This is an archive of past discussions with User:BOZ. 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.
Made it yesterday. Wiki has changed since I last made an article. Back in the day, you could be the first to create an episode page, but never a whole TV show page. Must be a lot less people around now. Still enough people to nominate it for speedy deletion right away, though!
I was going to create a tiny POS article and leave it at that, but the speedy got my dander up, so I've been improving it. Like old times, sigh. A few more years of editor attrition, and maybe I can start the article for a Marvel movie or something! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I know what you mean. New Page Patrol is a lot more aggressive than they used to be. It looks like you had at least one other user helping out though, so that is good. I figure, if you get at least two WP:RS on a new article, most reasonable NPP folks will approve it, but then there are others... BOZ (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I did get help. 1) Deletion forces you work. 2) Sometimes someone helps you and it's awesome! Wiki should figure out some sort of social media aspect that makes it more fun for people Think that's on WP:NOT to not do that, though.Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
LOL, yeah, I think they do frown on going to social media for help. :) But, I do wish there were easier ways to find people to coordinate to work on an article with you. That said, I don't think there is any issue at all with asking others for help for an article up for speedy or PROD, but it is a different story with AFD where you have to be more careful since it is a consensus decision. BOZ (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
That's an interesting topic! It's a cool idea actually, wonder why no one thought of doing that here. :) I like your first choice, but I would phrase it "is the first Norwegian TV show on Netflix", unless Netflix produced it. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
External link and redirect
Happy New Year, BOZ!
Already I wanted to tell/ask you: In many deletion discussion we were told that content should go to Fandom wikis. It seems sad to me that in addition we do not even seem to be allowed to link to such wikis to help a reader find them according to WP:ELNO. Would you perhaps be interested in giving your opinion to the fringe case of at Talk:Forgotten Realms?
Also I was wondering: When Fey (Dungeons & Dragons) was changed to a redirect, the history was also deleted and the old version is no longer accessible for merging or other future uses. Could you please tell me if that is the normal way to do it?
With regards to the external links, I see what you mean, and I feel the same way how it seems sad to send the content elsewhere, but I am afraid I do not know the policy well enough to say if it is OK to link there.
As far as the edit history of Fey (Dungeons & Dragons), I see what you mean, as the AFD was closed as redirect but the edit history was deleted. I will restore the edit history so that you or someone else can merge if needed, but be aware that no one should be restoring the article from a redirect unless sources are found to meet the WP:GNG. BOZ (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Notability of your article creations
Hi, I seem to recall that we had the same discussion last year already, but not much seems to have changed. You seem to have created a truckload of articles of very dubious notability, and continue to do so. I just nominated two right above, but looking at e.g. Field Guide: Northern Vehicles 2 and Field Guide: Southern Vehicles 2, not only is it rather unclear why these two identical articles are not created as one in the first place (as they clearly belong tgether), but even more why they would pass our notability guideline and would survive an AfD. Apart from the review you list, these supplements have received no attention at all[1]. They made no impact, have no lasting influence, they simply exist. We are not a repository of everything ever made and discussed briefly in niche magazines.
The same can be said about e.g. a novel like Wraith: Sins of the Fathers. It is rather pointless to have you create tons of articles which then get redirected or deleted anyway, and it is strange to see a very seasoned editor continuing like this. Could you please change your approach or elaborate on why not? FRAM 14:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi BOZ! I hope your holidays were good. How do I find if a draft of a topic has been started? I want to create a draft for the next D&D book (Explorer's Guide to Wildemount) but I don't want to create a duplicate if one already exists. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Good to have you back, and same to you! :) It should be relatively easy to find that, and there are a few ways you can check. First of all you can use the standard search function and set it to check for drafts. You can also type "Draft: Exp" into the search box and it will bring up all drafts starting with that. One more way is to open up a page from a red link as if you were going to create an article, and if there is a draft with that exact title you will get a little box on that page saying so. :) BOZ (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I was looking at NGAME before I make a new article, but I didn't find the guidance I was looking for. Do you know if there are any pre-requisites for an article existing in the Mainspace vice Draftspace? For example, WP:NFILM will say that films shouldn't be in Mainspace until they've actually started filming. If a game is still in development, is it inappropriate to have an article until a certain point?
Do you ever go through and mark pages reviewed that would go to WP:NPP, or do you usually stay out of page reviews?
Likewise, if there's ever a draft ready to move to Mainspace, do you ever review them?
Hi 2pou, thanks for asking! I will admit that I am not super knowledgeable about how the guidelines work in regards to video games that are still in development, as I usually work on retro games from the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. I also do not review pages for NPP, nor do I review drafts for AFC. Sorry if I was not much help, unless there is something else you were looking for that I may be able to answer? For what it is worth, I am sure that there is a rule about a game in development that it has to reach a certain point before we should have an article on it, like there is for articles about films in development. BOZ (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
No, that's fine. Thank you! Alternatively, if I created a Draft, and asked your thoughts if it was ready for Mainspace (separate from AFC), would you perform the move if you thought it was? Like this for example (starting small): Draft:Middle-earth Strategic Gaming -2pou (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, no, I was originally talking about a future Lord of the Rings video game. Sorry; that wasn't clear. That redirect is just a quick trial experiment. Middle-earth Strategic Gaming is apparently the name that the PBM game goes by now. -2pou (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Canvassing
BOZ, you know that selectively contacting people about AfDs of your articles is rather frowned upon? And complaining that there are too many AfDs for one person to handle is a bit much, when e.g. the four I nominated today, are all created by you on a single day, when you created 9 articles. If you are free to create 9 articles about subjects of little or no notability in one day, then people are surely within their right to nominate the worst four of them in one day as well? Otherwise you are making a "fait accompli" by creating more articles than people may nominate for deletion... In 2019 alone, you created some 750 articles (not counting those since redirected), so you shouldn't be surprised that you get lots of AfDs per week (considering the obscurity of the subjects you wrote upon). FRAM 21:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I have asked people for help on finding sources, nothing more than that. I have never asked anyone to join in an AFD discussion, and if you are accusing me of doing so, then that is simply your misconception. You of course have a right to nominate any article for AFD that you chose. Any negative perceptions that you may feel you need to have towards me are also your right to have. BOZ (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Peregrine Fisher, good question. :) I use it in a variety of circumstances, kind of similarly to the "like" button on Facebook almost? On articles, I usually use it when someone adds something substantive to improve an article, or reverts a change that was detrimental to the article. In discussions, I will use it when someone makes a point I agree with, or adds something valuable that I had not considered. I'm sure other people use it at other times, and I have gotten it many times from other people as well. Got to spread the WP:WIKILOVE given how much negativity gets around, I figure. :) BOZ (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not you personally, it's the totality of the experience. It would have been the next person who commented if it hadn't been you. I probably fucked up in any number of ways over the years and having it all brought out and paraded around to show how awful I am was making me pretty damned depressed. I had to walk away from that for my own mental health. I don't want you to feel bad though, but I will say that leaving that conversation lifted my spirits considerably. Thanks for reaching out to me though, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Happy editing. BOZ (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Just a note
Without getting into the particulars of the situation, I hope all the work you've done is also available elsewhere. It seems like regardless of whether some of these articles are right for Wikipedia, they would be a valuable contribution to a topic-specific wiki project (dnd-wiki.org being an example I'm sure you're already aware of). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for reaching out Rhododendrites, I appreciate that. I honestly have no idea what has and has not been made available on other wikis. I have tried looking at them and found them difficult to navigate and keep track of, especially when compared with Wikipedia which I find much easier to use. I also note that on fan wikis, a lot of the information that Wikipedia does consider valuable (development, reception, etc) is often completely ignored if not just plain unwanted (it gets in the way of the in-universe descriptions maybe?), and I find that to be unacceptable. So, I have little use for fan wikis. I want to see Wikipedia have room for both the development/reception sort of thing for fictional elements, as well as describing the role within the fiction, and I think there can be more room here for elements that don't meet the WP:GNG, either in the form of lists or a selection of pages that go into details on the elements of a particular work of fiction. I have always felt that deletion of this material is generally a disservice to readers, who are then often directed to inferior fan wikis instead. But anyway, that is just my rant and I don't think you came here looking for that. :) Fan wikis are good for people who want that sort of thing, and if you or anyone you know is looking for "non-notable" material that was deleted from Wikipedia to add to a fan wiki, then I would love to see that happen so it is available somewhere for people who do want that, since it is no longer here. BOZ (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
You can create your own wikia and mass export over all your articles you created on Wikipedia, and keep the reception and development sections. Even if someone else has a wiki for the same thing, doesn't matter, you can still create yours, people do that all the time. And remember once you register there you can go into the options to eliminate some of the irritating ads, and also can use firefox ad blocker if the remaining ones bother you. You set the rules for your own wiki, and can maintain standards, appoint administrators as you see fit to help if it grows a large fan base, etc. DreamFocus00:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like more than I want to bother with at this time, but thanks for the suggestions. You can use anything I have created on Wikipedia if you want to put it on Wikia. I started a few wikis on Fandom towards the end of last year just for the hell of it, and got bored quickly. I may come back to it, you never know, but not any time soon. BOZ (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I know we didn't do the formal Adopt-a-User program, but I wanted to highlight that you've been a great mentor. I don't know if I would have stuck around without your support. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Aw thank you so much. :) I definitely appreciate it, and I appreciate you! I know you will have a long and fruitful career on Wikipedia if you want one. BOZ (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
AFD participation
After giving it some thought, I have decided to willingly suspend my participation in AFD discussions until my fate is decided. Since my participation in AFD has not been particularly effective for the last several months anyway, I doubt my lack of involvement will mean much. BOZ (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to hear Boz; you are definitely swimming against the evolving tide of Wikipedia. The pendulum will swing back, however. In my brief stint at AfD I learned a few things:
1. It's fascinating to me how limited the participation is--three to six editors decide what content is "legitimate" for the most-read source of information in the world. That is powerful normative control.
