User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Concerning Angelfire

Hello to you; I must admit I'm loath to close it as this point, because the AfD did not run long enough, imho. AfD's are supposed to run for 5 days. Anyway, it can be closed as speedy keep even by non-admins (but this shouldn't be done by people involved). Just as a bythought: why did you choose me to query for the closing? Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I could say I chose you for your charm and good looks, but I since you were active at the time of writing, I thought I would ask you rather than wait for an admin who might be in another time zone. --Gavin Collins 16:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

About PRODs

You don't need to put your signature in your PROD reasons. Just a heads-up. --UsaSatsui 19:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutants and Masterminds

Yes you're right, I was a little too speedy on this one. I've re-opened the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

AfDs...

Just wanted to let you know that I've got comments waiting for your response on two (unrelated) AfDs... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximus Inc. and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Fleet Universe timeline. Pinball22 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AfDS nomination of Hampton Wick Royal Cricket Club

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hampton Wick Royal Cricket Club, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hampton Wick Royal Cricket Club. Thank you.

Thanks.

Clay5X 14:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete with my blessing as fails WP:ORG.--Gavin Collins 16:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith and the prod system

You left a form response on my user talk page and on an article talk page that accused me of trying to "edit war" for a single edit in which I removed a prod template, an action which is explicitly allowed and in fact is the whole point of the prod system. Note what the prod template says:

You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. (emphasis added)

I gave my objection in the edit summary when I removed the prod. I would suggest that you be a little more circumspect in future about tossing around accusations like that, if you're seeking civil discussion. Bryan Derksen 09:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Point accepted with apologies. What about the issues of notability relating to the article Command Carrier? --Gavin Collins 09:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

World of Greyhawk Fantasy Setting

Reply to your post on my talk page: Yes, I do mind. I replied to you on the discussion page for that article. An AfD would be inappropriate in this instance. Rray 13:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, We can continue the debate Talk:World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting. --Gavin Collins 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to see your AfD nomination as anything but a bad faith edit. Not only does the article clearly include references establishing notability, there is a clear consensus on the talk page that the article should not be nominated for deletion. Rray 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent contributions

Gavin,

I'd like to thank you for your enthusiasm and for some of your recent contributions; they've lead to the improvement of several articles which needed it and the loss of some which we're better of without. However, those contributions have increasingly been in the minority; a lot of your more recent edits seem to consist of tagging articles with ill-fitting and misunderstood tags, or proposing or endorsing deletions for similarly incorrect or misunderstood reasons. Two issues stand out in my memory but they are not the only ones:

You seem to use the {{in-universe}} tag on articles which merely mention a fictional setting from an out-of-universe perspective. The tag is appropriate on articles which don't make the distinction between fiction and reality clear; not on articles which summarise the contents of fiction and present that summary as a summary of fiction. If your complaint is with specific sections, I recommend you place the tag in those sections so that editors can improve the article more by fixing the section than by removing a confusing tag.

You have claimed articles are original research when they provide ample references that their topic was covered outside wikipedia. Original research is a different issue to notability, and references can show that articles have not been originally-researched without establishing notability.

These have happened increasingly since you moved from AFDs to tags; I assume you did this because you weren't winning the AFDs. Tagging these articles is less likely to lead to improvements, especially if you tag them with tags that don't make sense and don't help editors to improve the article; they'll just get removed, and with far less thought than an AFD tag would.

