Compsword01

RE: My two cents on RPG "notability"

I agree completely with what your essay is saying. However, what we need is to find a way to make that message heard by people to whom it could make a difference. The deletionists aren't going to listen to that - they have their minds made up that these things must go away, and are going to fight aggressively to remove as much "non-notable" material (in the way that they and others like them interpret the notability guidelines) as they can. It's a tough uphill battle to change the minds of people who are more in the middle, and I don't have the strength or ammunition to go it alone. BOZ (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Compsword01, you raise quite a number of very good points. I have often had to "go back to the stacks" of my old magazines to find the one article or two to keep a particular AfD from going to "delete". What we have of late is a rash of editors either too lazy or too ignorant to understand the depth of this topic and are more interested in deleting articles and calling that improvement. Web Warlock (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't have summed it up better myself. I have loads of old White Dwarfs in the garage (hehe I even got a monster in the Fiend Factory of issue 30 in 1981) which qualifies as an independent reference. I was busy doing other things and free time is highly variable at this time of year but will see what I can do. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Casliber, I probably saw that monster at some point. Care to share which one it was? Have you ever had the pleasure (or pain) of reading "All the World's Monsters"? I have all the copies, each one mint. I read them once and put them away. Very old, and they include things by David A. Hargrave among others. Excellent and imaginative work and very nice additions to any campaign (with adjustments here and there where needed). Compsword01 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

To BOZ and Casliber: Thanks for getting back to me. I do not at all feel the battle is uphill in any way at all, but you are indeed fighting people who have a very strong and perhaps diagnosable need to be right at all costs. They also know how to "game" the system of things, like a good attorney who stalls, feigns, and continuously impedes with the idea of tiring a judge or jury with legal but nonsensical delays and protestations. I actually feel very badly for this tiny but active group of RPG deletionists, as this kind of asocial behavior is most assuredly not limited to their online activities. That said, there is no reason to not continue forward. Most of their efforts are failing and the efforts they are winning probably make the community stronger as result, by weeding the chaff of the lowest priority articles. My wife here has a theory that these RPG deletionist folk are somehow connected to the Religious Right (name your country) in an organized effort to bedevil the RPG community. While I do not agree with that, these vocal few are in fact motivated not by the idea of making Wikipedia a better place, but instead by some personal and subjective crusade that, if revealed, would probably look very bad for them. The evidence for this is the fact that they actually contribute nothing at all and instead sit back and fire volley after volley and obsessively monitor all those who counter their claims and commentaries. People who do that kind of thing are clearly not interested in helping, they are only set on destruction and personal pique. Based upon some of their factual errors, they all clearly known nothing at about the RPG universe aside their personal hatred of it. On another note, I and others strongly suspect these people are either working in concert or are in fact the same person. However, as they are too clever and too technically adept to be caught at their games (via CheckUser), we must return the fight using the just and fair tools at our disposal: Facts & unity. They are worthy opponents, so do what a good warrior does: Take the battle to them, and stand firm. Thanks for reading. Compsword01 (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Pilotbob has been strongly suspected of sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting, for one (see his user page). This is why he got a warning on his talk page (which Gavin Collins rushed to defend) for his re-nomination of Ro7P for AFD. BOZ (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

BOZ, that is extremely interesting news. Am I surprised? No. People of their kind will resort to any and all means at their disposal to "win" and/or be "right". This is a dangerous and stealthy enemy, but one that can be handily defeated by staying true to the cause, and by not resorting to subterfuge. Thanks for reading. Compsword01 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly sympathize with your view-- the area I generally work in the most has been targeted by the same kinds of people before. I note that unfortunately, they are likely to dismiss your argument as simply calling on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (I hate that essay) to handwave it away. :/

