BOZ (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. :) BOZ (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would be to start with Adam Jury or Chris Seeman - both were deleted as a result of AFD, and while I have been able to add a good source to both, they need just a little more before I would consider petitioning the community to have them fully restored. BOZ (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure a better source will come along but the article is in better shape than a lot of our gaming-related BLPs. BOZ (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant work adding content from Monsters, Aliens, and Holes in the Ground to Keith Parkinson, Kevin Long, Tim Bradstreet, Jeff Laubenstein, and especially all the work you did on Janet Aulisio. :) If you spot anything useable for any artists or designers that don't have articles let me know, they may have drafts and/or deleted articles, or they may need to have an article created. :) Laubenstein was once such an article that had been deleted until I restored it! BOZ (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I actually did that serveral times (it was late at night), but I thought I'd caught them all. BTW, double-checked and I did search for Desert Falcons, and couldn't find anything other than a couple of mentions in passing and some game ads. Guinness323 (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was double checking your archiving of the "A better year" thread, and I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing anything there. If you have anything more to add to any of these, that would be awesome.
You were impressive as always at adding to the many new articles I started while going through Imagine magazine, and from what I could see the only two that you didn't edit were The President (board game) and Middle-earth Role Playing Combat Screen - did anything come up for either of those?
Nothing for The President -- it looks like a small British company that produced one game then disappeared before the game came to the attention of North American reviewers. I added a couple of details to MERP Playing Combat Screen. Guinness323 (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While going through issue #2 of Games International, I started several new ones and you did add something to most of them, and I remember you said you found nothing else for Man the Lifeboat, but do you see anything more for Seaside Frolics, Games to Play, or Strike Force: Shantipole?
Unfortunately the later Dragonlance novels received very little critical notice -- there were just too many of them. Wasn't able to find anything about the above three, even in fan forums. Guinness323 (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am feeling a bit discombobulated. I thought for sure there would be some sources for the DS9 RPG, but so far nothing other than some fan sites. Will next try the other two. Guinness323 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that is a bit surprising. I'm sure there's something somewhere, hopefully it will turn up one day. BOZ (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One interview seems to confirm what he did at TSR (which doesn't seem to be a lot -- he himself says he was mainly used as a playtester), and his list of single author writing credits is limited to "They've Invaded Pleasantville". He was also the co-author of two Gamma World adventures. However, the interview was published on a Wordpress account, which I believe is considered non-RS? Guinness323 (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I've been able to find is that he played Diplomacy with Costikyan's crowd (hence how they met), and he also was part of the design team for SPI's megamonster The Campaign for North Africa. (The only source for the former is mentions in various Dippyzines. The only source for the latter is his name in the design credits.). But nothing about Gelber himself. Guinness323 (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're on vacation, but people seem to know that because they keep the deletions going. ;) If you are able to check at all, do you see anything more for Krister Sundelin? BOZ (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I did some hunting yesterday when I sae the AfD notice. Couldn't find anything other than Scrye other than Scrye and internet chatter. Guinness323 (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is a prolific author (or actually prolific co-author), but I can find no RS mentions of him or interviews or even being guest of homor at conventions...)Guinness323 (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All sorts of stuff about his fireworks accident. Nothing for his professional life other than a few podcast interviews (which, to be fair, I haven't listened to...) Guinness323 (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about for the game company Rackham and its games AT-43 and Cadwallon? At least their other game Confrontation had a review in Backstab, and as a French company there may be more for them in Backstab and/or Casus Belli, and or others. I didn't look yet, but there is the potential for more sources in the foreign language versions of these articles. BOZ (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you are making your way through the Horvath book, it looks like you are in the early 2000s, and a large percentage of the games listed at User:BOZ/Games deletions#Role-playing games are from that time; if you spot anything mentioned in that book, we can probably get it restored. :) BOZ (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was only able to find one picture of a copy of the game. It apparently