The seemingly random taggings and comments make it hard to assume good faith, and there is talk of taking your behaviour to the admins. If you can't help me (by replying here) to understand why you so often misuse these tags and arguments, and the quality of your edits doesn't improve, I'd be forced to support such a move. Percy Snoodle 14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

One brief comment here... In regards to Percy's fourth paragraph, this shouldn't be construed as an invitation to go back to nominating articles for deletion, unless they are hopelessly beyond repair. AfD should not be a tool that is used to "encourage" editors to clean up articles that are otherwise salvageable. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'd also like to chime in here and express that I too have been frustrated by your often incorrect edits. Correct and appropriate tags are fine, but based on the volume of your edits and the number of tags you're adding, you seem to be in too much of a hurry to be accurate. Please show everyone here the courtesy of making considered, thoughtful edits to articles. It also seems like you're eager to edit, tag, and nominate for deletion a lot of articles of which you have no actual understanding, which is less than helpful. Percy's comment about your use of the in-universe tag is spot on. Your eagerness to nominate articles for deletion (especially if someone removes a tag that you've added) is less than helpful and wastes a lot of people's time.

Also, your consistent use of "boilerplate" comments on various discussions makes it seem like you're not really thinking about what you're discussing. I've seen countless comments from you on various talk pages where you started off with "A general rule of thumb is..." and where you've implied that someone who reverted one of your edits was starting an edit war. You should understand that when you copy and paste language that doesn't apply to a discussion, you give the appearance that you're not concerned enough about the other people in the conversation to write an original reply. You should also understand that just because someone reverts one of your edits, they're not necessarily starting an edit war. Often they're just trying to correct a mistake they think you've made.

I welcome your contributions here, but I also hope you'll put more thought into *how* you contribute here. Rray 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• With regards to the specific points raised, my response is as follows:

1. Your assertion that the majority of articles that I have tagged articles for without good reasons is a gross misrepresentation. Where I have mistakes, I appologise now, but overall I can honestly say my work has been hightly beneficial. For instance, I note the excellent work being done to the articles I have tagged: references are being added, articles merged, and many discussions (such as this one) have been initiated;
2. The use of the in universe template has been made to highlight where plot summaries are unsubstantiated by verifiable sources. Plot summaries can be useful to give context, but where an article has no other content, then I can safely say the use of the tag is not only relevant, but pertinent;
3. Original research: I beleive you are refereing to the Articles for deletion in respect of SFU timeline and Shadowrun timeline. I think the label original research is appropriate, since it covers content forks and synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Note again that this is very pertinent to many RPG articles, where plot summaries, whether synthesised or just made up, are being used to promote the idea that the topics are notable without having to provide independent sources that are evidence of notablitiy;
4. Your view that the tagging of articles is random; I think you will find that the tags are highly relevant to RPG articles. Since the RPG project has no guidelines about notability, independent sources or the use of plot summaries, I think you need to adopt some so you can review the articles yourselves, rather than having to explain why they fall foul of Wikipedia policy on these issues;
5. With regard to the use of notability, in universe, unreferenced and primary sources templates, I have used these as a courtesy to yourselves where I believe there is a problem with an article, rather than "resorting to the first use" of AFD's. I think we are agreed that this is of benefit to all of us (see 1 above), as it gives us time to review the messages that the templates are carrying. I note that you tend to remove the templates when you disagree with the message; I suggest in future you return the courtesy and at least make a case for doing so. Simply saying that a particular template is not appropriate is not a good reason for removing it; sometimes removal gives the impression that you may be in denial about the issues being raised;
6. Having said that, I am aware that the world does not revolve around me, that is I am mistaken from time to time and that I freely admit that I do make mistakes. On balance, my view is that my work is highly beneficial to the RPG project;
7. With regard to not making original replies, that is my style; please do not be offended. On that point, I would be greatful if you would desist from attacking me personally, just because you disagree with something I have done or said.

Overall, I hope that we can get some agreement on article guidelines for the RPG project. --Gavin Collins 08:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me; youu've reassured me on many points. I'll try to address your responses individually.

