User talk:Harami2000

image
Hi darling... can I upload this image from Russian wikipedia? Зображення:Esox lucius distribution.gif

Haha
Hey, it's good to see that someone ' s been keeping them in a zoo! Now we just need need to set out on a Long Island safari to find those photographable feral cloudies.--Pharos 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aberdeenshire
Thanks for the hello. I am trying to add bits to Angus, Aberdeenshire and Orkney as I have time. Feel free to append, amend or modify my edits. All in the interest of making a more complete picture of this great region. Cheers. Hadrianheugh 22:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck and will be looking forward to bumping into you elsewhere around the area! :) Nice *long* periods of time to make significant edits: not just for (after) Christmas (dinner)? ^^
 * Strange you should mention, but I'm also just finishing 'test' settlements/places of interest navigation bars for Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland similar to what I put in for Aberdeenshire, but "one level" only. Will be asking the better-organised-than-us(!) WP:ISLE people what they think of that before implementing, though. (Didn't see your name on that wikiproject list (yet?) ;)
 * Cheers & Take care, David. Harami2000 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK nom

 * ...that the fountains in Trafalgar Square are made from stone quarried near Boddam in Aberdeenshire? by Harami2000

OK - could maybe do with a photo of the fountains?? Victuallers 09:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! David. Harami2000 21:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I read the stuff at DYK ... is the picture of the fountains corect? If not then please delete. Oh and thx 4 thx etc Victuallers 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The second image is of one of the original Trafalgar Square fountains which were there for 94 years. I've removed the present-day image to avoid confusion. Cheers & Thanks for checking up... am still /very/ unfamiliar with how things work here... David. Harami2000 22:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK: Boddam, Aberdeenshire

