User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Gavin.collins. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Why don't you?

Why don't you do more to add to Wikipedia instead of taking away? Wikipedia is for the sharing of knowledge among everybody over anything they want! Are you opposed to censorship, or do you support it? Are you a fascist? communist? What is your deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.22.11.124 (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As every good editor knows, there is more to just adding. Editing also involves eliminating unnecessary text in order to improve an article, or deleting inappropriate articles to improve Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. You have a major advantage over speech here in the save page button, an additional filter between your thoughts and your ~~mouth~~ keyboard. Please try to use it to pause and consider how much what you wish to say is going to help what you wish to accomplish. --Kiz o r 12:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Exchange of views

Gavin, can we talk in a manner that you take to be a honest exchange of views, rather than attempt to discredit you or undermine your credibility, as you've taken a previous comment me to be, while I maintain otherwise because I'm nowhere near that subtle? If not, how can I persuade you regarding said previous comment? Note that my response schedule will likely be erratic - what you witnessed starting has largely receded, but I have not yet fully destroyed its effects. --Kiz o r 12:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think my last comment was a polite response to a straight forward and reasonable question, but please feel free to put forward your own response if you wish to. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A clarification: a previous comment that I made on another page a month or two ago. --Kiz o r 13:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not following you then. What are you refering to if not my comments above? --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this again, from the top, some time later. --Kiz o r 13:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm rephrasing a question after the last attempt to ask it got hopelessly tangled. This was some time ago, but it wasn't urgent and I haven't been well. Months ago you accused me of a covert attack against you after I talked to another admin about the troubles of our D&D coverage. I claim innocence: if I had been trying to incite people against you, I would have mentioned your name.

But that's old news, here's the important part: Has this or some other event ruined the chances for a honest discussion in the future, and if so, how can we fix that? --Kiz o r 09:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You can tell me what you want, and I will consider you suggestions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RAFaL

Hi. I removed the Wikiproject France tag from Talk:RAFaL as the group in question is an organisation in Quebec, Canada. From the scope statement on the wikiproject, I don't see Quebec included. If I am mistaken about this, apologies. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have updated the article with the correct template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Erik Mona → User:Iquander

Erik Mona would appear to be User:Iquander [1] [2] [3] who has been involved with many of the D&D articles and AfDs, etc. This is a huge conflict of interest and I'm not sure what the appropriate course is? Thoughts? --Jack Merridew 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had similar problems with JHunterJ in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Monsters. Declaring an "interest" is voluntary rather than a mandatory. My experience is that most contributors to D&D articles never declare their interest in AfD debates about articles which they have edited, and drawing attention to this would be like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500. Unless there is a blatant WP:COI infringement, I do not think this issue is worth pursuing, as it is probably best to have expert opinion, even if it can be biased at times.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I dropped the same note on User talk:FT2. Looking at Iquander's contribs I see that he created a bunch of stubs (July 06 time frame) and has only recently become involved with AfDs (and removing notability clean-up tags). I have been assuming that the fervor over D&D articles was due to fandom, but see that there may be a spamish side, too. Anyway, I thought you should know. Best, Jack Merridew 11:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guys. I have been a lifelong player of Dungeons & Dragons and have been professionally associated with the game for several years, though I've not worked for its publisher since 1999. In trying to follow Wiki policy as best as I can, I have refrained from posting to articles or AFDs related to products or things that I had any role in working on. For example, I have not edited the Dragon or Dungeon magazine pages, the Paizo Publishing page, etc. I am a co-author of the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer that is currently up for deletion and I've likewise refrained from comment. I've even refrained from editing the page, which is pretty pathetic at present and doesn't make a very strong case for notability. I have tried to be a scrupulous Wikipedian and stay away from articles directly related to things I have worked on professionally. I am also very knowledgeable about D&D in general, though, so I will continue to participate in discussions that can benefit from my expertise, so long as I do not believe I am posting with a conflict of interest. Believe it or not, I think arguing for the notability of D&D articles is generally a good thing, and I think that there are way too many non-notable D&D stubs on Wikipedia, including a few I helped to edit before I really understood Wikipedia. I do not endorse the rather snobbish way you guys are going about your deletion drive, and I think the frequency of (particularly Gavin's) AFDs has been appalling and very much outside the friendly nature that all Wikipedians are supposed to embrace. That said, a quick look at Gavin's contributions in the last week suggest that he is giving people a little more time to respond to his prods and templates, which is a change I fully appreciate. Iquander (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that the Dungeon Design Panel article was the first I ever created on Wikipedia, before I was aware of the various POV guidelines, and that I recently voted for its deletion in the recent AFD. I trust you guys were ok with me participating in that one, eh? Iquander (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Beware 3RR

Hi, I noticed the good work you are doing protecting the Amarillo_Design_Bureau entry - however I notice you have effectively reverted the same page 5 times today. There is probably a better way of protecting the notability tag. Matt Beard (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:3RR, and let me know which part of it applies to me. I think someone is sock puppeting so reverting vandalism by single user accounts is quite reasonable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The summary of 3RR is

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

I believe that your edits constituted reverts (according to the description on the 3RR page) and 5 were performed in less than 24 hours. I don't believe that any of the exceptions on the page apply.

I do understand why you did what you did - which is why I added an informal warning rather than templating you. However, it was starting to turn into an edit war.