1. While I don't deny that many of the articles you've tagged have been improved, my problem is more that because you've used the wrong tag on many articles, it's hard to tell what your reasons are for adding them. You do go on to cover that problem in more depth.
2. Tagging unsourced plot summaries isn't the job of {{in-universe}}; it is solely for cases where an article is written from an in-universe perspective (so something like Dace (Exalted) rather than something like Isle of Dread). If your concern is that the plot summary lacks references, you want {{fact}} and {{Unreferenced}}; if your concern is that the plot summary is given too much space, you want {{plot}}.
3. I do mean those articles, yes. Original research only covers research done by the wikipedia editor; so reporting on the timeline of a setting is not OR if an external source (not necessarily online) has published such a timeline, as they have for SFU (I'm not so sure about Shadowrun). I also think you misunderstand SFU and/or WP:POVFORK; the SFU is the setting for a set of games and fiction which "forked" from the Star Trek setting due to real-world happenings some time ago, so they are different topics; WP:POVFORK is talking about multiple articles on the same real-world topic which "fork" on wikipedia to provide articles from different points of view, so it doesn't apply there. It's not a POV or a "position" to say the SFU is a setting; it is a setting and there are plenty of references to say so. This is a separate issue to notability.
4. Because you use the wrong tag, it seems like you're tagging at random. If you slow down and take time to find tags that genuinely apply, it won't seem that way. If there isn't a tag that's an exact match, by all means leave a note on the talk page but don't add an incorrect tag to the article. Vague templates are bad too. Don't worry too much about leaving an article un-tagged; there are plenty of other articles in greater need of attention.
5. I've been removing tags where I find ones that don't make sense. I can't give a better reason than "this tag is inappropriate" because I can't tell what you originally intended. That's why it's important to add a correct tag, or none at all.

anyway, thanks again for your reply. I'm now much happier that you've been editing in good faith. Percy Snoodle 09:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Gavin, you still seem to be using {{in-universe}} inappropriately (for example here) - I had hoped you would at least start to show some restraint with that one. Percy Snoodle 15:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the in-universe tag was used inappropriately in this article. Even a cursory glance over the article makes it clear that this article is about a publication, which by definition isn't an in-universe article. Articles can and should include some information about the content of a publication, and that doesn't make it in-universe. Rray 16:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Gavin, it's unnecessary to ask anyone to refrain from attacking you personally because no one has done so. Try re-reading the comments here. They're all directed at your editing behavior, not at you personally. Calling something your "style" doesn't make it any more effective as a communication tool, either. Rray 04:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Response I think someone has indeed attacked me [1] and I note that you have not responded to the attack by condeming it. --Gavin Collins 12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply Actually, we have condoned condemned it on the RfC talk page. I've been a little busy fixing articles to worry about replying to all instances of it. Turlo Lomon 13:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(Turlo, I'm sure you mean "condemned", not "condoned"... Goochelaar 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Fixed. It's no wonder I have such a hard time making new friends. Turlo Lomon 13:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Gavin.collins)

Hello, Gavin.collins. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins, where you may want to participate.

-- Turlo Lomon 11:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Temple of Elemental Evil

