Jump to content

User talk:BOZ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pawsplay (talk | contribs) at 03:41, 7 December 2017 (→Protection for Jennell Jaquays article: linkie). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Happy happy!

Happy New Year!
North America1000 01:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, BOZ!

Happy New Year!

BOZ,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 12:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

From me, too! Hekerui (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joker (character) nominated for deletion

You are invited to take part at the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character). DarkKnight2149 23:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Al'Akbar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al'Akbar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al'Akbar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kord (Greyhawk) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kord (Greyhawk) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kord (Greyhawk) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lamashtu (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lamashtu (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamashtu (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pyremius for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pyremius is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyremius until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lydia (Greyhawk) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lydia (Greyhawk) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lydia (Greyhawk) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Regalia of Might for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Regalia of Might is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regalia of Might until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Timberius

The article Timberius has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable character with only primary sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Killer Moff (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Falcona

The article Falcona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable character with only primary sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Killer Moff (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Leonus

The article Leonus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable character with only primary sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Killer Moff (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Seeker (comics)

The article Seeker (comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable characters with only primary sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Killer Moff (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stallior

The article Stallior has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable character with only primary sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Killer Moff (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Joy Meachum

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Joy Meachum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joy Meachum

The article Joy Meachum has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage from reliable sources should talk about the character in a way which gives its notability from a real world or out-of-universe perspective. This means they are covered as a character in general, and not in the frames of its own series of fiction. For example, an observation of in-game statistics or a simple retelling of their role in the plot means little; the source should give commentary on why these things make it an interesting or notable character = fails WP:NFCHAR / WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Covey

Hi Boz. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Draft:Dominic Covey was deleted awhile back. I've been looking at the requests you've left me on my talk page, and that one I haven't looked/found sources yet. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MrLinkinPark333, yeah, thanks for getting back to me. That one, along with Draft:Ethan Skemp and Draft:Richard Ranallo were deleted for being unsourced. I tried to find even the barest minimum of sources to keep them as drafts but came up empty. If you can find anything at all, I would love to restore them. BOZ (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed!

Hi, I've reviewed some of your pages - please expand them and add citations to ensure that they assert significance to warrant a Wikipedia article. Thanks! DrStrauss talk 23:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Elven Banner

The article Elven Banner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT standards

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 06:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Maha Yogi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maha Yogi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maha Yogi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SL93 (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Phoenix Games for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phoenix Games is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Games (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jerry Lausmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Mary's College. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Star-Dancer

Hi, I'm ONUnicorn. BOZ, thanks for creating Star-Dancer!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Article relies entirely on citations to the comics she appeared in. Needs citations to outside sources to show real-world context and notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:A.O..jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headsup about stub articles

