User talk:Leitmotiv

Hello, Leitmotiv. You have new messages at JamesLucas's talk page.
Message added 15:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

List of caves

Hi Leitmotiv. I think that the comment you added to List of caves in this diff belongs on the talk page so that a consensus can be reached on it. It is very difficult to discuss this within the article body. I would really appreciate it if you would move this to the talk page so that it can be discussed. Thank you. WTucker (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been several days so I have taken the liberty of moving your comment to the talk page for discussion. Thank you for it, it will, no doubt, improve the article. WTucker (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OWN and COI

This is intended as no more than a friendly word of advice. When it comes to the OHDG and the related AFD, it's important to keep in mind WP:OWN and WP:COI, which both come strongly into play here. Replying to every commenter on the AFD isn't helpful- especially if it leads to being awarded the TLDR of the week. Certainly the COI issue makes things cloudy- if not for you, for other editors who are trying to evaluate the importance of the article. tedder (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand OWN and COI. It may look like I have a personal interest in the Oregon High Desert Grotto, because I do, but I would say it's more accurate to say that I have a devoted interest in caving of which the Oregon High Desert Grotto is apart of. With the advent of Karst Information Portal (.org), newsletters from most grottos and other worldwide caving publications will become available to the whole world wide web, and they will probably be referenced on Wikipedia.

The whole thing that got me rolling on the grotto page, is that it was deleted before I had a chance to defend it. To that I admit, I got a little defensive and personal. But I understand the arguments for deletion, and I'm not taking that personally in and of itself. Only because it was "speedy deleted" without giving me a chance to properly respond. That matter, I think, was not given fair enough attention. Now, I believe it is being given enough attention, and no matter what the result, I will stand by the results, and will seek to get the significant references needed to get a proper Oregon High Desert Grotto page up and running at a later date.Leitmotiv (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Redmond Caves

On December 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Redmond Caves, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Of Montreal

Please note that according to [[WP:MOSTM] we favour the use of standard English capitalisation rather than the stylistic preferences of a band. Even though Of Montreal may style their name as of Montreal, in Wikipedia, we only render this as Of Montreal. For examples see Dredg (rendered as dredg), Blink-182 (rendered as blink-182) and the example provided at WP:MOSTM, Kiss (rendered as KISS). Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSTM is horribly inadequate. Leitmotiv, Nouse4aname, please see WP:MOSPN instead. riffic (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sor--Orygun (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)ry, but there is a clear consensus that WP:MOSTM should be applied to band names, as evidenced by the fact that the band Kiss is used as an example for MOSTM. Regards, Nouse4aname (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to draw a venn diagram for you. In one circle you have band names, in the other you have trademarks. These two circles can possibly intersect. Not all band names are trademarks. riffic (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty pictures aside, MOSTM is quite clear, and its application to band names more than evident. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that EBay is listed as eBay on their site, but is redirected eBay. Why the inconsistency? eBay can skirt this, why can't a band? 17:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

eBay is a specific exception to the style guideline, with the second letter capitalised instead of the first. The same is true for iPod. This is an entirely different situation regarding Of Montreal. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not different at all. If Wikipedia's layout can allow the name of corporations it is certainly possible to allow bands to do the same. The only difference is in the mindset of Wikipedia's policy. Inconsistencies in policy makes it looks like Wikipedia and its editors are playing favorites. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

not only this, but this issue completely falls outside of the scope of the policy being applied. Leitmotiv, I invite you to have a word at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD, perhaps we can get this boat steered around. riffic (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Help adding pics?