I'm somewhat puzzled by your tagging of the above article as being not notable. The article itself references the vote in Dragon which voted it 4th greatest adventure of all time. There is also a difference between being notable and giving evidence of notability. Most wikipedia articles fail the latter. In the case of the Temple article, its quite clear from reading the article itself that it must be notable - not least because it has inspired a computer game and a re-issue. Francis Davey 14:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And a sequel, as well. --Orange Mike 15:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What he meant was that it didn't make a clearly sourced case for notability. If it was believed to be non-notable, as you seem to imply above, it probably would have been flagged for AfD, not clarification and citations for its case for note. MrZaius^talk 16:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, has seen here, he did state it was notability was an issue. Turlo Lomon 16:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would refer you to the bolded section of my comment above. Notability requires multiple verifiable, independent sources. MrZaius^talk 07:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, its sufficient for there to be a presumption of notability, not a requirement. Not having references is a different problem from not being notable. Francis Davey 00:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely notability cannot be presumed? Not having references could be taken to evidence of non-notability.--Gavin Collins 12:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gavin, there's no presumption of notability as far as I know, however the WP policy in question does not presume non-notability from lack of references. The presence of references raises the presumption of notability. I hope that makes sense. What that means is that for an article like "Temple of Elemental Evil" which is about as notable as any article about a game is ever going to be (since its one of the most famous for a number of reasons), notability is not a problem, but lack of references may well be. The correct response, if you don't know yourself whether something is notable, is to mark with a tag complaining about lack of references (which is something you can, as an editor see) but not with non-notability unless its an area you know about. I hope that makes the policy clear. Note, I am not taking a position on most/many of your edits concerning RPG pages, that's a philosophical debate of the Pokemon variety, which is probably better carried out an article talk page (and possibly a whole lot of Merge suggestions after that), its just that this particular article is pretty notable and I felt you were presuming non-notability which is against policy. Francis Davey 15:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Not having references is only evidence that someone hasn't included references. It's not evidence that references don't exist or that the subject of the article isn't notable. I could write an article about Queen Elizabeth or George W. Bush and not include references, but my failure to include references isn't evidence that those people aren't notable. Rray 16:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Fair Comment However, having read the article again, how is a lay person such as myself to know that the module is notable? Did it sell in large numbers? Did it receive coverage from the press or from academic journals? If I was to suggest that the module has not inhertited notability from D&D, how can module be notable on its own? I read it was one module amoung many, but even if it is the the 4th greatest module of all time, why is this so? What makes this partiular module special from the others? --Gavin Collins 16:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reply Your points here are fair and thoughtful. Those are all questions which, if answered, would improve the article. It might even be worth adding this commentary to the talk page. I'm glad we have some common ground. :) Rray 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isle of Dread

Not much point waiting for the above to close - the WP:V problems were remedied by someone with access to old print sources. Care to withdraw the nom? PS: I know you've gotten a fair bit of flack for trying to clean up the RPG articles, but just wanted to let you know that the vast majority of the noms I've seen you make lately seemed to warrant such discussion, at the very least. MrZaius^talk 16:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If the article is fully sourced then I have no objections to closing the AfD, and that is a good result. However, I have never closed one myself - how is it done? --Gavin Collins 16:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you just state that you withdraw your nomination (on the AfD page) then an admin should close it, especially if you say why you're withdrawing. SamBC(talk) 17:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have done that and the AfD is now close with a Keep --Gavin Collins 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage length

Dear Gavin Gollins
Have you considered archiving your talk page, it is currently +70 kb long.
Best regard Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 18:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to see a shorter talk page, Gavin Collins. It helps all of us in Wikipedia :-) Please take time to do this, okay? Much appreciated! -- • • • Blue Pixel 02:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the first 30 articles, I hope that helps. --Gavin Collins 12:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts with other users

Please review WP:POINT for more information. - Cyborg Ninja 00:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You say you're aware of it, but you don't follow its guidelines. This is your main problem on Wikipedia. You are taking it upon yourself to get rid of roleplaying articles, and because of your picking and choosing among one category, it is evidently in bad faith and an attempt to push an agenda. There is a general consensus among many Wikipedians that these are the reasons for your actions. - Cyborg Ninja 03:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is a sweeping assumption that is not justified on two counts. Firstly, I have participated in many discussions about deletion, not just in the category of role playing games. My primary interest is actually Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business, where you will see I am active in many discussion. Secondly, I do not have an agenda of deleting articles per se, but I am interested in whether articles are written that demonstrate notability, are verifiable and contain useful content. Enforcing Wikipedia policies & guidelines is something that all editors of WP follow, not just me. As regards a "general consensus", I can see that the conttributors to some the article which I have participated in the reiview of would object to my participation in these debates, but then of course, they would anyway. --Gavin Collins 03:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Eidolon (Farscape)

Gavin, your concerns about this article are valid, but these are all cleanup issues, not reasons for deletion. If you've read WP:FICTION you will see that deletion is mentioned only as a last resort to other options. Have you taken the time to look for independent sources? Have you looked into the possibility of a suitable merge or redirect? Are you aware that there is a Farscape Wikia where this material can be transwikied if necessary? You've been tagging, prodding and AfDing a substantial number of articles, and my concern is that you are not taking the time to properly assess the validity of these articles first.

