User talk:Shemeska

The Void (Dungeons & Dragons)
A "" template has been added to the article The Void (Dungeons & Dragons), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pak21 08:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Norebo
Thanks for the info - I added it to the Pandemonium (Dungeons & Dragons) article with an inline citation. We need to be more active in adding such citations wherever possible, to aid in the article's verifiability. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

D&D dinosour
Hello, you mentioned that you might change your opinion on the article if it was clened up, please check it out now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dinosaur_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ygorl
Hi. If you have some good secondary/independent references for Ygorl, please add them to the article. Outer planes stuff is something I know very little about... Hobit (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Critter AFDs
A ton of them have gone up lately, check out the D&D wikiproject talk page. BOZ (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Come build something constructive!
Instead of trying to keep things from getting torn down, why not help build something up? Take a look at User:BOZ/List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, check out the pages it links to, see what's been done already, and see if there's anything you want to add. BOZ (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template without reasonable justification
Please cease and desist from removing the Notability templates from article Lolth which does not have any reliable secondary sources. There is no reasonable justification for removing the cleanup template which was put there to address the problem of lack of secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as the lack of explanation for removing the template are not supported by the notability guideline WP:BK and WP:RS which applies to this topic. Unless you adding reliable secondary sources to the article, I would be grateful if you would refrain from removing the cleanup template, which was place there to alert other editors who may be able to add sources that they are needed. Note that since the depth of coverage is not substantial, multiple independent sources are needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, the tag is already redundant. There is another tag already in place asking for the addition of more references, especially from non-primary sources. The addition of the notability tag on top of that is disruptive, and POV pushing on your part.
 * As for removing it without justification, that's bogus. I provided explanation, as have other editors who have removed the same template, which you then subsequently removed with the same stock explanation. Don't accuse me of POV pushing Gavin, given how you aren't familiar with the topic, nor the -many- sources already listed. The same accusation has been repeatedly leveled against you, and yet you've been incredibly quick to level the same against anyone not in agreement with your own opinion, versus multiple editors actually familiar with the topic (including some published individuals in the genre) who distinctly feel otherwise. The article could use some secondary sources, but in this case they would reaffirm notability, not establish it. There's no reasonable need to claim that notability isn't established for the character, (appearences in dozens of novels, RPG sourcebooks, television, etc though not all of these by any stretch have been formally added to the article) and again this is a point where your unfamiliarity with the topic becomes a problem. Wikilawyer all you want Gavin -you're good at it- and write passive-aggressive notes on other editors talk pages too if you want, but your opinion on the matter is narrow and distinctly in the minority on this topic. Ask about it on the Project D&D or the Lolth article talk page itself, and you're going to find consensus against you on the issue.Shemeska (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First point: if there are insufficent reliable sources to demonstrate notbalility, then the tag is relevant not redundant. I am happy to get an indpendent opinion and I am confident my view point will be upheld. However, this is moot: removing the tags without making any improvement is questionable in the fist instance. Why you have picked this particular article to remove the notability cleanup template from is a mystery, because there are nothing in the article that asserts this fictional character to be notable outside of Dungeons & Dragons.
 * Secondly, your so called explaination for removing the template is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines. If there is no evidence of notability, then reliable sources should be added, which is why the template was placed on this article so this issue could be addressed. If you had added sources, I would surely congratulate you for your efforts; instead you assert (without providing any evidence) that there are lots of editors who are familiar with the topic who distinctly think other wise. Please note that this is your opinion; whether there is any substance to these assertions is yet to be seen. If you can obtain details of reliable sources from them, that would be good, but saying a subject does not need the addition of reliable sources because you "feel otherwise" is just POV pushing.
 * Thirdly, you accuse me of lawmongering, when you yourself refuse to comply with the guidelines set in Wikipedia, as if sticking to the rules is beneath you on the grounds that you are a member of some moral majority that makes you exempt - again this is POV pushing.
 * Lastly, I am asking you to come to your senses and realise that the cleanup templates are there to involve more editors to improve the article; if you are not interested in improving the article, at least restore the template so that others will be alterted to the fact that their contribution is needed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why have you picked an entire genre to spam with tags when you know little about the topic? You've been asked this before, and you've never answered to my knowledge. So please humor me this once. I don't see you picking any other random topic on wikipedia to tag spam, which has led a large number of editors to suspect you of some sort of strange, personal bias against the topic. Your attitude and actions have seriously alienated a lot of editors Gavin. Surely you must realize this by now. The massive number of comments on the RfC about your edits/tagging/AfDs should have clued you off to this well before now, but I haven't seen much of a change.
 * And you're more than welcome to learn about the topic and make improvements yourself, as other editors have suggested multiple times, rather than spamming tags and running away, acting as if it's your moral imperative to brow beat others into doing the more difficult work, or else have the threat of more tags or AfDs over their heads if they don't appease you, and only you. Come on man. Realize that you're not acting in a way that promotes community well-being here amongst wikipedia's editors. You just make people angry and less inclined to spend the time to make substantial, constructive edits. On on the topic of contructive edits, I really don't recall ever seeing you actually add content to an article, not even so much as fix a typo. If you wanted to help wikipedia Gavin, you'd be better served by editing and adding reliable sources and citations to say, accounting articles, which your seem to know something about by your own claim, rather than disruptive tagging on a genre where know little to nothing about it and routinely get into arguments and edit warring with those editors who do.Shemeska (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please restore the template, otherwise I think we should consider WP:Third Opinion to resolve our disagreement. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question now, did you?Shemeska (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * if i may be so bold there has already ben a "third option" of sorts regarding the tagging habits related to D&D articles. Many times on the users talk page itself, and otherwise here at Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins. It seems that a stronger option must be takne than the RFC to get parties to understand the ideas presented to them, and accept them, rather than trying to force their own POV down every other editors throats. I have mentioend this before, but don't know exactly what to do about it. Even several admins has asked a particular user to gain knowledge of the material so they do not disrupt the community of editors that are trying to provide contant to the articles on D&D, but a certain user feels no need to even listen to administrator requests/suggestions. Just a few thought i thought i would add here in case they have gone missed in the past. shadzar-talk 18:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Recent Improvements to War of the Spider Queen article
Thanks very much! It is nice to see work recognized, I do appreciate it. I'm still adding to it however, hopefully all the templates can be removed in the near future! Anyways, thanks once again, i plan to continue working throughout the fantasy genre and adding as much as I can :) Dark Squall (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeking Mediation with Gavin
To prevent the endless back and forth sniping? :) That would help. I'm sure we're all tired of it.  I think I've shown you my idea.  BOZ (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Eladrin
What do you think of it now? :) BOZ (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

