User talk:Dicecollector29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Improper removal of the Notability Templates 3 Death Heart 4 Image copyright problem with Image:No-pic-now.jpg 5 RE:Thanks! 6 Request for Mediation? 7 Image copyright problem with Image:Agtrilogy.jpg

[edit] Welcome

Thanks! Nice billboard, too! - Dicecollector29 (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improper removal of the Notability Templates

I note that you have removed the notability cleanup template from the article Erol Otus with the comment "starting cleanup - notability established via reference of extensive tsr contributions and imdb".

Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources. Since the sources cited (pen-paper.net and imdb) are directories, they do not meet the criteria of reliable sources: see WP:BIO for details.

As this article have no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability, I am requesting that you restore the notability cleanup template, so that editors other than yourself will be alerted to the fact that additional citations of reliable sources are required.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

His notability is hinged on his having done the work claimed. These sites both demonstrate that he did. The actual game credits demonstrate that he did and this is reported on the IMDb. The actual book credits demonstrate that he did (I have several volumes right here), just as listed on "Pen and Paper". His credits are valid and these sites are simply reporting his contributions.

A person who contributes major illustrations to an internationally published and highly successful series of books, supplements, aides (i.e. Dungeons & Dragons) during its most notable years of activity is a notable individual. He has fan sites galore, tribute pages, homage, a long history of contribution across a couple generations of individuals. Non-notable people do not have these things. The sites provided are more than adequate. It would not be very difficult to find more references and it would not be difficult to pollute his page with a giant list of his actual contributions (like a filmography list), but why do that? The sites listed are completely satisfactory to show he has done the work claimed, and if he did this work, he is then notable.

Ease back a few notches, Gavin. The notability guidelines on Wikipedia are just guidelines, not Stasi ritual. You are splitting hairs here with poor Erol as there is no "letter" of policy to be enforced and no wild disregard for policy going on. Even if these two sites are barely acceptable, they are still acceptable. I also do not understand why you provided a link to the FICTION notability page. There is no fiction here as this is an artist's biography.

There is absolutely no question that you are helping to improve some of these extremely poorly written articles by canvassing them with notability tags. Your notability crusade is not without merit, though most others seem to think so. I personally welcome some of what you are doing here. A lot of these RPG articles are badly written across the board and need a lot of work and improvement. Some of them are crap and need to be removed once and for all. Your pointing this out is not really a bad thing, but you would win more support here if you:

(1) Were a bit less militaristic;

(2) Used a tone that didn't come across as arrogant, condescending, stubborn, insulting, and insolent;

(3) Actually rolled up your sleeves and assisted in cleaning these articles, if only in a token sense to demonstrate that you are not actually a gadfly.

(4) Learned something more about the subject matter as to not look as if you are desperate to have RPG articles removed at all costs using every nuance of every available policy as a leverage bar to do so.

Please understand that I do not think you are a gadfly, personally, nor do I think you are pushing some religious or personal agenda. Many others do think so, however, and you have given them plenty of reason to think this way! Was this your intention? I do not think so, so perhaps it is time you eased back a bit.

I personally think you have good intentions wrongfully executed. It does matter to get along with others and work well with others if you expect to get anything done. By my estimation you have gotten very little done here on Wikipedia as compared to the amount of effort you have expended. You have, though, managed to make a lot of people needlessly angry while at the same time inspiring cabals against you and your few allies and a swarm of stupid sockpuppets who have disrupted the administrators' work.

Think about it: Just about every article you've nominated for deletion has survived, and most notability tags are contested. Articles are being improved from all this mess and arguing, but it can be done a better way, don't you think? Would it not be better if people were united to get things sorted out on these RPG articles and not feeling like it was you and Jack vs. them?

Perhaps you don't really care about working and playing well with others, and that is fine. You may actually get some kind of a charge out of most people disliking your work here. I do not personally think that is the case, however, and if you changed you approach a bit and moved forward in a spirit of collaboration while still enforcing policy and guidelines, there would be less headache here on Wikipedia for all concerned.

Please give it some thought. In the meantime, I see no reason to restore Otus' notability tag. I do not wish to get into some kind of edit war, however. If you are not satisfied that your interpretation of the notability/verify guideline is not being applied to Otus' article, then by all means seek some sources and add them instead of just applying tags. That would go a long way toward demonstrating good will, and good intentions. Dicecollector29 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death Heart

Because the article has been targeted by a banned user with more sockpuppets than powers in the Expanded Psionics Handbook, I have declined the unprotection request. However For future note, as you have a registered account, once it gets to be at least four days old you can edit the article freely - the article is only semi-protected, allowing any account older than four days old to edit.

As for my talk page, I apologize, but I've myself been having problems with impersonators and attack accounts as is; the last thing I want is, given the nature of the attack accounts, a huge "Sockpuppet" tag on my user talk page (largely because this is my only account). Again, you can edit it freely once your account is four days old. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Thanks for looking into it. - Dicecollector29 (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:No-pic-now.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:No-pic-now.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Thanks!

No problem, go and make the article better!! – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation?

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Agtrilogy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Agtrilogy.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)