Hey Orygun, I have been trying to add a pic to the Floater page forever. For that matter, I've tried adding pics on other pages with no success. I just don't know what I'm doing wrong. It usually gets taken down for a variety of reasons. I come to you, because I noted you added a pic to Redmond Caves when I was working on it a while back. I see where you obtained the photos from, but what I don't understand is how those photos are legit to use and the ones I want to use aren't. So confused. Wikipedia does not educate very well on the matter. It's all confusing and convoluted. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated! Leitmotiv (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Photos I uploaded for Redmond Caves article were taken by BLM, a Federal Government agency. With very few exceptions, images produced by or for U.S. Federal Government are in Public Domain. That means you can use them w/o any restrictions. Only a few states release their images into Public Domain or make them available with licenses that meet very strict Wikipedia standards—and unfortunately, Oregon isn’t one of them. Wikipedia has high standards for image upload so Wikipedia images are available for unrestricted re-use. Images that have copyright restrictions make re-use difficult w/o violating someone's copyright so Wikipedia doesn’t allow them. In addition to Public Domain, there are two other copyright categories that Wikipedia will accept for image uploads. Can find examples of both on Flickr Creative Commons home page. They are “Attibution” only (which allows you to use image anyway you want as long as you cite original author/designer/photographer as source) and “Share Alike” used in conjunction with "Attribution" (which allows you to use image as long as you cite original author/photographer as source, but has some restriction on derivative works—basically requiring you to cite original author/designer/photographer as source for image that derivative work is based on). These are first and last sections on Flickr Creative Common web-page. Standard logo for “Attribution” only is “man” inside circle and standard “Share Alike” logo is counter-clockwise arrow like reverse “C” inside circle. Anything in these two Flickr Creative Commons sections or any other source marked ONLY with these two restrictions are good for Wikipedia uploads. If there are any other logos added to these two, image can’t be used in Wikipedia. Finally, there is one more very restricted category called Fair Use. However, Fair Use is pretty much restricted to dead people based on fact that no new photo can ever be obtained. In Wikipedia, Fair Use photo can only be used in specific article about subject of photo, and only if no other image can ever be obtained. Also, Fair Use photo can not be used in any other article (e.g. photo of deceased lawyer John Doe could be used in bio article about John Doe the man, but not in article about lawyers even if Doe was world's most famous lawyer). As you’ve obviously found out Wiki picture police are very active in enforcing rules protecting copyrights. Often hardest part of preparing articles is finding Wiki-able images. As result, I look very hard for images from Federal Government sources or use two Flickr sections discussed above. When one of my own photos meets the need, I upload it and release under one of these three Wiki-able licenses (usually "Attribution"). Bottomline—image upload rules are very restrictive so finding Wiki-able photo can be tough. Hope this helps!--Orygun (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

SoCal Grotto page

Thanks for the info. I used your grotto page as a rough guide. I'll be ading some additional info about international caving in the next couple of days.Jr9999 (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh great! Has the SoCal Grotto been featured in any GIS publications because of Bern Szukalski? Those would be great pubs to have as references. Of course any international reference you can get is good too. I'm betting that the NSS News won't be a legit source, because the grotto is affiliated with it. It probably needs to be an outside source. Any source if fine to credit material on the page, but to keep the page from being deleted you will definitely need those outside sources! good luck Leitmotiv (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Gunmetal Angel. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. GunMetal Angel 06:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see what part of my conversation with you was a personal attack. Quote it for me. I was hoping to have an intelligent conversation with you and hope to get some agreement as I'm sure we have plenty in common. I was hoping to sway you to my cause of someday getting bands acknowledged on equal footing as businesses. Proper nouns are proper nouns. I certainly wouldn't like to have my name butchered. Take care! Leitmotiv (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

List of caves

Maybe you didn't see my latest post at List of Caves talk page. Please wait until consensus is reached before going ahead with the pruning. You're sort of starting in mid discussion. Thanks, my friend. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I responded on the discussion page. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

You say on your user page that:

One of my personal projects is the Horse Lava Tube System, which starts in the Deschutes National Forest and runs through the east side of Bend, through Redmond, and beyond. It contains over 100 caves of varying sizes. My goals are to survey the remaining caves in the system and publish a book (not for public consumption) on it. I currently have a good draft. Another companion book which is a bibliography on the Horse Lava Tube System is nearly complete at almost 100 pages in length, but still a work in progress.