still around?
are you still here at wikipedia? shadzar-talk 05:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lurking a tad, but not really doing much. I'm pretty burnt out over/because of Gavin and his little cyber jihad against anything pop culture related. I'd happily contribute again, but it's simply not pleasant to deal with his regurgitated wall of Wikipolicy that he cuts and pastes as an answer to any question or complaint. He makes wikipedia unpleasant to work on. If he gets sanctioned I'd happily return, but it's not worth dealing with him repeatedly, and dealing with his continual denigration of my and other editors contributions and the very topic we enjoy.Shemeska (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And here I thought you were the marauder not him. ;) Boz already informed you below I think about the new thing regarding Gavin..... 04:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You, sir, are a Mensch. ;) BOZ (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dwellers of the Forbidden City
Hi! :) I have nominated the article Dwellers of the Forbidden City for Good Article status, as I feel it has undergone significant improvement from the point at which it was almost deleted. Since you were involved with improving the article, and/or sparing it from deletion, I'm inviting you to help out in any way you can to improve the article so that it may join its fellow modules, Ravenloft and Dragons of Despair as a Wikipedia Good Article. :) You may want to place the review page (which may not begin immediately) on your watchlist to keep track of the review process. BOZ (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is now up for good article review, so if there is anything at all you can contribute to get the article the rest of the way there, let us know. :) BOZ (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiya :)
Noticing anything new and shiny on my user page? :) BOZ (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you haven't been keeping up with the GA drive, so far we have 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; Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) are our next targets! BOZ (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fraz-Urb'luu and the rest
Hey, I redirected them to appropriate pages because they currently go into far too much detail. They are minor D&D concepts, and we are not a dedicated D&D wiki; see what happened to all the Warhammer 40K pages as precedent. The current guidelines are only a proposal but are based on common deletion outcomes, and are therefore quite a useful guide to what happens at AfD. Minor D&D elements like this are normally merged into a larger page, which is what I did; since the layout for the larger page A) contained some information on the subject and B)had such a format that that information was all that was to be included, direct merging was not necessary and a simple redirect sufficed. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I note you've reverted me again with the same message; nobody goes on the discussion page. As the person who had a problem with the revert I decided to contact you. It might be good to respond rather than blindly reverting me and failing to address my concerns. Ironholds (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair does; I'll see what AfD has to say. No idea who the IP user who redirected them was, by the way; it certainly wasn't me. Ironholds (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)