 * Great work in producing the Boddam article! Cheers. Hadrianheugh 17:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Typo redirect Geoffrey Box
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Geoffrey Box, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Geoffrey Box is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Geoffrey Box, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, apart from RedirectCleanupBot, bots don't delete pages. I came across the page because it was listed on short pages, which I go over often. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool; thanks again for the spot/assist. Does that happen often when trying to "erase" unrequired redirects, or am I the only culprit?! Perhaps it might be useful to add in a helpful "please manually alter to a CSD R3 deletion request if redirect not required owing to a genuine typo on the original page" (paraphrased!) information note on the "Move Page" screen if not? Goodness knows the average editor such as myself isn't aware of all the depth there, even if I've browsed casually through many of the "inner workings of Wikipedia" pages.
 * I only ended up carrying out that move when I spotted the main page DYK referring to the River Darent article was half-incorrect and half-unreferenced (still noted on Talk:Main_Page, awaiting action there). Certainly hadn't expect to end up trawling down and patching up to that degree. Keep up the good work & Have a good Christmas/New Year. David. Harami2000 (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * People blank pages all the time under the assumption that it's how you're supposed to delete them. I don't know why there isn't a mechanism built into the MediaWiki software to give some kind of message that blanking isn't the correct method, but hey, it gives me something to do :P
 * If you're interested, you can read up on the various methods of deletion at WP:DELETE. --Closedmouth (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mhmm... that was the concern - that I /had/ read up on WP:DELETE and elsewhere several times before, yet had not spotted that "best practice". i.e. that it's easier to see a message at "point of need" saying "don't delete it, CSD R3 it" (catchy, huh?) rather than rely on memory to file away every such intricacy.
 * "Something to do"? *g*. Take care, d. Harami2000 (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't know what the issues were regarding the R3 delete, but couldn't we leave Geoffrey Box as a redirect? While its implausible as a typo, the fact that the guy's name was quoted as Geoffrey Box in the source I originally used to write that bit of Dartford, and hence the Godfrey Box article, means that maybe people would search for information under that name. Redirects don't cost, after all.. Jdcooper (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hiya! There was no indication of a primary source whereas multiple Google Books referred to Godfrey Box (1 2 3), in addition to a likely mention of their name on a contemporary record. Under the circumstances, without any primary reference and seeing that the vast majority of other online references to the 16th Century "Geoffrey Box" were apparently propagated from Wikipedia, it seemed like the best idea to remove that entirely as it appeared to be error and so as not to get in the way of any "other" "Geoffrey Box" who may be deemed noteworthy at a later date.
 * Was the source used this one this one? If so, the second half about "Sir John Spilman, set up the first paper mill in England at Dartford in the 18th century" (as appears to be the underlying source of yesterday's DYK) is actually in error (should be John Tote, in Hertfordshire, 1495). I tried to get that corrected on the DYK but that was not taken forward by the admins in time and is now shown incorrectly on the historical DYK list. :/
 * Was there a separate, preferable primary, source for the name, "Geoffrey Box"?
 * Thanks & Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I got that, I think, from Mark Chatwin's history of Dartford (which was originally on his own site but seems to have been adopted by Dartford Council). The passage reads thus: "Aside from the problems, new developments in industry occured in Dartford. Sir. John Spilman set up England's first paper mill on a site near Powder Mill Lane, and Geoffrey Box built England's first iron-splitting mill on the Darent at Dartford Creek." As someone who is most definitely a pygmy in local history terms I cede instantly to your info about the paper mills, but hopefully we can still use the other info in that account, there's a lot there anyway. As far as I can see, the most likely explanation is that Chatwin made an error when writing that history (could even have been a typographical one), and mistakenly put Geoffrey instead of Godfrey. However, given that someone has made the mistake, and that the "Geoffrey Box" name does seem to refer, albeit mistakenly, to the same individual on Google searches, we could surely tolerate a redirect until the time when a real Geoffrey Box becomes notable? Although as I typed that I realised what a truly minor issue this is! No-one is really going to search for the poor chap however he spells his name... Jdcooper (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and I'm watching this page now, so you can reply here. Jdcooper (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I nominated the River Darent article for DYK. If there was a problem with one of the factoids it's a pity nobody contacted me about it. The book on the River Darent I quoted says "A paper mill, arguably Britain's very first..." in reference to Spilman's mill. I'm afraid papermills are not my area of expertise and until now I'd not heard of John Tote. Using a search engine to search for "John Tote" brings up many pages unrelated to the man in question. Mjroots (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Carnoustie
Cheers! Hopefully it's of some use to somebody. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for having a look at it post-nomination. I hope I haven't bitten off more than I can chew! Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Owl and Weasel

 * Good job on the new article! I wanted to let you know, though, that I removed the "gallery" section, because the use of copyrighted images for decorative purposes like that is against the Wikipedia policy on the use of non-free content.  One of the images was used reasonably in another article.  The other two, Image:Owl and Weasel 6.gif and Image:Owl and Weasel 18.gif, are no longer used in any articles.  I've marked them as "orphaned", which means they'll be deleted in 7 days unless things change.  Mango juice talk 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, glad that you're active. I agree, the D&D one may be justified in the article, but putting it in a "gallery" section is probably a bad idea; it could perhaps just be included in the article.  But I don't see the justification for including the other one, about the office move, nor the need to show the "Games Day" one on the Owl and Weasel page (though it makes perfect sense on the Games Day page).  Mango juice talk 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiya again! Not feeling all that active after a long day at work and realising how much work's still outstanding on my other "to do" item to get infoboxes set up for all Scottish towns/notable villages that don't have those. Always more work, no? ;)
 * Agreed, I think; putting anything in a gallery does rather make that obvious "fair game" rather than more carefully embedding in context. The reasoning behind why to show those other two makes perfect sense to me, but I shouldn't be expecting everyone to be reading with the same eyes/historical context as myself! And right enough; only one "lost", anyhow, which is the least of the three for direct contextual "value". Harami2000 (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, while I understand the instinct to preserve this rare material, Wikipedia is not a library. The deleted versions of these images will remain on Wikipedia's database, so if there ends up being a Wikipedia dispute over their content, an admin can help by looking at the image.  But there are no true online libraries for a reason: copyright issues.  Mango juice talk 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * *smiles* I do remember the furore over when Google Books first went online. I'm surprised the compromise worked as well as it did, even though there do seem to be more restrictions on those, not less, over time. Is still all good stuff compared with having to work in the realms of hardcopy only 20+ years back.
 * Agreed 100% re. not a library; hence that selection/justification on context grounds rather than just pretty pics. ;) I guess I should've made that rather more explicit on talk, anyhow. Was just glad to see the article wasn't speedily deleted than and relaxed too soon... ;)
 * Thanks; and again for taking the time to consider/discuss. David. Harami2000 (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Judgmentalism - "attempt at fixing some terrible work"
That's fine, but it is a terrible article with some terrible work done to it - A spade is a spade, as they say. There's a great deal more wrong with it than right which is why I chose those words (and I was attempting to fix it). I wasn't referring to anyone in particular (I hadn't looked at the edit history).