I was trying to help rather than hinder - I didn't want a helpful user to be templated or banned for what some may view as a violation

Matt Beard (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The guideline says "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor", but I believe if it is more than one editor (in this case, single purpose accounts), then I am guessing that 3RR does not apply. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR applies whether you're edit warring with one other editor or a dozen. I'm not going to block you or report you, but if you make another revert on that article, I will. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, I will voice my concerns at Talk:Amarillo Design Bureau.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear it. On a related note, you really need to learn how to distinguish between vandalism and content disputes. Just because another editor disagrees with you, it does not make them a vandal. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I can distinguish as the some of the vandals have been blocked. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You should have been blocked, too, for violating 3RR. Doesn't make you a vandal. Just makes you an edit warrer. I'm not sure that you understand that vandalism means editing in bad faith. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've temporarily(48 hours) semi-protected your talk page due to vandalism from a variety of IP addresses. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like the protection removed. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just done the same again (for 96 hours). — Xy7 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2008

Hello, children of 4chan. Go and play somewhere else, K? ... richi (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your note on my talk page today

I'd appreciate it if you would not copy and paste comments you made on an article talk page onto my user talk page. If you want to discuss an article, let's discuss it on the article talk page. It might be appropriate to notify me of a discussion on an article talk page, but it's completely unnecessary to transcribe the entirety of your comments in multiple places. Thanks.

Also, please don't tell me how to edit here. (You titled your comment on my talk page page "Please Stop Removing Notability Templates".) I'll continue to remove any template that is incorrectly added to an article. You have no authority to tell me or any other editor here how to conduct themselves. Thanks again. Rray (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that your edits are based on the mistaken belief that your opinion is the sole arbiter about notability, so you should expect further messages to this effect. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Further messages to that effect will just be a waste of your time and mine, since I have no intention of recognizing your authority to tell me how to edit. I'll remove notability tags when they're incorrectly added. If you disagree, then you should feel free to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article in question.

You'll notice that I don't come to your talk page and ask you to stop adding notability templates to articles. You should show me the same courtesy by not telling me how to edit on my talk page.

Some (in fact, most) of the articles you tag with a notability tag are correctly tagged, and I don't remove the tags when they're correctly added. But not all of subjects of the articles you tag have questionable notability, and it's unreasonable to expect other editors to not remove them in those instances.

Your comment about my "mistaken belief" is condescending and borderline rude, too. It's no better than assuming that I only removed that notability tag because I "like" the company. We'd both be better served if we could agree to disagree without your attempts to analyze what I like, dislike, believe, and/or don't believe. Rray (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your belief based on if not WP:CORP? If could explain why your views are not mistaken, perhaps I could understand your motavation. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be missing my point. You don't need to worry about my motivation or beliefs at all. We can discuss whether or not the tag is appropriate or not on the talk page of the article. You made a numbered list on that article page of why you thought that the company in question wasn't notable. I replied to it point by point. The note on my talk page telling me what to do is just unnecessary, and the stuff about other editors' beliefs and motivations is just irrelevant. Rray (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your motivation is of concern to me as removing the tag was unwarranted. The reasons I gave to you explained why Amarillo Design Bureau fails WP:CORP. Your reply to me refuted some of my assertions, but you did not explain how your arguments apply to specifically to Amarillo Design, and I think you are avoiding a sensible discussion about notability. Unless you can come up with evidence, in my view your actions were not justified.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an acting class; my motivation is irrelevant. At any rate, participation here involves assuming good faith on the parts of other editors, so you should assume that my motivation is to improve articles and proceed from there. If I had another motivation, I'd be following you around removing all of the notability tags you've added, which I clearly haven't done. (Since like I said before, most of them are appropriate.)

The notability tag is for articles with subjects of unclear notability. You had a problem with the article lacking sources, so you should have used an unreferenced tag or a refimprove tag. (I added a refimprove tag to the article, which is the tag that you should have added.) Multiple reliable sources exist to demonstrate notability, so it passes WP:CORP.

How on earth could you think I'm avoiding a sensible discussion? I responded point by point to your arguments for why the article wasn't notable on the talk page of the article. You immediately discarded those arguments to ask that reliable sources be added again, but no one is disagreeing that reliable sources need to be included in the article. It's just a matter of using the correct tags for that purpose.

I respect your right to disagree with me, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to belittle my arguments by making comments about my likes or dislikes, my beliefs and motivations, and my "deluding myself". You write well enough and understand things well enough that using such tactics subtracts from the your arguments rather than adding to them. You're more than welcome to tell me you think I'm mistaken. Telling me I'm deluding myself is another matter entirely. Rray (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Non-article D&D pages

See these discussions about this category.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the category Dungeons & Dragons articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction and for correcting my edits. Do you think that Category:Non-article D&D pages is now redundant? --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Any non-article D&D pages will probably be in Category:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, so yeah, we could probably do without the category. I'm a little confused by the name of that category, as most of the pages in it are ... well, articles. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note the templates I created to populate the category, which at the moment are {{FR-in-universe}} and {{In-universe/Dungeons & Dragons}}. That way, if we decide to split FR and GH articles into a subcategory (e.g., World of Greyhawk articles that need to ...) it's just a matter of changing the template. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware that these other categories existed. I think it will now be easier to recategorise the articles in Category:Non-article D&D pages correctly. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your latest note on my talk page