was published in the 1940s, and bears no relationship to the "Krazy Maze" game listed on BGG. But that's all I've been able to discover. Guinness323 (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking; that's why I keep a list of these things, in case sources turn up later. :) Did you see anything for Mark Herman? BOZ (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may ultimately be the route to go, and it has been done before on similar topics. It partly depends on how much separate material can be found on each volume. BOZ (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The things I would never have found if I weren't using my time to go through all the games deletions thoroughly! I restored a redirected article on Origins Award winner Conflict of Heroes: Storms of Steel last week, and today I restored Wargods of Ægyptus after a PROD. I am going to double check later on to make sure there are no other Origins winners on my list that should never have been deleted! I figure if something won an award, there is bound to be other coverage for it out there... BOZ (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One more of those today from Backstab #19: Victory: World War II. I only have one more copy of Backstab to go that I have access to, so I will probably look through that one tonight and/or tomorrow to see if there are any more like these. :) BOZ (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, one last one of these for the foreseeable future, from Backstab #24! I made Clan War out of an existing redirect. As you can see at User:BOZ/Backstab there are many red and blue linked articles, from just the 15 articles that I have access to at archive.org, but these remaining ones can be addressed at some far future point! :o BOZ (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! :) I have only been working on the magazines while working from home (or having days off at home), which has generally meant once a week if at all for the past 6 months or so. However, we got word last week that the office would be closed for at least 3 weeks, so starting this week I am home every day for now. :) My original goal before getting sidetracked was to get GI done before the end of the year; I doubt I have enough days at home to make that happen, but starting tomorrow I will get as far as I can and then finish it at the beginning of the year. :) I think the next magazine or two will be one that focuses on more familiar territory with fewer reviews so I am not creating so many new ones! I am leaning towards Different Worlds currently, or maybe Adventurer, but we will see.
Hey there! :) To start the year off with, I decided to finish off the reviews from The Games Machine that I had not touched from earlier. I understand there are a number of mini-reviews in the magazine, and I will come back to those eventually. My play for the meantime is to go through Different Worlds and its 47 issues. I have perused most of the issues so far to get a feel for it, and this will be the first magazine I go through where the majority of review subjects already have articles. :) The first 10 issues had much fewer reviews than most of the issues after that, so this week I will try to get through the first 10 issues, but after that I will switch to one or two issues per week. My office is still closed this week, and no idea when we will reopen, so with any "extra" time I am going to resume the rather lengthy project of User:BOZ/Pyramid. :) After finishing DW, we will see where I go from there! :) BOZ (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I got through the first 10 issues of DW, easy-peasy. In a total of 18 reviews among them, only one required a new article, so I started a draft for Promotions and Prizes. :) Issues #11 and #12 definitely have more reviews, so I will be doing those on a one-at-a-time basis for now, or in a few cases two or three issues at a time. My office is officially closed until further notice, so if I run out of side projects while working at home I may do these on more than one day per week, but for now that will not be necessary. It feels good to not be creating very many new articles for a while! :) The magazine also started reviewing movies and books after a while, so not all of my new creations will be for games, but I will just let you know about new games articles here! BOZ (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Long hiatus temporarily interrupted. :) I realized earlier this week that I had missed The Keep (board game) while working on Imagine, so I created a draft for it - actually, I had incorrectly identified it as a review for the RPG adventure also published by Mayfair, but it was correctly pointed out to me that this review was actually for the board game, so I rectified that situation. :) BOZ (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing a little with White Wolf magazine - actually I've gotten all the way up through issue #22 which you may have noticed. :) I have started several new articles, mostly on PBM games, although not long ago I started Melos Caverna ([92]) and today I got one for a series called Tribes ([93]). :) I'm not sure how long I will go on with WW, but it may last a while! I've started most new articles that I would have started already up through issue #25, but once I get past that point I may be starting a bunch of them. BOZ (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not that I've ever seen, but those links in parenthesis contain the reviews for those and other products. BOZ (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely rolling along on White Wolf, and will be starting many more articles as I go. :) I figure I will post