You are also actively involved in trying to prevent the publication of information (namely coordinates) about those systems on Wikipedia. You have a clear conflict of interest; not least since you will loose exclusivity if information is published in Wikipedia. Please be aware of our policy on CoI, and be sure to both abide by it and declare your interest, should you decide to continue to edit in regard to such cave systems. I have also raised the matter at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Cave coordinates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I will direct you to my response at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Cave coordinates for further details. I will address a couple things since you tend to be vague at times. Could you specifically pinpoint the conflict of interest involving exclusivity? And how did you come to this conclusion, for I'm truly at a loss. By the way... you mention "systems" meaning plural. I believe my book is on just one system. So I do not know what other systems you are referring about in regards to my book. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiping out other messages

Hi. Please be careful when you leave notes on talk pages. You wiped out maybe 10 notes with this edit. I assume you were editing an older version of the page. I'll repair the damage. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I'm sorry and apologize. Believe me when I say this is not the first time this has happened, and I don't understand why it's happening. It happens so infrequently, that I have not pinpointed a pattern yet. My current suspicions lie with my browser. Again, I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oregon Wikipideans

Hello Orygun. I've read recently on OPB.org that Oregon has a high number of wikipedia editors. Do you know any information outside of Wikipedia (or maybe in Wikipedia?) where I can learn more about meeting with fellow Wikipedians in Oregon? Leitmotiv (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There are at least a dozen very active participants in WikiProject Oregon. You can find info on many of them under "Introduce Yourself" hot-button in "Participants" section on the WikiProj Oregon home page. Number of those who introduce themselves never become active, but most of the active players have signed in there. You can identify many of the active Wiki-Oregon players by following discussions on the WikiProj Oregon talk page as well. In addition, there’s a home page called About us which has some additional info on Wiki-Oregon community/players/interests. Here’s team photo from that site. Finally, there's a Wiki-Oregon Blog. It advertises an after-work "Wiki-Wednesday" get-together at the Backspace Coffee Shop in Portland. I’ve never attended since I don’t live in Oregon right now. Recommend you make some inquires either on blog site or WikiProj Oregon discussion page before showing up…just to be sure it’s still happening. Among the most active Wiki Oregon editors are:

• Aboutmovies (talk · contribs)
  
• Another Believer (talk · contribs)
  
• EncMstr (talk · contribs)
  
• Esprqii (talk · contribs)
  
• Finetooth (talk · contribs)
  
• Jsayre64 (talk · contribs)
  
• Little Mountain 5 (talk · contribs)
  
• Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs)
  
• Peteforsyth (talk · contribs)
  
• Steven Walling (talk · contribs)
  
• Tedder (talk · contribs)
  
• Valfontis (talk · contribs)
  

Hope this is helpful.--Orygun (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-Oregon get-together

Back in Jan, you asked about connecting with Wiki-Oregon group. Pete just posted note on Wiki-Oregon talk page inviting everyone who's interested to Wiki-edit-a-thon at the Portland Incubator Experiment on 21 Apr. Announcement says it will be opportunity to do some group editing and socializing with fellow wikipedians. Thought I'd pass on invite, just in case you missed it.--Orygun (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wish I could go to that, but it's way out of the way! Thanks for the heads up, since I did not see that. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Bats