2. The arbitrariness and inconsistency of closing. There's a low-hanging academic paper here based on the stats of admins. There are some AfD topics that admins stay away from--only the bravest or most arrogant close these. As for GNG, it's clear that even admins do not agree on where are the goalposts. However, D&D and other similar topics can be piled on with ease. An editor (or admin closer for that matter) who wouldn't dare go near a Women in Red article, Wikiproject Firearms, Wikiproject Soccer (football), or Wikiproject Military History for AfD can safely purge content in these areas. It's a pity that Wikiproject D&D does not have more active users. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The trick about AFD is that it is all about who shows up. You could make the same exact argument in six AFDs on similar topics with similar levels of notability. On the first two, several editors who favor keeping show up and the closing admin is inclined to weigh their arguments favorably, you get a keep. On the next two, several editors who favor deleting show up and the closing admin is inclined to weigh their arguments favorably, you get a delete. On the last two, you get a mix of responses, and the close will result entirely on the tendencies of whichever admin decides to close it. It's really a funny little game when you look at it. I have participated in AFD for well over a decade and while (despite the claims of some people) sometimes I do indeed make substantive and occasionally even passionate arguments, a good percentage of the time my contribution is little more than "keep or merge". I say keep partly because that is my preference, and partly because I want to leave an easy window open in case I want to amend my !vote if I think of a better argument or want to agree with what someone else adds later, and I say merge because I honestly feel that if there is a valid merge target then that should be considered. Many AFDs I have participated in were closed as merge or redirect, especially when other editors (including those who would rather delete than keep) saw my merge suggestion and agreed with it. Over the last few months though, I have seen a lot less willingness to compromise in that way, though, so my comment above is sadly accurate. Despite voting reliably this way for a long time, I saw at most whining, contempt, and minor complaints towards me, and prior to a few days ago never a serious level of complaint, but I honestly never considered (and still have a hard time believing) that I was being disruptive in any way, so I am of course dismayed that people have been campaigning so hard against me. But yes to address your comments more directly, your first point is the most bizarre part about AFD; sometimes it's enough for two or three people to say "delete" and you are thenceforth prohibited from having an article on that topic ever again? And as for point two, I have seen patterns on closers myself; some admins clearly do not want to close certain AFDs as keep or no consensus so they will relist multiple times on the same discussion, hoping for more deletes so they can close it the way they would like. As for your closing comment, my goal for the last few years has been to improve the profile of D&D and RPGs in general by introducing many more notable topics and topics that I could hope to prove their notability over time, to try to encourage other people to want to participate. I am always trying to coordinate other editors to see who I can get to participate in what areas of tabletop gaming. I see a person with one skill, I utilize the hell out of that person until I wear them out, LOL. I don't work as hard as I could on Wikipedia, but then again this is only one aspect of my life, and not even the most important one. I just want to play my own little part in the overall whole. I don't mean to get too personal, but since I did mention my mental health already, I do like to participate in content creation and improvement to help with my own issues of depression, and I find that accomplishments help a lot.
By the way, I was hesitant to log in to Wikipedia today for several hours, and I finally decided not to be intimidated. I was expecting more anger and judgement towards me in my WP:AN thread... but instead I got some fierce defense from three editors I respect and admire. :) I wish there was a "love" button in addition to the "thank" button. ;) BOZ (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
AN
I have asked some questions of you at AN and while I do not think anyone is expecting an immediate comment on hundreds of undeletions, you should devote any wikitime that you do have to explaining your recent undelete actions. WP:ADMINACCT is an important policy and you would do well to own this situation. AGK ■23:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
AGK, thank you for creating that table. I was trying to review my log the other day but I found it difficult to navigate, so this should be a lot easier to use. I do want to be accountable for my own actions, and so any mistakes, errors, oversights, or just bad choices I made along the way, I am willing to take care of. I want to be worthy of the good faith extended by some of the respondents in that thread, and cleaning up any messes I made may be the only way to do that.
To be clear on what you are asking, what is the best way to present my responses to each one? Would it be enough to say, for example, "undeletions 1-300 are good, 301-375 are not good so I have deleted them again"? Or do I need a line-by-line of which ones I think are OK and which ones were bad? Should I provide a reason for each one that I think is OK, or for the ones that I think are OK, do I just say so and then you will look at them and decide whether you agree or question why I think it is OK if you do not agree? I created a temporary user page at User:BOZ/undeletions to store my data as I go, but I can modify that to another format if needed. Would it be reasonable to have a category of "not sure" for those that may need outside input? How about undeletions that were bad but have already been resolved by me or another admin?
As for why I did not always provide a reason, I admit that I do not really have an explanation for that. I suppose I did not always know what I should put or did not give much thought to listing a reason, which sounds a lot worse now than when I did not think I would have to explain them later. I do not really have an excuse for not providing reasons at the time.
I am a bit overwhelmed by this experience, but I want to do what I can to make things right. I feel that the majority of my undeletions will be good or at least uncontroversial, but I know that I have already found some that should never have been undeleted (or that, having undeleted them in error, I should have realized my mistake and corrected myself). Any advice you can give me will help me go in the right direction. Obviously, I want to change my approach to something other than "becoming more reclusive and ashamed".