That said, if you're interested in cleaning the page up, it's probably best to apply WP:UKCITIES to the layout. I'll try to take another look at the page tomorrow. I'm particularly worried about about some of the unsourced, or poorly sourced POV material in that article, and it should be much better. --Jza84 |  Talk 02:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I feel the need to point the following out:
 * Talk pages comments are not required prior to every edit (and I don't see your name there either mind). There is a policy entitled WP:BOLD which is applicable.
 * East Kilbride is verifiably in Greater Glasgow, per the source I provided. If you have a source that it isn't, then please provide it rather than speculate.
 * The Office for National Statistics defines their connurbations as "Urban Areas". I'm merely reflecting real world practice.
 * The term "Greater Glasgow and Clyde Valley Metropolitan Area" doesn't appear in any source, anywhere. It's original research.
 * The unsourced 2006 population estimate doesn't warrent note in the infobox. Firstly it is not clearly and properly referenced, secondly it is an estimate where more official figures exist and thirdly the difference between 2001 and 2006 is unnotable.
 * I do have extensive experience with regards to writing about settlements - I wouldn't make changes to articles without reason, or to somehow damage Wikipedia as I think you're implying. Indeed, I've written one of Scotland's only two featured articles about a settlement, and it happens to be in the Strathclyde region (so much of my independently auditted research I did for that page is transferrable and applicable to East Kilbride).


 * I hope that helps clarify things. --Jza84 |  Talk 10:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the lengthy reply. I haven't time to read through it all though I'm afraid. All I can say is that if you feel you are willing and able to improve that article, by all means go for it. I'd be interested to see how that page develops. :) --Jza84 |  Talk 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem
After the kerfuffle at talk:Domestic sheep, I saw your edit about adding my comment back in, I just slightly beat you to it! Many thanks for noticing it was missed and for going about restoring it :)))  Maedin \talk 17:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Reversions to vandalism on "Recent changes"
Yes, Huggle is a very useful tool. I highly recommend it! (I'm not getting paid for that, I promise.) ... disco spinster  talk  02:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi David. As far as I can tell, there is a 24/7 tab-keeping going on, insomuch as there are tab-keepers in every inhabited continent.  (I don't know what the exact statistics are for, say, Australia vs North America, but there's always someone I'm sure.) In other words, whenever the vandals are about, so are the vandal fighters.  I'm also noticing a lot more competitors — I mean editors — using Huggle and Twinkle, which allows them to fight vandalism much more quickly and warn vandals much more easily.