To answer your question about my intentions for this artice: I'll deal with it when I get the chance. There's no timetable to work to here, and since pretty much all of Wikipedia's Farscape-related content is equally problematic, we're obviously looking at a mammoth cleanup task that isn't going to get done overnight. I'm confident that sources can be found to support this article, but if not then a merge or redirect to Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars should be the prefered option to deletion. PC78 23:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• That is no problem, and I am glad that someone has decided to come forward to save this article. Could I ask you to move the article to your user page in the meantime? The prod template was put there so that the article could be removed from WP as it does not meet the notability guidelines. --Gavin Collins 18:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • To be blunt, no - that's not how it works (and it says as much in the userfication page you linked to). We don't move articles out of the main space just because they have issues. Tag it for cleanup if you must, but the article is fine where it is. PC78 00:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• We can agree to disagree then. I will put the article up for AfD, and we can get some peer review to resolve our disagreement. --Gavin Collins 08:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Business related discussion

Gavin, you have quite a bit more experience dealing with business articles then I have. Would you mind adding your comments to Talk:InMediaRes regarding a possible merger of two? Turlo Lomon 11:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thought

I've got a thought on fixing a ton of stuff that I would like your blessing on before I persue. Details are on my talk page. Turlo Lomon 06:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reconsider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panocracy (2nd nomination)

Hey boss, I posted an opinion on merging panocracy with panarchy and would like to know what you think about it. Thanks. Jwiley80 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at the links Panocracy, this appears to be based on a self-published essay, the author of which is probably not aware of Panarchy. Deletion seems best, merger would mean adding unverified original research to the article Panarchy, which has secondary sources. --Gavin Collins 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Emtek page

Gavin, I've just become aware that the page I posted, Emtek , has been deleted for lack of notibility. I've reviewed the requirements and would like to revise the page. Is it possible to have the page reposted so I can make the revision? Thanks TomMillar_1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomMillar 1 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have to ask the admin who deleted it to reinstate it for you. --Gavin Collins 17:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Research request

Status

• Request Acknowledged - 08:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Give me a day or two to do some preliminary searching. /Blaxthos 08:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Closed - Blaxthos 02:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Results - USER:Blaxthos/Research requests/GURPS /Blaxthos 02:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability tagged articles

Hi Gavin. i noticed that you tagged amny of the articles i created. I'm not discussing your motives in doing so here since i do understand them. I looked attentively at the notability requirements and although i may still have to rewrite the articles in order for you to assess and recognize their notability, i saw that, since most of them lack the same requirement ie secondary sources (though not all of them) i guess it may be acceptable to subsume them in one article. But, if i may ask, i would like to know if you are the only one to judge about RPG's articles notability, given that you're not interested in them in the first place?

Please reply so i can start working on the required tasks. -- Mansemat14:30 GMT —Preceding comment was added at 12:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am interested in RPG articles, particularly their quality. Like everybody else, I like to read good articles. --Gavin Collins 12:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that since i'm a newbie i may commit the deadly sin of inexperience but condescendence is not a sign of higher self-worth. Just a thought. Anyway i asked a question and you didn't answer, what do you think about subsuming all of them in one article?Mansemat 21:56 GMT October 18

Re: Shops

Hi Gavin, thanks for the heads up about the deletion. Personally I don't mind if the current article is deleted - somehow it has been changed from a simple redirect to "shop" or "retailer", into something about an essay. In my opinion, it should be either be reverted to this revision, or it should be made into a disambiguation page with a link to "shop", and a link to the current article (which in turn should be moved to "Shops (essay)"). That's my 2 cents - but whatever ends up happening to it, I'm really not that bothered, and I promise I won't be upset in the least. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first proposal. I will remove the prod template and replace the whole article with a redirect to retailing as you suggest. --Gavin Collins 08:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Images and fair use