Hey, there. I am thinking about creating some stub articles for RPG designer stubs, and might draw on some of the material you have in draft form (e.g. Grabowski and Marsh). Would this be alright with you? Newimpartial (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to work on those drafts, you can do it directly and/or I can move them back into article space. If you're talking about something else, I'm not sure what you mean. BOZ (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks! I'll do it when I'm ready. Newimpartial (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, Newimpartial! Anything you feel like working on at User:BOZ/Draft pages, if you can get a reliable source or two I will move back into article space. :) Any of the redlinks I can restore if you want to work on them. BOZ (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the note I wrote you on my Talk page. Also, Do you have anything on Robert Hatch (game designer)? I created a placeholder for him, too. (And a couple for ORE games, but I know that's not your thang lol).Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, I released Robert Hatch into the world last night; thanks for your help. If you had a chance to think about sourcing for my userspace article, Line developer, I would appreciate it. I want to get that one finished before I put out the Grabowski and Baugh articles. Newimpartial (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Very busy today, so I don't have time to really work on anything, but maybe tomorrow. Just for future reference, especially on the ones I have in draft space, you can always just use the "move" fuction to retain the edit history, rather than doing a cut and paste. BOZ (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! No rush on anything, just in case you have the time, I wanted you to know what was up next for me. I published using "move", but I guess it never occurred to me to use "move" to fix a title issue. Now I know. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be a pain, but could you check something else when you have a chance? The Category:Live-action role-playing game designers has a red link to an article Live-action role-playing game designers. Did that ever exist? If it did, could you dig up an old draft? I'm not sure I want to make an article, but I'm thinking of adding some more content to the List of role-playing game designers in this vein. No rush, though. Whenever you have a chance.Newimpartial (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, but in this case that page never existed. BOZ (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking! Line developer won't be ready til the weekend, I think, in case you can think of a source besides Designers to edit in. I think I'm going to have to make a brief historical summary to have grounds for WP:N for that article.
I think it's important, because one of the categories of people that keep running into WP:NOTABILITY problems is game designers who are more notable as line developers than for their author credits. White Wolf made this particularly bad by crediting game creators as "lead designers" or "lead developers" and treating authorship more like what would be "contributing author" status for other companies, but I am implementing work-arounds for this problem as I go. However, it would be good to have a backstop for cases like Grabowski where I think notability is obvious, but it is based on the relationship between the line developer and the notable work.Newimpartial (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have my own feelings about Notability which does not necessarily match with the most commonly-held attitudes among Wikipedians.  ;) I say go for it, if you have at least one good WP:RS we can always try to find more, but one good one is a good place to start. BOZ (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine you do have some feelings. ;) It is too bad about the Emily Care Boss article; I have a feeling people didn't have the Platinum Appendix at hand when editing that one. Anyway, I've found bloody peer reviewed scholarship attesting to her importance, so when I'm done with that article (hopefully by the end of the month) there should not be any issues with WP:N. Thanks for fighting the good fight, though. Newimpartial (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, keep up the good work! BOZ (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry to bother you again, but I have another question. I see that the Nicotine Girls article is currently a redirect, as a result of an AfD discussion based on a short article (which doesn't seem to have observed that the game was notable because of its Indie award, but anyway, the sourcing of the article could have been better). I'm not working on it tonight, but when I have something ready, could you stop the redirect so that we could put up the article? I'm not sure exactly how to do that, and I imagine you do. :) Newimpartial (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough, Newimpartial! Just go to this link: [1] and edit! Make sure to add your sources ASAP before someone reverts you. BOZ (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might think about moving from draft to userspace anything you have that is more than six months stale or that has been rejected at AfC, as the deletor is extraordinarily active at the moment. Newimpartial (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too worried about them getting deleted, but hey if you've got anything that will improve any of them then we have less of a reason to worry about that. :) BOZ (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of World of Dark Sun for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World of Dark Sun is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Dark Sun until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of River Oceanus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article River Oceanus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/River Oceanus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mount Olympus (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mount Olympus (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Olympus (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Yggdrasil (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yggdrasil (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yggdrasil (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Menzoberranzan

Hey BOZ. I can't remember whether they talked about it, but I'll look through those reviews and send you whatever I find. It almost feels like I saw them mention it a few times. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JimmyBlackwing, thanks! I will take whatever you can find. :) BOZ (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, looking through the reviews, there wasn't much in the way of commentary on the city. The best material was in this review, but I doubt it even that will be helpful. If all else fails, you could try the game's official manual and cluebook. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but thanks for checking! BOZ (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question re "merges"

What is the proper procedure for merging articles? I've noticed a couple of times that TTN simply redirects the article to be lost, but does not transfer any material. In effect, the article to be lost is simply deleted. Is this proper form? Or is the "re-director" also supposed to merge some material from the redirected article? Guinness323 (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's under any obligation to merge anything, as the difference between merge and redirect is an editorial decision. It would be polite of him to do some of the actual merging, but I am not holding my breath for politeness there. Naturally, he wants the material gone from WP, so why would he want to include it anywhere else? On the other hand, it would be improper for him to prevent anyone else from merging it properly. BOZ (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, for the record going back through 6/29/2017 that would include the following redirects after AFD: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] and those you are already aware of: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] as well as: [24] [25] BOZ (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi BOZ, Quite frankly I've had enough of them for one day so I don't plan to revert however if you wanted to send them to AN/I I'd support - They're clearly ignoring consensus (I do agree it is an editorial thing but this goes beyond that - they're just redirecting without looking or quite honestly caring), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't disagree with you, but I don't have any intention of reverting any of these either. I prefer not to waste my time on negativity; life is too short for that, and there is plenty of it out there. BOZ (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone is on the same page. I am not going against any guideline or policy, so I'm not going to stop. If anyone has a better idea than me wasting my time merging unneeded content, I'm open to it. If someone wants to do it, at least for the D&D articles, I'm not demanding it be done the same day or even within the same month. It just needs to be done with actual consistency rather than leaving it indefinitely. TTN (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source question