 * Basically, in my opinion, it's pretty darn good and getting better. Would you agree with that assessment?  ...  disco spinster   talk  02:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7
Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RBS Bank Note 1919.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:RBS Bank Note 1919.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject: Dungeons & Dragons
Hi! I’ve been working on a lot of ‘’Dungeons & Dragons’’ articles lately and saw that you were a member of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons), and am inviting you to rejoin Wikipedia’s D&D group. I've been hard at work removing tags placed inappropriately on D&D articles, as well as modifying articles to remove tags that were placed legitimately. In addition, I have been compiling related articles together so that the articles are longer, making it easier to remove tags and to have short articles on lesser topics by just putting it into another appropriate article (links to such compiled articles can be found on my userpage). Check out the project here, and ask any questions that you may have here. Thank you for your time. Drilnoth (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dave Arneson
Hey, thanks for taking a stab at Dave Arneson's article. :) I was thinking of removing a bunch of the text, as I noted here, but now I might not have to. :) Feel free to do the same sort of thing to any of our D&D-related BLPs who aren't seriously ill/possibly dead. ;) BOZ (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Greetings and thanks for the note, BOZ! No problems on that: seemed like a "good idea" whilst awaiting confirmation one way or the other. I've chased up on http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/04/dave-arneson-is-still-with-us.html and will be elsewhere to try to work on Dave's article but hopefully that's at least some of the worst of the mess straightened up, even though there's still clearly plenty of work to do there (and a few statements still requiring checking).
 * As to the many, many other D&D/RPG BLPs, yes... so much to do, so little time? (My own "history of roleplaying in the UK" project has been on hold off-and-on for the past 20 years, so I don't exactly have a good track record!).
 * Best wishes; and for all ongoing work, David. Harami2000 (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, and thanks for any help you can give, at any time. :) BOZ (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I would appreciate it if you would not remove legitimate Fact templates unless you have added a citation to demonstrate the correctness of the information. If the information is available elsewhere in the article, you can always re-use citations. Please read WP:CITE for further details. Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heya... It would've helped if you'd put the correct year on your "Fact" tag: we're currently in April 2009, not April 2008 and I'd presumed that that had been left over and was addressed sufficiently by the large-scale reworking in the interim. It took about five minutes to find a /totally/ specific reference, but as I understand not every "Fact" tag requires a reference, otherwise there's nothing to stop people littering every line of an article with such. You could have found the same reference or similar just as quickly, I presume, had you tried searching. (Google was sufficient to the task).
 * Kindest regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:First fantasy campaign - arneson (sml).gif)
 Thanks for uploading Image:First fantasy campaign - arneson (sml).gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Adventures in Fantasy - arneson-snider (sml).gif)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Adventures in Fantasy - arneson-snider (sml).gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Dungeonmasters index - arneson (sml).gif)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Dungeonmasters index - arneson (sml).gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

GA for Dave Arneson
HI there,

Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship, and to thank you very much for your help with Dave Arneson's article in the wake of his passing! There are articles on other early designers of the game from the 1970's era that may need work, such as Brian Blume, Mike Carr, Tim Kask, Robert J. Kuntz, and Jim Ward, and many other articles in the D&D game designers category (and its subcategories), if you want to do more work on this important subject.

You may have noticed me saying that I wanted to get Arneson's article up to "Good article" status; I intend to do so as a tribute to Dave. We at the D&D WikiProject have already gotten the following articles promoted to GA: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and have just nominated Neverwinter Nights 2, so I don't see any reason we can't do the same now with Dave's article now that you and others have helped to improve it greatly.

Any further help you can give on this article would be appreciated! Drop by the project's talk page, where we are discussing our Good Articles, and ask questions or offer assistance. Thanks again! BOZ (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there, just an update! :) I have nominated the Arnseon article for GA a few days ago. If you're interested, you may wish to place the review page on your watchlist and wait for the review to be picked up. That way you can help out when a reviewer begins to make comments. Thanks again for help in working on this article! BOZ (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It took a while, but the Dave Arneson article is finally up for review. If there's anything you can do or add to give it that last nudge, I think we'll have a "Good Article" in no time. :) BOZ (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