It appears that your edit to the bats article has been undone, possibly lost n the scuffle over all the vandalism. In any event the source stated that bats belong to Laurasiatheria, which includes cetartiodactyla and carnivora, hence my citing it for the sentence "(their uniqueness can be demonstrated by the fact that their closest living genetic relatives are thought to be carnivorans, certain hoofed animals, such as alpacas and hippopotamuses, and sea mammals, such as dolphins.)" Do you still feel the source is inadequate? 96.238.211.171 (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that. Thanks for the notice. Yes, the abstract is not very forthcoming in directly relating bats to specific animals. If it's citing specific orders, than we should say that, but definitely not link it to guesses at specific animals. I found a reference from Berkeley that attributes bats to flying lemurs (per my erased noted) as well as shrews. So I will be adding that in. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the body of the paper itself cites carnivora and cetartiodactyla as the closest orders, but that is far more speculative. Certainly, not specific animals, as it is no closer to a hippo than a camel or a cow, since bats are not themselves cetartiodactylids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.211.171 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Believing the paper and knowing the paper has direct correlations to orders or specific animals is a wide gulf of a difference. If you have access to the full paper then that would help. But the abstract doesn't appear to be helping, certainly not by relating bats to specific animals. Thanks for trying though! 19:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I do have full access and read it. I don't have on my home computer. 64.244.112.194 (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"First, the superorder Archonta (Novacek and Wyss 1986; Novacek 1992) comprising Chiroptera (bats), Dermoptera (flying lemurs), Primata (primates), and Scandentia (tree shrews) is erroneous. Several molecular studies have shown that Chiroptera belong to the Laurasiatheria (represented by carnivores, pangolins, cetartiodactyls, eulipotyphlans, and perissodactyls) and are only distantly related to dermopterans, scandentians, and primates" "Given the disparity between molecular and non-molecular phylogenies, acceptance of microchiropteran diphyly has not been widespread " The rest is on the phylogenics of the different groups of bats. 169.232.128.66 (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well I cited a piece from Berkeley, erroneous or not. If you have a reference that specifically says what you just stated, it would be good to have that. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I saw this dispute on the Bat page, and couldn't quite understand the problem. I've re-added the IP's text, with a couple of different supporting references. I can find many, many, more if needed (it's a well established fact), but I'm sure that two will be adequate. Anaxial (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the current set of references much better. Thank you. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

List of caves:Georgia

Hello Leitmotiv, why did you remove my edits from List of caves? Georgia is country located at the crossroads of Western Asia and Eastern Europe (source), so it's correct to add Georgia in European countries list, meanwhile as Turkey's "90%" located in Asia but Turkey is in European countries list.--Balakhadze ^{ႫႨႼႤႰႠ} 19:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe I misinterpreted your edit as a complete deletion, partly because there were no edit notations. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Pressure ridges

Hello Leitmotiv, you removed the pressure ridges picture I added from the article. I am confused, as this feature was clearly labeled by the National Park Service on an infopanel. And the example images at the visitors center clearly showed similar ridges. The thing on the image currently in the article was called something else. I'll have to look it up on my photos back home. --Dschwen 18:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the picture you added is not a good example. There might be pressure ridges in that picture, but the picture is so far zoomed out you can't tell what's going on. But to my trained eye, it looks more like a pressure plateau. If you checked my notations you will see that I said exactly this. To reiterate, the picture is a pressure plateau, zoomed out (makes a poor example to educate), and overall doesn't help the page. The original picture is a pressure ridge (AKA Tumuli/Tumulus as the page currently defines). A small one, but it clearly illustrates what one is. The picture you added does not. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Listen, I did not come her for a confrontation, but merely to clear this up. Of course i read your edit summary. I'm not an expert in this issue and got my info from the visit to the National Monument last weekend. The way it was presented there it seemed to me that pressure ridges are a feature of a lava flow, so an overview picture of a lava flow with a visible ridge pattern seemed like a good addition to the article, especially since the existing picture is a very tight close up. --Dschwen 19:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what tone you are reading into my post. Coming here and posting is by definition a confrontation. Semantics, I know. Assume good faith. Again, I am trying to help you clear it up. For the reasons I posted above by importance. 1 - The picture is not of a ridge but a pressure plateau. 2 - Poor quality photo because even zoomed out the details are not clear. I have no problem adding a zoomed out pressure ridge photo, but this is not one, and this one doesn't clearly depict the object of interest. The mountain in the background could be mistaken in some cases, I'm willing to bet.

The Monument may have this labeled as a ridge, but it's not. There may be a few isolated ridges somewhere in the photo, but it doesn't clearly depict them. Too much going on in the photo and too zoomed out. For Wikipedia purposes, this photo is not good enough on many levels.

