User talk:RelentlessRecusant/Archive 2

What do you want to do with quotientable automorphisms?

Hi

What edits/changes do you plan to make with the article on quotientable automorphisms? I don't think these articles will be accessed much by people without any math background. But go ahead and make your edits/changes/suggestions.

RE: Kith-Kanan Silvanos

I am sorry to hear my article is not up to quality standards. Could you please describe what exactly is the matter with it? I am writing mostly from memory, I got most of my books from the library, although I am currently attempting to widen my collection. When I do, I can improve my articles more. However, I will do what I can now. Thanks. DoomsDay349 02:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My general writing style is to write the article, then link after. As for lack of pages related to it, I do plan to write articles on all the known speakers and the members of the Kanan family. My only question is what do you mean by "background information"? Thanks. DoomsDay349 02:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I understand now. I'll get to work right away. DoomsDay349 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in. What do you think of the article now? What else needs to be improved yet? Also, if you could please reply to my Speaker of the Sun post below, that would be appreciated. Thanks. DoomsDay349 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker of the Sun article

I'm glad my articles are taking in such publicity. My question is, once again, what is specifically wrong with the article so that I might improve it? DoomsDay349 03:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SexyBack

Yes, that does sound fake doesn't it. Unfortunately, I did find a link on popjustice.com with a press release and another article had another link for the related album. I guess it's more real than we thought. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Valkyrie.SC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Valkyrie.SC.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Behemoth-class battlecruiser

In response to your message, I did indeed rip the infobox from the Science Vessel article. I would have made a new one, but I'm not terribly good at coding, and the final result would hae looked the same anyway. Unless you object, I was planning on adding infoboxes in the same style to all of the other units that have pages, and creating pages for those who don't. --Ourai 21:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:Atart

i just joined wp and was told that i was doing none sense, i mean, within minutes... thats impressive response time. i have added an external link to a new entry i made [heptagon tile]. i have designed one, you see, and thought wp is the right place to tell the world about it. sure it might appear egocentric to some in some ways since i am an artist, and thats what artists do - promote their art and themselves being the main attraction. whats the proccess here? i figure some people create content and others change it, or delete it, until one or the other gets tired of it? i enjoy using wp. i think its a good ting, even with all its communist rules. it never worked, the communism that is, until now, lo and behold. it's impressive indeed! i've been a long time fan. can the information be trusted? god only knows. and google. i wonder... will it make sense or dollars? cheers, atart.

Image Tagging for Image:EAW_Ywing.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EAW_Ywing.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deities of Dragonlance

Hello again! I have a favor to ask, if you're not too busy. I'd like a person who doesn't know much about dragonlance to review to articles on the gods of dragonlance and tell me if they make sense to someone outside the dragonlance community. My goal is to remove the stub rank from all of them, though some (thankfully) do not have stubs.It would be most helpful, considering there are 21 articles that I am looking at for reviewing, and most of them have stub-ranks. It would be most awesome to have that many stubs removed, and it would be very helpful if you could review them. On the page that I've linked above, Deities of Dragonlance, you will find links to 21 god pages, 7 gods of good, 7 gods of evil, and 7 gods of neutrality. Ignore the links to Ionthas and Mina, as they are different from the other gods and will be dealt with seperately. Once again, your help would be most appreciated, though I will understand if you are busy. If you accept this task, please tell me on my talk page and I'll give you a list of specific articles. Thanks a lot! DoomsDay349 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment on my userboxes. I'll get right on to your suggestions on the two articles you've looked over, and I eagerly await your reviews on the other articles on the gods of dragonlance. So, would you say to take the stub off the Paladine article? Again, many thanks. DoomsDay349 17:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Ships