We do not have to follow licensing rules to use images under fair use. You may want to read Fair use#Fair use under United States law. --- RockMFR 04:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read the fair use guidelines and stand corrected. --Gavin Collins 08:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re : Sebacean

Yes, it does not address any of the concerns highlighted in the AfD. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Afd nomination of Eidelon

See Talk:Eidelon. I closed the AfD as keep without consensus, which I think accurately reflects the state at the ending of the discussion. You may, of course, go to deletion review. Bearian 19:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC) See also WP:DRV#Purpose. Bearian 19:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this point that the debate itself was interpreted correctly. I am not sure if the article is any good as it stands, but because other editors have expressed a stong desire to keep it, then perhaps it will evolve a higher standard of article in the future. --Gavin Collins 20:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User page semi-protected

I've semi-protected your user page, as it was attracting anonymous vandalism. This won't affect your ability to edit the page, so I didn't specify an expiration time. If you want the protection level changed, or have any other issues, please leave me a message, or you may leave a request for any admin. --Slowking Man 07:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As in any community, there are those who think the best arguement is the profane one. While I may have issues with the way you see things, I abhour such displays and I hope you don't blame the rest of our community for it.--Donovan Ravenhull 10:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. While we have obvious disagreements, I am disgusted with personal attacks against you and hope you can let this infantile behavior roll of your back and consider that most others who also disagree with you wish to keep thing civil, even if things get a bit snarky at times. All the best! - Ukulele 02:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

They're not even WPers, actually. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 10:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

{{db-norat}}

You are misusing the {{db-norat}} tag, it is to be applied only after the 7 day grace period expires. Please use {{di-no fair use rationale}} instead and make sure to notify the uploader. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Peacekeeper (Farscape)

Look again, I didn't remove anything. PC78 00:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I appologise. --Gavin Collins 09:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure

First off, I admit to being a bit bold on Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure. I have a bias, here, so I'll make that clear. I spent a lot of time working that article into shape. Here's my thinking as to notability:

• The original work is one of the seminal sources for much of the World of Greyhawk lore, and is essentially a re-worked version of one of the original (pre-commercial) modules of the Dungeons & Dragons game, which is now the world's most popular roleplaying game.
• The original work was the first appearance of a writeup for the mage after whom a notable percentage of the spells in the game were named (Mordenkainen), and who was the character played by Dungeons & Dragons' creator Gary Gygax.
• The module was later revisited decades later as a series of three, separately published sequels in the official adventure publication of the Dungeons & Dragons game, one of those sequels constituting the only case that I'm aware of where a single module consumed the entire issue, and was also the 30th anniversary issue.

Overall, it's difficult for me to be objective, here, but I'm having a hard time believing that you spent a lot of time reviewing the material for this and the slew of other D&D-related articles which you seem to have scatter-shot AfDs and administrative templates all over. It's a burden for those of us who worked long and hard to collect this information over the course of years to now come back with entirely new sets of criteria for notability in place and try to justify our work. It seems to me that the burden should be placed on the editors who wish to call these articles into question to do the research and establish the correlation between new criteria and older articles. -Harmil 15:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have responded to you in detail at Talk:Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure. --Gavin Collins 16:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of the "in-universe" template

You have been placing the {{In-universe}} template on many pages, and I feel that you've been doing so incorrectly. Articles which describe fictional characters or plot are acceptable. Articles which confuse the encyclopedic and the fictional point of view are a problem. Example:

Fiz conquered the Martians, and is the greatest hero of the Sploom.

vs.

Fiz is a fictional character in the Martians vs. Sploom series of books. He conquered the Martians, and is the greatest hero of the Sploom.

There's no confusion in the second example. Context is maintained and the article does exit the encyclopedic tone. -Harmil 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Response Give me an example and lets discuss this issue on the relevant article talk page. --Gavin Collins 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 10:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5