I'd appreciate it if we could carry on one discussion regarding my edits rather then two. Since we already have a discussion on the talk page of the article, an additional note on my talk page is unnecessary. I'd also appreciate it if you wouldn't make assumptions regarding my like or dislike of a particular subject. I don't assume that your edits to an article have anything to do with your dislike of a subject, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't attribute my edits to my like of a subject. I'd suggest that your communication style in these instances don't help you build consensus or achieve your goals. Rray (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, your attempts to "instruct" me as to which edits to make are unwelcome and will be fruitless. I'll make whatever edits I think are appropriate, and I'd encourage you to make edits that you think are appropriate. If we disagree, then we can discuss on the talk page of the article. Rray (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page: I think there is a problem we need to address on your talk page, because it relates to your actions, namely courtesy. This problem relates to consideration for other editors, and also whether or not reverting their edits is reasonably justified. Taking the example of the article Drizzt Do'Urden, I think you already agree that this article has comprised of mainly plot summary and references to the character in the primary sources which it belongs. The reason why I put the template there is that it is an issue which the respective guideline suggests should be addressed. If you remove the template, and your decision to do so in not warranted (as I suggest above), then you might expect your actions to be questioned (if not reversed). What I am saying here is that it is unfortunate that you seem unwilling to consider that other editors have opinions too, especially where they give reasons (good or bad) as to why you might be mistaken. I have asked you to replace the template. Whether you choose to do so while there is a discussion about this issue is your decision. However, it would be considered to be courtesy by me if you did.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think characterizing my actions as discourteous is unfair and inaccurate. I disagree that the tags are appropriate, so I'm well within my rights to remove them. You shouldn't take that personally or think that's somehow a discourtesy to you. (There's a note at the bottom of every page here that you might read: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." This note applies to any edit you make here.)

If I didn't realize that other editors had opinions, or if I thought that those opinions didn't matter, I wouldn't have started a discussion on the talk page regarding the subject. Starting discussions encourages discussion, collaboration, and consensus-building. Adding tags to article en masse does not.

I might be mistaken, but so might you. If a consensus is found on the talk page of the article that the templates are appropriate, then they'll be re-added. They won't be re-added simply because you think you're right and I'm wrong.

You seem to want to make these things personal -- see our previous discussions regarding my likes and dislikes and my motivations. I'm not interested in that, and I don't think it's a productive use of our time. I think it would be more productive to discuss the actual issues related to the articles and the tags.

To be fair, I think many of your tags and even many of your AfD efforts are valid. And I admire your enthusiasm for putting forward your opinions. But other editors aren't wrong or discourteous just because they disagree with you in some instances. You're not the sole arbiter of what's appropriate here. Rray (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Creator races deletion proposal

Hi,

I added a comment on the topic, here. Have a nice day.
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 07:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing pattern

I actually agree with most of the templates and tags that you add to articles. But I don't think you're infallible, and I think your habit of instructing any user who removes any tag or template that you've added to an article to not remove those tags is disruptive. I'm suggesting that a better way for achieving your goals here might exist and be worth looking at. Your current approach doesn't seem to build consensus at all, and in fact, it seems like it's creating multiple unnecessary conflicts. I thought I'd address these concerns with you directly on your talk page since it encompasses your behavior on multiple article and user pages. I'd rather be able to work out an actual meeting of minds with you on your talk page than go back to the whole RFC process though, and I hope you're open to that. Rray (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you are just repeating the arguements I have characterised elsewhere:

"Gavin has now put the Notability template on my article! Why is he defacing my article with inappropriate tags he knows nothing about? He just wants to create extra work by disrupting WP[5].

