit to not even being sure of what my involvement is supposed to be, or what anyone is expecting of me. :) BOZ (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Basilisk

Hi. I noticed that you split the earlier history of Basilisk (fantasy role play) to Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons). It now looks like a cut-and-paste move. I am aware of the dispute that has included reverting and a page move, but I don't understand how the history split helps. Would you explain? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It seemed to be a different topic now, so I split the edit history. Should I have done something different to retain the edit history attribution? BOZ (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see why it was necessary.

1. A non-history split (WP:Splitting) would be appropriate if Basilisk (fantasy role play) and Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons) were separately notable topics that deserve independent articles. You redirected Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons) to Basilisk (fantasy role play).
2. A history split would be used to separate loosely-related and/or independently-developed topics, such as if someone overwrote the article with a full page about the Harry Potter version. As far as I know, completely overwriting an article (excluding redirecting) is usually vandalism and rarely useful.

Neither of these seems to be the case. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to undo it, I'll leave that up to you. I separated them in case one day the could be separate topics again, but if you feel that day will never come I won't dispute it with you. BOZ (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Will you undo it yourself? The established procedure is WP:Splitting, and I would have preferred if you had waited until that day when separate articles could be justified. Flatscan (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

My request was fulfilled at the WP:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What do we do if we want to merge it into a D&D specific article later? It may be sooner, rather than later. BOZ (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the goal. Here are a few possibilities off the top of my head:

1. Basilisk (fantasy role play), Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons): Move back over redirect, restore relevant text from the page history
2. Basilisk (fantasy role play), Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons): WP:Splitting
3. Basilisk (fantasy role play), entry in a D&D monster index: WP:Copying within Wikipedia, elements from WP:Splitting and WP:Merging also relevant

Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I will look into it more when we are ready to do it. BOZ (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Breeze Barton merge

As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton, you may be interested to learn that I have opened a discussion to propose merging the article's contents to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Feel free to comment. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
2. IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
3. Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
4. Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
5. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).
7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
8. The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo would be better for the Rebecca Housel Infobox in this discussion? If you are unable to, I understand; you don't have to reply to this message. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list.
Message added 12:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

AFD-related response

I have seen the link where earlier I found that the pages for the Savage Land's races was deleted and redirected. I wasn't informed of this discussion, but it took me awhile to re-add the Savage Land races to the Savage Land page. When it comes to any Transformers info, it would take a lot of time to recreate Silverbolt's page since the character was a popular Aerialbot in the G1 reality and a Maximal in the Beast Wars reality. Rtkat3 (talk) 3:40, October 24 2013 (UTC)

If you need any content from deleted articles restores for the purpose of a merge, just let me know. BOZ (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Atlantis

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at NukeofEarl's talk page.
Message added 14:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent restorations of deleted editing history

I have some comments and questions about your recent actions at GURPS Super Scum.

1. What about this deleted edit is worth restoring? When I saw your first restoration of it, I assumed it was a mistake, but that is clearly not so, as you have restored it again. It is beyond me to see what about it anyone could think worth restoring, but evidently you see some value in it, and I will be very grateful if you can enlighten me the matter.
2. Since you have been an administrator for some time, I am surprised that you don't know the accepted ways of dealing with a deletion you disagree with, starting with asking the deleting administrator about it, and if necessary continuing to Deletion review. Indeed, as far as the first revision is concerned, you have twice restored content which has been deleted, and the second time it had been deleted by two different administrators, so you cannot possibly have thought that your action was uncontroversial.
3. Are you unaware of Wikipedia's policy on wheel warring? On the face of it, it seems that you must be, since your second restoration reverted a revert of an administrative action of your own, but I ask in case you have some justification in mind that I haven't thought of. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson, I must disagree with your assessment. I understand the GFDL to require that every edit should be retained in the edit history of an article unless it contains libelous statements or violates privacy, copyright, or some comparable legal regime. I vaguely recall having seen at least one proposal to remove "nonsense" edits in article edit histories, but I am certain that such a proposal has not been endorsed by the community. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