Your approach feels more like dispute resolution than the "he's bad, no he's good!" approach that did not seem to be getting anywhere on AN. Please, if you can, keep in touch with me as I go in case I stumble. I know you are busy, but maybe just watchlist that user page so you can keep tabs on my progress. Is there a timetable of some kind, like a hard limit that I should finish this by? I have no idea what kind of time investment this will wind up being, so I will start now and see how far I get in what kind of time. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, I got farther than I expected in a little over an hour. It was actually fairly therapeutic, oddly enough? If there is anything you need me to do differently, let me know and I will change that when I resume. Due to the level of concentration needed to review this stuff, I can only do this at some parts of my day, and probably not at all on the weekends. But as I suspected, looking at it on this table is way easier to do than trying to go through my log and trying to figure out what I did and when. Unless you have an objection, I would like to continue editing other articles in my spare time (I have sources I have been itching to add) and save this for parts of the day when I can dig in properly, but I do intend to continue. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I am going to resume going through the list later today. I will start by manually going through items # 26 - 106. I made the faulty assumption that Fram had done this already since he had previously commented on several of those items in the first few days of the AN thread, but since he found more problems I conclude that assumption was incorrect. Therefore, I will go through them one-by-one and take care of any additional problematic diffs. I will also do some minor editing throughout the day before resuming the list, but I will save more serious editing for another time. BOZ (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
As promised previously, I will now go though items # 26 - 106 in the list. I did spend some time editing today, but tomorrow I will do little or no editing, so I will make more progress tomorrow if I get the chance. BOZ (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I went back over these items to double check and found that most had never been deleted prior to December 2019. Sharindlar and Myrkul, as brought up in the AN thread, I deleted the edit histories of just to be on the safe side. I did not go through the whole list looking to see if I had ever been involved in any form with the content in question, just in the log to see if there was a legitimate reason that no admin should have ever restored it (deleted at AFD, copyvio, etc), and I did not come up with any more of those. Some were speedy deleted in the distant past as very poor articles which were still on topic, so I did not redelete those (as opposed to total nonsense, like what was at Myrkul). AGK, to what degree would I have had to be involved with editing an article for me to be considered an involved admin? I remember now, after having gone though all 80 members of that list, that I started undeleting them in the first place because one user had created new redirects from those titles to a different list, so I undeleted the histories of the dozen or so that he did that with, reasoning that the edit histories might be useful to him; at that point, I decided to go on ahead and do the rest, if that makes sense. I never expected it would case so much trouble, or really any trouble at all. Like I said above, tomorrow I will make more progress if I get the chance. BOZ (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems like most of my days are busy lately. I should be able to find some time shortly to start on that; I may not get far, but I want to make some progress. BOZ (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I found some time and made some progress, so I am going to take a break here. I should be able to find more time tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I got more than halfway through the list within a week; I will not likely find time to continue over the weekend, but I will resume on Monday. BOZ (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Today has been particularly busy (no surprise there) and I have some off-wiki work piling up that I need to make some progress on, and some articles that I need to try to source here, but I will definitely make at least some progress on this by the end of the day. BOZ (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Today wiped me out... I looked a little at the list and made some notes, and I will add them to whatever I can get done with tomorrow. Thank you for your patience. BOZ (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Another busy day, but not as bad as yesterday, and I did get the majority of my off-wiki work done, so I do not see any problem with making some progress later today. BOZ (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I finished all my off-wiki work (will have to manage it better so it does not pile up), and made a little progress, hoping for better tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The last couple of days really wiped me out, so there was not much left of me today. I made a little more progress and am calling it quits earlier today, so hopefully some rest will do me good. BOZ (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I am definitely refreshed and better rested, but my time was limited today, so I made what progress I could. More tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I was hoping to make some progress today, but it was a busy day and I ran out of time early. I will probably be busy most of the weekend, and while I would like to promise that I will be able to pick back up on Monday again, it may be another busy day like this past Monday. That said, I should have no problem picking back up on Tuesday. BOZ (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by Dream Focus, I appreciate that. See User talk:BOZ#Just a note for my feelings on fan wikis/wikia in general. Maybe my feelings will change one day, but for now that is where I am at. I cannot see switching from Wikipedia to a fan wiki any time in the near future for me, but I respect you for doing it. If there is any way I can help you do what you do there, let me know. BOZ (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Forgot about this. I probably won't do shit, but alignment and race might be GA achievable. Maybe I'll bittorrent that DnD book that came out a year or two ago. Dungeons & Dragons Art & Arcana. You "read" that at all? Are you the only DnD editor left? Any other editors who know how to add refs to DnD articles? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I might be the most active D&D editor, but I see other folks often enough. I trust Sariel Xilo and Guinness323 to help out with sources on articles. I have seen that Art & Arcana book, and it looks very nice. :) BOZ (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm downloading it as we speak. Well, I had to stop for a bit to write this because WP won't let me edit from a VPN.
Anyways, just had an observation I thought I'd share. I roam around the wiki lately, and I keep seeing names I recognize... It's all the deletionist admins from back in day! Half of them seem to be on arbcom! Kinda making me amused right now. Maybe I'll despair at a later date.
Then I thought about my inclusionist friends who I can't remember without seeing their names. It was just you and DGG (who's some bigwig now) and that's it. Then I saw Dream Focus on this talk page. That's awesome!
Also, your talk page is terrible. Probably all notifications from TTN!
There was a time before I knew you when I would spend all day adding fair use images to lists of episodes. I added hundreds. Then me and User:Matthew would fight Maxim, Black Kite and others with mega reverts and RfCs and tons of other fun stuff. But they finally won. For years and years I got emails saying an image was about to be deleted. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this place always has been, still is, and likely always will be a huge mess. ;) But still, it's a mess I happen to love for a lot of reasons, and despite a lot of reasons. I try not to get too worked up over it, despite how difficult it's been lately with all the shit flying at me from every direction. :) My talk page is only from this year so far - I archive it at the end of every year - LOL! Aside from DGG, you know that Casliber is on Arbcom too, he's always been a good guy. BOZ (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm laughing so hard! One month in and this is what you get! TTN is a machine. I saw Casliber's name and it kinda ringed a bell. I'll have to think about it. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I always wondered if wikipedia had been in the 80s-90s, I'd have been editing all this content, likely fighting too hard at AfD and getting blocked. I can only face it in short spells...gets too depressing otherwise Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I know what you mean Cas Liber, although if we had been able to do it back then we probably would have sourced everything better with the all the magazines being still readily available! LOL I've had to stop posting at AFD for a while because I've been getting nowhere good with it. :) BOZ (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
We did the best with what we could - we had a bunch of White Dwarfs and some other mags and books, tried to get as much OOU material as possible and crossed our fingers. To do more for many would have meant having to drop everything and run off to a library (maybe). The tidal mark of two independent souces was okay for a while but much of the stuff being deleted now I was thinking five years ago was only a matter of time before someone came across it (as has happened) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Cas Liber, I know what you mean, I fought the good fight, but ultimately Wikipedia said no. Instead, these days, I work mostly on the game articles themselves and related topics, it is not quite as difficult to source those. I think I have done some decent work in that regard. :) BOZ (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Here's where I knew casliber. "Looks good :) bring on the froghemoth and vegepygmies ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 2:38 pm, 29 July 2009, Wednesday (10 years, 6 months, 7 days ago) (UTC−7)" Awesome comment! I had that module as a kid (Talk:Expedition to the Barrier Peaks) and used to look at the pictures of the frog and the veg a lot. Also, I went searching for that wiki quote and I misspelled frogomoth. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello, BOZ. I know you are busy with various things, but it seems that the deletionist crowd is taking a look at the articles for Pyramid Magazine, Hogshead Publishing and its games, and Guardians of Order and some of its games that are not yet at AfD. If you could strengthen any of those articles before any are nominated for AfD, that would be especially helpful.
You must have read my mind at some point, because I planned to do all of that today. :) Very busy day so far, but hopefully I have a few minutes to at least think. Thanks for helping to keep an eye on things. BOZ (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Newimpartial, I do not know if you have ever reviewed this, but the person who replied to me there was the co-nominator and someone I found to be very open to listening to my input, and may have further insight into how to deal with the latest recurrence of this situation, if you approach respectfully. BOZ (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Illuminati (play-by-mail game)
You mentioned possibly turning Illuminati (play-by-mail game) into an article. I've seen it listed in the ratings in numerous Paper Mayhem issues, and in one I just happened across, Paper Mayhem Issue #69 (Nov/Dec 1994), Illuminati is noted as winning the 1993 Origin award for Best Play-By-Mail Game. However, I haven't found an article or review on it in a secondary source yet. If I do, I'll create an article on it here and let you know. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Airborne84, thanks! It won the Origins Award more than once, in fact - I could start an article for it based just on that, really, but more sources would help a lot. BOZ (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I've found a number of descriptive ads in Paper Mayhem magazines, but I'd hate to base an article on them. I have to think someone's written an article or review on it somewhere. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@BOZ, I started the article. As a side note, there's an ad for Illuminati on the inside front cover of Paper Mayhem Issue #19 (July/August 1986) that has some excerpts from Paper Mayhem 1/85, Space Gamer #72, and Gaming Universal Issue 3/4, (Fall 1984). If you have any of those issues, the original articles would be accessible. I'd prefer to not quote the excerpts without seeing the original source. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Nice. That is much better than the article I found in Paper Mayhem. Feel free to improve the article. I may get to it eventually, but might be a few days due to other things IRL. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, there it is: Kings & Things PBM is started. Pile on if you have any more references. As a side note, I tried to find something interesting for a DYK nomination, but nothing really stood out. I'll keep it in mind for future PBM articles, as I might start a few more in the future. I picked up all these Paper Mayhem issues. Might as well do something with them. --Airborne84 (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Sweet, good work as always. :) One question I have is that is there anything in those sources about the development of the game, for example was Tom Wham the designer of the board game involved in any way? BOZ (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. There was very little about development and I listed the only name noted, but it was three articles bunched together in the same issue, probably because the editor in chief, David Webber, wrote one of them. I have a bunch of other Paper Mayhems around and will sort through to see if there's anything else, but I'm not optimistic as there are lists of past issues in the backs of some that outline the major articles in each and I didn't see Kings & Things listed. Still, it's not impossible. I'll check around. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, gotcha. I was asking largely because I think the article needs at least a line or two about how it was adapted from the board game. BOZ (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment
In passing - and I'm not saying that this ought to be your priority - but my sense is that many of the Traveller, Paranoia and Hero supplements (at least) probably are independently notable based on their critical reception. For a clear NBOOK pass, though, multiple reviews are required, so I wouldn't be inclined to restore any from redirect without additional sources. I would also note that the editor placing the redirects is being constructive in doing so (compared to their previous approach), so there wouldn't be anything to be gained by reverting the redirects without good reason. This last comment isn't so much for you, BOZ, but more for any lurkers on the page :). Newimpartial (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
You're right. I have restored a small percentage of them here and there when I found that there was more than one review, and plan to leave the rest as redirects until I find more. BOZ (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Joey Diaz: A couple of requests for admin intervention
Hi, BOZ. I have a couple of requests:
First, can you put Joey Diaz on some type of long-term protection? It's been suffering from a lot of persistent vandalism and addition of uncited material lately.