Hello RelentlessRouge. I noticed you made that insanely huge list of ships and were the primary contributor for most of its expansion. That is phenomenal. As you may have heard before, you may be interested in joining Wookieepedia [1], a separate wiki where its all Star Wars all the time, and you are free to make individual articles for these ships rather than having to cluster them all together on Wikipedia (they're not too fond of LucasCruft out walking the streets on its own here). KEEP IN MIND, Wookieepedia is a canon-only information wiki, fanon should not be added to it, and to ensure this we have rules on valid sources. A cohort of mine has identified HIMS as not being canonical. Regardless, I still believe you can be a great help to us, while still working on Wikipedia itself. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; the ship list was put for deletion because Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia; we must keep Star Wars articles encyclopedic, without excess, in universe details. There have been recent pushes (and I am part of it) to continue to bring excess details to Wookieepedia and turn the notable Star Wars articles into well-referenced, encyclopedic entries with an out-of-universe perspective. Your edits would be absolutely AWESOME on Wookieepedia; I edit Star Wars stuff there too ^_^ — Deckill e r 11:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Star Wars ship names

Hey, Coredesat! I've read your comments on the aformentioned articles. Please explain your thinking more to me, as your definately have more experience than I. If necessary, I'll add a description for every ship: it's condensed history, commander, accomplishments, famous battles it was at, and where it was destroyed.

Thanks,

RelentlessRouge 11:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RelentlessRouge, I think you may have left this, the above message, on the wrong window (my talk page). Just letting you know. Thanks. Ste4k 12:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Wars currently has a number of child categories. My suggestion is to simply add any articles on ships (which are not already there) to the category for Star Wars/Vehicles/Category:Star Wars spaceships. Categorization allows for browsing the articles without the need for yet another "list" article. Lists are to be avoided unless strongly indicated as useful. See the list on the toolserver:

Star Wars
- Jedi religion
- Star Wars-related people
- Star Wars battles
- Star Wars books
- Star Wars characters
- Star Wars comics
- Star Wars companies
- Star Wars conflicts
- Star Wars creatures
- Star Wars events
- Star Wars fandom
- Star Wars films
- Star Wars items
- Star Wars languages
- Star Wars lists
- Star Wars locations
- Star Wars merchandise
- Star Wars music
- Star Wars organisation
- Star Wars selected articles
- Star Wars selected lists
- Star Wars selected pictures
- Star Wars stubs
- Star Wars television series
- Star Wars templates
- Star Wars vehicles
  - Star Wars air vehicles
  - Star Wars aquatic vehicles
  - Star Wars ground vehicles
  - Star Wars spaceships
    - Star Wars freighters
    - Star Wars starfighters

This is more than sufficient for organizing Star Wars information. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of the lists aren't really "lists" per se; they are merged mini-articles that don't stand as useful or notable alone. They also serve as ways to make sure that minor creatures/races/characters/and so on do not get their owna rticles. In terms of the ship names, though, those ship names do not have their own articles — they are names of ships seen in the various works of Star Wars. — Deckill e r 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't address the question then. I will attempt to do so now. In the Star Wars ship names list, there are over 200 Imperator-class Star Destroyer shipnames alone, with no information whatsoever - not where they appeared, how they figured in any battles, no references. It is the same in each category on the list. No differentiation is made between ships which appeared in a movie, or a script but didn't make it to a movie, or a book - in short it is a long list with no context other than the huge umbrella of ship names from some aspect of Star Wars. Where did you get the names? I still think it may get deleted as fan-cruft, even if completely sourced and information added.

I suggest you take that content to Wookiepedia, and/or work very hard on making the list better referenced and contextualized. It is clear there has been a great deal of work which has gone into this, and I would hate to see that wasted - but as it is, it simply is not verified, and I don't know if its even verifiable. Copy it to userspace or on your computer if you have not already done so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problems discussed by KC above are very similar to the ones I point out at Talk:Star Wars ship names. The missing contextual information is what makes the list not very useful. While I'm not opposed to having such a list-- if it is "Verifiable"-- like many (if not most) Wikipedians, I would be opposed to just a collection of uncited information. If you can clean it up and provide sources, then it may survive AfD, otherwise, as suggested, move it elsewhere until you can work on it.--Leflyman^Talk 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the message you left on my talk page. I honestly haven't been closely following Star Wars content on Wikipedia, but lists like that are tricky. Without some sort of citation, people don't know the context, let alone whether it's accurate or not. Listing the ships of each class on class pages wouldn't work, IMO, because Star Destroyer is just one long article now. A page with short descriptions and stuff would probably be better than a list, like you suggested. Something like List of Star Wars capital ships, except for individual ships. That said, despite any improvements, your article is probably going to be deleted. However, you should know that it's been transferred over to Wookieepedia here, and you're credited on the talk page. Feel free to join up and work on it; there aren't any notability requirements over there, so all ships get their own articles. -LtNOWIS 00:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars ship names