BD2412, no, that's not the case. Only content that has been retained need have its history retained. If a contribution was reverted and did not appear in the final product, no credit need be given.—Kww(talk) 14:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a policy that says that? I can think of many reasons why we would want to keep edit histories reflecting material that is no longer in an existing article. For example, just to keep a record of what has been removed, so that we can say that there is consensus against having such material; to have the text handy if its removal is contested; to demonstrate previous vandalism by an author, or to show that the original author may be a sockpuppet based on writing patterns; to show material that may have influenced the text of later versions of an article, even if that material is not immediately recognizable in the later version. bd2412 T 14:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that there was never a reason to keep such data, just that it isn't mandated by the GFDL. The GFDL only applies to giving credit for things you have released.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There are thousands of pages which have been deleted, and for which a new page under the same title has been created. It is not by any means usual practice to restore the history of a deleted page just because a new page under the same title exists. In fact, the logic of BD2412's contention is that we can't delete any page, since the issues he/she mentions apply just as much with or without the creation of a new page under the same title, but it is clear that "we can never delete any page contains libelous statements or violates privacy, copyright, or some comparable legal regime" is neither policy nor common practice. Also, there is nothing whatsoever in the GFDL that requires the publisher to permanently maintain any copy of either the published work or anything else related to it on their website, or anywhere else. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson, I think we may be talking past each other at this point, since I have not made any comment about articles that have been deleted and not thereafter restored. As a practical matter, there may be good reasons to restore the deleted edit history of a page that is later recreated. For example, if an article is deleted because the subject is not notable, and the subject later clearly becomes notable, and a new article is created, then it is useful for the average editor to have access to the earlier versions because they may contain information and references with which the new article can be improved. bd2412 T 14:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is that relevant to either of the questions I raised? (1) Does it have any connection at all with the first edit, which had been deleted eight years before the creation of a new article, and which has no connection at all to any of the later content? Of course "there may be good reasons to restore the deleted edit history of a page that is later recreated", but what I was asking about was what good reason there is to restore this particular edit. (2) Does it have any bearing on my questions about wheel warring and restoring a deleted article without consultation? The second restoration was not restoration of deleted content of an article which had been recreated, but simple restoration of an article which had been speedily deleted (despite the misleading log entry saying "restoring edit history"). JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the text of the edit to which you point is in the current GURPS Super Scum. Even if the exact language was not, the current version might still reflect the influence of the previous language. Consider this edit - the language introduced there no longer exists in the article, but should we therefore delete this edit from the article's edit history? As for the restoration of the article, I would consider the speedy deletion of a page to be a "bold" move, subject to reversion and discussion, in accordance with the WP:BRD cycle. If one administrator makes a judgment call and speedies a page, another can restore it, and the restoration signals that the restoring administrator has also made a judgment call that the subject should not be deleted (or, at least, should not be deleted without discussion). This does not mean that the restored material constitutes a perfect article; it may be an unreferenced sub-stub for a subject that the restoring administrator believes is capable of being improved and expanded to a state where it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. If admin A speedies and Admin B restores, the next step in the process is to have a discussion, not to speedy the page again. bd2412 T 15:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see any value in restoring the 2005 version of the article: it was deleted, and should have remained so.—Kww(talk) 15:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Absent a discussion on the matter, whether a poor first draft can be made article-worthy is a matter of opinion. It seems to me that the better practice in such a case is to have the discussion, which is usually what we do when a deletion is contested. bd2412 T 15:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, I honestly did not think at the time that there was anything controversial in restoring the edit history. Upon reflection, I agree that it would have been better to contact you before restoring – I do my best to get along with my fellow administrators and users, and do not want to step on any toes or offend anyone, so please accept my apologies if I have done so. If you feel there is a valid reason to delete any portion of the edit history of the article, I will not restore it again. BOZ (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Curious indeed," to satisfy your curiosity

Re: your comments to Dord. It does seem strange, and I neglected to say *why* I was going over the administrators list. I was doing so to pick an administrator to request an unblock. I chose the letter "B" randomly, and noticed Boz there. T-Boz is a singer in the group TLC that performed at the AMAs two days ago. So I clicked on Boz, and there you were reporting me. It does seem against the odds. CC. By the way, Boz, if you want to undertake to consider unblocking me, you can read my latest appeal "new evidence" here[7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.37.22 (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Community consensus seems to prefer having you blocked, so I see no reason for me to go against that. BOZ (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If by "community" you mean the blockaholics and dramamaniacs at WP:AN/ANI engaging in repetitive and non-policy "vote him off the island" adhoc unpopularity contests, then okay on that part, but no there was never any consensus, it was like 19 to 5. CC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.37.22 (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Corrections to Bob Bledsaw article

Hello BOZ,

I'm the grandson of Bob Bledsaw and would like for you to correct some of the errors in your latest expansion of his "Career" section. The last line of the second paragraph states that Judges Guild went out of business in 1983. This is not true, as it was on hiatus until 1999 and is still open today. In the last sentence of the third paragraph, you state that he formed Adventure Games Publishing with James Mishler. This is also not true, as James created that company himself. The only role my grandfather played with that company was he granted James a license to use Judges Guild intellectual property in Mishler's products. Hope this helps. Rbledsaw (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 10:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I may not have much to add, but I will probably copy part of my statement to the evidence page. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey there. I didn't want to get involved in all of that really, but I read your stance there and I agree, so I thought that I'd point all of this out to you which is relevant when you look at this. Thought it could bolster your claim. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Right - I forgot about his previous account. Maybe or maybe not it will matter to the arbs, but I will add that link to the evidence page. BOZ (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, BOZ. I just would like to notice as someone previously involved in many arbitrations... Right now, Nightscream is looking at desysop. However, bringing other people in the case (your Evidence) and focusing on edit warring may result in Nightscream also receiving 1RR restriction, as currently suggested by Beeblebrox at Workshop. So, this is entirely up to you, but I do not think so at the moment [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I really don't have anything more to add to his case; I guess it is up to him how/if he wants to respond. BOZ (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hot off the presses

Here it is User:BOZ/Paul Hume (game designer)! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hah, thanks man!  :) I have some work to do on that one, and like I say I have a great source to add. TPS are welcome to help out. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Thanks, man!  :) BOZ (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Argento Surfer (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!