It is my belief that articles with poor sourcing and so on and so forth should have problematic content removed and then just be stubified or merged until better stuff can be found. After all, that's what happens with things like microorganisms, random butterfly species, and obscure French hamlets in the middle of nowhere. Jtrainor (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jtrainor, everything should have a chance to get up and going. Some things in the RPG world are really too minor and obscure to warrant full articles, however, but that still leaves plenty of the "major" artifacts and such (like Rod of Seven Parts) to be fleshed. The problem is time, willing bodies, and the availability of source materials (i.e., the abovementioned paper products). Compsword01 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) stubbing is far less harmful than deletion. Some of the delete voters argue that some other web site is more appropriate for content than Wikipedia. Fine. Let them stub the article, and put a link to that other site; or merge the content to a main article or to a fork of it that lists all such details (like all characters or all power objects), with links. Simple, and no deletion and no debate needed, unless opposed, for which there is ordinary dispute process, starting with discussion! No content is removed, it remains in history. Deletion should really be reserved for offensive or illegal articles, stuff that *must* be deleted, which should *not* be in History. --Abd (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I thought your essay was interesting. It would certainly be helpful if someone with a complete collection of some of the various gaming publications like Dragon, Different Worlds, Space Gamer, Adventurers Club, and White Dwarf were available to help source these articles. The deletionists seem to think that if they can't find it in Google, it doesn't exist. But there's no hurry, and pendulums swing both ways over time, so don't get yourself stressed about it. :) Rray (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Rray, this is something I just don't understand. How did Google come to be the definition of truth? How did Google suddenly become the world's collective library? I recently confronted a situation where a colleague was fostering doubt in those around him, due to his lack of presence on Google. This person, they felt, should be easily described by things written online, yet there was nothing written online. When it came time for proof of things, this person had people place certain key phone calls and suddenly all the gates were opened. Google knew nothing of this person's high-level contacts, histories, dealings. The people who had doubted this person's abilities (based on the person's non-Google presence) were somewhat stunned. How does a semi-public figure escape Google? I'll tell you: Google doesn't know everything. Those who think it does are, for a lack of better words, grossly misguided. Compsword01 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(cough, splutter from all these damn dusty white dwarves..)...got a few in from WD now. Funny, I have just found a book review in WD38 (Feb 83) of a book called Dicing with Dragons by Ian Livingstone, which'd be a published indep ref too. I don't have the book but somoen might. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Casliber, that's quite an image I have of you digging around in those old magazines! Would referencing articles in detail pass the test here on Wikipedia, given the lack of physical proof? Should the articles be scanned? Compsword01 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I was tempted to take a digital photo if anyone requested but it seemed to be verging on the ridiculous really. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How to stem the tide: Don't! Channel it!

I wrote this due to the comment ref'd below, editing your Talk page, but I was about to decide that it was too long and, instead, place it as an article in my own space, but... since I just saw that I had a message from you, and you were requesting comment from me about an article of yours, I'm going ahead and saving this. I'll then read your article as suggested.

Thanks for your comment in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rod_of_Seven_Parts_(2nd_nomination. The problem of reliable source is a constant one, with topics that are clearly notable *to humans* but not to those humans who contribute articles to peer-reviewed journals or write for newspapers. The sum of human knowledge is the goal of Wikipedia. I've written an essay on this, it's in my user space,[1] and I would welcome comment if you have time to read it and respond. The problem, of course, is the policy of verifiability, but if you can ask practically anyone and they know something about it, as you point out, how could the topic not be "notable."

My understanding of this whole issue is rapidly expanding. The problem is rooted in the very concept of Wikipedia. Wales has called the goal to make available free access to the "sum of all human knowledge." Further, Wikipedia is promoted as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Put these two together, and there is trouble in River City.

"Sum" has two meanings: it can mean the whole thing, everything, nothing omitted, or it can mean a "summary," i.e., what is "important." Encyclopedias have always followed the latter course, for two reasons, the first being practical, there is no way that every piece of knowledge could be included, but the second being more crucial: knowledge without classification, without hierarchy, is almost useless, it's "information overload."

Starting in the 1980s, people started getting excited about hypertext. The vision was that a hypertext document could at the same time exist in summary form, at the top level, and with practically unlimited depth, through links. This is, in fact, the web as it developed, but without clear hierarchy and structure, beyond the very primitive one of search engines and a few other attempts at organization; Wikipedia is one of these attempts, probably the most successful so far.

Back to the problem. Can "everyone" edit? Do all editors stand equally in rights? Again and again, in AfDs for articles, I see preferential reliance on sources available and acceptable to a subgroup of editors, with other forms of source being discounted or neglected. Basic policies, considered fundamental early on, maintain this division.