Second, what is the proper procedure to close out a discussion once it appears that consensus has been achieved? I started this discussion a week ago, and there appears to be consensus on the question, with the last person to weigh in having done so on Feb 25. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I have been taking it easy on using my admin tools lately for a variety of reasons, so I am not doing any blocking or protections at this time.
BOZ, have you seen the backlog on that page? Some requests are 88 days old. It's such a problem that there's a banner at the top of the page requesting help from admins. Nightscream (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Unless someone is actually trying to dispute that there is a consensus there, I think it is OK to assume you have consensus without needing an "official" close, and move on. BOZ (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
BOZ, an serial policy violator who's racked up an entire talk page filled with warnings for adding uncited material going all the way back to 2013 is continuing his disruptive edits with the Joey Diaz article, as seen here. One of the most recent warnings on his tp is by an editor who said, "Are you still at this years later? You literally learned NOTHING from all the warnings given to you years ago. Keep it up and you will be reported.". This serial violator DEFINITELY needs a block. Can you impose one? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This user posts pretty infrequently, and that warning was from over a year ago and they have not had once since then. I think this case would be better proposed to WP:AN/I. BOZ (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Paper Mayhem
Interested in your thoughts on the tag on Paper Mayhem. It was very fair when it was added, as I didn't have much material when I put it in mainspace (should have started that one in the sandbox). I think I've addressed it adequately with secondary sources though—with the few Paper Mayhem citations aside. But, even though I don't think I have a conflict of interest as Wikipedia defines it, I hesitate to remove the tag myself. Would it be appropriate for you to review it as it stands, or should I ask the person who tagged it? Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I would go back to the person who added it and see if you have addressed their concerns. I probably wouldn't be any more impartial as you as far as that goes; if they still have concerns but you disagree with them, you might either want to get an outside opinion from someone who has never edited the article, or just leave the tag on there to be resolved another day. BOZ (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I've been keeping an eye on this article for many years, thank you for reading and adding the actual review, deleting the review list. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I started Monster Island (play-by-mail game). I don't remember why I had it on my list to write. It just was. And I had about five articles handy, so it just took some typing. Anyway, I'm not an expert at DYK, but if you think anything in there might be a good nomination, please let me know. Nothing really stood out except maybe "Zombie Juice", but not sure how exciting that would be .... --Airborne84 (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Airborne84, you probably had it on your to-do list since I suggested you start it as an Origins winner - that could be a selling point for DYK along with it being a long-running game... with "Zombie Juice". ;) BOZ (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi BOZ, the following are only short bits, but they are still copyright violations. Can you please go through your articles and remove all such lines copied straight from the sources?
The Island Worlds: the "plot summary" is a near-straight copy, you just reordered some bits but didn't rewrite it. Your text is "Thor Taggart, descendant of space pioneers, seeking to escape a sundering socio-bureaucracy on Earth, pushes off for the asteroid belt with the help of smuggler Martin Shaw", the original is "Seeking to escape a sundering socio-bureaucracy on Earth, Thor Taggart, descendant of space pioneers, pushes off for the asteroid belt with the help of smuggler Martin Shaw"
Shadows Over Bögenhafen, "contents": "Shadows Over Bögenhafen picks up where the first module, The Enemy Within left off and takes the adventurers to the fair at Bogenhafen" vs. "Shadows Over Bögenhafen picks up where the first module left off and takes the adventurers to the fair at Bogenhafen"
The Enemy Within (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay): "contents": "The Enemy Within is the first module in a set of six linked campaign modules set in the Warhammer world[...]" vs. "The Enemy Within is the first module in a set of linked campaign modules set in the Warhammer world"
I don't know if this is common in all your articles (I only now noticed it and didn't check the ones I already have seen), or just a bad day. While e.g. the third example on its own may be debatable (it is identical, but fairly straightforward), the first one is a clear copyright violation even if it is only one line.
Please don't solve it by adding quote marks, the articles already have lots of quotes in them and while this is OK for reviews, it shouldn't be done to describe contents or have a plot summary, which can be put in own words (or simply omitted). FRAM 15:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, I will fix those up, and I will begin going through my other articles to make sure they are rewritten. BOZ (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Monster Island (play-by-mail game) has been nominated for Did You Know
I think you've seen some of your past work undone, but I appreciate the articles you've started in the PBM genre. It's easier for others to add to a stub than to start an article from scratch. Thanks for your work in this area. Airborne84 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
My congratulations for keeping Goom from being merged with the List of monsters in Marvel Comics page. As for Googam whose page was deleted, is there a way to salvage his informaation so that it can be transferred to the List of monsters in Marvel Comics page like some of the monsters like Xemnu were? I just wanted to know. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK)01:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Incredible work! It's been quite a journey but you've managed to pull it off. Hugely impressive as always. A push to do the same for CGW will be possibly even more ambitious, but between this, your Dragon work and all the rest you've done, I think it's achievable! All this stuff continues to be a massive benefit to the project. Thanks for all your efforts! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I moved it for you, no problem. :) I don't believe there is a way to give another user just the rights to delete pages to make way for moves - I don't think the delete function truly makes a differentiation between a move-related delete, or just any other delete (which would need an admin to perform), unless there is some technical aspect that I am not familiar with. BOZ (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@BOZ:Hey man! How're you doing in these crazy times? Look, can you help me move this article? Bishōjo Senshi Sailor Moon SuperS: Zenin Sanka!! Shuyaku Sōdatsusen => Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon S: Jougai Rantou!? Shuyaku Soudatsusen Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@BOZ:After you move the page to the title i indicated you earlier, then move it to its proper japanese title: Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon S: Jougai Rantou!? Shuyaku Soudatsusen => Bishōjo Senshi Sailor Moon S: Jōgai Rantō!? Shuyaku Sōdatsusen Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure, no problem! That's quite a title. :) I did both moves, that way you have both previous titles redirecting to the article in question. I'm doing OK all things considered, how about you? BOZ (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@BOZ:Pretty much the same thing where i live... Sorry for pestering you once more about that long Sailor Moon title but is there any way to add these titles into the article without moving the whole thing? I've seen some people over here do it but i don't know how it works...: Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon SuperS: Zenin Sanka! Shuyaku Soudatsusen & Bishōjo Senshi Sailor Moon SuperS: Zenin Sanka! Shuyaku Sōdatsusen Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@BOZ:Hi man! Can you help me move this page? I managed to finish it: Draft:Super Sidekicks 2: The World Championship => Super Sidekicks 2: The World Championship Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@BOZ:Sorry for bothering you once again but is there any way to delete this draft? I somehow revived it with an edit i did before you moved the Super Sidekick 2 draft: Draft:Super Sidekicks 2: The World Championship Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@BOZ:How're you doing today? I finished this draft so, can you help me move it? Draft:Super Sidekicks 3: The Next Glory => Super Sidekicks 3: The Next Glory Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@BOZ:Hey man! How're you doing? Can you help me move this draft that i managed to finish? Draft:Dragon Ball Z: Super Butōden => Dragon Ball Z: Super Butōden Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
@BOZ:Hey man! How're you doing today? Can you help me move this other draft that i managed to finish? Draft:Dragon Ball Z: Super Butōden 2 => Dragon Ball Z: Super Butōden 2 Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey User:KGRAMR, doing fine, and no problem. How about from now on, if you have a redirected article with a substantial edit history (like this one and the previous one; I haven't checked the ones before then) then that can be moved to drafts for you to work on and then we can move it back into article space, since a history merge needs to be done anyway. BOZ (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@BOZ:Hello there compadre! I finished the last Dragon Ball Z draft i had on stand by today so, you know what to do ;) Draft:Dragon Ball Z: Hyper Dimension = Dragon Ball Z: Hyper Dimension Roberth Martinez (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi BOZ. I saw that you recently split off Serious Sam: The First Encounter from the main Serious Sam article. I was wondering how you were planning to tackle the rest of the article. While splitting out Serious Sam: The Second Encounter would be the next logical step, both games share a lot of details, such as the gameplay (TSE only has some minor additions over TFE), post-release bundles (the Xbox version, the Gold Edition, the HD Gold Edition, Classics: Revolution). As far as I can see, this would leave us just three options: We go the usual route and duplicate such details on both articles, we keep "Serious Sam (video game)" as a third article that links to both Enouncters as its episodes, or we revert the split and keep both Encounters inside the main article and separating only the plot and reception sections between them. The last of these would probably be the cleanest version, but I'd like to hear your thoughts about it. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! I did not have any further plans for Serious Sam or the other related articles. I restored that article because I saw it was unsourced when it was redirected back in 2012, and looking at the series page I saw that a lot of good sources were added after the merge and I had one more review to add, so I figured a split was justified. If you've got an interest in working with those article and feel that merging it back in would be the best option, then you have my blessing. BOZ (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm currently planning to bring as many Serious Sam articles to GA(N) as I can, so this one is definitely on my agenda. I will look at it a later time, but I do think that merging it back will be the best way to go. I will consult you for your input once I finish my draft. IceWelder [✉] 12:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Dwarven Forge, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Could you explain to me shortly what you have done to the Phoenix Games site? I didnt get it what you have done there in the history. Thanks. --DJ Kaito (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. The article was deleted three times previously at AFD, and those deleted edits were under Phoenix Games, so I moved them to the current version of the article. Please keep in mind that if the current version of the article suffers from the same problems as the previously deleted versions, it is likely to be deleted again. BOZ (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Coronavirus pandemic lead error
BOZ, can you have a look at the 3rd paragraph in the lead for the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic article; there's an obvious grammatical error in the first sentence. I was going to edit it, but the wikicode for that paragraph refers to another article and appears to pull the text from within that other article; however, the extracted text doesn't seem to match what's being displayed on the pandemic article. I don't know enough about the wikicode syntax for article extraction to feel comfortable messing with this so I'm lobbing this at you as an admin. Thanks, Vulcan's Forge (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for asking VF, but I'm afraid my knowledge of wikicode syntax might be even less than your knowledge of it. If you can give me some specifics I may be able to take my best educated guess, but I can't guarantee that I can be helpful on such a question. BOZ (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. Ok, I've made a fix which corrected the grammar problem ("may fever" -> "may include fever") and it displays properly. I'm just not sure that the block of text should actually be there. What does this code do?