Side note - You mentioned pressure ridges are "a feature of a lava flow." In many, many cases, yes. But that's not necessarily true. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I went to the source material of citation #1. All I get from that is that the picture in the article shows a cracked tumulus rather than a ridge (no elongated structure visible). My picture does depict pressure ridges. The pressure plateau description in the source does not mention the ridge structures visible in my picture. I would think that the info the NPS gives is a pretty solid source. But at this point I think the best option id to go for a 3rd opinion. Cheers --Dschwen 19:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The words "tumulus" and "pressure ridge" are interchangeable. They mean the same thing. "You say potato..." I can add another reference that defines pressure plateaus if need be. But I don't think that's necessary currently. Picture it this way. A ridge is long and elongated in most cases. A plateau is much like it says, large and oblong... like a table. What is in that picture is a pressure plateau because it has an amorphous shape and the scale of it is huge. While government sources can be good, that doesn't mean they're always correct. Especially if it's regarding tourist information which is notoriously erroneous and incomplete for brevity's sake.

According to Chitwood in that reference, a "cracked tumulus" is a kind of "pressure ridge." So it's inclusive. In your photo you mentioned seeing ridges. I'm not sure how, because it's so zoomed out I can't be sure if that's what I'm really seeing. I see a large amorphous shape which to me clearly says plateau. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation request for Rath block

I can find a number of sites that refer to Tempest &c as the "Rath block" or "Rath cycle" ([1] is one). The problem is that there really isn't that much reliable sourcing for MTG in general, to say nothing of the Rath block pbp 16:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, your citation makes it possible to refer to this block as the "Rath block." My concern is with consistency too. Usually the leading set of a block determines the name of the block. Like say Scars of Mirrodin also could mean the Scars of Mirrodin block. However this is not done with Mercadian Masques, nor in the extreme example of the Rath block. Perhaps we can get MaRo to respond on his tumblr? Leitmotiv (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If you think he'd respond, fire away. pbp 23:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Done! Though, MaRo says The Gatherer calls it Rath block, a reader comments that it doesn't (double checked, the advanced search feature for blocks calls it "Rath block."). To me, MaRo's response suggests that the majority rule in this instance (it should be Tempest). I would move the page to Tempest block (per consistency too) and note it can be called the Rath block in the opening sentence.

Another tweet concerning the Rath block Leitmotiv (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

OHDG

• Just added info box to Oregon High Desert Grotto article. May want to do quick fact check to ensure info is correct.--Orygun (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks a bunch. The photo is of U of O students in Redmond Caves doing an archaeological survey. I suppose we could upload a photo of the OHDG to the wikicommons at some point... Good work on the Derrick Cave page. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• FYI...have also added section on "Exploration" to OHDG article.--Orygun (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Collectible Card Games

Hello. Why the revert ? the page numbers I inserted where relative to the years cited and I checked the text against the book to verify the fact where listed.--Moroboshi (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

go ahead and revert. my bad Leitmotiv (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thx done. BTW I tracked and ordered a second hand copy of the book from Amazon after seeing your edit of 28 August. It arrived yesterday. Very useful for articles on old trading card games.--Moroboshi (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, very good books. What edition did you get? Second edition is the best, because it includes everything from the first edition and then some. Lots of awesome writeups on obscure CCGs. Stuff you will have a hard time finding anywhere else. Definitely worth the money if you love CCGs. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I got the second edition (more material). CCG are not my preferred games, I dont like the trading/collectible aspect (I stopped playing Magic when Alliance was published), but I'm interested in rpg/board games/wargames history and I try to get every book that can be useful for sourcing information on wiki.--Moroboshi (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a good source for Wikipedia. You saw the war CCGs in there? Leitmotiv (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering major characters