Hey BOZ! Sorry to bother you, but do you by any chance still have access to those news archive services (like NewsBank/LexisNexis)? I know it's been many, many years since I last asked, but I thought it might be worth a shot. I'm trying to find a December 10, 1998 article in the Orange County Register called something like "Violence Not Wanted; Can't We Play Nice?". It contains sales figures for the Gabriel Knight series. I've been able to find part of it online, but not enough to fill out a citation template. Thanks! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to help if I can, no bother! I know that User:Torchiest and User:Paul Erik had access to sources like that in the past, but not sure if either of them does now. I do have some access at my local library, so I can probably check sometime this week. BOZ (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found it. It's Leslie Gornstein (December 10, 1998). "Violence not wanted: Can't we play nice?: The nonbloody adventure games preferred by female players are a dying breed", The Orange County Register, p. C01. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a ton, guys! Paul, would it be possible for you to email me (Special:EmailUser/JimmyBlackwing) the full article text? I'd like to verify that the version I read online is 100% accurate, if at all possible. Thanks again. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I've sent you an email, JimmyBlackwing. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Received. Perfect! I really appreciate it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D&D AfDs

Are you able to go through Find Sources templates too? I simply don't have enough time to go through everything at 3-4/day. It only takes maybe 5 minutes per, but that's time I don't consistently have during any particular 7-day period... Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to find some time to do it Jclemens, but I am also often busy, and I may have less than ideal access to sites depending on where I am logging in from. The intended effect of spamming multiple AFDs per day is to get people to "eventually tire out and stop responding", which seems like an effective enough tactic - overwhelm people who don't have as much free time in their day to effectively respond to the nominations as the nominator seems to have in creating the AFDs. BOZ (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I mean that eventually people stop responding no matter what frequency, so I eventually have to stop because AfDs are being relisted three times and then end as no consensus due to not enough people. TTN (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TTN, since these all seem to end up merge anyways, why do you bother taking them to AfD? Redirect the ones you believe to be NN, and AfD things that are un-merged without sufficient sources being added. If you want help figuring out the right merge/redirect targets, I'd much rather help with that than participate in yet another AfD. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind redirecting. There are three problems: those who undo my redirects automatically because I'm me, those who undo the redirects anonymously three months later (I'm fairly convinced in the case of the D&D articles that it is an established user just logging out), and then someone (@FreeKnowledgeCreator:) who at one point undid a bunch of them and told me it was AfD or bust (or editwarring and bust but I would not win that fight). For the first, I'll just have to play that by ear. I certainly don't mind following a BRD (or BRAFD most likely) set up in the case of the someone making an honest claim of notability or an anon undoing them months later, but the third will have to agree not to wholesale revert unless there is an actual specific reason for it. TTN (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TTN, I respectfully submit there is no good reason to complain about something I did a long time ago and might not have the least inclination to do again. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was only 10 or 11 months ago, so I expected little reason for it to change. But if you're fine only challenging redirects that you personally find improper, I'm fine cutting out the bulk of D&D AfDs. I won't go insane and redirect 1000 pages in a week, so I'll limit it to basically the amount of AfDs I would start on a normal day. 01:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
At this point, I think we've done enough that a WP:OUTCOMES entry is appropriate. I'd much rather have the history intact so that non-admins can see what might be worth either merging or fleshing out. In fact, I think I'm going to go start a discussion for one now... Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added my 2 cents, for what it's worth. BOZ (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Falcon (video game)

Hi, I'm Triptothecottage. BOZ, thanks for creating Falcon (video game)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Nice article BOZ. Maybe a few sentences in the lead about the game's release and reception would help summarise it.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Triptothecottage (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise I was reviewing from the end of NPP - I'll show myself out. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Final Challenge, BOZ.

Unfortunately Onel5969 has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Hi. Still not enough referencing to show notability, but let's let an uninterested 3rd party decide whether or not it should be passed as review.

To reply, leave a comment on Onel5969's talk page.