Hah, thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Death Locket

Thanks for the help. I have since read up on correct procedure.--Centrepull (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem! :) The idea is, when content is moved to a new article name, we want to keep the edit history for proper attribution - when you do a cut and paste, you lose that info, so we want to avoid doing that. BOZ (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wilf K. Bickhaus

Userfication is not a problem; I was going to userfy it over to your page but I see you've already done so. Wizardman 18:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks man - I didn't see a response from you, so I took that as no objection. I should have waited a bit longer. BOZ (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Beth Sotelo

What does "draft:" mean? That editors are planning on recreating it, but want to make sure it has the sources first?

Well, if so, there are two pics to choose from. Which do you think would look better?

Merry Christmas, buddy! :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

And totally Merry Christmas on my end! It is a genuine pleasure to work with such wonderful, responsible and knowledgable longtime colleagues as yourself (and the Nifty Nightscream up there as well)! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from me, too! Hekerui (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Was the nearest on the list to Christmas Cake. I'll take any seasons greetings going :) Neonchameleon (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holiday season....

	Cheers, pina coladas all round!
	Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Merry Christmas, BOZ! Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to you as well! Web Warlock (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas...

...and a Happy New Year!! Drow69 (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Thanks BOZ, and a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This 'n' that

First of all, Merry Christmas to one of my great longtime colleagues!

Secondly, I did see the thing going on with User:Nightscream, and I wasn't sure what I could do. I considered adding my thoughts as a character witness to his dedication and his enormous numbers of valuable edits and photos, but I wasn't sure it would make any difference nor how the arbitrators would react to something like that. If you think this would help, I'd be glad to add that.

Either way, enjoy the rest of the holiday season. With great regards, Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Photo Discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, BOZ. Thanks for participating in the discussion. Sorry to bug you again, but a fourth photo has been added to the discussion since you voiced your opinion. Could you post again to indicate whether your previously-stated preference remains the same? Thanks, and have a Happy New Year! Nightscream (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Thanks for the christmas wishes! As it is technically new year here, I think I get to be the first to wish you a happy new year! :) - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated, and Happy New Year to you as well.  :) BOZ (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hierarchy of angels

Happy new year! I recently turned this from a disambiguation page into an article, and added a section on role-playing games in the process. Please feel free to add any info you might have handy about hierarchies of angels in role playing, or for that matter in comic books and other fictional realms. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!  :) I don't like to go into too much detail about fictional subjects on articles about real-world topics (including religion, mythology, etc) for various reasons. But thanks for setting that up! I do like to read about topics other than the kind that I write about.  :) BOZ (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year BOZ!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello BOZ: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 09:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hey, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your request for undeletion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Cam Banks. JohnCD (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Will try to work on Draft:Cam Banks later today. BOZ (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Pyramid Magazine

I had a look to see what they'd reviewed. Apparently they stopped reviews four years ago :( Neonchameleon (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it was somewhere around the first year or two of D&D fourth edition as I recall. That was when they stopped the "online articles" version and switched to a packaged PDF version. At least, that's as far as I understand. BOZ (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For help with The Dresden Files Roleplaying Game Neonchameleon (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris Seeman

I am pretty sure that Chris Seeman the game designer and Christopher Seeman the theology professor are two different people. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure! This link I took from this search begs to differ, unless I am just missing something. BOZ (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, having seen this and this, I stand corrected. bd2412 T 21:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries - I mean, I had to check it out to believe it too. :) BOZ (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you give Gary Con another look?

Thanks for the tweak on the DYK. I've built up the page somewhat using found sources. Really could use more reliable secondaries. BusterD (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. I have been working with Shannon Appelcline's "Designers & Dragons" for a few months now, and I don't think the first edition mentions Gary Con. I have seen a preview of the revised edition, and I don't remember if he talks about the convention, but I think he does mention Gygax Magazine and their new company. BOZ (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

98.220.109.211

Hey, man. You might want to deal with this vandal-only IP user that you blocked recently. This is the diff he wrote shortly after you blocked him. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I did see that, but I'm not sure what more I can do with the IP, given that I have blocked it for six months. If they continue to be disruptive on their talk page, I can semi-protect it again. BOZ (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's one guy using this IP. This guy has a history of vandalizing and seems to enjoy doing that for sure, based what he said on his talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Asking your help

Hi, BOZ, Hope you're well. I have an admin-related question, and I thought before opening anything formal I could try to keep things from escalating by getting a knowledgeable opinion.

I've started at RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists‎#Request for Comment. It's to solicit comments on whether to make a guideline change. I think any guideline/policy change is fairly serious and one that should probably be undertaken with care. The RfC asks whether a specific change should be made. If editors don't believe so, then there's no sense in jumping to the details and specifics of how to implement what by all accounts would be a difficult amendment to craft.

I've just posted it today, and within a short time another editor has come there with no opinion, pro or con, on the RfC question itself. All he's doing is ragging on how even asking the question is "a waste of time" — deliberately trying to cut short any discussion whatsoever and basically saying I don't have a right to ask the question.