<!--TO EDIT THIS PARAGRAPH, GO TO THE CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 ARTICLE.--><div class="excerpt">{{#lst:Coronavirus disease 2019|Spread}}</div>
Based on the comment, it seems to be intended to incorporate something from the other linked article - but the only data which displays is the more or less normal markup which immediately follows it. And there's some other weird markup towards the end of the paragraph as well.
It's working; the sentence reads properly now. I just don't want to get wikiyelled-at for having fixed the error locally rather than wherever it was supposed to have been imported from ;). I'm going to leave the rest of it alone and someone else can fix it if they want.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your heroic two-year (!) quest to reformat every single entry over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Next Generation Magazine, in the process adding a citation and quote from every single review to the relevant mainspace page—and creating articles whenever one didn't exist. I don't have your stamina, but I can still recognize what a huge achievement this is. Congratulations on finishing, and on making Wikipedia as a whole a better resource for the world! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey, thank you! :) I have received an abundance of wikihate so far this year, so I will gladly accept your offering of wikilove! :) It was a lot of work, but I am glad to have completed it and look forward to doing more wherever I can. BOZ (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
It's a real tragedy that so many of your articles on tabletop role-playing have been targeted all at once like this. Wish there was something that could be done. Tabletop isn't really my field, but please ping me if some of your video game stubs wind up at AfD the same way—I have more than enough sourcing experience to prove individual notability for just about any commercially-released video game under the sun, regardless of country of origin. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
There are a few! I'm going to look over my list of NG creations in the next week or two, and I will get you a list of those which were deleted or redirected and we can look into those? BOZ (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll start making my way through your list. Just keep them coming and I'll get to them a little each day between my off-wiki work, until it's done! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a lot going on lately and I haven't been able to find time for Wikipedia! Rest assured that I will get around to the listings as time allows. Feel free to continue adding more to the list—and I'll be looking forward to your next project! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good! Hopefully things start to calm down enough on my end that I can do a little editing again soon. Like I said, it's fun to learn about all these weird little games I'd never know about otherwise. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
And what a list! I hope it encourages people to contribute to those stubs. Once I can get back in the swing of citation-adding it will make it even easier to build them out a bit (everything is still insane right now). Let me know when your next project kicks off! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
An enormous undertaking! I wish you all the best. The good news is that CGW is such an important source that even doing just 2 years of the magazine would be a huge benefit to WPVG—no reason to sweat it if you have to drop this project earlier than you expect! Either way, looking forward to seeing what you uncover as you go. I'm sure there are a lot of important titles (especially from the '80s) that don't even have articles yet. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Traveller SFRPG Categories
I’d like to recommend we consolidate Traveller categories.
collapse judges guild into the main categories
consider collapsing adventures into supplements
It seems to me these wouldn’t be too big, that currently it is harder to navigate than needed.
I suppose it would be fine to collapse the Judges Guild Traveller categories into the parent categories if you want to, although I created those because the parent categories were getting large. For that same reason, I would keep the adventures and supplements categories separate since they are pretty large and I think they are distinct enough to keep separate from each other. BOZ (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
BOZ, Okay. Thank you for you perspective. I snickered a bit at large. In doing maintenance I regularly encounter everything from zero and single digits to thousands of articles in a category. I must be jaded. I came looking for a Traveller articles then had to hunt to find it. Manly because I forgot the name. I will leave it alone. I suppose does not a good consensus make. —¿philoserf? (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
On the one hand, I want to believe you, and I do hope that I am wrong. Given that we have a very long history of sockpuppeteering (and getting caught over and over again) per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atomic Meltdown/Archive, and the latest one User:Rodent Zuna was caught about a week ago, we certainly can't assume that he has stopped. Hopefully the SPI clears your name, and if it does then I will offer you my sincere apologies for even bringing it up. Just out of curiosity though, how do you know that you have a different IP address from Atomic Meltdown? BOZ (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Interesting stats! There's definitely a lot left to go, but glad to hear that it starts to taper off. Depending on how work goes (I've been busy lately and may get busier soon), I might need to start prioritizing articles that have already been redirected or deleted, but for now I should be able to continue adding sources a little at a time to at-risk pages. Part of my interest in Wikipedia has always been about learning, and I've learned a lot of unexpected stuff because of this project already (who knew PegLeg existed?), so I've been having a good amount of fun with it so far. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Asking you because you're knowledgeable and have an interest in the topic at hand: how would I be able to see a deleted page and use it as a starting point for improvement and subsequent republishing? This was a while ago, but I was disheartened to see the Wikipedia article for Gnoll (Dungeons & Dragons) get deleted, primarily due to it being a monster original to DnD as opposed to being based upon existing folklore (to my knowledge), and they've certainly appeared in many works outside of DnD (World of Warcraft, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup/probably a myriad of other roguelikes). I'd like to (eventually) restore the page, but am unsure how to retrieve the deleted page. Thanks! :] Waxworker (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Waxworker! An excellent question, and one that I would be excited to see what you can do, especially given what I have seen of your work on improving video game articles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnoll was closed as delete, and although I have not listed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Where, it certainly may have potential. Since I have had some minor involvement in editing the article, I may not be the best person to do the restoration for you, but if you want to work on it just put in a good-faith request at WP:REFUND to have it restored either to Draft space or User space, and most reasonable admins will do it for you. :) BOZ (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Lists of reviews from MobyGames
Simply adding lists of magazines that reviewed games is not helpful. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". MrMajors (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd also advise against adding MobyGames reviews directly onto the article; the reviews added to Kingdoms of England II: Vikings, Fields of Conquest don't really convey anything on their own, and in this instance, two reviews listed from German magazines (PC Player, ASM) had incorrect dates. In my personal experience, incorrect dates (and occasionally scores) for German magazines is relatively common for Mobygames, and I would recommend Kultboy as an alternative resource (assuming it comes back up, it's been down for 3 days :[), but I still wouldn't advise adding reviews in this way. Waxworker (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I enjoy "your" articles, even if I'm not totally passionate about the subject matter. I wouldn't say that all of the G.I. Joe AfDs have been handled well. In my opinion, the Krause and Random House books, etc., would count as reliable and independent. I think that Hasbro allowing those publishers to use copyrights and trademarks--thus making the books "official"--is what's tripping up some editors... Caro7200 (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks for your concern. I think that Wikipedia has very unfortunately moved to a state where deletion is the preference for a lot of editors, so it looks like we are going to be seeing a lot of this. BOZ (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
WoD articles
Hello,
When you create new World of Darkness articles, would you mind adding them to Template:World of Darkness, and also adding that template to the bottom of the article? I like to keep the navbox up to date and keep it a useful navigation tool for moving between articles, but I won't necessarily know that a new article has been created unless I periodically check the WoD categories for titles I don't recognize.--AlexandraIDV09:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable suggestion. I may not create any new WOD articles for a while, but I will try to keep this in mind. BOZ (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Creating work for others