Onel5969 TT me 21:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Happy Birthday, Robot! for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Happy Birthday, Robot! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Birthday, Robot! until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ewilen (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of A Penny for My Thoughts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Penny for My Thoughts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Penny for My Thoughts until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ewilen (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ewilen (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Don't Rest Your Head for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Don't Rest Your Head is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Rest Your Head until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ewilen (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

BOZ, just a quick hello. Hope all is well with you. Regards Asgardian (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things are good, hope the same goes for you. :) BOZ (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald X. Vaccarino

Can you undelete (PRODded years ago) and move that to my userspace for me to work on? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I moved it as-is, but you might want to take a thorough look at the edit-history. BOZ (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Video games based on tabletop games

Hey BOZ! Thanks a ton—your work adding Dragon reviews to articles some years ago was my biggest inspiration for all this. I'll absolutely keep an eye out for sources on those games. I should have no problem adding reception details to most of them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, just wanted to mention that I've seen some fantastic reviews for the 1996 Risk adaptation, if you'd be interested in starting a stub for that. I could certainly provide a reception section. Noticing just now that Risk II lists no reviews, despite being well received, so I'll probably hit that next. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silly me! Not only was there a Kingmaker article, but it looks like I've edited it recently. I'm not sure how I managed that. Thanks for the heads-up! I'll keep an eye out for the Risk stub. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to bother you again, but I had one more idea for a boardgame adaptation stub. While adding awards/reviews to articles, I noticed a boardgame adaptation series called Great Battles picking a wargame of the year nomination. They seem to be pretty obscure, but there's a Mobygames entry and they're on GOG. It seems that they're based on The Great Battles of Alexander boardgame. If you're at all interested in creating a series stub, I could easily fill out the reception with the stuff I've found—reviewers seemed to like them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, you're definitely not bothering me! I've recently taken a huge interest in computer adaptations of boardgames, so this is right up my alley. Many thanks for setting up that stub/redirect (I didn't even realize that GMT had an article)—I'll get to work on the reception section. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do! And thanks for reorganizing the links—that will make it easier to keep track of the to-do list. I have big plans for the article on Diplomacy computer games (it turns out that they had a complicated history), and a lot of these new articles you added should be easy to find sources for. I'll get to work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't quite boardgame-related, but I've been working on the article for a wargame called Robert E. Lee: Civil War General on the side lately (while still chipping away at the list). It seems to have been really successful and popular, but I haven't found many sources on it. If you have time, I'd really appreciate it if you could do a couple of searches in your news archives for this game! I feel like there's probably some coverage or at least a review in one of those old newspapers. If it helps your search, it was published by Sierra On-Line and developed by a company called Impressions. Thank you! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Awesome, thank you! Yeah, Lee is definitely a hot topic right now, although my interest in this game has more to do with its phenomenal sales (for the genre) than its subject matter. Have fun at Gen Con! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'll take a look! I've been distracted by other topics on Wikipedia lately, so I haven't gotten through the other articles in as much detail as I'd hoped yet. There's still way more to find, I think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Wars redirect

Hey Boz,

That is some really good historical material you added to Hero Wars, but it still remains that the game isn't independently notable from its later editions, and for the say majority of its history (and therefore its WP:COMMONNAME) it has been known by its original intended title. So I merged that material into the HeroQuest article's history section: oknazevad (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine. :) BOZ (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Merchant Prince (video game)

A tag has been placed on Merchant Prince (video game) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Article about a video game that doesn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. See A7

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tigers on the Prowl 2 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tigers on the Prowl 2. Since you had some involvement with the Tigers on the Prowl 2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The1337gamer (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect me, please?

Can you drop User talk:Jclemens/Editnotice from full to semi protection? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. :) BOZ (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
De nada! BOZ (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

V for Victory: Velikiye Luki listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect V for Victory: Velikiye Luki. Since you had some involvement with the V for Victory: Velikiye Luki redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

V for Victory: Market-Garden listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect V for Victory: Market-Garden. Since you had some involvement with the V for Victory: Market-Garden redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

V for Victory: Gold-Juno-Sword listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect V for Victory: Gold-Juno-Sword. Since you had some involvement with the V for Victory: Gold-Juno-Sword redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why any of that was necessary? You might want to check with User:JimmyBlackwing about the notability of this series, and the games within it. BOZ (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please claim your upload(s): File:Acacia Park Cemetery, Chicago (front gate and office).jpg

Hi, Thank you, for uploading this file.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm some details,

If it's your own work, please include {{own}}, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

If it's not your own work please provide as much sourcing/authorship information as you are able to.