them all here, and you can work on any that catch your attention as you please, and the rest I will just grab your attention if anyone tries to delete them. Meanwhile, I have already started the ones I've mentions above, as well as Twilight Encounters* ([94]) and Red Empire (game) ([95]). :) BOZ (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While you were working on the SPI wargames above, I went through the List of SPI games and there are a bunch there with notability tags and other sourcing issues, but I also found a few articles that were redirected to the list page so I moved them to drafts for now: Armageddon: Tactical Combat, 3000-500 BC, NATO: Operational Combat in Europe in the 1970s, Patrol (board game), and Ragnarok (board game). The first two were created by the same user, Patrol was around for several years, and the last one was by yours truly. The NATO game was speedy deleted the same day it was created, as it was unsourced; I later restored and redirected to the list in hopes that it could one day be salvaged. Armageddon and Patrol were nominated for AFD along with all the other articles created by the same user on the same day he created them (along with Patrol since he also made an edit to that one), at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon: Tactical Combat, 3000-500 BC. (To the Green Fields Beyond (game) was kept as it was an Origins Award winner; Dixie (board wargame) was redirected to the list page, but I restored it a few years ago while working on Ares magazine). Armageddon was redirected to the list page, while Patrol was actually redirected to a similar game. Trainwrecks like these are the main reason most people hate bundled AFDs, especially uneven ones. Ragnarok actually had one review in Space Gamer based on its original publication in Ares magazine but was redirected at AFD because I did not know of any other reviews at the time, but I believe it was also republished as a standalone game later. If there are sources out there to make any of these worth restoring, then we will have to make that happen. :) BOZ (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I expect to be able to resume work on articles next week, since I will have my new computer and workstation all set up, but in the meantime I figured it would be good to take a look at some articles like these. :) BOZ (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, the closer wasn't too impressed with what we had so far, since the reviews are not being cited yet, so I moved Armageddon and Ragnarok back to redirects to preserve what you have done so far and will include them on my future to-do list. Bringing articles back from AFD is a bit trickier than ones which were deleted by CSD or PROD for notability or just boldly redirected, which is why I kept the NATO article. Given that, if you have anything to help build up Dixie that should help if any questions arise as to why I restored it when maybe I should have asked the closer about that one first as well... :o To the Green Fields is not likely in any danger, as an Origins-winner of course. BOZ (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have discovered a review from Phoenix #1, how do I edit this into the article when it is in redirect mode? This is the content:
In the first issue of Phoenix, John Norris thought the game considerably less complex than other wargames covering this historic period, but noted that "The level of complexity can be varied by the use of optional rules, which can raise the game from a simple slogging match to a fairly good simulation of the capabilities of the armies involved." Norris thought the weakest part of the rules was "the simulation of morale; this is only done through an optional Panic Level."[1]Guinness323 (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I assume you mean Armageddon; I restored it to draft space, and added this review to it. I will leave this one and Patrol in draft space in hopes that people can find the magazines we requested. BOZ (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now, since you split this section off, and since I mentioned that there were other SPI games with notability issues, and since you do a way better job on wargames than I can do, if you wanted to take a look at any of the others I found, here they are!
And for miscellaneous issues that may need attention, The Campaign for North Africa has sources but no reception so far
It's a long list and I've got lots of other stuff I wanted to look at on a higher priority, but if you spot anything that grabs your attention, or one day find yourself looking for something to do, or just get on a roll, knock yourself out or spend a year slowly going through that. :) BOZ (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, and well done. :) There are of course many redlinks at List of SPI games that may one day need to become bluelinks, but I for one do not have either the sources or the time to invest in trying to make that happen! If you like this focused approach, I may start a new thread for another defunct company in the not-too-distant future. :) BOZ (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Norris, John (June–July 1976). "A Survey of Recent Ancient & Medieval Boardgames". Phoenix. No. 1. p. 10.
Metagaming Concepts
It was truly a herculean effort for you to get through all the SPI games above, and even more impressive that you have apparently more than doubled the number of articles in that category over the past year or so! :o But there is nothing left in that category that you haven't already done, so if you like, we can look at other companies you have mostly cleaned up on, whenever you need a break from other things?