You are still creating articles and then turning them into redirects, which is a strange habit. Not only have some of these redirects been deleted as rather misguided, you are also creating extra work for others when you restore a category you created but which was deleted in the past (technically coming close to an involved situation again), which now again has to be deleted because you then redirect the only article in that category (The Make My Day Card Game and Category:Card games introduced in 1987). Perhaps only create articles for things which are demonstrably notable? Or, at the very least, clean up your own mess after you redirect? This would also reduce the AfDs and so on. FRAM 10:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and by deleting and restoring Giff (Dungeons & Dragons) (which you had created after it was deleted the first time, again an Involved situation), you have now restored the 2005 BLP violation to the history. Wasn't this the kind of thing you would stop doing because it caused so many problems and wasn't really what admins were supposed to do? FRAM 10:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I deleted the empty category. I deleted and restored Giff to split the edit history because a user had turned the redirect into a disambiguation page, and in the process of restoring I unintentionally restored those two edits, so I deleted those again now. Thank you, and my apologies for my errors. BOZ (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
You created the article Crankcase (G.I. Joe). Looking through it, it only has one source that appears to be independent and reliable: Bellomo. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing that I found that would demonstrate a GNG pass. There's no description of Crankcase at the characters article (which looks likely to be kept in the AFD, as it should be, since it meets WP:LISTN). However, since there is a reliable, independent source in the Crankcase article, I think a merger would be an intelligent, valid alternative to deletion. I've tagged the articles as proposed merger and created a discussion at the relevant characters list talk page. I thought I'd inform you since you created the article. Hog Farm (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Based on attempted discussion on the IP's talk page, and a total lack of response from that IP, I placed the page on semi-protection for 1 month. BOZ (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. The constant additions of the same problematic material is continuing. Can you help? Nightscream (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC) Also, the same problem has been consistently persistently at Joey Diaz. Can you please put longer semiprotections on those articles? Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The Tony Vlachos article is still under my original protection so if problems resume a few weeks from now, I will put a 3-month protection on it. I see the ongoing problems in the edit history of the Joey Diaz article, so I put a one-month protection on that one for now; let me know if problems recur when that expires. BOZ (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
You didn't read the article's recent edit history, did you? BOZ, the serial violator is now using a username account to evade the protection on unregistered users, and this was the edit summary that accompanied his most recent restoration of the uncited material he's been adding:
So now he's explicitly threatening to "escalate" or edit war. I have explained and linked him to the related policies in my edit summaries and on his talk page, which are not merely about "length" or "tone" but the lack of citations for material, but he seems to genuinely not understgand or care. He's obviously one of those newbies who comes onto the project thinking he doesn't have to learn the policies and guidelines, and can just edit-war to his heart's content. Can you please intervene? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
If you've got evidence that he is the same person the IP user I will take a look at that, and likewise if he reverts you again I will take action. Let me know; hopefully he chooses to discuss rather than "escalate". BOZ (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Vandalism
Hi i am Whiteraven335 ,a user "Litti Chokha" continuously modifying reliably sourced content of the article Kumaon Regiment as per their personal preferences, Beginning from lead section, the source nowhere says that It (Regiment) recruits Ahirs from North India exclusively and has equal composition of troops WhiteRaven335 (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Re:CGW reviews
Hey! Actually, '80s games aren't really my forte when it comes to source-digging. Most of my go-to archives and research tools are from the '90s and '00s—same goes for my general knowledge of which publications were around that might have covered a given game. While I've certainly worked on a couple of '80s game articles over the years, I don't have the same confidence with the era as I do with more recent stuff. For now, when it comes to CGW, I'll just be on standby for when an article gets directly targeted for redirecting or deletion. If I can focus on saving single, specific articles one at a time, dedicating myself to source-digging outside of my comfort zone will be less overwhelming. I'm still more than happy to finish the Next Gen project, though, as the era is more in my wheelhouse. When it comes to CGW, I'll be able to help a lot more when it gets up to around '92 and '93, as a lot of my knowledge starts there. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! I didn't realize how many early '80s magazines were in the Internet Archive these days. I used my usual trick ("[search term]" + "[search term]" site:archive.org) to dig up a few magazine sources for Shiloh, which I didn't know was under threat of deletion until just now. It's actually something of a classic, an important early title by SSI that paved the way for their later wargames. CGW covered it more than once in its early years, IIRC. All the best! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Really impressive work! That listing of various old magazines, especially, is going to be enormously useful. I'm excited to see where this leads. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to say that 1980s Macintosh coverage is way outside my realm of expertise. I searched up ("flight simulator" + "microsoft" + "macuser"/"macworld" site:archive.org) the two 1980s Mac publications I'm aware of, but wasn't able to find more than a bunch of advertisements and stray comments. I'm sure there are other magazines I don't know and/or can't access, but unfortunately this one is out of my league. Maybe it was covered in newspapers? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, very cool! Yeah, I've been starting a bunch of Grigsby pages recently as a relaxation project, trying to improve WPVG's coverage in my spare time. Thanks for doing this one! I think I have some sources I can add now that it's here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
No problem, I think that whole issue had a few articles you might find useful, but that one in particular. BOZ (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Great work! I'll see what I can do. And I had trouble finding sources about the SimCan titles as well, but I don't doubt there are more out there—possibly in magazines that haven't been digitized yet. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Awesome stuff. I've actually been thinking about starting Russia myself. It seems to have been kind of a big deal back in the '80s and I've found a number of sources on it. I'll see what I can add to that one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
You're correct that I'm interested! I've been hoping that enough sources existed to start articles on the other Decisive Battles of the American Civil War games. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
What's gone on, with all this blowback against your efforts, is honestly an embarrassment for WPVG. You're in the right, even if some others can't see that right now. Your contributions to WPVG over the years have been invaluable—the project wouldn't look the same at all if you hadn't done what you've done. I'd never seen another editor use the large-scale editing style that you deployed for the Dragon reviews, and it influenced me quite a bit, alongside a number of other editors. The Next Generation project was even more stunning. Wikipedia always chews up and spits out its best editors, while problem users like Niemti/SNAAAAKE get years of free passes to keep causing trouble. I understand that, but it's still disappointing and depressing to see it happen to you of all people. If there's some kind of witch hunt against the stubs you've made in recent times, I'll do what I can to ensure that as many survive as possible. Hope to see you back once things cool off and people lose interest in mobbing you. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Question about article
Hi, I saw you're interested on video game subject, Can I ask what's your opinion about "MADELA (Video Game)" that game is notable for writing the article here? Feloniii (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Feloniii
I hope you are well, Sir. I'm around for a while and thought I'd "get my feet wet" again. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any articles that could do with a tidy-up. I saw a few at the WikiComics page and may start there.