It would also be appreciated if you could "claim" or update the source and licensing on other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShakespeareFan00, thanks for notifying me. I did take the picture myself, years ago. I'm not sure what is the appropriate template to use. BOZ (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Terra Incognita (role-playing game)

The article Terra Incognita (role-playing game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. A different RPG of the same name had a Kickstarter in 2013.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck finding more on this RPG? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. You can redirect to Grey Ghost Press for now if you like, and I won't object. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with serial violator of WP:V/WP:CS

Hi, Boz. I've been having trouble for a number of years now with User:Rtkat3. I've attempted to explain to him more times than I can count how he cannot add material or trivial character information to articles without citations, and other disruptive edits, and while he usually responds positively, he continues this activity. Just do a search on his talk page for my username to see how many times this year alone I've had to tell him to stop this. Just now as I was editing The Orville article, I see that he did it again, not only adding character info to the article whose relevant significance to the character is, at best, unclear at present (we don't know if it's going to be a recurring joke/something related to a signature trait of the character, or simply a one-off gag), but placing it in between the previous information in a sentence and the citation for that sentence, thereby giving the impression that the cite supports his addition, when it does not. I was going to leave another message on his talk page about this, but then figured that doing so is having no effect. He just doesn't care. We need an administrator to step in and either block him or give him a final warning, and monitor his editing. Can you please help? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense about The Orville, I was doing some rearranging for parts of the plot and bios. As for my edit on Yaphit, him asking Dr. Claire Finn out on a date in episode 3 is something that was mentioned to have done in each of his visits to the sick bay. If I was to maintain that information, where would I get the Verifiability and citing sources of this and other facts about the characters? --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to maintain that information, which was one the central points I made above. It's trivia. If, in the future, this develops into a recurring, or running gag, then you could argue that's reasonable to include it in the character bio, and in that case, if you can't find a valid secondary source to support, then you use the primary sources that I've 'been using up til now, which you can see if you look at my edits to that section. But if it doesn't develop into some type of recurring signature trait of the character, then it doesn't merit mention, since it's just a one-off gag. I believe I explicitly stated this in my edit summaries, and above.
And what's with the five public "thanks" on my edit today? Is this supposed to be some misguided attempt to use flattery to resolve this problem of yours? Nightscream (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I argue for the reasonable parts? The talk pages? As for the other thing, I'm just thanking you for your edits to those pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seen of Rtkat3 in the past, I have seen numerous attempts to reach out to him from other users like User:*Treker, User:Cyphoidbomb, User:Tenebrae, User:Jhenderson777, User:Doniago, among others, after reviewing his talk page from this year and 2016 alone. For what it is worth, I think he means well, but I think he has a problem with just not understanding how certain policies work (or as you are suggesting, not caring enough to bother learning how they work). I do not believe he is acting in bad faith, however at some point we have to consider that not understanding or not caring on a regular basis becomes a problem that needs to be addressed. I have observed that he is definitely passionate about adding "In other media" content to comics character articles, for example, but this does not excuse the sourcing and other issues that you bring up. BOZ (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to do to improve my work here, BOZ? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS that I and others have been giving you on your talk page, and stop pretending you don't understand this. I left a detailed LIST OF THEM on your tp on May 20, and there are others by other editors going back years.
And don't give me that shit bullshit about “just thanking” me for those edits. You were doing no such thing. You gave five rapid-fire public thanks for my last five edits to four different articles (something I’ve never received before), including ones you have never edited, like J. Lee and Star Trek Discovery right after I went to an administrator about the problem you’ve been to the rest of the editing community. It is embarrassing obvious that this was a shallow attempt to employ flattery in the hope that it would somehow help you evade the consequences of your trouble-making edits. Whether you are too clueless to realize this, or simply think we are, does not change this. Nightscream (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)While I haven't felt compelled to leave Rtkat a note regarding their edits for quite some time now, I have found their editing patterns concerning, and it's especially troubling that they could be here for over a decade and continue to make the kinds of problematic edits noted above.
Ideally they will take this conversation seriously and try to be more judicious in their editing in the future. A suggestion might be that they focus for a time on only adding real-world information to articles, with appropriate sources. There's plenty of editors willing to add in-universe information to articles, appropriately or otherwise. DonIago (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to drop in (since I was mentioned) and point out that while I have talked with Rtkat3 in the past and I recognize this as a pattern of them I can't actually remember ever having a conversaion with them about it specifically.★Trekker (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also would wish to chime in. As BOZ says, I believe Rtkat3 means well, as he generally responds positively and tries to correct his editing when I point things out to him. That said, I've been pointing the same things out to him for years, and my impression is that he will adhere to guidelines, MOS, etc. when someone calls him on it, and then simply returns to his trivia and fictography, figuring it's all fine unless he gets caught. That's a serious behavioral issues, and I'm glad it's being addressed. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you, Tenebrae. Though I haven't had to deal with Rtkat3 for a while because I've withdrawn from a number of articles he happened to be interested in, I feel like his abilities are limited by an unspecified roadblock be it language-based, or something else. He has traditionally had difficulty understanding community standards and differentiating between encyclopedic content and fancruft. (At least, that was largely my issue with him.) There were also weird issues like being told over and over not to wikilink to common words like dog, cat, ghost and skeleton. (While it may seem trivial, he was already an established editor of 10 years by this point and probably had about 86,000 edits under his belt.) It was always frustrating to try to explain these issues to him, only to be met with vague responses and a general feeling that he didn't really get what I was trying to explain. And yeah, I remember it being particularly vexatious that you'd tell him "Yo, this is wrong because of ___", he'd yield, and then a few days/weeks/months later sneak back in the thing you raised as problematic. Do these problems still exist? Are there other simple follow-the-rules problems that he's still having trouble with? I don't know the best way to deal with him or how to best describe my concerns without being insulting, but I think that maybe admins more specialized to cognitive or behavioral differences might be helpful here, if we know of anyone. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So then User:Nightscream, we have some good input from other users on this situation, but the question is what to do?