Thanks for your cleanup of Magic: The Gathering#Major characters! I just figured that all Planeswalkers and a few others should get mentioned; In retrospect, it was a bit too much detail for the main page. I'll get started talking about them on the individual block pages! Supernerd11 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If at all possible, try and use non-Wizards sources. We've recently had problems with Wizard sources on those block pages. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'll see what I can do with third-party sources. Supernerd11 (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sorry for the short reply earlier. Looks like you do good work. Certainly those block pages can be added to. The block pages were consolidated more or less as a compromise for those who wanted to entirely delete the expansion pages. One of their main concerns was that nearly all the pages were primary sources (i.e. from Wizards) which is good if used in small quantities, but if only used, is eligible for deletion. Third party sources are greatly needed for any of the Magic pages. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I got Return to Ravnica cleaned up and added those characters from before (might still be a few too many first-party sources), can you look it over? Whatever problems there are, can you let me know so I can handle them in the future? Good to know about the backstory of the block pages, by the way, thanks! Supernerd11 (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

So far as I can tell it looks good. Just know that primary sources from Wizards are okay if you need to cite something and can't find it elsewhere, but if an article is made up of only Wizards sources it's all eligible for deletion. Even books published by Wizards are primary sources. Stuff from MaRo's blog is a primary source, since he works for Wizards... and so on. There a lots of good internet sites that could be utilized as secondary sources like Brainstorm Brew and others. A lot of the pricing sites have articles too and should be included where feasible. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I've found that GatheringMagic and Forbes have some good articles, and neither one of them is affiliated with WotC. As for the other unofficial sites, I'm not sure whether it was a one-time thing or whether they're good for all the expansions as well, but I'll be sure to check them for the other articles. By the way, where would I get the expansion symbols? Last I checked, there was still a few pages without the symbol shown. Supernerd11 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

MTV has some good sources too, though more sparse. I've made a few symbols myself and I believe a few others were taken down as copyright material, so I don't know really where to get them, other than to recreate them yourself. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for everything! Supernerd11 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Floater (disambiguation)

Would you please explain what you mean by "blacklink"? -- Fyrael (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Disambiguation pages are meant as links to other wikipages. A redlink is a link that connects to a page that does not currently exist. A blacklink is a listing that exists in a area where there should only be links. The floating rib listing was deleted because it had no direct article to a floating rib. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with disambiguation pages. Editing them and disambiguating links to them comprise most of what I do on Wikipedia. And I still have no idea what you meant by "blacklink". The entry I added contained the link Rib cage#Attachment, which is the same as where the redirect Floating rib links to. Did you not see the link I added or do you have some other reasoning for removing it? -- Fyrael (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't remember where I learned blacklink from, but it goes back a few years. I saw your subheading link, no worries there. To my understanding, disambiguation pages are not for those links with actual articles dedicated to them. Otherwise, you could expand a lot more on many disambiguation pages for all the chaff. Am I wrong? Leitmotiv (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm still rather confused by your wording here because I would have said that disambiguation pages are very much for links with articles dedicated to that topic. I think what you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that we shouldn't include articles that only briefly mention the topic that the reader was looking for on the disambiguation page. As to that, I think WP:DABREDIR supports the entry. I'm actually glad that you contested this because it made me reread some sections of the manual of style and it turns out I should've used the Floating rib redirect instead of the section anchor point. I had remembered it being the opposite. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's pretty much what I meant. I couldn't find anything that supported my previous understanding of disambiguation pages, so feel free to add it back in. I personally prefer it listed as Floating rib instead of the way you listed it before. Glad we could work this out. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I too enjoy the precious few times that discussion on here doesn't turn into a heated argument. Happy editing! -- Fyrael (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No kidding, right? Happy journeys! Leitmotiv (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Tags

Hi can you clean up the tagging you carried out at List of best-selling PC games. You tagged deadlinks when a replacement link is effortlyless found, such http://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-sims-overtakes-myst/1100-2857556/ is dead, but googling the-sims-overtakes-myst, brings up the new link on the first hit. And also remove all the Better source tags when actually it's just a deadlink. Thanks.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I spend my time on. For me, it is not effortless. If it's effortless for you, I would recommend you edit out the deadlinks. Right now, I have better things to do. Part of the Better Source links are also a reflection on the article that it is in poor shape and needs improvement. That was my main goal in the edits, and I haven't even finished that aspect of it yet. Feel free to help out. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted you, as the tags have been applied incorrectly and you've decided against fixing it. With that many dead links, Template:Citations broken would be more suitable, and sources with other issues tagged with Template:Failed verification / Template:Better source, or whichever is appropriate. For a list of tags, see Template:Inline tags.--Vaypertrail (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't revert it. The Better source tags are applicable. Just because you think it looks tacky and just because I don't have the time, doesn't mean an edit war is appropriate. I'm going to revert. Leitmotiv (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Magic: The Gathering, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