Regards Asgardian (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
OK, sounds good! :) I am primarily interested in Marvel of course, so what would you most be interested in? I know you put a lot of work into articles about characters, but would you also like to improve articles about other things like comic book titles? One idea I had was to work on character articles with the notability template to get that resolved. Another is to work on character articles who appear (or perhaps more importantly, will appear in MCU films, such as getting Draft:Kraglin published back into article space. Give me an idea and I will pick some suggestions out for you! BOZ (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of templates, I note many cosmic characters have a ridiculously high number of characters linked in, and may start there. I think some clarity is called to keep Wikipedia a cut above (I did a similar thing with Galactus' Heralds - fine to list them all but there was a necessary qualifier). Regards Asgardian (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Asgardian, are you talking about those character templates at the bottom of the articles? If so, yes, they have proliferated rather out of control over time. Some characters have a good dozen or more on them... BOZ (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Old SF reviews
Hi, I noticed your articles on SF books, The Book of the River and Mute, with mentions of reviews in old magazines. May I ask, how do you find those? Is there a tool or database that keeps track of them? Or do you just have an amazing collection of old SF mags? (Asking because I've worked on a few SF novel articles and finding old reviews can be challenging.) Schazjmd(talk)22:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Schazjmd, thanks for asking! The Internet Speculative Fiction Database is a wonderful thing. :) I unfortunately do not have access to the magazines themselves (although, it is likely that many of them are on archive.org), but at least being able to know that the reviews exist helps both to satisfy the GNG and to provide a resource for anyone looking to build the articles. :) BOZ (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Tell me about it, I was overjoyed when I found out about it earlier this year. :) Get some good use out of that! BOZ (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Re:BLP
Hey BOZ! I've never done any real work on BLPs before, so I'm not sure if I'll be much help on this one. I think I've heard of Monahan before but it would've been years ago and I can't recall what (if anything) I've read, and my knowledge of where to find BLP-ready material is just about nonexistent. I've always stayed away from the BLP space beyond minor edits because the extra rules surrounding them make me nervous. From what I know, though, a BLP requires sources explicitly dedicated to its subject, and I've never seen something like that for Monahan that I can remember. Best of luck with restoring the article! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Links to Piracy sites
I'm sure it was just a slip up, but this morning you inserted a link to a piracy site in a comment (about The Trove) that will have to be revdelled out. Remember The Trove spectacularly fails Wikipedia's WP:COPYRIGHT rules. Putting a link to it, even in a comment, is a serious breach of those rules. Canterbury Tailtalk11:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I usually use archive.org for magazine scans, but White Wolf is sadly not available there. I did a Google search and found an issue there, but without considering that might be a piracy site, I added a link as reference - that was my error. BOZ (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Honestly for references you don't need to link to a scanned copy of the item, you just need to reference the item. The accessible nature of the reference isn't an issue, people can figure out how to access titles etc on their own. A huge portion of Wikipedia is referenced to books you can only get from specialised libraries etc and not online. So the item not being online isn't an issue. It's enough to reference the name and page of a book, magazine etc, you don't need to provide someone with the means to access the item. In fact with RPG related material, most of those scanned items, archive.org or not, are actually copyright breaches. So just mention what the reference is, let the reader worry about how to look it up. Canterbury Tailtalk12:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what possessed me to add the link that time (I usually don't in articles, even with archive.org), other than late night editing. :) BOZ (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
So while trying to look up the article on Ixitxachitl and Couatl (where I found your redirect on the second one) I’ve noticed there has been a massive purge on the pages of the earliest D&D monsters, whose articles stayed here for decades before. Indeed, the whole category “Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures” the past version of the Couatl article is in displays in red and is completely empty.
I have no idea why this is suddenly happening, but since those articles were pretty comprehensive and listed all of the instances of the monsters’ appearance in the different D&D editions, their history in the multiverse and their mythological origin, my question is – Do you know if it’s somehow possible to access the past versions of all of them and their images, since those seem to be gone too? Doubt the people who originally made them are still here, now I regret not using archive.is on time… 192.168.1.1 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! For the most part, the edit histories of those articles still exist, only a small percentage of them have been totally deleted. Look at the top of the screen for "View history" and you will see all previous versions of the articles, including the last version before the article was redirected. BOZ (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Unfinished article
Hello. I find it rather troubling you felt this was ready to be published in the mainspace. I get that we don’t always have time to finish articles we want to create, but please utilize the WP:DRAFT space in the future if that’s all you can muster up for a week. Thanks. Sergecross73msg me23:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
This one is for my talk page stalkers. ;) I think that Hyborian War, which is today's TFA, is the first article I originated that has actually been featured on the main page in that way. :) I merely started it as a stub though, and the credit for building the article up actually belongs to User:Airborne84. :) BOZ (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This user's PROD campaign is ridiculous and, because of the boilerplate, very often based on false claims. A number of the articles PROD'd for using "fan sources" were citing the likes of Dragon, Arcane, Wired and the Huffington Post, alongside multiple reliably-published books. I've removed a few dozen PROD templates from the articles that had at least one reliable source. There are quite a few left for articles that had no sources, or only White Wolf (I don't know the reliability of that one, one way or the other). But hopefully it'll be easier for you to source those and remove the templates now that there are fewer. If the user really believes that these articles fail GNG, they should put them through AfD where that can be ascertained with greater clarity, and redirects can be made if necessary to preserve material. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Just got to your message, but it seems the situation has already been resolved! Nice work. Hopefully if enough of these drive-by AfDs get kept like that, people will stop being so trigger-happy on your VG articles when they clearly don't know enough about the subject to judge notability. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Jimmy, I think that the user who nominated it just goofed - although it helps that I was able to find a few more reviews for it. :) BOZ (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Since it takes a while to review drafts sometimes. I am wondering if you may want wack on it to maybe review or move the page. Thanks and happy editing! Jhenderson77718:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear BOZ, Thank you for creating the Draft:Kraglin. It is pretty much perfect. I tried to move the article to main article namespace, but I failed. I guess it requires histmerge. In near future, if you are moving this article, then please do ping me so that I can learn more about this complex operation. -Hatchens (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
No problem, Hatchens. Probably the best thing to do, if you think it is ready, is to request that someone review the draft at AFC to see if it is suitable for moving to mainspace, at which point the history merge can be done. BOZ (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks BOZ, then, I guess, for this draft... I have to request you... only. In the meanwhile, I will try to find more such drafts where I can do some hands-on practice and will follow your suggested way. In case, if I get stuck somewhere, then I will surely drop by at your talk page. - Hatchens (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Much Thanks!
Hello BOZ, I recently saw you thanks to my contributions to the RPG articles! It means so much to me that people appreciate the contributions I make to wikipedia, so thank you very much! Go-Tsumaroki(chat)19:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey! Regarding the question in your edit summary, I'm noticing that quite a few of the mid-'90s games that CGR reviewed overlap with the ones you found Next Generation reviews for. In my spare time I've been undertaking a low-effort pet project to relax: adding every CGR review from the surviving archive, mostly in alphabetical order, to the relevant articles. It's definitely influenced by your own Next Generation/Dragon/etc. campaigns. Assuming it continues like it has, I'll be getting to those other articles before long! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good! One idea would be to copy the contents of the Avalon Hill template into a sandbox and switch out all the contents with similar items appropriate for Chaosium, and that way you can experiment to your heart's content until it is ready to be published. :) BOZ (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
One thing I noticed though, is that on your user page you acknowledged you have a COI when it comes to Chaosium, so I would be careful when editing in that area, and you may want to seek guidance from people who know the policy to avoid getting into trouble over it. BOZ (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense with the template.
As for my COI, yes, I am being very careful to remain neutral and work within the remit of the five pillars. Much of the updating I'm doing hasn't been done for many years.Sciencefish (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Games International
Hey! You might already know about this, but the Internet Archive has every issue of the late-'80s/early-'90s British magazine Games International available here: https://archive.org/details/GamesInternational. GI was the first incarnation of Computer Games Magazine (aka Computer Games Strategy Plus, aka Strategy Plus), so it's a reliable source. Maybe the most interesting thing is that it covers both computer and tabletop games, including pen-and-paper RPGs. I plan to use its old issues to fill out some of the Gary Grigsby-related pages and thought that, if you weren't familiar with the magazine, you might have a use for it elsewhere. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
JimmyBlackwing, if you come across any more magazines like that, which you think I may have not already discovered, please do let me know. :) I am getting a ton of use out of that one! BOZ (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Great to hear! I'll be sure to tell you. Right now I'm in the process of digging up and organizing the issues of Game Players PC Entertainment, which I've recently learned was the precursor to PC Gamer. It also ran under the name Game Player's PC Strategy Guide and a few other titles before that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
One more magazine you might find helpful, if you don't already know about it: Video Games. It's from the early 1980s—stumbled across it while looking for Gary Grigsby coverage. Seems interesting! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia and Play-by-mail games article
Found this article (page 18-19) while rummaging around in Flagship looking for something. Had a bit of a chuckle. Too bad the editor Carol Mulholland isn't around anymore to see how things have improved. Airborne84 (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
BOZ, the vandalism is continuing, with the editor's IP constantly changing. Can you put a longer lock on the article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey man! i hope you're doing well. Sorry for bothering you but could you help me in archiving links for Metal Slug? I tried using this link [3] but (at least in my case), it gives me a 504 message... Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
No problem! I'm not entirely sure of what you are looking for though? Do you mean archiving urls on archive.org or something else? BOZ (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey there. I think you missed one game on Issue 56 of Next Generation, and that's Rich Diamond, released in 1999. Now the magazine claims that the game was for Nintendo 64 and published by Ubisoft, as shown in this link, but I have since discovered that it was actually for PC and developed and published by Core Concepts, as shown here. But I have a feeling that this game, especially the N64 version, may not exist after all, wouldn't you agree? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there Angeldeb82, thanks for writing to me. Actually, I did create the article, but it was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Diamond. If there were enough sources to prove notability it could be restored, but if as you say the game may have never been published at all then it may not even be possible to find more reviews/sources. BOZ (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