D&D Wikiproject
Long time no hear! :) Have you seen this? Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-21/WikiProject report BOZ (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiya there! Interesting reading & well written, y'all; thanks. Could easily be discouraging but 'grats for turning that around. Wiki's citation reliance approach combined with some "interesting rules" and heavy-handed editor/admin actions certainly aren't "best" for collaborative working, but it's a darned sight better than nothing, I guess. ;) Cheers & Best wishes, David. Harami2000 (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

John Blanche

 * I see you made a few changes to John Blanche. The opening claim that he is best known for certain work could be considered OR without a citation to support it (although I had originally written the same thing myself, and agree with it, for this reason I later changed it to just 'known for'). A bit edgy about that one.
 * Your correction to the 1977 date for the first British edition of D&D is of course correct. However, it now slightly contradicts the book I was citing from (Ratspike), although that makes several other mistakes also (for example it cites 1979 as the year of GW's formation, whereas it was actually the year of Citadel's move to the Notts area - GW formed in '77 and moved to Notts in 1986). In that context he obviously marks his cover for D&D after 1979. Still, since he mentions the year as important in his reationship with GW, I'll reintroduce it to the text, without of course contradicting the D&D date.
 * Thanks for your info on Blanche's first cover for WD, someone had alerady stated that but uncited, and I saw on an index site that the first colour cover with issue 7 was Blanche's, but there was no info for issue 4.
 * Thanks for your input. LSmok3 (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the good work on Blanche's article, too. ;) I've had a few other articles stacked aside for some time where I never got around to hitting send, so I'll take that as a hint to follow suit!
 * Wikipedia's potentially fundamental flaw (although it was an understandable "design feature") is that it will take any citation regardless of correctness whereas if you've actually researched with a given individual, have all their original material in front of you, etc., that is deemed unreliable and can be immediately struck out. Sounds like that Ratspike ref. wasn't exactly well researched for the history although it looks like there is "good stuff" in there for later dates.
 * Hadn't spotted you'd originally written "best", too. Seemed like a good idea to be inclusive, anyhow, given that Blanche has (obviously) done other work; some of which is cited in the article. None of that, afaik, is "better known" than his work for GW. (But, of course, since there is no citation for that assertion... *coughs*).
 * GW was founded January 1975 and first announced in the small ads at the back of Games & Puzzles, claiming to have their newsletter available before that (O&W as eventually was) had even been printed. From small beginnings... :)
 * Cheers & Keep up the good work, David. Harami2000 (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah, sorry I was quoting the date of inception of WD proper (too many dates to keep track of) - regardless the date Ratpsike gives is years off. Okay, so I'll lose 'best' for now, until some citable ref comes along and actually says it. . . LSmok3 (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * *g* I prefer the "common sense" approach for such "general assessment" statements (received understanding of the interested masses vs. a single, potentially-biased and uninterested, uninvolved published source), but feel free. :)
 * No joke on keeping tabs of dates and that's a problem even when citing primary sources. Gary Gygax and others have, for example, been frequently out by a year or two and/or otherwise "misremembered" various details in the history/development and it's an uphill struggle to remove citations where such misinformation not only derives from the original author(s) but has been (mis)cited in dozens/hundreds of other citable publications since. Harami2000 (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One way around it might be to compromise and point out in the intro, although it's patently obvious from the overall article anyway, that the majority of his work is with GW; that's effectively another way of saying he's best known for that, an observation based on observable bulk of work rather than actually expressing an opinion? I could try and word so it's not too clumsy (something that's often challenging in writing good Wiki articles between the demand for citations and dates and facts to be incorporated, etc. ). . . LSmok3 (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the majority of work that's cited in the article, anyhow; i.e. you're self-referencing and have written most of the article therefore any editorial bias in sourcing has the potential to become original research when summarised. There's no "easy" way out IMHO so it usually seems to be a case of compromise or go with what sounds good and wait to see whether a rulesmonger decides to nuke from orbit! Your updates are fine by me, anyhow, thanks. :) Harami2000 (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