At some point you will have to admit that these articles do in fact have many style, notability and content issues, and as one of the many creator/editors, you have to take responsiblity for this state of affairs: You reap what you sow.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I already admitted that these articles have style, notability, and content issues. I did that when I said that I agree with most of your templates. But some of the tags you've added are incorrect, and other editors have every right to remove tags that are incorrect. You disrupt the project by insisting on their talk pages that they shouldn't be removed. I didn't write most of these articles, and I don't really care about most of them either, so your characterization of my concern is completely inaccurate. Wikipedia is supposed to work on a basis of consensus, cooperation, and collaboration. Your refusal to admit that multiple editors who have concerns with your behavior might have a point is contrary to a collaborative spirit. Most of these editors have worked hard to improve articles at your suggestion; they're meeting you more than halfway already. But your behavior seems to demonstrate that you think you're always right in every case, and that's not conducive to a collaborative environment at all. Rray (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment on another user's talk page where you describe the arguments given by people who disagree with you as being "puerile". I also noted that you referred to people who disagreed with you in another article as "bullies" who faded away quickly once you requested an RFC. Your apparent contempt for editors who disagree with you is disruptive, and calling other editors "bullies" on someone's talk page is still a personal attack, even if you're talking about them behind their back. Rray (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence of me being disruptive, but I see evidence of you reverting my edits without justification. Take for example, the article Drizzt Do'Urden. The article is mainly comprised of plot summary with a heavy in universe perspective, at least in my view. For reasons I have explained on the talk page, I contested your removal of the in universe template but you have dismissed my concerns. Despite the intervention of other editors in the RFC, you have continued to ignore this issue. Instead you replaced the in universe template with another cleanup template which you did not think "will be controversial". How can I collaborate with you you if revert my edits, and that you use the word concensus as if it means that you are always right? This article has got in universe issues - this is a statement of fact. Your behaviour is transparently puerile. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently no one else thinks the templates are correct there either, because no one has re-added them, even after you asked for comments from other editors.
Do you think that the cleanup tag is inappropriate?
Your remark about my behavior being "transparently puerile" is a personal attack, and your refusal to assume good faith on my part is bizarre. It's impossible to work collaboratively with someone who thinks he's never wrong and insults people he disagrees with. I'm sorry if my try at starting a productive discussion with you was fruitless. I'd hoped that we would be able to work collaboratively, because I do agree with most of your edits. It's unfortunate that you can't agree with any of mine. Rray (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree to work with you until you restore the in universe template. Other independent editors in the RFC have gone on the record to say that this article may have in universe issues, and they have gone to a lot of effort to provide an explaination why this may be. Even if you disagree what they have said, I recomend that you restore the template until this issue can be resolved amicably. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I edited the article to remove more than half of the in-universe content that you objected. That's a lot more constructive than adding back a template. That's a lot more effort than you've demonstrated. And I did this without insulting you or making personal attacks. If someone else wants to re-add the template, that's fine, but I don't agree that the amount of in-universe content is excessive, so I won't be doing so. Rray (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The article (excluding contents and references) is made up of about 1900 words. The "Biography" and "Appearance and personality" sections which make up the bulk of in universe content account for about 900 words which is an awful lot of plot summary. In addition to the plot summary, there are extensive in universe references to the primary sources (the books) which is then repeated in the references section and in their own articles; this "literature" section accounts for a further 900 words. All in all about 95% of this article is in universe, and there is virtually no real-world content, let alone reliable secondary sourced content. In the face of the evidence and what other editors have gone on record to say, I find your viewpoint puzzling, and can only understand what you assert in the context of Doublethink; to say that this article has no in universe issues frankly borders on the perverse. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing perverse about it. An article about a fictional character is expected to have a certain amount of in-universe content. At any rate, I'm going to go work on something else anyway now. I wish you luck with your efforts to improve the Wikipedia. :) Rray (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

RPG articles and AfD

i have been avoiding making any direct comments to you Gavin, but this statement you just made has me a bit worried about your attitude and intentions. You reap what you sow. i ask what exactly this is supposed to mean? are you threatening someone on here? are you making accusations about someone on here and their intents? i would find that a bit funny since it seems you are attempting to have many RPG articles removed by placing not only notability tags, in-universe tags, and other clean-up tags, at the same time you place AfD tags on articles. you seem to be of the mind that by placing tags it means someone will be able to instantly correct the article. granted the large audience Wikipedia has i do not see it feasible for YOU to expect that this mountain of article can be corrected within the few seconds between you placing the clean-up tags and those where you place the article up for deletion. in my mind now you are not acting in good faith to make any of these articles better, but are on a personal agenda to destroy this content and possibly related articles of similar content from wikipedia. the way i see it Wikipedia does not belong to you, me, or any other single contributor. i am unsure what direction to go in resolving this issue as the Request for Comment solved nothing and only semed to spur you into doing things that i think are not in good faith to making Wikipedia a valueable site and resource for people. maybe someone who has been here longer, or even an admin will step in and help ALL of us with this matter and explain some thing to where we can all help Wikipedia rather that what seems to be an edit war campaign on your part (to me at least), or some personal agenda to have article you do not like removed from wikipedia itself. i am purely a wikipedia novice and try to add content that will help articles the best i can. i think if you were truely interested in having the articles cleaned up and brought up to spec with wikipedia standars then you could exert a little more effort and give people time to perform the clean-up you suggest with the tags prior to nominating the articles for deletion. people are not machines and take time to be able to handle their regular lives aside from being able to help here on wikipedia. i am sure many other editors would be more willing to correct articles is they did not have to constantly fight with you about things which takes time away from being able to do the research into fixing and cleaning up the articles as you have requested via the tags, if you would not instantly add the AfD to them and give them time to actually do what needs to be done to ascertain an articles notability, provide the proper sources secondary, tertiary, etc, and general grammar and spelling correction to make the articles decent. THEN if the article does not fulfill a need or is in excess of what is needed on wikipedia then nominating the article for deletion should be the next step. not trying to take all the steps along the way. i find when you try to take too many steps at one time you tend to fall flat on your face. so please give people time to address one or more concern prior to trying to have all these article deleted that may actually provided usefull content for some people even if not all. i ask this as your claim on Psilofyr at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psilofyr of me as a the maker of the first sensible comment written by a RPG expert that made any sense about these articles. thanks for your time. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with your point that AfD's and cleanup templates are somehow my fault. Any number of articles are being tagged or deleted by other editors, and you have to ask why: it is because the article content is very poor. A lot of these articles are about stock characters with no notability, and I have been asking that they be merged into topics that have notability for a long time now. I have made a lot of effort to get these articles cleaned up and others are following.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is simply no matter who, you seemed to have started a trend. maybe you could help explain to the others that a day or even week is not nearly enough time to address the cleanup tags prior to nominating an article for deletion. people are not machines, and even though computers can do things like list an AfD instantly when it is templated, it does not mean people do not have real lives they must attend and must devote to before volunteering to do things here when they have time. therefore give things more time rather than rushing things to AfD. also maybe adding a few less tags to articles, and adressing things in the wikiproject created for them may get thing done quicker where people can find them. if people have to search an AfD list to find an RPG article then it gives them less time to actually address the concerns. i note that a few others have been hot to tag articles for AfD, just don't add to it and help clean up the articles by participating in the wikiproject itself, doing a bit of research to clean up the articles, or even point out on the articles talk pages where the problems lie in your opinion for each particular article so they can be adressed. otherwise, a reason why i posted here adressing you on this matter was that people have to watch your contributions to see what is going on while they are trying to clean the articles up. i hope this makes sense. shadzar|Talk|contribs 06:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, these are concerns raised in my RFC and its related talk page; you may wish to read what has already been written about me and raise the issues that concern you there. Overall I have modified by attitude to AfD in several ways:

I only use it as last resort, and use it rarely. This is a contraversial point, but since I cover more articles in my cleanup patrol of RPG articles, I have come accross a lot of articles that are prime AfD candidates, but only put the worst ones up for nomination;
I research the topic for secondary sources to see if it is worth saving;
I usually add cleanup templates to articles before AfD, unless the article is a complete basket case;
I have asked the RPG project to create guidance notes on notability and reliable secondary sources, so that they can improve their articles in the first place; this issue is at the heart the problem, not me;
I have proposed the merger of the many, many non-notable articles on a variety of occasions;
In all my actions, I explain my viewpoint and reasoning behind my actions, so that they are open to discussion, peer review and critisism. My actions are challenged on a regular basis, which I welcome as a healthy by product of the cleanup process.

Taking the example of Psilofyr, I think that I must have had some dispute about the notabilty tag that led to the AfD, or perhaps it was a disputed prod. I hope this helps you understand what I am doing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

lost in indents so bringing this back out to prevent whitespace and tiny text blocks. i will address each of the immediate above with an individual bullet.

its great and i for one appreciate that the AfD have been reduced. it makes it much easier digging through boxes and reading hundreds or thousands of magazines and circulars, etc to find other sources about these articles to make them fit notability (which i am most often beat to the punch when someone else provides the sources before i even get to the magazine that holds one) when we have less AfD to worry with. i think a small article that needs work is better than no article at all, and with so many it can be hard, and for someone from outside the RPG or more specifically D&D circles then they may not know where to find information on gaming or what is notable. I agree with that fungus god as well many other Monsters, as there is so much bias in a lot of the D&D articles towards just the newest or most current edition it looks like an advertisement fromt he company. my personal beliefs aside about the current or future editions of D&D, i firmly believe in the policy of having articles unbiased; and that many are trying to take the place of the books themselves thus removing the need for people to purchase them form the company that produces them, and should not be something going on here. maybe that could be a good starting place for all, as i have tried over past months to express my concerns on the wikiproject page itself, which i am sure you will see as well on various article talk pages. i think those that step on copyright or remove the needs to purchase the books should be first tackled with AfDs. sadly i am too novice to get the AfD templates and all set up or i would tear through those monster articles myself that step over the bounds of needed, notable, and/or removing the need to actually own the book produced by Wizards of the Coast or those who licensed the rights to reproduce the material.
if you are researching for alternative sources, then could you not also add them if/when you find them? you make so many edits it is hard to track down what is what. Wikipedia is a massive project and one not easily undertaken for someone who has no outlet to play with it such as a personal version so they don't risk harming the articles themselves while trying to add the proper templates. again i ask would it not be possible for each article to add a note on its talk page about each tag you add and what you think would help clear up, clean up, and fix the articles? this is the only way some people including wikipedia novices would know exactly what neds to be done outside of the nearly legal jargin that some of the WP:NOT type policies mean. i myself am not a technical writer, nor an author. i faired poorly in literature classes, so even the smallest help on the talk pages would provide more people to look more favorably at your intentions as well as correcting the article to conform to WP policies.
what do you consider basket case? as i mentioned above, for me that would be mostly those Monster articles that intended to reproduce everything from the OGL or SRD that even though allowed have other outlets such as www.d20srd.org where all the open content can be viewed.
not everyone in the D&D project is a memebr of the RPG project. i myself could care less about Shadowrun and many other RPGs. i don't like how they play, and thus know nothing about them. therefore i don't see that i would be in the right place to make decisions about those games. while all RPGs are RPGs, they are only similar as Monopoly and HeroScape are both board games. they play so differently that they are not wholly related to each other. those differences may constitute different approaches to articles about the games. this again from my own experience with a few RPGs, as i am old hat with D&D and never realy delved into other games as i liked the one, and didn't need to research the others after i found they were not better than the one i had already chosen. i don't know if you play any RPGs, but i think some in the D&D project and your RFC may think you are coming from outside and just trying to hurt RPG articles. this amy not be true, but with a few of my personal friends who visit, but do not contribute to Wikipedia have noted to me a Reverend Gavin Collins they have read about, and have mentioned to me about a dislike this person had for RPGs. i don't know if this is you, nor care, as that would hopefully not be the case. but it just makes me cautious about your intentions with the number of articles. maybe becoming a member of the D&D project and bringing your notability concerns there would help it as well since not all of us are part of the whole of the RPG project. if not you, then have someone from there bring the concerns down to the child project from the parent project.
i like mergers. they help bring related content together where a more substantiable article can not be made without possibly stepping over copyrights. Psilofyr for example was a prime candidate for it. i find they go off better than deletions because of the connotations of the two actions. merging to bring a few things together to make a better whole, deletion the removal or destruction of. the human condition comes into play i think with these actions as well does the past and what things the gaming industry specifically RPGs have had to endure from certain groups. i would hope that attitude has not subsided. i would love a less cluttered step-by-step guide to deletion templates and merger templates if you can put it in terms for a novice on my talk page.
as do we all try, but not all of us have the time that you seem to have to work on articles, and for those with less time to spend on wikipedia it may feel that you are pushing a mountain on top of them daily without giving them time to dig out from under the previous day. with even the smallest explanation on the articles talk pages, and TIME, a very crucial thing, i think all of us can create great articles that are both informative, and meet wikipedia standards. but it seems tempers are already flaring and neither side wants to back down to take a break and allow the other side to do anything which adds only more fuel to the fire. given time all these articles can be cleaned. but as there are, i am most sure, more than a thousand D&D related articles, it will take time. not something that can be done in jsut a day or two. and i have seen a few articles lately (non-RPG related) that have had notability or other tags on them since 2005. which further goes to illustrate how large wikipedia is, and how much work there is to be done. and it will take a LONG time in this never ending process of editing and correct before all the article come up to first-class or even featured status. but lets take the time and do it right rather than rush and try to get all articles up to worthy status. that is all i ask. time to do the work.