Would it be possible for an admin to remove these extraneous comments, his and mine, since they have nothing to do with discussing the question and seem designed to prevent anyone from discussing it? Thanks for any advice. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that I can, or should, remove his comments unless he is being deliberately disruptive. The best way I know of to deal with someone who is not trying to help is to not reply to them, if possible. BOZ (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

He's being deliberately disruptive — he's not said a word about the topic, and all he does is keep repeating, in essence, "What a stupid question." Since this muddies the page and would certainly prevent any sensible editor form wanting to wade into the RfC now, it looks like disruption is the only thing going on. You've known me long enough to know I wouldn't ask for help lightly. (And I'm talking about removing both of our comments unrelated to "agree" or "oppose".) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I could probably hide the comments if they are really going nowhere fast, but I do not think I should delete them unless they are outright abusive. BOZ (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you think best. He's not being abusive, but clearly disruptive, and seemed intent on turning the conversation into a dick-swinging contest for its own sake. The whole think left me perplexed. It certainly wasn't constructive in the least. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

IP that may need to be blocked

Hi. I think this user may be in need of a block. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the talk page; let me know if the issues persist after your warning. BOZ (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. This IP has been given numerous warnings, include two final warnings for adding unsourced material. He/she recently made this edit. Can you please block it? Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Those other warnings are pretty stale and may not be regarding the same issue, but I will give another warning and if that is ignored then I think we have legitimate cause for a block. While this IP has been in use for a year and a half with a clean block log, it is not in heavy use so we have no idea if the same person has been using it so a block may be pointless - and for that matter, even a warning may be pointless. BOZ (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I put up the article before I saw the page that now has my apology: Draft_talk:S._John_Ross_(writer)#I_didn.27t_mean_to_step_on_anybody.27s_toes. Sorry about that. Alden Loveshade (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help on S. John Ross (game designer). If I work on any of the articles you have in drafts, what's the best way for me to do that so I don't make extra work for you or another admin? Alden Loveshade (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

re: William H. Keith's page

Hi, Boz. I'm WHK1streader (William H. Keith's first reader, A.K.A. proofreader, inhouse editor, office manager, webster, bookkeeper, chief cook, bottle washer, and personal partner.

He and I are both a little concerned that there are now some *huge* paragraphs about his brother Andrew's work on his page; especially since his bibliography is so long to begin with. I'm considering creating, and linking to, another page just for his bibliography.

I'd like your input on the idea of creating a page for J. Andrew Keith, and putting the games information there (in his honor), with a link back to Bill's page, and an external link to his memorial page on the web.

Looking forward to hearing from you. You can contact either/both of us directly by using the links from his web site (navigation feedback, bottom of home page).

Thanks! WHK1streader (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me! I did do some work on William H. Keith, Jr.'s page last year a few months ago. I am sorry to hear that J. Andrew Keith has passed away; if you start a page for him I will undoubtedly have some information to add to it. I do support the creation of a page for him. One concern I had was that William's page was unsourced before I added to it, so if you can find any sources for Andrew's page before you write it that would help to keep it from being deleted (information from an obituary and/or memorial page would be a good start). BOZ (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Boz, I've started a page for Andrew Keith. It's still in the draft phase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WHK1streader/J._Andrew_Keith I have transferred your text from Bill's page, almost verbatim. Feel free to contribute to it, either before or after it goes live, and please give me your feedback on it, if you would be so kind. ~ Brea — Preceding unsigned comment added by WHK1streader (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about User:WHK1streader/J. Andrew Keith - I will have a look. I think there may be more information about him in my source, so when I get a chance I will have a look at that and see what I can do to improve the draft before publishing it as an article. BOZ (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I did some work on J. Andrew Keith and moved it into article space; take a look! BOZ (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Benja the Beauty Boy

Hi. Do you really think a 24 block will have any effect on a user who commits persistent vandalism sporadically, with spans of days in between each act of vandalism? Nightscream (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If smaller blocks don't work, we can always go for bigger ones down the line. The hope is always that the user gets the message before we get to that point. BOZ (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@BOZ: FYI: you added a note to AN/I referencing me which was quickly removed diff w/o comment. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - will restore that; I think it was removed in error. BOZ (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for saving deletion

Could you userfy the last version of Leuren Moret? Bachcell (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You might want to ask the closing admin, Mkdw, since that article was deleted after its fifth AFD. BOZ (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It has been userfied to User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret. Mkdw^talk 21:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

thank you Bachcell (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Al Plastino

This is a neutral notice to a WikiProject Comics member of a discussion at Talk:Al Plastino and an edit-war over fringe science and family/friend editing of Al Plastino. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, where's my 10-foot pole...  ;) BOZ (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I am constantly amazed by all the work you continue to do here! Web Warlock (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on a source for comics articles

Hi. Your opinion could be very useful in this discussion. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Middlefaire Edit War

I don't want to get into an edit war with another user, so as you're an admin I'd like your help. There's a new festival planned for a renaissance fair site that I added to List of Renaissance fairs; another editor removed the notice, a link, and the dates. If you have time, please see here. If you're tied up and don't have a chance to check this in the next day or so, I understand, and can ask another admin to check for me. Thanks for your help! Alden Loveshade (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

re Thermal Man

No it can't be merged, it was written by a banned user (trust me, or proof available on request) and the material is not usable. (If the material was usable, there'd be no reason to merge it rather than keeping it as a standalone article, as it's a large article.) If this wasn't clear, that's fine, it's not possible to know everything. I move a two-sentence stub into the target article, so if you would be kind enough to delete the page to hide the page history and recreate it as a redirect with the content #REDIRECT [[List of Marvel Comics characters: T#Thermal Man]], that'd be great.