On another note, I was wanting to start a category for Games Workshop artists in the manner of Dungeons & Dragons artists, to bring together artists that have produced work for GW games and WD over the years, and raised the subject on the talk page for GW, so far with no answer. So I thought I'd go ahead and do it. . . One problem however is that I don't know how to create a category page. I was wondering if perhaps you might know how to do so? Thanks for any help. LSmok3 (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I worked out how to do it :) LSmok3 (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * *g* So you did! Well, I'd've only said "take another category and clone the code": was that sufficient to make it work?
 * Hopefully that's a large enough/significant enough "category" to stand alone. I've +watched the page just in case anyone decides it's "not notable" without bothering to give any proper justification, etc., anyhow. Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Flanaess
Moving the discussion to your talk page, since I fear we were boring the rest of the editors. I'm trying very hard but I'm not sure I understand your argument. You seem to be saying that the "early days" campaign Gygax was running in his basement every night had nothing to do with the original D&D boxed set by Gary Gygax or the 1980 folio edition, also by Gary Gygax? Isn't there a line of causality here that leads from one to the next to the last? There is no doubt that character classes like the thief were developed in Greyhawk as various players tried to develop new types of characters, and the thief was introduced into the Greyhawk supplement booklet (1975). Ditto most monsters in the original D&D booklet and the supplements. And spells. (Recall the origin of Drawmij's Instant Summons as related by Jim Ward.) The same author. The same game. Six years of development from Chainmail to WoG. (BTW, apoliogies for posting this on your user page. Five-second brain cramp before I moved it to here.)Guinness323 (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Greyhawk - /Castle/ Greyhawk - is where the rules for D&D as published were mostly created/tested and that is how the current version of the article reads. Also, probably, Rob's "El Raja Key", since that /was/ in place early enough for Gary to work on the rules for D&D as published from a player's perspective.
 * The previous article text claims that the *World* of Greyhawk was created - as a /pre-requisite/ - in order to create/test the rules for D&D. There is no evidence for that in the sources provided; only a few actual player wanderings (at least in part hex crawling) pre-1974 with a small number of names that were used later and no obvious rules at all derived from any of that: merely generic guidelines, random tables (Barsoom!), a map of the real world and Outdoor Survival when published in 1974. (i.e. nothing at all like what Judges Guild created for lands that were mapped in detail with specific, additional rules tying directly into this. TSR - and, by extension, Gary Gygax simply didn't "believe" in a need for that).
 * IMO, it would actually be an easier claim that the World of Kalibruhn was created in order to design/test rules for D&D since those maps exist and are known, even if those cannot be cited in Wikipedia (no "cite ms." option). However, there are no obviously identifiable rules in D&D relating to outdoor adventures which have any particular relationship to either the lands around Greyhawk (whatever those might've been circa 1973) or Kalibruhn.
 * IMHO, this should really be on the article talk page since claiming that it's "boring people" isn't best justification for removing discussion that is specifically relevant to the actual topic. Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When I said "boring", I really meant "arguments seem to have reach a circular pattern". If we can come to an agreement, we can repost to the Flanaess page. So originally the article said "From 1972 to 1978, Gary Gygax developed the World of Greyhawk first as a personal home campaign for the amusement of his children and friends, and then as a testing ground for the game of Dungeons & Dragons that he developed with Dave Arneson." So fair enough, I agree that whoever added the capital "W" to "World" was jumping the gun a bit. WoG was not developed until 1978-1980. What if that sentence was changed to "From 1972 to 1978, Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz developed the campaign setting they called "Greyhawk" as a personal home campaign as well as a testing ground for the new game of Dungeons & Dragons." Guinness323 (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: query
Hey. The discussion actually occurred some time ago; it's right here. Not really known or easy to find, but it did take place. Wizardman 19:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yeah, not at all obvious and would've disagreed with that on the basis the placeholder clearly re-states the need for a "free image" which is a key WP requirement for that context.
 * Is there no easier way in which to get rid of all those placeholders for once and for all, if that has been the rule for so long yet has clearly not filtered through 1 1/2 years later? Still seems like a rather poor use of WP editor time for a net result which is cosmetic at best and has possibly been detrimental with regards to trying to enforce free image content where specifically required.
 * Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacquays
Nice work on that article, by the way. :) I remember you helping out to get Arneson's up to GA quality. If that's the sort of thing you like to work on, I'm sure you know there are dozens of other game designer articles and such which could use some developing, not to mention those which haven't even been started yet! :) BOZ (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, BOZ! Technically that was "up to B" on Dave's article although that edit blob pretty much went as-is to GA: the most important thing in that case was to get as much as possible "fixed" and reworked before the media picked up the story and just as well given that there were still a few factual errors for them to pick up on... which they duly did, of course. :(
 * You haven't been by M. A. R. Barker recently, then? ;)
 * Still awaiting photos for both of those and so much needs doing, I know. Will see how things stand once I've liquidated a large chunk of the RPG archive to clear outstanding $ issues. (Domesday Book issues gone; much, much more to follow... *sighs*).
 * Thanks & Keep up the good work, as ever, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, but not at the moment. :) Meanwhile, I'll point it out to ol' Drilnoth and Peregrine and let them have a once-over. BOZ (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - Peregrine suggests finding an example of his artwork for the page. I don't think there are currently any cover pieces uploaded here though. BOZ (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome work Harami! I don't have the time to give it a full read, but what I've seen makes it look like a very well-done biography. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul Jaquays
No reason, just lack of a thorough look. I rate articles simply so they are not unassessed, and sometimes I misrate them by accident. I assume that others will change the rating if they disagree, which I have no problem with. I'm generally rating Stub articles, so when there is one with more content, I usually rate it Start, unless it seems especially thorough at first glance. Feel free to rate the page as you judge it. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * An unrelated note on Jaquays: please see T:TDYK, as there are some problems with the DYK nomination. Ucucha 22:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