again, thanks for your time. shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi Gavin, please see [6]. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

a checkuser you should know about

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man

You've surely seen some of these characters around; now see them all listed in one spot. Add any more you know about. --Jack Merridew 09:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added my comments [7] and thanks again for all your hard work. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the above. You might be interested in adding Gavin the very large Colon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The other Gavin

Looks like Bencherlite got there first. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both for dealing with Gavin Colon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cormyr

Hi,

I wrote down a detailled fair use rational by using the appropriate template and a good rationale. Despite this, the image had been deleted without further notice and no replacement solution. That pretty upsets me. What is done is done but I wanted to be sure you know I did not appreciate the way it had been done.
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 15:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Make sure a fair use template is filled in fully to avoid this issue in future. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Araumycos

Protected for 48 hours, for all the good that will do... Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 11:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't do it at present, as for some reason the "Special:" prefix trips the pornography filter here at work! Suggest WP:RFPP with a note pointing to the WP:AN/I thread. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 17:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll to merge "Alternative terms for free software" to "Free and open source software"

Can you please comment at Talk:Alternative_terms_for_free_software#Survey. Thanks. --Karnesky (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts?

About two recent vandalism reversions you've done, this one and this one... You may want to be careful with tagging the IP addresses involved as single-purpose accounts. The first one was by an IP address with only one edit on D&D subjects, and the second one had 4 edits on different subjects, and only one since October 3rd. Normally single-purpose accounts show a pattern of a single purpose over a series of edits, not just one. This is not to say that I find the reversions questionable -- removals like that without discussion or an edit summary are a problem, and reverting them is fantastic, but I think you've got to be careful with your edit summaries on vandalism reverts. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man for context. Dozens of single purpose accounts have been set up in the last few days following exactly the same pattern of evidence you describe. If you notice any, I suggest you revert yourself or report the incident to ANI. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, they're suspected sockpuppet accounts. Single purpose accounts are different beasts. Either way, though, they should be prevented from mucking things up further. Good luck with the fight against the sockpuppet invasion -- but please remember to not tar everyone with the same brush. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

D&D and copyrights

I've noticed that you have done a lot of tag placement on D&D-related articles, which confirms you are interested in cleaning up that subject area of Wikipedia.

Have you noticed that the various articles on D&D appear to be slowly but surely reconstructing the entire game and its campaigns on Wikipedia? There's is extensive coverage of character races, character classes, non-player characters, countries, and monsters. There are also a few articles on specific magic items and specific rules. These articles resemble entries from the game, and with a little imagination could be used instead of the actual game entries. As they become more complete over time, there could be less and less difference.

Have you read derivative work?

If Wikipedia includes entries on all the countries of Greyhawk, for instance, does that set of articles constitute a derivative work of Greyhawk?

Now apply the same question to the set of Forgotten Realms country descriptions, and the country sets from each of the D&D campaigns.

Then apply the question to the set of monsters.

Then to races, classes, and rules.

Etc.

These look like derivative work copyright violations.

Not just violations of Wikipedia policy, but also of U.S. copyright law.

What's your analysis?

The Transhumanist 02:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry to chime in here, but for lack of better place, this is exactly what i tried to discuss with the wikiproject for D&D where it tries to remove the need for the product by placing its content here. however there is a open license that allows parts to be used from D&D for free the OGL and SRD. i don't fully know about them and how they work, but some feel they are justified in reproducing the entire free-content from either the SRD or OGL here on wikipedia. there are MANY people how use this SRD to play the game without purchasing the books, and WotC allows the download of this material freely and in a way does promote it. IF Gavin or/and yourself would be interested in joining the D&D wikiproject and bringing this up (if not already there) then it would help. getting something done by the community as a whole working together i think will work better than someone from the outside just arbitrating statutes and precedent. also let the parent wikiproject for RPGs known your concerns so this kind of thing can be curtailed before it gets out of hand. some things deserver their own articles, but every last obscure monster and or diety form the game doesn't need its own article as i expressed in the Psylfor (sp) entry. thanks for your help. shadzar|Talk|contribs 02:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether parts of Dungeons & Dragons are Product Identity or subject of Open licence agreements, I think Transhumanist raises an interesting point: what is the overall effect of listing all the constituent components of Dungeons & Dragons on Wikipedia? None of these "articles" have much if any encyclopedic content; there only value is as a supplementary game guide. I would say that as a body of work, they are derivative and do constitute a copyright violation, as they effectively rob TSR of the revenue it would receive from sales of its own game guide publications. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