I'm seeing the most significant basic and problematic policy as "no original research." It's obvious why original research is excluded; however, excluding it does mean that a whole area of human knowledge is excluded. And those who have this knowledge, imagining that what they know, or especially what they and their friends know, is "human knowledge," are going to think that they can create articles with this. As Wikipedia grows, this problem is going to get worse and worse, trying to stop it is like trying to stop the tide. And trying to stem the flow of "non-notable, or non-reliably sourced" articles, without seriously offending those who take the time to create them (often putting serious research time into the task, but not necessarily with "reliable sources,"), is like trying to stop the tide without getting wet.

Exclusion of non-notable articles, by whatever definition except a very simple and automatic one, is going to result in increasing conflict and waste of editor energy, as well as the imposition, helplessly, of the perspectives of particular cultures on Wikipedia. For example, I just voted in an AfD regarding a series of student organizations at the University of the Philippines. It was asserted that it was "unlikely" that there would be reliable sources for information in these articles. How could that be asserted? My guess is Google searches coming up short. But what about newspapers published, for example, in Tagalog, and not on the web? Were these editors searching in Tagalog? Did they attempt to contact people in the Philippines to look in local libraries? Certainly the creators of articles could be asked to provide such sources, but this, then, is circular. Who could check the claims, or, more to the point, who would have the motivation to do it? There is a solution.

I see the inclusionist perspective as, ultimately, necessary, and, if this analysis is correct, the problems with the reliability of Wikipedia and the proliferation of trivia must be solved by other means, by methods of creating hierarchy and organization, formal fact-checking, and so forth. Articles written based on a single report are inherently unreliable, even though individual testimony is acceptable in court, for example, and is presumed true unless controverted, a basic principle of law. "Peer-reviewed publication" is the gold standard of reliable source," but, let me step back a moment.

The true standard is verifiability. What is stated in mainspace articles should be verifiable, and the specific means are not limited to a specific list. Where an "unreliable" source is used, what is in the encyclopedia can still be verifiable; it simply attributes the text to the source, greatly reducing the problem. If articles are explicit in the text as to source, when they are based on unreliable sources, they are verifiable, at least in theory, for any reader with access to the sources can verify that, indeed, the sources -- reliable or not -- say what the text in the encyclopedia claims that they do.

But, then, misinformation can multiply. Again, whatever solution is proposed must be practical, it cannot require some centralized bureaucracy. Wikipedia has shown that a massively decentralized structure can function reasonably well; and Wikipedia does have structure: there are editors, and administrators, and bureaucrats, with levels of responsibility and power. The *vast* bulk of work on the project is done by editors, people like you and me. There are only something more than 1000 administrators, which is probably inadequate to deal with the flood of vandalism and ever-increasing conflict over content. Article deletion adds to this burden; for every AfD, there are many speedy deletions based simply on the judgment of a single administrator, presumably following policy; in most cases policy is clear.

I'm suggesting that trying to stop the creation of "non-notable" articles is impossible, and deletion of these articles is an insult to those who sincerely thought them notable. I'm not talking about the hordes of frivolous, nonsense, or offensive articles that are routinely created in large numbers. I'm talking about what is called fancruft by those who think that their own interests are more important aspects of human knowledge than those of "fans." I'm talking about original research. All this should be treated as *submissions* of articles, input to the system, and this input should be available to all, with the very clear exception of articles properly deleted for legal or other essential policy reasons. However, "available to all" does not mean that it is all presented equally. For example, let's say that there is an article about some character in a work of fiction. This article is submitted by a fan, and it is not offensive. The article might not appear in mainspace, by default, or, if it does appear in mainspace, it can be moved out of mainspace by any editor, under certain conditions; a very simple one would be that the article has not been fact-checked. Fact-checking would be done by an editor in a special class, an editor considered reliable, unlikely to verify an article without actually doing the work; essentially, unlikely to lie. This involves a creation of a special class of editors, but this does not require new software, though it does involve some new community process. Admission to this group can be relatively liberal, because an editor who verifies articles without adequate research can be "caught" and the class designation revoked. So, a new article comes in, perhaps to mainspace. Anyone who thinks it not notable, or not properly sourced, can move it to another space. (which might be, technically, a redirection, not an actual move, again a technical detail.) That might actually be user space for the user who created the article. At this point the user is clearly responsible for the article the user created. The user can request verification, and if a fact checker verifies the article, it can go back to mainspace. If the article can't be verified, it can stay in user space or in some special space for such articles. These articles would then become a penumbra of unverified knowledge around verifiable knowledge (and actually verified knowledge), a penumbra accessible to all (procedures could be developed for linking these articles to articles in mainspace, where appropriate), but requiring little maintenance effort. More importantly, fact-checkers could also work on verifying what is in all articles in mainspace, thus making Wikipedia into a *peer-reviewed publication*, if the procedures are right.