D&D wikiproject
Come on by and see what's been going on lately. :) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Pied Piper of Hamelin
That is a direct quote from the referenced source. It's easily available online through Google. What's at issue here? You do realize there's numerous conflicting dates given in many of the references and that some citations given have long since been edited into oblivion. I don't mean to be vague but that article is a bit of a mess and while I tried to get a linear structure in there, I've been revised and revised to the point where I just kinda gave up. LiPollis (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-12-14/Role-playing_game
A solution has been proposed that editors seem happy with. Since you signed on for mediation, I want to extend you the opportunity to comment before I decide whether we are ready to close this case. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 01:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! Was about to add my response, realised I hadn't signed on and only then spotted your message. Oops...
 * Yes, that's more or less what I'd be looking for and even "at worst" will be preferable to falling back to a bare disambig page for Role-playing game which, after all, has survived for several years without the perceived need for that degree of action.
 * (Amusingly, the concept & history sections from a 3 1/2 year old revision I picked at random - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Role-playing_game&oldid=63178270 - are probably closer to what I'd be looking for, ideally, albeit with the need to condense those further for the main Role-playing game article).
 * Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Valen Shepard's Edits
Hi Harami,

I have also been concerned with this user's edits, and apparently others have as well, given the warning over edit warring.

Zuchinni one (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Yes, I'd noted that slide to edit warring and the "trick" of deliberately removing or muting contexts stating that doing so is in the interest of NPOV when in reality that may be tantamount to vandalism when the net result is to remove or deliberately downplay "one side of a story" and/or other clearly delineated and sourced contexts which are required for overall understanding of an article. (As if NPOV /could/ be applied to everyone in the world, anyhow, as opposed to WP editors as an ideal!) Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The statement which you criticised was a mistake on my part, and I reverted it. ValenShephard 04:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you, but could you please could you read up on what an article lead is meant to be (a summary) and that what a "solid source" is (not second-hand information and certainly not with the precision stated). Kind regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll clarify it to reduce any confusion. Get some sleep!Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for both: will do! :) David. Harami2000 (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Would this also be considered a "sneak edit"? Because I don't see what duplication was removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=365965627&oldid=365964734  Zuchinni one (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither can I, to be honest. That link wasn't exactly "elegantly inserted" but is valid in context and perhaps could have been worded better. It certainly isn't "duplication", however. Well spotted, thank you: could you raise and/or fix that if possible since I'm at least 3-4 hours overdue for sleep (6.30am). (Hoping not the same for you... oops!). G'night & take care, David. Harami2000 (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are some things reported as violent and some are not? Fighting with sticks (pipes or whatever) is classed as violent then why is not killing, or shooting, someone classed as violent? clashed is enough, its a strong word. Is there ever a clash which isnt violent? Violent is a POV word, the videos are IDF-edited so they are also POV. There is much dispute in many sources used in the article over what is violent, or how violent. So clashed is enough. ValenShephard 23:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
 * You're still also failing to sign your messages with four tildes... Please do so.
 * No, 'violent' is only a POV word in your mind and nothing to do with any other 'disputes' elsewhere in the article. 'Clashing' can be verbal as well as physical and therefore requires clarification: please could you acknowledge on that. Harami2000 (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, so you wont mind when I add violent to the Israeli response? Thanks. And by the way I sigh ever single time by either typing four tildes, using the button above the edit section and below. If it doesnt come out, then there is nothing I can do. ValenShephard 23:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)


 * Are you here to edit Wikipedia for the common good or are you here to push POV? Your tone of voice and general approach to editing appears to indicate the latter despite WP's need to presume 'good will'.
 * 'sigh'=>'sign', btw, and yes, you could ask technical support if /you/ genuinely are having a problem with that since your failure to sign is causing concurrent edit conflict problems due to the signature bot having to append those for you. Harami2000 (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, please dont make judgements on my character which are are not valid arguments like: 'No, 'violent' is only a POV word in your mind'. Only message me if you have a real case again, its become insulting and tiresome. --ValenShephard 23:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)


 * I am not making judgments on your character and you are /failing/ to presume goodwill. Violent is /not/ a POV word; are you telling me that it is not used once in the whole of WP? I will continue to message you if, as an editor, I can see problems with the manner in which you are editing WP and if you wish to escalate that to an administrator, please do so. Kind regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no agreement on what constitutes violence, or how violent an act is. It is totally opinion (POV) based. What you might think is violent is very different to what another person classes as violent. So in that case making a judgement on what is violent, because it is widly variable, is POV. ValenShephard 00:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
 * Disagreement on what /precisely/ a word means does /not/ necessarily mean that it is POV. In this case, dictionary definitions such as 'caused by injurious or destructive force' are clearly adequate as can be seen from the injuries to the Israeli commandos - that is /not/ POV, it is factual. Once again, since you contend that the word 'violently' is automatically POV, would wish to remove it from all WP articles? Harami2000 (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

New ubox and top-icon for WikiGryphons

 * Please forgive the talk page spam. There are new userbox and topicon selections for editors who identify themselves as Wikigryphons; see User:Ling.Nut/Gryphontopicon2 and Template:User wikipedia/Gryphon2. Cheers! • Ling.Nut 02:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Check out Guinness323's talk page, but some interesting stuff there! BOZ (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Shetland Islands places
Template:Shetland Islands places has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland
I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Jimroslof clip.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jimroslof clip.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon
Hey there! As a Wikipedian in Scotland I thought you might be interested in the Scottish Fairground Culture editathon taking place on 7 May at the Riverside Museum - drop me a line if you'd like to know more! Lirazelf (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, linkfail! Here's the correct one... Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon Lirazelf (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge
Hi, at The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest
Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

File permission problem with File:Jaquays paul (photograph by Amanda Jaquays).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jaquays paul (photograph by Amanda Jaquays).jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 14:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

C section
There is a sentence in c section wikipedia page which states  that sushuruta did caesarian dissection but there no reference to it. David dclork li (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)