Not that much! I will take a look at a few more companies eventually, preferably ones like these with a limited amount of releases - no more monster production companies like SPI! LOL :) BOZ (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year. :) Back in 2020 we had gone through all the Origins Award/Charles S. Roberts Award winners from the 1970s and started articles for anything that did not have one. While you have been going through the Phoenix reviews and also now starting new articles, that reminded me that we left off with 1980. I saw quite a few reviews for Origins winners in what you have added so far, so it's not a stretch to think we might get a few more from the early 1980s as well? For the record, here are the remaining redlinked winners from the time period where Phoenix was in publication, in case any of these did actually have reviews:
If you find reviews in Phoenix so we can start any of those then great, otherwise we will get to them eventually. :) BOZ (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RPG magazines are much better represented on there, unfortunately! There may be more that I did not find, of course. But, this is at least something to work with. BOZ (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I should point out, and I think you may have access to some issues, but at User:BOZ/Casus Belli I have noted more than a few wargame reviews from that French publication - a much higher percentage than usual for an RPG magazine. :) BOZ (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up, as long as you have your wargame sources out; I recall that Games International reviewed wargames in nearly every issue, and that includes quite a few that I started as noted and are all linked to above: Desert Falcons* (GDW, 1988), The Peninsular War (Rostherne Games, 1973), Onslaught (TSR, 1987), La Bataille d'Albuera: Espagnol (Clash of Arms, 1987), The Emperor Returns (Clash of Arms, 1986), Fight for the Sky (Attactix, 1982), 8th Army (Attactix, 1982), Turning Point: Stalingrad (Avalon Hill, 1989), Arnhem Bridge (Attactix, 1982), Modern Naval Battles (3W, 1989), Tomorrow the World (3W, 1989), Light Division (3W, 1989), Hitler's Last Gamble (3W, 1989), Europe Aflame (TSR, 1989), Usuthu! (Valhalla Games, 1989), 5th Fleet (Victory Games, 1989), Rise and Fall (Engelmann, 1989), Napoleon's Battles (Avalon Hill, 1989), Red Barricades (Avalon Hill, 1989), Shell Shock! (Victory Games, 1990), and Modern Naval Battles II (3W, 1990), and possibly others if I missed them! BOZ (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To give myself something to do, to help out with your quest on the The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming, I went through all the reviews on pages 128-187 and found links for everything there - hope that helps. :) I think I fairly accurately matched up the names of the games since the ones in the book tended to be abbreviated, but the ones with a ? were ones that I could not find a BGG link for. I included every game in the list, even the ones too brief to truly be considered reviews. BOZ (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on John Hill by the way - that article has always looked pretty funky, and now it's improved. :) I don't know how many of these are wargame designers, but if you see anything at User:BOZ/Games deletions#Designers and artists worth working on, I can help you make that happen; I have drafts going for about half of these. BOZ (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added links to Nick Palmer for all the articles that cited The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming. I noticed a few that had other authors, so I switched those to Palmer, but if other people were involved in the book and I made an error, those will be easy to find using my edit summary of "fix name of author and add link". I also caught a weird citation on Stellar Conquest, see #3 under the Reception section and tell me what you think. :) BOZ (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That saved me a mountain of work. I did have to go back and change those other names to what they had been -- Palmer sometimes used his friends in the game industry to write reviews. (Charles Vasey, for instance, was at the time the well-known editor of the influential zine Perfidious Albion.) Guinness323 (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK gotcha, I wasn't sure about the names, which is why I said something. :) I was in the mood for a repetitive task, so there you go. ;) On the Stellar Conquest article, you have a review from Moves, but the citation is for TCGTBW, so I'm not sure what went wrong there. :) BOZ (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome work as always on the already-existing articles. :) If it helps you prioritize at all, you've got Unentschieden, Revolt in the East, Stonewall, and Troy (or at least games with the same names) on your 2023 to-do list. BOZ (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't seen it before, my current huge project is User:BOZ/BTG reviews noticeboard which has its own section for Wargames. :) In particular, since you've done lots (and lots and lots!) of Simulations Publications games, I want to let you know that while I did not list all the SPI games reviewed in "Moves" (too many!) there are still some there in case you want to hit any of them, namely: Chicago, Chicago! with at least one independent review listed on that noticeboard page. :) BOZ (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, vacation was great. I've taken on a new project, I came across Nicolas Palmer's 1977 book 1977 book The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming, and there are a lot of reviews in there that should alllow me to launch several dozen new articles. I'll try to work away at two or three of those per week. That should still leave me time to take on a few odds and ends you toss my way, like the two mentioned in the previous paragraph. Guinness323 (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have definitely noticed, you are rocking and rolling on those! :) Wow, several dozen? If you also have access to The Complete Book of Wargames by Jon Freeman (1980) you'll really clean house with the reviews. Palmer also had a 1980 sequel to his book, The Best of Board Wargaming, although I don't know if that one had reviews. BOZ (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest Fighting Fantasy books should have received a good amount of coverage, but Deathtrap Dungeon in particular seems that it should have more to say in the reception section! BOZ (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a few more here, for whenever. System 7 Napoleonics is a somewhat obscure award winner that has a couple of reviews from Dragon, but maybe your wargame sources have more for it since you last looked at this one three years ago. Similarly, I wonder if Vector 3 has another review or two? Also to toss in a more recent D&D adventure, The Dungeon of Death seems like it has potential. :) BOZ (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you may know, Ogre, to which you have significantly contributed, is continuing to be assessed for GA, and I have observed your changes, which are commendable and improve the article substantially.