If you restored it because you have a philosophical problem with deleting a swath of good material, that's different, and we can talk about that. But you're a cop, not a judge, and the rule is clear. Herostratus (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough – yeah, I do have a philosophical problem with deleting good material, but I will do as you suggest with the redirect. Shame that we can't really use it just because of who added it. BOZ (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that it is a shame. I also hate to see good material deleted. Situations like this are a bad dilemma and there's no good outcome. But my take on it is that our governance is weak enough as it is. In fact many people do evade bans I assume. But we have to hold the line that, when we do have proof of block evasion, that it can't stand. Otherwise bans -- and even blocks -- come to mean almost nothing. And, aside from persuasion, blocks and bans are practically the only tool we have to maintain some kind of reasonable order. Herostratus (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Nightscream. I would prefer to remain neutral on this one, because I protected the article due to the edit-warring, and because I may need to use my tools if anyone decides to cause further troubles once a consensus is reached. BOZ (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Good idea. Nightscream (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

George MacDonald (game designer)?

In edits like this one, you seem to be linking George MacDonald to George MacDonald (game designer) which is a redirect to a list ... which doesn't have George MacDonald on it? I am not sure how that helps anyone. Can you explain? --GRuban (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I am going to expand that into an article in the near future and just wanted to set up the links ahead of time. I am also going to look at the articles that link to him to see if they have any sources I can use when building his article. BOZ (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Veterans Today

I am quite puzzled by your deletion of the userspace version of Veterans Today on March 24, on the grounds that "no work had been done on it." after a single month in user space. I see no provision of Deletion Policy that permits you that to be done by speedy ; surely that's a decision for MfD--and MfD normally allows for at least 6 months and more often a year. Did it rather mean you were deciding to delete by G10, considering it had been deleted from mainspace as G10? (Not that I think the G10 was at all valid, nor the previous deletion as A7. I intend to pursue that with the admins concerned.) DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I deleted because a user had asked me to restore it so he could work on it - he did no work on it, and there were concerns about BLP issues so I felt it was safest to return it to a deleted state. I have no objection to you or anyone else restoring it. BOZ (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you all talking about User:Redhanker/sandbox/Veterans Today which doesn't seem to have been touched since February 2013? I found it in a Google search and am taking it to MfD. Boz, please ping me if you reply. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, we were previously discussing Veterans Today, which I had userfied upon request, and on second thought after a month of inactivity I returned to a deleted state. Not sure how that user page relates to the original article but I will note that Redhanker also edited the original article for what it's worth. BOZ (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscientists

By creating the new category - but saying that nothing could be put in it until subcategories were created, but saying that everything must be removed from Category:Pseudoscientists immediately, you have effectively blown up all the work put into categorization before letting it be rebuilt from the rubble.

It is almost impossible to find out what used to be in a category, so slow, careful guidance is needed if you wish to not throw out years of categorization work. You did not do this in your closing decision

A sensible way would have been either to leave the category in place during the recategorization, or keep a list of pages to be categorized. Now? Information has been lost that will have to be ereconstructed. Please behave in a more sensible manner in future. I agree recategorization is reasonable, but there was no reason whatsoever to do it in a manner that basically deleted the work needed to find pages tat should be categorized into the new tree. Hell, they could have been auto-moved into the container category temporarily with a deadline to recategorize. That the most destructive abnd stupid option - to blow the category up and start over - was taken shows a severe lack of judgement.

I don't think there was any malice here, but you need to be far more careful in future. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Pseudoscientists

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Pseudoscientists. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. This is a limited reconsideration of one element of the decision, not a call for a reversal of the entire renaming. Mangoe (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Cerebro

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at NukeofEarl's talk page.
Message added 21:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Perhaps you can work this into the article:

Cerebro is a piece of psychotronics developed by Professor Xavier in order to magnify a person's innate telepathic powers and so allow him or her to locate and track mutants anywhere in the her to locate and track mutants anywhere in the world. Cerebro made its first appearance in 1964, in X-Men #7, where it appeared as a spiderlike, Kirby-esque system of machines and wires that transmitted extrasensory data into Professor Xavier's private desk in another room. There it was described as “a complex E.S.P. machine” (XM 160).

It would then make multiple central appearances, including one when the XMen were recreated in 1975 in GiantSize XMen #1;there Cerebro senses and locates a supermutant across the globe, which turns out to be a living island named Krakoa... By the time of the high-tech X-Men movies of the new millennium, Cerebro has morphed into a futuristic superroom into which Professor Xavier wheels over a bridge in order to don the helmet that would magnify his already extraordinary telepathic powers and project the results onto the skull-like internal walls of the room.

