User talk:Shemeska
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] The Void (Dungeons & Dragons)
A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article The Void (Dungeons & Dragons), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pak21 08:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Norebo
Thanks for the info - I added it to the Pandemonium (Dungeons & Dragons) article with an inline citation. We need to be more active in adding such citations wherever possible, to aid in the article's verifiability. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] D&D dinosour
Hello, you mentioned that you might change your opinion on the article if it was clened up, please check it out now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dinosaur_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ygorl
Hi. If you have some good secondary/independent references for Ygorl, please add them to the article. Outer planes stuff is something I know very little about... Hobit (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Critter AFDs
A ton of them have gone up lately, check out the D&D wikiproject talk page. BOZ (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Come build something constructive!
Instead of trying to keep things from getting torn down, why not help build something up? Take a look at User:BOZ/List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, check out the pages it links to, see what's been done already, and see if there's anything you want to add. BOZ (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template without reasonable justification
Please cease and desist from removing the Notability templates from article Lolth which does not have any reliable secondary sources. There is no reasonable justification for removing the cleanup template which was put there to address the problem of lack of secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as the lack of explanation for removing the template are not supported by the notability guideline WP:BK and WP:RS which applies to this topic. Unless you adding reliable secondary sources to the article, I would be grateful if you would refrain from removing the cleanup template, which was place there to alert other editors who may be able to add sources that they are needed. Note that since the depth of coverage is not substantial, multiple independent sources are needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, the tag is already redundant. There is another tag already in place asking for the addition of more references, especially from non-primary sources. The addition of the notability tag on top of that is disruptive, and POV pushing on your part.
- As for removing it without justification, that's bogus. I provided explanation, as have other editors who have removed the same template, which you then subsequently removed with the same stock explanation. Don't accuse me of POV pushing Gavin, given how you aren't familiar with the topic, nor the -many- sources already listed. The same accusation has been repeatedly leveled against you, and yet you've been incredibly quick to level the same against anyone not in agreement with your own opinion, versus multiple editors actually familiar with the topic (including some published individuals in the genre) who distinctly feel otherwise. The article could use some secondary sources, but in this case they would reaffirm notability, not establish it. There's no reasonable need to claim that notability isn't established for the character, (appearences in dozens of novels, RPG sourcebooks, television, etc though not all of these by any stretch have been formally added to the article) and again this is a point where your unfamiliarity with the topic becomes a problem. Wikilawyer all you want Gavin -you're good at it- and write passive-aggressive notes on other editors talk pages too if you want, but your opinion on the matter is narrow and distinctly in the minority on this topic. Ask about it on the Project D&D or the Lolth article talk page itself, and you're going to find consensus against you on the issue.Shemeska (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- First point: if there are insufficent reliable sources to demonstrate notbalility, then the tag is relevant not redundant. I am happy to get an indpendent opinion and I am confident my view point will be upheld. However, this is moot: removing the tags without making any improvement is questionable in the fist instance. Why you have picked this particular article to remove the notability cleanup template from is a mystery, because there are nothing in the article that asserts this fictional character to be notable outside of Dungeons & Dragons.
- Secondly, your so called explaination for removing the template is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines. If there is no evidence of notability, then reliable sources should be added, which is why the template was placed on this article so this issue could be addressed. If you had added sources, I would surely congratulate you for your efforts; instead you assert (without providing any evidence) that there are lots of editors who are familiar with the topic who distinctly think other wise. Please note that this is your opinion; whether there is any substance to these assertions is yet to be seen. If you can obtain details of reliable sources from them, that would be good, but saying a subject does not need the addition of reliable sources because you "feel otherwise" is just POV pushing.
- Thirdly, you accuse me of lawmongering, when you yourself refuse to comply with the guidelines set in Wikipedia, as if sticking to the rules is beneath you on the grounds that you are a member of some moral majority that makes you exempt - again this is POV pushing.
- Lastly, I am asking you to come to your senses and realise that the cleanup templates are there to involve more editors to improve the article; if you are not interested in improving the article, at least restore the template so that others will be alterted to the fact that their contribution is needed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why have you picked an entire genre to spam with tags when you know little about the topic? You've been asked this before, and you've never answered to my knowledge. So please humor me this once. I don't see you picking any other random topic on wikipedia to tag spam, which has led a large number of editors to suspect you of some sort of strange, personal bias against the topic. Your attitude and actions have seriously alienated a lot of editors Gavin. Surely you must realize this by now. The massive number of comments on the RfC about your edits/tagging/AfDs should have clued you off to this well before now, but I haven't seen much of a change.
- And you're more than welcome to learn about the topic and make improvements yourself, as other editors have suggested multiple times, rather than spamming tags and running away, acting as if it's your moral imperative to brow beat others into doing the more difficult work, or else have the threat of more tags or AfDs over their heads if they don't appease you, and only you. Come on man. Realize that you're not acting in a way that promotes community well-being here amongst wikipedia's editors. You just make people angry and less inclined to spend the time to make substantial, constructive edits. On on the topic of contructive edits, I really don't recall ever seeing you actually add content to an article, not even so much as fix a typo. If you wanted to help wikipedia Gavin, you'd be better served by editing and adding reliable sources and citations to say, accounting articles, which your seem to know something about by your own claim, rather than disruptive tagging on a genre where know little to nothing about it and routinely get into arguments and edit warring with those editors who do.Shemeska (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please restore the template, otherwise I think we should consider WP:Third Opinion to resolve our disagreement. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- if i may be so bold there has already ben a "third option" of sorts regarding the tagging habits related to D&D articles. Many times on the users talk page itself, and otherwise here at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins. It seems that a stronger option must be takne than the RFC to get parties to understand the ideas presented to them, and accept them, rather than trying to force their own POV down every other editors throats. I have mentioend this before, but don't know exactly what to do about it. Even several admins has asked a particular user to gain knowledge of the material so they do not disrupt the community of editors that are trying to provide contant to the articles on D&D, but a certain user feels no need to even listen to administrator requests/suggestions. Just a few thought i thought i would add here in case they have gone missed in the past. shadzar-talk 18:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Recent Improvements to War of the Spider Queen article
Thanks very much! It is nice to see work recognized, I do appreciate it. I'm still adding to it however, hopefully all the templates can be removed in the near future! Anyways, thanks once again, i plan to continue working throughout the fantasy genre and adding as much as I can :) Dark Squall (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Seeking Mediation with Gavin
To prevent the endless back and forth sniping? :) That would help. I'm sure we're all tired of it. I think I've shown you my idea. [1] BOZ (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