Nevertheless, the current consensus is not established yet, but the current general view is that the article is likely B-class or C-class after those improvements. I have added some of my possible suggestions in the GA Reassessment Notes under the talk section for this article, so if you could follow those suggestions and add more factual detail to ensure that it could hopefully retain its GA status that would be great- VickKiang (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK! I thought I was actually trying to save you time and give myself something to do. :) I hope the stubs I did create helped out in some way. Is that a different game you have listed from The Siege of Jerusalem? I might focus on some of the other games listed in The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming that you did not list above - the majority of games in that book now do have articles, but there are still a lot of redlinks there. :) BOZ (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, just trying to save you some work. I have also been working my way through Palmer's TCGtBW, and I haven't found another source for the following, making Palmer the single source. If you come across anything, let me know:
This site does list reviews for March on India, World War II, and Wellington in the Peninsula, or at least games of the same name: [152]. Save yourself some time on StarSoldier as well. :) BOZ (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've found sources for Conflict's Overlord in Freeman's Comprehensive Guide and the 1980 Guide to Simulations and Games, but if you've got others, let me know. I've been busy reading old issues of Games & Puzzles, looking for reviews, but will return to creating new articles in a few days. Guinness323 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh noooooo not Different Worlds![156] :( Oh well, I managed to make sure to download copies of all the issues a while ago, so I can continue with it when I'm ready to pick back up with the reviews sometime in early 2024. BOZ (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you noticed this, but it is a bit concerning, and I noticed it a few days ago. RPGGeek used to list magazine reviews for the game products, but it seems like now they don't: [158] Fortunately RPGnet still does, although they have proven less comprehensive: [159] I hope that is temporary and not a functionality intentionally removed. :( BOZ (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That big collection is probably gone for good, but I will say that I did find copies of issues #39 to #47 so at least we have those!: [160]BOZ (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Letting you know that the edit notice is now live - if you edit any article with refideas listed on the talk page, you will get the notification. :) BOZ (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, you posted this thread a little over a year ago, at which point it looked like this before I started hacking away at it: [162] with an ambitious 40 articles that you intended to start, another 14 in the maybe and another 23 as hopefuls with just one source. I am proud to report that you have started more than half of that entire list, including almost 3/4 of the ones that you were definitely planning on doing. :) This, I must say, was in addition to many other wargame and other articles you started that were not even on this list, as well as me pestering you to work on articles whose notability was challenged and/or that I just wanted to see what you could do with them. I always feel that you do some really impressive things here, and I hope you continue as long as you can and still want to. :)
True confession time, I know you started this thread to save me the work of creating stubs, but I went ahead and did several more anyway earlier this week. :) I took a look at the list that was left, and found anything that I could point at being in at least two solid sources, and made a stub for each of those. So, think of them as something you can look at whenever, but I gave a starting point for several games. BOZ (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find with "Monsters, Aliens, and Holes in the Ground" by the way. :) If you see a decent amount of coverage for a game/supplement/adventure/whatever that we don't currently have an article for, let me know and I will see what I can do! I wouldn't want to be missing out on something important that is worth covering, while our existing articles are getting built up nicely. BOZ (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a Christmas present. I'm up to 1981, and I haven't hit anything that doesn't already have an article yet, but I expect when I hit the 1990s and 2000s, there will be more obscure products. Guinness323 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Cover art for Wrath of Denethenor 1986.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cover art for Wrath of Denethenor 1986.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Something Rotten in Kislev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Allen.
This game depicted the 1631 battle not the 1642 one. I played it as a child and remember King Gustav having a piece. He was dead by 1642 and I wouldn't recall his name if not for the game. Please read this[164] also for proof of what I am saying.Lost in Quebec (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Cover of Nordic Compendium.png
Thanks for uploading File:Cover of Nordic Compendium.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blue Rose (role-playing game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conan.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ultraviolet Grasslands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Psychedelic metal.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Boy King (Pendragon), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Stafford.
BOZ (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. :) BOZ (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]