To share the same courtesy you so politely gave me, I will also give you a warning to stop "harassing" me on my talk page. Just covering my bases. You and your pedantry have been warned.Leitmotiv (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have a specific problem, you need to outline it and stop hiding behind these stilty cookie cutter words. Like for instance, if you claim I'm doing original research somewhere, you need to show it, so we can discuss it. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thank you! Leitmotiv (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Magic: The Gathering". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 November 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverts at Magic the Gathering

Your recent editing history at Magic: The Gathering shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Note that another editor blanking unsourced content is not a valid reason to break 3RR.--McGeddon (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Magic: The Gathering, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Agar.io

Please explain why a source from agar.io was removed, referencing reddit. There are multiple sources linking to the same website, while they remain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.173.186.111 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The reddit citation that I removed appeared to be a typical reddit page and not an AMA with a primary source. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Deck-building game

You reverted my edits to the deck building game article saying that dice building games are not deck building games. Your statement is true, but irrelevant. The section was about how deck building games have inspired other types of games. Of which Dice Building Games are one type. You didn't revert a link to puzzle strike, which also isn't a deck building game. As a result, I am reverting your revert. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. McKay (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Just because I didn't revert one thing doesn't mean a thing. Maybe I didn't catch it? Regardless, an article on Deck Building Games can have brief mentions on how it inspired other games, but to go on listing all the different types and the different games is not the purpose of this article. A brief mention on how it inspired other games is fine. But to point to any specific ones in a non-notable way is not good for the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Lava stringer

Hi! The stub article you created, Lava stringer, is not a usual geological word or concept. In geology, a stringer is "a thin, discontinuous mineral vein or rock layer". I don't have access to your source, but I suspect they're using some very narrow, specialized definition, or it's an error of some type. I'll probably WP:PROD the article, but I wanted to ask you first in case there really is something substantial that I've missed. — Gorthian (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see a question in your comment. Not sure what the justification for deletion is. The source provided is a federal government document by the BLM. Lava stringer is accurate and it just may share a word with other geologic terms. It's a feature that excited me when I discovered it. I have a friend who will be uploading a picture of one to the wiki commons so we can use it in the article. What is your question? Leitmotiv (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I came across the article because I do a lot of category work for WP Geology, and since Category:Geology should have only a few overview articles in it, I wanted to recategorize lava stringer. I started researching it so I could choose a good category. But I got very few results from my web search, geological or otherwise. Is it a commonly used term in another field, such as management ecology? Maybe there is a more common term? As a geologist, the definition doesn't make sense to me: "lava" refers to molten rock or the hardened features formed when it was molten. If the term is from another field, you need to choose a different category.— Gorthian (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to recategorize it. I too had a difficult time finding info on this feature which is why I was excited to find this document. As for the term "lava", it is common to hear basalt casually referred to as lava rock, which may be partially responsible for the moniker we discuss now; it too is usually made of basalt talus. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll remove the "geology" category, but can't replace it with anything; sorry! And you're right about "lava rock"--I'd forgotten about that. I'll be interested to watch the article develop, and am looking forward to the picture. Cheers! — Gorthian (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Cinder cone

What does this Newberry Volcano paragraph mean then?