Jeffrey J. Kripal, Mutants and Mystics: Science Fiction, Superhero Comics, and the Paranormal (2011), p. 208.

[I]t is also worth remembering that Cerebro has sometimes accidentally picked up mutant aliens...

Jeffrey J. Kripal, Mutants and Mystics: Science Fiction, Superhero Comics, and the Paranormal (2011), p. 209.

Cheers! bd2412 T 23:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I will take a look into that tomorrow or over the weekend. BOZ (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

I didn't realize how many there were. Let me combine them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You know how you sometimes start with one random thing you find here and you keep finding more problems and problems? I should know better by now. :-/ -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Alice Kurashige note

Thanks. I've been a bit busy and will get to the article when I have time.--Aichik (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem, good luck with User:Aichik/Alice K. Kurashige. :) BOZ (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Kent Farrington

Hello. I saw at User talk:Jclemens that you responded for them, and they are on a wikibreak, so I thought I would ask you here. Do you know what the page looked like when it was deleted? He is one of the highest-ranked show jumpers in the world...Zigzig20s (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It was one sentence long, and completely unsourced. If you believe you can do something with it, I can restore it for you. BOZ (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the article

I'm referring to the Heaven Sent Gaming article in DRV currently. I (obviously) think my assessment of "overturn to 'no consensus' and move to mainspace" on that particular DRV to be correct, I wasn't involved in the original AfD, and the only other participants in that discussion at the moment are users that voted in the original AfD. I would like to know what another outside onlooker would think about that discussion? I'm new here, so maybe I'm reading it wrong, and I'm trying to be as neutral as possible on the topic. But with the swarm of AfD-ers I'm concerned about the conversation being dominated by obvious "endorsers", since the AfD had their desired outcome in the first place. Again, thank you for restoring the article, it was much appreciated. XiuBouLin (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem! I was watching that DRV page anyway (and 2 others), so when I saw your request I figured I would help out. BOZ (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. XiuBouLin (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice find!

Nice job rescuing De Profundis (role-playing game) from oblivion. How did you find it? I wonder how many other decent articles languish in inactive user sandboxes... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hah... that's exactly what I was wondering, which is why I searching.  ;) I believe I found it using a search something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns2=1&ns4=1&ns118=1&search=role-playing+game BOZ (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This rescue idea warrants a wikiproject of its own, or at least a task force. Or a discussion thread somewhere... wonderful idea. PS. If you reply here, please echo me, or I'll probably miss it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Refmining

Hi BOZ, I'm in the process of writing an article for the WikiProject Video Games Newsletter on the topic of "Refmining" (the positive counterpart to WP:REFSPAM). Your efforts with Dragon have kind of gone under the radar, but I see evidence that people have noticed them (even if they don't know it was you who added them) and that they are rather inspirational. They definitely were for me. I was hoping to get some input from you on the upcoming article. Would you be interested in contributing to the article? If so, I'd ask you to insert your views where I've indicated in my draft here. Please feel free to review what I've written and give me feedback if you think I should change anything.

As you can see I've also contacted User:Ylee for his fantastic work adding a variety of refs from Computer Gaming World in the same manner, and (perhaps a bit self-congratulatorily) I've also mentioned my own efforts with Famitsu review score citations. Do you know of any other editors who have taken similar actions and who should be mentioned? -Thibbs (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the kudos, and considering me in your writing. :) I read part of this and will do my best to take a better look at this later today. BOZ (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• That looks great, BOZ! Thanks for your help. The article will most likely appear in the Q4 Newsletter (due out in January), so stay tuned. -Thibbs (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem, and thanks for including me.  :) BOZ (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Jason Stryker

Just so you know this character was recently adapted in the All-New X-Men comics as the new leader of the Purifiers. However I would agree to keep the redirect to X2 (film) for now as he has not made a big enough presence in the comics just yet. 24.21.40.237 (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Those issues are included in the 4th collected edition. -24.21.40.237 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Creature of Havoc

Hey BOZ, just a polite heads up re: Creature of Havoc & a somewhat overzealous fan. The rationale for the removal of an edit is at Talk and I'm going to upgrade the article shortly, but I'd like to head off an edit war if possible. Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say you are right to remove that, and if they edit war without discussing they can be blocked. BOZ (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately said user has, under a new IP, reverted again, and been rather blunt on the Talk Page. They have stated they are not interested in discussion. Can you kindly assist? Asgardian (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BOZ, but there's also this ([9]) and the blind reverts on FF articles ([10]). Sorry. Asgardian (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. BOZ (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

And trying to circumvent the block : [[11]]. Asgardian (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If they are continuing to avoid the block rather than discuss with you, you may want to take this up at WP:AN/I so that more admins and editors can keep an eye on this situation. Some people have no intention of listening to advice. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. The editor is apparently now just being disruptive, reverting Creature of Havoc once again. Regards Asgardian (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks – I will try to keep an eye on that, although I will be busy for the next few days. On a related side note, I have been working with a very excellent source for RPGs. The book does provide a good amount of coverage for Games Workshop, and therefore it does have a few things to say about Fighting Fantasy. I will definitely try to find some time to add it to the appropriate articles, although it only covers a small minority of books in the series. BOZ (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