I could block him for a short period of time, but to me that would seem to be pointless, as has been noted by the folks above, he tends to behave a little better for a little while, but then goes back to the same thing as before.

I could block him indefinitely, which may be a bit extreme, and he may have a good case for appealing to an unblock (which could very well backfire on me) if he can assert that he is acting in good faith.

We could take this to a wider community discussion of his behavior to see if the community wants to block him for a period of time. I have done this before, and when you have the support it usually gets the job done, although it takes more time to prepare than I really have.

We could let things go on as they have for years, with other users keeping an eye on him to police him, but this is really not workable and expects too much from other people to do the work for him that he should be doing himself. I'm certainly not going to devote my time to watching him closely, and I would not expect anyone else to do this either.

So maybe there is a solution somewhere between there that I am not thinking of? Do you think it would be reasonable to give him a final warning as you suggested originally, and if he fails to comply with this consistently within a reasonable amount of time, we would take him to a community block discussion? BOZ (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Create a list of his most commonly recurring violations, based on complaints by others. The list I provided on his talk page on May 20 would be a good place to start. Make it clear to him that this list may change dynamically if he begins committing new types of violations.
  2. Block him for a month, and tell him that after a month, it will only be removed if he agrees to each of the specifically listed instructions, which he must name explicitly.
  3. You, me and other members of the community can monitor his behavior. If he continues in his violations, he can be blocked for longer periods. If the lengths of the blocks require community consensus, then we can hold the necessary discussions indicated by blocking policies/guidelines. Nightscream (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it will take me some time to review that and set it up, so ping me if you don't hear back from me soon. I'll accept other input on the issue in the meantime. BOZ (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working on this today... may or may not finish today. BOZ (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have reached out to him now. BOZ (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lara's Tower

The article Lara's Tower has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. South Nashua (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cite date errors

Hi, you keep introducing Cite date errors with your edits it would be good if you could do this correct in future to stop having to mop up the errors. The problem is with the cite |date= field where you enter "February - March 2017" this should be entered without the spaces and the dash should be an en-dash like "February–March 2017" Regards Keith D (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that! Too much cutting and pasting, I guess. BOZ (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hot Spot (board game)

The article Hot Spot (board game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gaye O'Keefe concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Gaye O'Keefe, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Scott Leaton concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Scott Leaton, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Trip articles

My lingering affection for the system notwithstanding, you've been writing scenario articles that just fall far short of any notability standards, and judging from your talk page, it's something you do a lot. Please review the GNG for a better understanding of those standards so we just don't have to start deleting them wholesale. Ravenswing 05:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Grail Quest (The Fantasy Trip) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grail Quest (The Fantasy Trip) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grail Quest (The Fantasy Trip) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ravenswing 05:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello BOZ:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America1000 15:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Thank you kindly! In everything I do, I am trying to make this a better place. :) BOZ (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLEAN

Hello BOZ:
You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 15:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CA Suleiman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CA Suleiman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CA Suleiman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Airmail Pilot for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Airmail Pilot is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airmail Pilot until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BOZ. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for Jennell Jaquays article

I feel I should note that the version of Jennell Jaquays you have protected still lists the subject's birth name, despite the lack of any source, however insubstantial, indicating the subject's birth name. The BLP banner reads specifically, Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. While libel is not at issue here, privacy and accuracy certainly are. Pawsplay (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BOZ&oldid=814146808"