The fact-checking would be done as it is with the staff of any reliable source, by those dedicated to that job. The *community* supervises the fact-checkers; any user could file a claim that a fact-checker was derelict. The whole AfD process would disappear, but WP:PROD and speedy deletion would remain, for clearly inappropriate articles; but non-notability would be *removed* as a cause for deletion.

Fact checkers would be editors who understand NPOV principles and the various problems that can exist with sources. They would have no punitive power, so lots of fact checkers could be created.

In my opinion, if a human being takes his or her valuable time -- is everyone's time equally valuable? -- to write an article, it has a certain level of notability, it is "human knowledge," and it has been summarized, since no person can possibly write everything they experience even about small things. They write what they think notable. And articles created and not verified are automatically attributed as claims of the author, thus satisfying WP:NPOV and, indeed, WP:VERIFY.

(Perhaps anonymous articles would be deleted unless someone "adopts" them within a certain period of time. In that case, the one adopting them becomes the effective creator.)

Classification and organization of knowledge is far, far more important than exclusion through deletion of "unimportant" knowledge, for it is utterly impossible, in advance, to determine what is important and what is not without introducing bias. --Abd (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Abd, that is an excellent piece of thought. I agree with it in spirit, but in execution I am not sure it can stand the tests of human politics. Also, I think your idea is a quasi-Britannica concept, but with unpaid editors. Yes? No? I strongly agree with the inclusive research aspect you've mentioned, and especially liked your example of the Tagalog texts. Thanks for posting that. Things of this sort are always good for discussion. Compsword01 (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not Britannica, which is far too superficial. As to the "tests of human politics," we don't know what can fly until we toss it in the air. There is a full-blown solution available, in theory, but, indeed, suggest it and it will be shot down, immediately. However, that solution can come, one step at a time, and it requires no community consent. It simply requires editors deciding to communicate on a scale larger than two or three at a time. It's tricky, but it is doable. "Coherently" does not mean some kind of edit cabal with a hidden agenda. It means developing the communications mechanisms that allow consensus in a large group to appear quickly. Most people, however, don't see the need, so this will only start, I predict, in a very small way. Two people, four people, ... 4096 people, etc., so to speak. Actually a few dozen editors could accomplish a lot, a few thousand could be impossible to ignore. *No agenda*. That's part of the concept. No agenda except efficient communication, that is. Open membership is another part of it. No *organized* secret communication, *but* open communication *outside* of Wikipedia. There would be secret communication, as there is now and will always be (I hope!), but between individuals and what I call caucuses, people who voluntarily choose to associate and communicate with each other, and who may, indeed, have some agenda. Anyway, there has been a lot of work on the theory of this, of which there is a small amount at beyondpolitics.org/wiki.

Wikipedia suffers seriously from participation bias; it is bleeding editors who realize they just can't keep giving the time required to keep their finger in the dike. Those who remain are, preferentially, a bit unbalanced. (Lots of great, dedicated people, particularly those with mops, but ... hordes of editors with nothing better to do than promote an agenda, argue endlessly without knowledge, insult anyone who gets in their way, etc. And some of these discover that they can make something happen with a drive-by AfD that they could not accomplish by, say, blanking the article and redirecting it, because someone else will just revert it, maybe. With a deleted article, many might not notice it missing, until they scratch their heads, "Didn't there used to be an article on...?") A *huge* discussion, such as the AfD for Esperanza, attracted 200 votes. That's a small compared to the number of administrators, and tiny compared to the number of editors. Who is attracted to vote at something like that? Read it and weep.