BOZ, that's great. I realize many of these articles won't be novels given the lack of sources, but if we can find a few to justify their existamce then that's a big help. I like to think FF was relevant at the time as it was a ground-breaking form of recreational literature. Although now anachronistic, it had its time in the sun and I think that's noteworthy. And thanks for all your help on the other matter. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

In even better news, I realized that I have another source I have used a lot, which does cover each of the FF books from #1 through #41! Some are the briefest of mentions, while others have enough material to make at least a paragraph. I will add a few now, and do more when I have the time. :) BOZ (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

BOZ, something else just ocurred to me. Like myself, you probably have the Limited Edition hardcover version of The Warlock of Firetop Mountain. There would have to be a few gems in there - straight from the horse's mouth. Asgardian (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't! The only FF book I ever had was Starship Traveller... which I must have "played" dozens of times. :) BOZ (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

In that case, may I recommend City of Thieves (play on a rainy day); Deathtrap Dungeon (play at night); House of Hell (storm and night); Creature of Havoc and of course the Sorcery! saga. Enjoy. Asgardian (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael P. Price

Hello. I am not sure why you don't have me listed in the Designers that worked on D&D and AD&D. I see that you have my brother Pat listed. Please add my name to your list. I was the 3rd game designer ever hired at TSR right after Dave Cook and Tom Moldvay.

Thanks,

Michael P. Price — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:4380:104:B8B7:D03D:C256:DDB3 (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me! Unfortunately right now, we don't have any sourced material to build an article for you, and writing an article about a living person with no sources is likely to get deleted. I will do what I can to find some sources to start an article with, but I am pretty busy for the next few days. Do you know of any sources I could use to get started? BOZ (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the photo of Rick Loomis and Ken St. Andre on it.wiki.--Moroboshi (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem! It was a pleasure to meet them at GenCon. BOZ (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Klaus Scherwinski

Hello BOZ,

I made a few additions to the Klaus Scherwinski draft. Google Translate was a big help since my German reading comprehension is not what it used to be. There is now a date and place of birth for the article and a bit more work history. There's also a YouTube interview available. Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, it's much better, thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Jason Holmgren

Hello again,

I found two citations for the Jason Holmgren draft. One is an interview and the other is regarding an award nomination in 2004. The other drafts you listed on my talk page have been a bit more challenging since the references that I've found are ones that you already have listed as citations. I'll try to do a bit more work in the next few days. Hope this has been of some help. Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks again! These two were entirely unsourced when I found them, and now they are already off to a better start, so yes definitely helpful. Do what you can with the others. :) BOZ (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

thx

Thanks. Rpg were my first interest when I started on it.wiki, and still are one of the main interest but in the last period I'm also very busy with Lua.--Moroboshi (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Two users and an article that need your attention

Hi, Boz. There are two users and an article that could use your immediate attention.

First, I would draw your attention to these two edits by two different users here and here. I checked out the talk pages of those users, and saw a litany of various warnings for persistent vandalism and/or adding uncited information, including last warnings. I think both could benefit from a considerable block, because they're obviously not going to stop.

Second, I think the Isaac Hempstead-Wright article could use protection. I've removed uncited birth info from that article a total of eight times since June 7 (seven of which were for the unsourced addition of his date of birth). Here they are:

• April 30
• May 8
• May 20
• June 1
• June 7
• June 13
• June 16
• September 7

This of course, would only protect it from IP and new editors, but it might steam the constant tide of unsourced info. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Jimmypopeyedoyle, I see an ongoing history of a significant problem. My impression is that they tend to push warnings to the limit, and then back off before they get into trouble – thus the long history of warnings while a clean block record. I see that User:Drmargi had some run-ins with this user a couple of months ago. If you have a good reason to believe that this user is likely to continue a pattern of disruption (and I would say you do), then my suggestion is to take them to WP:AN (not WP:AN/I) and ask for a community block; results are varied, but I have gotten community blocks and bans that way before when I presented my evidence clearly. Although with his clean block log thus far, some people may be hesitant to impose a long block, but that might result in other users reaching out to him. I think it's worth a try.

Regarding IP 218.248.23.110, I see that User:Bearian issued them a final warning earlier today (the only one I see from the last 3 years). If they act up again – at all – I think a block would be a good idea. However, judging by the gaps in their activity level, I don't know how effective a block will be as they could easily wait it out. A long block might be overkill, but that might be the only way to catch their attention.