FYI, in case you're not checking my talk page any longer, I made a further reply: [2] Please reply there if you have further comment, so we can keep the discussion in one place. — Mike (talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Star Wars ship names

Responding to your post on my talk page[3], I guess my main reason for saying "indiscriminate list" was that the article is mostly made up of ship names without much on what the ships actually were. Now, if the list contained information on the ships' significance within the Star Wars universe, citing sources and all that, I probably would have considered a "keep" vote more than I did. And of course, with the new Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) guidelines telling us to write "out of universe" articles, the argument gets stretched thinner. I know people above have already suggested going to Wookieepedia with it, and I encourage you to do so, because this is some good work, I'm just not sure it's suitable for Wikipedia in its current state. If you do expand on it and add sources, I'll be happy to change my vote next time around. BryanG^(talk) 04:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I suggested it belongs in Wookiepedia is that wiki policy is against vast amounts of detail while Wookiepedia was created for the sole purpose of containing all the vast detail that can't be on wikipedia. Jedi6 -(need help?) 04:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Star Wars newsletter

Project updates
Greetings, Star Wars editors! Deckiller here. It's the first edition of the WikiProject Star Wars newsletter, and yes, it's a semi-ripoff of the Esperenza newsletter. I think it's important to begin with some good news: Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, and Jabba the Hutt have reached featured article status! Kudos to the editors who helped obtain these achievements! WikiProject Star Wars is also on a mission to improve Star Wars articles using the following ideas: An out of universe perspective versus an in universe perspective (see Wikipedia:Writing about fiction and the future ammendments to our manual of style) Evolving lists into regular articles Moving excess information and specifics to Wookieepedia (and providing links to Wookieepedia per the "see also" and/or "external links" sections) Enhanced communication amongst WikiProject members More to come These should provide the basic steps needed to improve and "encyclopedia-fy" the Star Wars series of articles.
Things to do
There are plenty of Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars/things to do. An update to the page is coming very soon, and it will represent the new and exciting changes that Star Wars pages will be receiving!
Out-of-universe versus in-universe perspectives
Although details are forthcoming, I would like to take this time to explain the gist of this concept. Wikipedia has generally agreed that fictional articles should write about the topic from a "real world" perspective, focusing on real world issues and topics, with a section or two for plot synopsis and so on. Jabba the Hutt is a solid character example, and Clone Wars (Star Wars) is quickly moving toward an out of universe perspective.

Article evolution

As many of you know, lists of minor Star Wars-related themes are very common on Wikipedia; however, since these may be seen as violations of Wikipedia policy (and having seperate articles would breach even more policies), the tentative solution is to create general articles on a list's topic (for example, turning List of Star Wars devices into Technology of Star Wars, which allows us to cover everything from hyperspace to comlinks in a general encyclopedic fashion). This can be very tough for some broad topics, so the key is organization. I encourage all editors to list their ideas on the WikiProject talk page. It will be a very difficult — but tangible — effort.

For an example, let me point you to the Final Fantasy WikiProject. Some of us over at that WikiProject decided to turn various components of Final Fantasy X, such as Pyreflies, Yevon, and the backstory — into an article describing the world of Spira. Location descriptions were given a List of locations in Spira article, and the details themselves were placed on the Spira (Final Fantasy X) page. This is a decent template to follow — however, we will need to place priority on out-of-universe, "real life" topics and perspectives in realtion to the article.