What if there was a way to estimate consensus on a much larger scale? Delegable Proxy -- see Liquid democracy --, in theory, is scalable to the limit of the entire human population; in a Free Association context, which does not concentrate power but leaves power distributed with the membership, entirely, what is set up is an advisory network that allows true consensus to form rapidly because the necessary discussion can take place in a relatively small group (openly; when the scale is large, though, restricted direct participation becomes impossible, but *never* does the restriction apply to voting, and voting only estimates consensus; because of delegable proxy, though, a relatively small number of people voting can estimate how a far larger number would vote. I could certainly write more ... but enough for tonight. Perhaps too much already....

This is *not* a utopian concept, it's realizable *immediately* with small numbers of people. It's happening here and there. ::--Abd (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The LE deletionist clique

I was struck by your observation that there seems to be a cooperative effort behind those RPG AfD's. Note how rampant deletionists like Gavin Collins and Pilotbob cooperate. One of them is a "respectable" deletionist, who has some token contributions to provide a fig leaf over his countless AfD requests and taggings, and has never gotten caught at blatant puppetry. The other is a less respectable persona, who engages in nothing but rampant destruction (no constructive edits at all) and has been caught with a stable of puppets. First the "clean" persona creates an AfD; then a mere month after it is defeated, the same AfD motion is made again, on Christmas Eve no less, by the less reputable "disposable" account.

These two users cooperate very carefully and sparingly on the actual AfD pages; but if you look on their talk pages, they are very quick to rush to each other defense; critics of "deletionist A" on his talk page are promptly answered and chastised by "deletionist B" and vice versa.

Now bear in mind that I have no means of proving any sort of sockpuppetry at work here, and having no proof, must assume good will, of course.

The reason I'm writing this is that not long ago I could observe the same Wiki-mechanisms at work in the entirely different field of physics, where a number of semiprofessional deletionists cooperated as closely as a well-conducted orchestra in shooting down Wikipedia articles on certain speculative physics theories under the guise of "fringe science". What is curious is that some theories were clearly seen as "better" than others, despite being just as novel and speculative; not a finger was raised against String Theory for instance, or the MOND theory, which has never been notable and has recently been falsified. What is even more interesting is that these idiosyncratic preferences were shared by all the deletionists involved; that is to say, they all clamored for the deletion of Heim theory, for instance, and all liked MOND, which is not even an actual theory as it lacks theoretical underpinnings. Curious, eh? Of course, all these deletionists were respectable editors, and most claimed on their user pages to have actual academic background in physics. :-)

(Having said that, I must admit that the arguments of the "scientific" deletionists were on a level far above what the "RPG" deletionists dish out; very little name-calling, and on occasions it was quite stimulating to engage in dispute with them).

My conclusion? We are dealing with Lawful Evil here; it is by its nature well-organized. These LE deletionists know all the legal and procedural tricks. Rather than trying to match them on a legal basis, we should try to defeat them by what they are worst at: honest, tedious editorial labor. And it certainly won't hurt to keep careful track of their convoluted interconnections; observe who is always seconding whom; which people share a suspiciously identical set of likes and dislikes (almost no real-life friends do); note how Tweedledee jerks when you tap Tweedledum's knee and vice-versa; etc. Freederick (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Freederick, thanks for putting this together. Using edit histories, I too have examined this specific situation extremely closely and have drawn conclusions which I shall keep to myself. And I must say I had quite the good laugh when I realized what what you meant by the LE in the title. I'm still smiling. Compsword01 (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL - excellent.  :) BOZ (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Under any circumstance rolling up the sleeves and working on the articles is always going to be the best choice. Web Warlock (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The stupid thing is, the guidelines only seem to me to support deletion as a last resort. The guidelines say to discuss the matter, and even try things like merging before going to deletion. The deletionists don't give a rat's ass about that procedure, because they want this stuff gone ASAP, and anything else delays their goal. BOZ (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RPG notability

If sources exist, it shouldn't matter whether paper or online. A lot of documents - from many fields - are not online. There's a degree of trust involved that it's bona fide, and I suppose it would help to give more details, or exact quotes (or even upload scans somewhere? if allowed), so people can judge themselves. But nobody should be deleting an article on the basis "A source is claimed but I can't see it online". Thats not good reasoning. One would however hope there are online sources to support the matter though. Not essential, but if you can say "its mentioned here here here and also in one or two places online that are easy to check, it'll be easier to reassure those who check cites carefully, too, when thats possible.