I have protected Isaac Hempstead-Wright for one month per your request, as adding certain pieces of uncited information to BLP's is definitely a no-no. However, I am uncertain as to how long an article should be protected in a situation like this – since your involvement there goes back almost 6 months, if the article is truly in need of long-term protection from unregistered/new users, is uncited information the only problem and if so would long-term or indefinite protection be appropriate? If you still have problems here when the block expires (or if another admin reduced or removes my protection), I suggest WP:RFPP to get some outside perspective. BOZ (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You're correct about Jimmypopeyedoyle. He doesn't head warnings or read edit summaries, just barges ahead and does what he wants, then gets out of the way just as a block is looming, a real system gamer. Anything I can do to help, please let me know. --Drmargi (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can campaign to eliminate IP editing, increase the discretionary powers of admins to block, enact protocols requiring offending parties to discuss matters in conflicts lest they lose their editing abilities, etc. But I don't know how inclined you or others are to do this. But thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog (1991)

Hey, I saw that you have the review for the original Sonic the Hedgehog in the magazine Dragon per this. Would you mind giving me the text of the review or, if you can't or there's an onerous amount of it, the gist and a few quotes about what they thought of the game's music, graphics, and gameplay? I'm trying to bring both this and the 2006 game to FA as part of a zany proposal/wet dream of having them on the main page together to mark their 25th and 10th anniversaries; I've gotten a number of Sonic-related GAs and FAs already but few of them have involved magazine digging as much as this. Tezero (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail - hope it helps. :) BOZ (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you send it to tezerowikipedia@gmail.com, what I have listed as my email (I think)? I'm not seeing it, even in the spam folder. Tezero (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I may have done something wrong the first time. I tried again. BOZ (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And there it is! Thank you. Tezero (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Great, glad to be of help!  :) BOZ (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gangster!

Hello. This page has been tagged for speedy deletion under the a1 criteria.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Best, --SecretName101 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

SecretName101, it's just a redirect. I don't see the problem? BOZ (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It does not make any sense. It's a poor redirect. Surely it's an odd assumption to make that someone searching the term 'Gangster!' most likely is looking for Fantasy Games Unlimited. It's unnecessary and makes little sense.SecretName101 (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

SecretName101, the company made a game with that title. Has the title (name with exclamation point) been used in something else? If so, I can always disambiguate it with (role-playing game). BOZ (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's just an unnecessary redirect. If you'd like to create a page dedicated to the game, you are more than welcome to do so.SecretName101 (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I may later, thank you. BOZ (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Magneto

If Kurzon doesn't respond on the talk page, can you extend the lock? DrBat (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If edit warring resumes, I will protect the page again, and for a longer period. That is a warning for you as well, though. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Heritage Models/Heritage USA

I got the listing skimming the Heritage Models chapter on the draft of the new Appelcline book (Designers & Dragons: the '70). I read with more attention and Heritage Models changed name in Heritage USA in 1980 when it was bought by Ray Stockman. Lawrence Shick Heroic World list all the games under Heritage USA in the company index (except for Star Trek: Adventure Gaming in the Final Frontier - apparently missing from the book), but list John Carter, Warlord of Mars as from Heritage Model and Swordbearer and Knight and Magick as from Heritage USA in their entry.--Moroboshi (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks. I looked at Heroic Worlds and saw the same things you saw. I have been using the 2011 version of Appelcline's book so it does not say much about Heritage. Thanks for clearing that up for me! BOZ (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Another correction, Space Gamer in 1980 was a personal property of Steve Jackon. It became property of Steve Jackson Games (the company) in 1982 (source is Designers & Dragons: the '80, but I'm pretty sure is listed also in the 2011 book). Appelcline list Killer: The Game of Assassination (1982) as first roleplaying product for Steve Jackson Games.--Moroboshi (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. In the book I have, he listed TSG #27 as their first product. That must have been a revision in the new edition. I copied the tables from the 2011 book, and then added all the "other games" by reading through the book and adding any RPGs that he mentioned. BOZ (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm no, check page 102 second column, last paragraph "The Space Gamer would remain a somewhat separate company under common ownersip, until it fully joined Steve Jackson Games in 1982". BTW many number of The Space Gamer are downloadable form archive.org collection, the first number published by "Steve Jackson Company" is #51 May 1982, before they are published by "The Space Gamer".--Moroboshi (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, I'm just saying that the table in the beginning of the chapter had TSG there, and I copied the table out of the book, so it was probably a mistake that they fixed in the new edition. BOZ (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm crossreferencing from the index of the new edition of Appelcline books, but I'm not sure if adding the little Indie Press publisher, I added Atomic Sock Monkey because they have a wikipedia article, but I don known what to do about Memento Mori Theatricks (InSpectres), Ramshead Publishing (Universalis), Lumpley Games (Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World) and Galileo Games (The Legend of Yore).--Moroboshi (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, if each one has a chapter you can add it, even if the games don't have articles yet. BOZ (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A request

BOZ, if you check my contributions you will see that I have just uploaded a file - File:Rouges in Lankhmar.jpg - with an incorrect name; it should be Rogues in Lankhmar.jpg. Could you please move it to the correct name? I cannot do this myself as I do not have the file mover privilege. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Will do! BOZ (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Madison Lintz‎

Rather than being protected, that should simply be deleted, since it makes no sense to have a redirect to the draft. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine by me either way, as long it's full protected. BOZ (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted and protected. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft Adventures.
Message added 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

re: Project A-ko: The Roleplaying Game

If you can add page numbers, I'll totally support keeping this for now. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

And a happy new year BOZ! Hekerui (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! :) BOZ (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you as well! Mtminchi08 (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! :) BOZ (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Thanks, BOZ. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.