Sounds confusing, eh? It won't, for examples will be popping up left and right in the near future!

Signed...

— Deckill e r 03:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: List of Star Wars ships

RR,

I think you may have misunderstood the AfD debate. The issue wasn't the title, but the content. Moving Star Wars ship names to List of Star Wars ships is the same as recreating a deleted article. This is frowned upon, and will almost assuredly result in a speedy delete of the new page. I would suggest that if you want to help develop an "encyclopedic" article about ships in Star Wars, you might aim to contribute to one of the many other Star Wars ship articles, such as List_of_Star_Wars_capital_ships, List_of_Star_Wars_support_craft. As I had mentioned in previously, your list is not particularly useful outside Star Wars fandom, as it provides no sources and no context. Your best bet to avoid having all your efforts shortcircuited is to just transfer your work to Wookiepedia, where people are happy to have such a list. Wikipedia just isn't going to be the place for it.

Good luck, --Leflyman^Talk 23:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Just noticed that the article was already moved there: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_ship_names

Best, --Leflyman^Talk

List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2

Technically, per WP:IDP, each image needs a specific fair use rationale as well. Also, please read WP:FU. Each image needs to be used for a specific point. I have a hard time believing that more than 1 or 2 images per map is necessary. If you'd like to find images to explain something unusual (that's also been pointed out in verifiable, reliable sources), that's fine. But having too many fair-use images is giving those who would rather delete this article more ammunition. Fair use can be undermined by having too much of it. — TKD::Talk 14:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the best way to go about this is to select the one or two images that you feel add most to the article and thoroughly discuss them. Again, verifiable, reliable sources need to be provided so that it doesn't look like it's only your opinion. The article sadly needs a lot of work. I'm not a deletionist, but others are, as you might've seen over the last few days, and if this article is to stay, it needs to have some information on things like development history, reliable critical reception, and the like. — TKD::Talk 15:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although you might want to see the proposal that I made on WT:WPHALO first. These list-style articles have been getting deleted lately, so it might be best to recast everything about Halo 2 multiplayer into one, more unified article that doesn't focus on what non-fans might consider minutiae. This was done with Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved. — TKD::Talk 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you check his talk page comments on Talk:List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2, he gives his rationale, but he used a misleading template on the article page. I don't disagree with the reasoning, actually. If more needs to be written about multiplayer, it needs to be done encyclopedically, examining development history, critical reception, etc. — TKD::Talk 15:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page.

Relentless rouge 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:CommunicateCommunicateCommunicate

Thanks for the welcome!

Well, I am not new and have been around for a while. I have found quite a few users who make Wikipedia neither pleasant nor an enjoyable experience. But you seem nice. Thanks.

CommunicateCommunicateCommunicate 01:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, go here Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/PoolGuy if you have time to do a lot of reading and see what is currently happening. Some Admins don't know how to follow Wikipedia rules and try to chase users away when they politely explain that policy was not violated. Otherwise, here is the background for my concern.

GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by Jayjg (talk · contribs) and Hall Monitor (talk · contribs) blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Wikipedia policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.

Other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Comments on RFCU itself [4]

Other Admins contacted [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply

GoldToeMarionette posted on the account's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance when the talk page was protected without the issue being discussed. User:GoldToeMarionette User_talk:GoldToeMarionette

GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." [10]

Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Wikipedia Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am asking for your help to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. Thank you for your time with this request.

CommunicateCommunicateCommunicate 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What this is

Well, back in March I made some posts that a couple users did not like. The posts were letting article contributors know there was an Afd on the article they helped create. The bad people filed a Check User request on two of my accounts even though I did not violate any policy, in fact I complied with directions on how to notify users at WP:SPAM. Well the Check User was completed anyway, and then an Admin blocked me even though I did not violate any policy. Since then I have been trying to get the account unblocked because there was no reason for it to be blocked in the first place. Now, I am hunted down and every new account I create to seek help is blocked by a few users out to persecute me, because I dared to challenge Admin authority. I didn't violate policy, so I won't put up with them trying to run me out of the community. I edited quietly for years until they wronged me and I sought redemption.