As to your essay, I think its "We must fight people who would delete stuff!" stance isn't needed. Neutrality has a feel to it. This essay is advocacy, which makes it less likely some you want to hear, will read it... because it feels like pushing one side. Obviously it is, but if you make the case that notability is a concern in many areas, for these and similar reasons, this is what is needed, this is how to handle it, maybe?

The theme's right - you don't delete just because the sources were in print, and others should accept that (and you should try to evidence it somehow if you can). But setting it up in a frame where these people ("they") are all somhow implied to be seeking damaging lazy deletion and "we" have to protect it... thats unnecessarily dualistic. The "we" and the "they" are all on the same side. Educate and explain, rather than imply force is needed?

Thoughts! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

FT2, thanks for that. I absolutely do not advocate turning tides on those who delete articles. Not at all. Deletion is sometimes necessary and is often desirable, if painful. It keeps the herd healthy, as it were. However, I do advocate drawing a line in the sand when the spirit of deletion proves---over time and repeatedly---to be happening with an agenda, via covert personal designs, and most especially when sockpuppets or other tricks are employed to shore up a weak position. For my portion, I advocate fighting this syndrome in the best possible way: With honor, civility, dignity, and (most especially) with factual and verifiable research. The word "fight" is not always to be read as blood being drawn; Gandhi, in his own quiet way, was a heavyweight champ who knocked down walls with a feather. Compsword01 (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The confrontational nature of this essay, despite the fact I agree with many of the points concerning notability presented, is unneeded and far over the top. While certain users do engage in AfDs far too much than they should (User:Pilotbob for instance), the utter disregard of any assumption of good faith on the behalf of those who bring deletion forward is unwarranted. That said, I do not condone AfDs performed without some research or discussion into the topic. Unfortunately, bringing up the example of User:Pilotbob again, his en mass AfD nominations were disruptive and bordering on being pointy. However, even in such cases, both sides should make a bona fide effort towards conciliation, and adopting a stance of "us" against "them" is never, in any situation, going to result in a resolution of the situation. If your efforts fail, then so be it, and let consensus decide the issue. I fully understand that any efforts towards conciliation naturally fail when faced with one that is not willing to compromise or defer on the issue, but a failure to do so creates a conflict that ultimately is not beneficial for all of us. Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sephiroth (love your name, by the way), I respect what you are saying. However, when pushed you either fall or stand firm. Opposing someone's overt actions of premeditated destruction need not be confrontational. Standing firm on Wikipedia means not being intimidated by templates, not being bullied by individuals who have no knowledge of the subject matter at hand, and not being conned into ad hominem nor any other distraction that pulls people out of making the articles strong and instead pulls them into edit wars and name calling. Some people purposely goad others into personal attacks simply to yank the rug from under the conversation and tasks at hand. It is a good tactic but a dishonorable one which too many here fall prey to. I say stand firm but be righteously armed with facts and research but above all good intentions and fair play. The best weapon against those who prowl the forest periphery is to make the articles stronger than the pot-shots. This is what I mean by "fighting". Thanks for reading. Compsword01 (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Then the wording can be changed to reflect this. If not, then you are giving the immediate impression of being confrontational, and without the benefit of your explanation here, that is the impression that a user will take from your essay. That said, it ultimately is unnecessary, and your essay should be concentrating upon the notability merits of these articles instead of on users who aggressively use AfDs to delete such articles. If you bring notability forward with your methodology, then these said users have no basis for their arguments, and consensus will decide against them. Even per your post here, you still imply that there are two groups: "us" and "them", which is against the spirit of collaboration here, and should not be part of the essay. Per FT2, any attempt to inject a feeling of "us" against "them" gives your essay a clear impression of which side it is supporting, and you should attempt to stay as neutral as possible. Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Of concern is also Gavin Collins of course, who seems to come to wikipedia mainly to delete articles, adding notability templates to dozens of articles in a stretch, and then PRODding or AFDing any which don't get corrected according to his timeframe. His behavior, as pointed out above, isn't a great deal different from Pilotbob's. (see Gavin's RFC for details) Jack Merridew gets an honorable mention, but he seems to be a garden variety deletionist rather than "guy with an agenda" like the other two, but Jack Merridew has been getting more and more involved with RPG AFDs lately (voting much moreso than nominating) - I don't think he's doing anything wrong per se, just taking the "delete first, ask questions later" approach. BOZ (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ye Art Cordially Invited to the Annex