BOZ, I don't have an opinion of my own here, as my role in the AfD was limited to assessing consensus. But if you think that the game now passes WP:N you are free to recreate the article and request restoration at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 13:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
FOARP, your save on Hoops was awesome; do you have access to any of the other sources noted above or anything else to add to my draft on Rich Diamond? BOZ (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hey BOZ, I'm currently kinda inactive for the foreseeable future due to my current life situation, would you be able to help with a draft I've had for a literal year? It'd be a great help if you could make it presentable and finish up the work I've been neglecting to do with it. It's about an indie prodedurally-generated roguelike RPG, so I figure you'd be into it. If you're not in a position to work on it either, that's totally fine too. Thanks in advance. Waxworker (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for asking! :) This one is probably more than a little bit beyond my area of expertise. I'm not sure if there is much I would know how to do with it, but I will still take a look when I get a chance. For my part, I have been focusing mostly on retro video games; so far I have gone through Computer Gaming World from 1981 to just starting on 1988. :) BOZ (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Tagishsimon (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello BOZ! If I understood correctly, you have access to Designers & Dragons (and possibly Arts & Arcana?). Perhaps you could do me a favor some time? The introductory section to the List of 2nd edition monsters is still largely based on primary sources. Would it be possible for you to check, and if applicable add, if the book(s) says anything about that? (2nd edition having more monsters/monster books, longer entry lengths (usually one page), introducing color, that the MC loose sheet format was unique to 2E,...) Thank you very much! Daranios (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
No problem, I can take a look but I doubt there will be very much detail at all as that book's focus is mostly on products and people, but there could be something. The same author has been previewing a book that he is working on which will detail D&D/TSR and from what I have seen that one will have plenty of useful info on fictional elements. :) BOZ (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I was not involved in this article or the AFD, so I can restore it as a draft for you. Whenever you believe you have added enough WP:RS to meet the WP:GNG, just add "{{subst:submit}}" to the top of the article and wait for someone to review it. BOZ (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
By the way, after restoring it I realized that the best practice here would be to first ask the deleting admin to restore the article for you, and failing that to approach someone at WP:REFUND, but I don't believe restoring this one for the purpose you intended should be controversial? BOZ (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
OK, i don't know what's the deal but apparently a user named JavaHuricane was going to block me permanently from Wikipedia for "vadalizing" pages and i was like "what did just happened?" I was doing some stuff in my sandbox when i received that message on my talk page, which was wiped out completely by JavaHuricane with the warning before another user (Praxidicae) restored it. Just so you know... Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@BOZ:So apparently, it was another user claiming to be the real JavaHurricane that was going to ban me. But the issue was taken care of by one of the Wikipedia admins (Liz). So, if you're reading this Liz then i want to say thanks you for the good action! That dude really took me by surprise with that false warning... Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Rich Diamond, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Imperial Guard (comics) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Guard (comics). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here09:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hope you're doing well. I recently came across the article you wrote for Dolphin Sailing System last month and, when I went to go look for a cover for it, I really couldn't find much of anything even discussing this game at all. I tried the normal BEFORE search tools (e.g., Google, Google Books, Archive.org, etc.) and really couldn't find anything other than that one magazine you currently cite. Normally, in this sort of circumstance, I'd probably nominate the article for deletion due to lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. But since I know you are an experienced editor who has done a lot for the video game articles, I wanted to flag it for you first and see what you thought. Do you think you're going to be able to find/add further sources that get it across the threshold for notability? Alternatively, if you want, I can go ahead and nominate it and we can invite other editors to weigh in as well. Thanks and sorry I'm suggesting deleting one of your articles! DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi BOZ, just a question. I noticed on my watchlist that you have restored the article and talk pages for Thrall (Warcraft). But I can't see any recent changes on the page itself or that it had been recently deleted. Just thought I'd ask you about the process. Haleth (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
That was a former article which had been redirected to a list, and it was deleted when the list was deleted. I restored it in case anyone would find anything useful in that old edit history. BOZ (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I can see now that there was never a consensus to merge or delete, and it was boldly redirected to the list by an editor. Is there a relevant policy or guideline which addresses situations like this where an article is recreated many years after it was boldly redirected or deleted as opposed to the result of a consensus discussion? Haleth (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Not that I know of; in situations like that where you can build/rebuild a viable article, I think you can just go for it. BOZ (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Batman: Three Jokers-related
Hi. When the "Batman: Three Jokers" miniseries was in works, an anonymous contributor had started a draft when the page was just a redirect. Recently, I had discovered that someone had started a page that was originally "Batman: The Three Jokers" until somebody corrected it. What do you do with drafts if someone else starts a page? Do you merge the draft or arrange for it to be deleted? I'm just asking here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I was able to take your advice on that yesterday and add to the established page some information it didn't list. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I would have merged it over the draft (provided there was not substantial overlap in edit history periods), to keep all relevant history together. BD2412T19:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that occurred to me after the similar discussion below. I will review the edit history to see if that is feasible, and carry it out if so. :) BOZ (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile to link from the film's "Other Media" section to the adventure? (You seem more knowledgable on the issue...) --Syzygy (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. In a follow-up to my last post, I was able to contact @Fico Puricelli: to let him know that the "King in Black" storyline was out as he was the one who started Draft:King in Black. Yesterday night, I noticed that someone started the page when the draft was still up and didn't notice the draft message. Should the same advice given for "Batman: Three Jokers" also be followed for it? I'm just asking here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@Rtkat3: I saw your post on Fico's page as well. In this case it might be worth requesting a {{history merge}} between the two, and then consolidating things from previous revisions. Maybe BOZ can take care of that for you. If thats not appropriate the pages could be swapped and merged as well (like the reception section). (by talk page watcher)-2pou (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
A history merge does seem like a good solution if you have an older draft with usable sources, and an article that was written without the sources included in the draft. Is that the scenario we are looking at here? BOZ (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems that BOZ is interested in your suggestion. That idea might work for those drafts BOZ. What do you say to that @2pou:? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I love it! :) A very enjoyable read, and well-written. My only addition would be, if you have anything to add for building a reception section that would complete it. BOZ (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh boy, what a year for me! ;) Right before and/or right after the beginning of each new year, I archive my old talk page content from the previous year, and before I do that I clear out all the deletespam I got throughout the year, and all other bot and templated messages that I do not feel any particular need to archive. This year I certainly got bombarded with deletespam like never before. :) For comparison, I removed −167,910kb[7] for 2019, −49,120kb[8] and −1,117kb more[9] for 2018, and −46,724[10] for 2017, although as far as I can tell it did not do it before then (or I may have simply not copied them to the archives rather than deleting them from the page first). Regardless, last year I left a comment in my edit summary saying "I don't think I've ever had this much deletespam in one year before! :) we'll see how 2020 goes..." and oh how prophetic that was. ;) I don't know if this year beats last year, but let's just say that in January alone I had very nearly 100 sections on my talk page, and of those first 98 sections only 19 of them were not deletion templates! :o Probably at least half of the other sections on my talk page for this year are also similar templates, so what a year it was! I will report back here to give you the total size after I remove them all, just to satisfy my own curiosity. ;) I think I beat my record for last year, but we will see! BOZ (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and cleared out all the deletespam - and sure enough, this version of the page before doing so had 352 sections on it, and I was left with only 123 sections after clearing out all of the templated messages without responses... wow, that is just sad, less than half of the talk page sections remained after tossing the junk. :( And yes, as I suspected, I blew my old record from last year out of the water after removing −290,733kb[11] from my talk page! Yikes! Well, I will archive this page either later this week or next week, and I hope to God that next year is a year of renewal not just for me, but for all of us! We need a better year, I tell ya. BOZ (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
infobox RPG
I've added infobox RPG template to List of infoboxes/Arts and culture as it was missing. I also added a line in Template:Infobox game / doc to suggest for RPGs that infobox RPG is used. But when clicked it self references back to infobox game. I can't see why. Would it be possible for you to take a look? Sciencefish (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello BOZ, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Nightscream (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) Nightscream (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas BOZ
Hi BOZ, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, –Davey2010Talk19:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!
Rtkat3 is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Hi BOZ,
Just stopping by to say Merry Christmas and wish you a Happy New Year. Hope all is well with you.
The temporary restore to add a source and redirect back is... quite brilliant. For the record, I virtually always prefer soft deletion by redirecting without hard deletion, and if you ever need my support for this, please ping me. Anyway, about Githyanki, I just stumbled upon a new source [12]. Not sure if it would have swayed the past AfD, but it is probably the best there is out there and might be worth adding to that article in the same way you just did here? PS. I'd also support undeleting and soft redirecting that article to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, of course. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here06:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Sounds great! I find that method is a useful way to "build" an article when it has been redirected, and you don't want to draftify and you don't feel you yet have enough to actually restore it; since I reverted to a redirect, it should be uncontroversial. :) Some of these articles may have more potential than one week's-worth of an AFD can properly assess (or the sources may be published after the AFD), for example of what is possible, just look at what one user did yesterday with this one!
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