It is a lot to look at, you should probably just focus on fun stuff. Let Wikipedia stay fun for yourself. But always stand tall! CommunicateCommunicateCommunicate 02:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCC user

I can't unblock him — I'm bound by our blocking polciies and WP:SOCK. — Deckill e r 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the policy states: "Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block." — Deckill e r 02:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you can see what I am facing. Here is the post the multiple account did "Please support the examples of Pet peeves you helped create on its talk page and at this page. Thank you. GoldToeMarionette 05:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)". That was all it did.

Even though it was a multiple account it did not create illusion of broader support, it just notified article contributors. It wasn't to mislead, it notified the contributors of an AfD. It did not circumvent a block, there was no active block to circumvent.

Something seems to happen to users when they become Admins, I think, they let power go to their heads and ignore the policies the community created. Thanks for your understanding, it has reaffirmed that what I am doing is right. You are great. Keep up your good work on Wikipedia, you have good contributions. CeCeCe 03:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It circumvents a block because Marionette is a sockpuppet of PoolGuy — an indefinitely blocked username. — Deckill e r 03:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISD articles

Some of those ISD articles don't really belong in their own article on Wikipedia; the information should be explained in the plot summaries of the respected books. There are a few exceptions. — Deckill e r 16:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: How's It Going Man

Hey Relentless, I like your new name style. Been a while, eh? As for help on Dragonlance articles, I'd appreciate it if you could help me out with the List of Dragonlance deities, as I had asked above. I know you aready checked out Paladine, and I thank you for that, but there's about 19 other god articles to go, and like I said, I only want you to read the article and tell me if it makes sense to you as a non dragonlance person, and also to put in any useful input. Thanks :) DoomsDay349 01:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll work on it... DL pictures are hard to come by, and chances are Mina pictures will be... provactive... some of the DL women pictures are. Anyway, thanks a lot, and if you can start looking over some of the other god articles it would be really appreciated. DoomsDay349 01:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:BR55BattleRifle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BR55BattleRifle.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freelancer: Combat Evolved

Hi. I appreciate the warning about the article being up for deletion, but looking at the Vanity articles page the following quote comes up: "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous.". I know that the subject of the page is certainly not famous but other pages like FreeWorlds are based on much the same thing (a Freelancer mod), and concern a pretty big number of people who play the game. I'm not asking for it to be necessarily kept, but just wondering what constitutes a vanity article and what doesn't. Thanks.

Uh, also - it's a Freelancer mod, not Halo 2.

--Bronzey 07:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for FCE

No problem. — Deckill e r 19:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there isn't enough evidence, nor is there a person who could be the puppet master. We'll just have to take this one, methinks. — Deckill e r 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ships

Here's the thing: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we have to describe things from this universe. Clearly, the thurstship is a ship in several books, yes, but it can't stand by itself as an article (as well as many other ships and vehicles and whatnot). Without them merged into a list, they are easy AfD targets anyway. — Deckill e r 14:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians have agreed on a new way to treat fictioanl articles, from a out of universe perspective with details on ships and minor characters, etc being merged into lists where they are stronger on the whole. Ideally, the info on the thrustships can be incorporated into a plot summary on the black fleet crisis book pages, but for now, I think our best compromise is to have all these small ship articles into a list as per a lot of the other fictional univeres. The info is still there (outside of the infoboxes, which have been deemed unencyclopedic to have stats and all that), but it's more organized and together. — Deckill e r 14:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they describe the item as if it was a real thing (speed and whatnot). That should be incorporated as "According to the ____ sourcebook, the A-Wing's speed in all Star Wars fiction is 120 MGLT." Also, the hull system is for fan RPGs, as well. — Deckill e r 14:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For details and such, see Writing about fiction. — Deckill e r 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]