Hello, My good Fellow, listen and I shalt telleth Ye a Tale of a Wiki that well comes All Manner of Articles relating to Fiction. What is This wonderful Place of Fantasy, You ask? It is the Annex, Haven to All fiction-related Refugee Articles from Wikipedia.

Before nominating or proposing a fiction-related Article for Deletion, It is My sincerest Hope that Ye import It to the Annex. Why do This, You wonder? Individuals have dedicated an enormous Amount of Time to writing These Articles, and ’twould be a Pity for the Information to Vanish unto the Oblivion where only Administrators could see Them.

Here is a Step-by-Step Process of how to Bringeth Articles into the Annex:

1. Ye shall need at least three Browser Tabs or Windows open. For the first Tab or Window, go to Special:Export. For the second, go here. (If Ye have not an Account at Wikia, then create One.) Do whatever Ye want for the third.
2. Next, open the Program known as Notepad. If Ye haveth It not, then open WordPad. Go to “Save as,” and for “Encoding,” select either “Unicode” or “UTF-8.” For “Save as type,” select “All Files.” For “File name,” input “export.xml” and save It. Leave the Window open.
3. Next, go to the Special:Export Window at Wikipedia, and un-check the two small Boxes near the “Export” Button. Input the Name of the Wikipedia Article which Ye wish to import to the Annex into the large Field, and click “Export.”
4. Right-click on the Page full of Code which appears, and clicketh on “View Source” or “View Page Source” or any Option with similar Wording. A new Notepad Window called “index[1]” or Something similar should appear. Press Ctrl+A to highlight All the Text then Ctrl+C to copy It. Close yon “index[1]” Window, and go to the Notepad “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+V to pasteth the Text There, and then save It by pressing Ctrl+S.
5. Now go to the Special:Import Window over at the Annex. Clicketh on “Browse…” and select the “export.xml” File. At last, click on “Upload file,” and Thou art done, My Friend! However, if It says 100 Revisions be imported, Ye be not quite finished just yet. Go back to Wikipedia’s Special:Export, and leave only the “Include only the current revision, not the full history” Box checked. Export That, copy the Page Source, close the “index[1]” Window, and go to the “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+A to highlight the Code all ready There, press “backspace” to erase It, and press Ctrl+V to pasteth the new Code There. Press Ctrl+S to save It, then upload once more to the Annex. Paste {{Wikipedia|{{PAGENAME}}}} at the Bottom of the imported Article at the Annex, and Ye art now finally done! Keepeth the “export.xml” File for future Use.

Thank Ye for using the Annex, My Friend — the Annex Hath Spoken 01:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

About obscure published sources

I saw some discussion above about what to do when one has a copy, say, of an old magazine, with material usable as an independent source, or the like. Testimony is presumed true unless controverted. I see, all the time, academic sources asserted that cannot be accessed freely. Sometimes they are accessible for payment, (like $30 to read an article that might be a two-page book review), sometimes not, they come from before much was on-line. We cannot challenge such sources simply on the basis that we don't have access to a library that contains them. So, sure, you could scan something and put it somewhere (not on Wikipedia, for copyright reasons, generally), or make it available by email on request, but you don't have to. Just cite the source, put whatever is relevant from it into the article or a note or on the Talk page. Give the full information, including page number, and if you want to be kind, use exact quotes (if only in Talk), instead of summarizing, staying within fair use. If you do the latter, AGF requires that it be accepted unless you are a known forger.--Abd (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)