well that just takes the cake and i must go and laugh for a while. the reason this is funny, is that during all the fuss you have caused with D&D you don't even know who the copyright holder of said material is. i must commend you on a job well done with your research. no the articles are not ALL a supplementary game guide, as that exists on the copyright holders site in the free material that have allowed to be reproduced. i would urge you to not only research the material you nominate for deletion much more, and also research the copyright holder of the game itself, as well as some research into the licenses i mentioned so you are not causing problems due to a lack of knowledge on the subject. those license are the current (3rd edition) and future (4th edition) SRD and OGL. they aren't hard to find. shadzar|Talk|contribs 09:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with shadzar. TSR has been defunct for going on 10 years now! -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Gavin... please don't take this as an insult, it is intended to be a factual statement. You've on a number of occasions voiced suspicions about other people's statements being veiled attacks against your credibility. If you value your credibility so highly, wouldn't it significantly improve if you reduced the number of major factual errors made in the field you do much of your work here in?

Getting back to the original issue: Copyright law is not something that a layman can be expected to make informed decisions on, correct? We don't have the knowledge to evaluate the matter. As it happens, the foundation has a full-time employee for its legal needs and it's none other than Mike Godwin, Internet law specialist, former counsel to the EFF. His responsibilities include evaluating the foundation's current operating procedures. Unless Mike says otherwise, I don't think that we should be concerned about this.

Finally, I like to end my messages with ways to have nothing to do with anything, so here is a neat technology demo, and this is how we do it in Finland. Thanks, Kiz o r 23:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

Hi, I've been asked by another editor to block you for persistent tagging of D&D items. I've been through your recent edits, and I can't see anything that suggests bad faith. Although one tagged article at least, The Cleric Quintet, does have references, they seem insecure. Users named "Gavin the loser" and "Gavin the colon" have been systematically following you removing the tags, so I've blocked them as vandals instead and reinstated the tags. It might be worth checking your own contributions occasionally to pick up this sort of problem (also I won't guarantee that i got them all). Jimfbleak (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm... having said that, Ulutiu is referenced, and you have not explained why you do not accept the references. If you are going to tag articles with what looks like a fairly single-minded agenda, you need to make sure you get it right. Jimfbleak (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the article again, and I agree that there are primary sources that technically satisfy WP:V, although there are no footnotes or citations to explain what the relationship between the article and these sources are. I have restored the Notability template as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of the subject. Many thanks for reverting the vandalism of single purpose accounts, whose edits have not been reasonably justified. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

barnstar

Thanks Gavin. Fills out the page nicely and compliments the vandal warnings along the top. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Red Hand of Doom

I endorse the restoration of the notability and primary sources tags, however there are two users and quite a few anons at the page today, so I'm done with it for now. Please look at this one again when you're next on. --Jack Merridew 13:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

New sources have been added, which I will review later today. I am not if other editors appreciate the beneficial effect of the templates; I hope we can bring them around eventually. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I noticed those additions, but have not looked at them; they were added after my above post. FYI, I'll be around a bit less the next few days, so keep an eye on stuff. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dating problem with notability tags

Hi - on a recent scan of Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability, I came across some articles you'd tagged in Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from January 2007 (despite its being a redlink, going there will show you the articles). However, that category was cleared and deleted some time ago - and when I looked at the articles, they seemed to have the tag applied for the first time in January 2008, not January 2007.

There may be more instances of that than the 3 I picked up - could you check the category to see whether other contributions of yours erroneously ended up there? Yours for a better encyclopedia... --Alvestrand (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gavin; I popped-in to see if there was a reply to my post (above this one) and noticed this section. I've tweaked some of the articles in the '07 cat to set the date to '08. Just the usual January sort of typos. There are more to do still. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I cranked through them all and the cat is now empty; all typos by various editors. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Appologies for this muddle, I think I must have been triped up by the year change. I will be more careful in futre.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. Removal of the Notabilty Templates

Hi there! Regarding the articles Goldmoon, Riverwind and Sturm Brightblade, here is my rationale:

The Dragonlance is a recognized trademark with over 150 published novels since 1984. Most of their books are tagged as "New York Times Best-Selling" titles.
The article about Goldmoon, for example, determines that she has been a recurring character for over 16 years in a notable saga, names in a correct out-of-universe perspective the plot including references to the books in which she appeared, opinions about authors (taken from annotated books that are considered reliable sources since the opinions of the authors are out-of-universe instead of in-universe), a controversy section which includes opinions from a staff member of the publisher and an author herself, and a section about the upcoming movie, where she will be personified by Lucy Lawless. It is my belief that cultural impact can be asserted by the fact that she has been a recurring character of a best-selling series which has sold at least 20 million copies and spawned 75 role playing modules and six games, and a mass-market movie with notable actors and produced by Paramount Pictures.
Similar articles like Aragorn only use books and annotations made by the authors, yet nobody will ever object him from being iconic. Goldmoon is featured as main character in the novel The Silver Stair (1999). Riverwind is the main character in two novels, Spirit of the Wind and Riverwind the Plainsman, while Sturm is the leading character in The Oath and the Measure.
Then, I question the guideline legality, because this modification was done by a single user according to this small section, where consensus is not demonstrated. Contrary to related guidelines like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), there has not been any attempt to seek consensus here, it was just imposed according to the perception of a single user.
Finally, and considering what I said (this can be applied to every of these character: recurring character for over a decade in a +20m copies sold series, being personified by a renowned actress in an upcoming animation movie, being main character in at least a novel, and the reliable out-of-universe references used in the article and by using common sense, I think it is proved these characters are notable on their own.