• "A great deal of volcanic activity has occurred at Newberry Volcano, which itself has one of the largest collections of cinder cones, volcanic domes, lava flows, and fissures in the world[citation needed]. Most of the cinder cones are 200 to 400 feet (60 to 120 m) high and have shallow saucer-shaped summit craters. They are typically surrounded by basalt or andesite that erupted from their bases forming large lava beds. The northern flank holds three distinct lava tube systems that formed in pāhoehoe: the Horse Lava Tube System, Arnold Lava Tube System, and the Lava Top Butte basalt.[9] On the northwest flank of the volcano and located next to Highway 97 south of Bend, Lava Butte is a good example of this kind of cinder cone and an ʻaʻā lava bed. There are also about 20 rhyolite domes or fissures on the eastern, southern, and western flanks. Larger examples include 580,000-year-old McKay Butte on the west flank, 80,000-year-old China Hat and 850,000-year-old East Butte on the far eastern base."

Thanks Hmains (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The flanks of Newberry Volcano are long and wide and include many related but independent volcanic vents with their own names, such as Lava Butte. Newberry Volcano is specifically one of the world's largest shield volcanoes and not a small cinder cone. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing I did said it was a cinder cone volcano. Categories are to help navigation by readers. In this case, the cinder cone category navigates to this article that discusses cinder cones around this shield volcano--most of which lack names or articles, a fact that does not matter to navigation. Hmains (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

But everything you did is categorizing this as a cinder cone. Not every cinder cone is worthy of a wikipedia article. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I categorized the article because of its significant mention of cinder cones; that is all. It does have such mention and should be categorized as such to reader navigation to the article for that reason. Categories are often not an exact match; they are just a navigation help. Hmains (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure? The categories help page says categories are for similar items. So all shield volcanoes should be similarly categorized. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

DS Alert - US politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! If you don't know, the above scary message is just an FYI and does not imply you've done anything wrong. Before I sent this to you, I sent it to myself! And I plan to send it to editors at the Occupation article going forward. I don't mean to get off on the wrong foot with anyone. Quite the opposite. This is all about keeping things on an even keel. Feel free to tell me what you think of my leaving this here on my talk page, or talk about anything else for that matter. Cheers. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll respond here, because this is where the message was left. Only comment: Vague at best without context. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Vague is a good thing in this context! It means we've all been doing a reasonably decent job adhering to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Principles. Thanks for your interest in the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Malheur Occupation Barnstar

---

For exceptional and tireless work on the Malheur article from day one. LavaBaron (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ha! That's a great graphic. Thank you very much LavaBaron. And thank you for all your hard work too. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Just to be clear, you said You make some good points, but the problem is that you delete things wholesale, but your argument is about minor things. I think your edits could be more productive if you actually acted upon your recommendations here, rather than doing what you do in the article, which is to delete entire sections. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think what you saw as my "recommendation" was in fact my reluctant compromise proposed in the BRD process. Before you wrote the poke I had already boldly acted on my real recommendation which is to waste the entire sentence. If you think I picked a quibble, I can't help you there. If good faith deleting makes you mad, I can't help you there either. Please confine personal remarks to usertalk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

First I think you need to assume good faith here. I'm not attacking you, nor am I personally putting an effort with edits or comments 'targeted' at you. I was merely raising constructive criticism, pointing out that your response for the edits in the talk page are in stark contrast with the edits of the main article. Like I said in my talk comments, you do have good points. I'd just wish that in your bold edits you would act on those, rather then just summarily deleting wholesale. But I'm repeating myself. Don't take any of this personally. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(A) Thanks, fair enough. It's easier to assume such comments are meant in good faith when they arrive at usertalk instead of in the middle of a content dispute at article or wiki talk . That's why the community invested effort in writing the WP:FOC rule, I suppose. (B) Since you repeated your request that I act on my talk page recommendations instead of deleting text) I'll also repeat while elaborating. When I think the article is best served by altering text, I boldly alter text. If I think it is best served by deleting text, I do that. In this case, the talk page suggestion I offered is not, in fact, my recommendation. Rather, it is my suggested compromise arrived at through constructive BRD. There is a difference! (C) Adios - See you at article talk, thanks for working on it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Your recent editing history at Magic:_The_Gathering shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Magic:_The_Gathering. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)