Note that I don't object some other tags in Dragonlance characters, because they are lacking references, but polishing those articles are enough to make them "worthy". Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Even though you cannot understand, the article are referenced correctly. According to Secondary information|the manual of style, The term secondary information describes information external to the fictional universe, and is usually taken from secondary sources about the fictional world, or from primary and secondary sources about the author and the circumstances of creation. Annotated books are primary sources, yes, but with comments from the authors about the circumstances of creation, which fits the definition. And even then, a guideline cannot overwrite policy, and when conflicting the policy is more important than the guideline. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper): Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications., a fact that is true for the authors and the publisher Wizard of the Coast. Finally, according to the same policy, the restriction is true only for biographies of living persons.

Obviously you have a different interpretation of the guideline, so I suggest you to open a request for comments for the article, to use it as a precedent for future tags. I cannot, in good faith, put a tag to an article when I think it does not deserve it. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I can't restore these tags when I don't think they are suitable. That would be like blocking someone I don't think need to be blocked, or protecting an article I don't think needs to be protected. Normally, when someone edits and someone else remove the edits, the original version is kept until discussion is ended. In any case, I think you should go to a Wikipedia-wide request for neutral opinions, and those (if any) who are working with you will the article must be tagged, while those who are against you will say it should not. I have passed many of these discussions, and the only way to solve them is through consensus via community addressing (contrary to addressing them locally in either the guideline page or the article page). I have always accepted consensus, even when against it, and if it is demonstrated, I will be the first one to edit the article. But until then, I will stand in my position. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So, basically I am a bad faithed editor just because I don't agree with your statements? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the guidelines, the fact that I am discussing here means I acknowledge them. I am not disrupting, since I have left the notability tags in all the other Dragonlance articles where notability is not asserted even though, personally, I think most are notable on their own. I haven't stated I would continue to remove the tags. I stated that the common procedure is to edit the page, and if someone else reverts it, you should discuss instead of edit warring. That I stand firmly against something doesn't mean I will edit war someone. However, as you may have noticed, your tags were removed from many articles by other users. I cannot vouch that they will stop removing them. That is why I suggested a Wikipedia-wide discussion, because by adding and removing tags we won't

Finally, you are asking me to do something I don't think is correct. It is like me telling you to warn a user who made a typo while editing an article, to give you an idea. I am here for ideals that go beyond notability, neutral point of view, references and such. I am here because I think freedom is necessary. Even if the notability guidelines change and all Dragonlance topics are deleted, or if on the contrary all notability guidelines are abolished and Wikipedia becomes accepting articles about every robot that died in the Star Wars, I will stay here. Advertisement won't make me leave, disabling ips from editing won't make me leave (even though I will be firmly against that idea just like I am against your argument in our discussion), even making users pay to edit won't make me leave, as long as the content is still free as in freedom. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do it yourself. Or get someone else to do it. I won't revert it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Red Hand of Doom

Gavin i must note that the page you referenced earlier in this discussion WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT states "it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point." which was your intention for Red Hand of Doom in trying to "establish a precedent" as you added the AfD to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Articles proposed for_deletion page. it would contradict your actions in that they may appear to be in bad faith for using RPG articles to set precedents or to make your own point, as many have tried to explain the disruptive nature of some of your tagging. shadzar|Talk|contribs 07:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken in this instance. Have a look at Talk:Red Hand of Doom where you see there is an ongoing debate about notability; the article has no reliable secondary sources, and this issue won't go away until it is addressed. The article has been tagged accordingly.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Axe of the Dwarvish Lords

A sarcastic barnstar? Oh, please. Now who's being dramatic? If the AFD results in delete are you going to gloat, and if it results in anything else will you be a sore loser? For all your accusations of theatrics, I'll do neither in either case. BOZ (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an humourous & apt comment on your amateur dramatics.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You wound me, sir! Ah, watch as I fade into that bitter night, that cold cold death... (Is that better?) BOZ (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew you had it in you :) --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Azure Bonds

Gavin, users expect an explanation, when requested, to be given for edits when these edits are of a radical nature such as applying critical templates and particularly when the issue has been mooted on the talk page. I am glad that you are now doing this. However, your cease and desist histrionics (your bolding) on my talk page are neither friendly nor helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC).

I should not have to give explaination evertime I put a cleanup template on an article, as WP Guidelines make it clear when this is appropriate or not. However, when one is removed based on POV, this is clearly out of order. I refuse to enter into an edit war to make you understand this, and the only alternative is to use strong language to make this clear. Please recondsider your actions.--Gavin Collins (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Bitter dino follow-up

Are you going to follow up on your merge proposal of the article Bitter dino?--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been followed up by prodding it, since there seems to be no interest in resolving the tagged issues on that article. Dl2000 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this will work as the article has already been proposed for deletion, but I am almost certain AfD will. --Gavin Collins (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)