Rules of my talk page:

1. The Dude does not abide people using his talk page and also refusing to talk to The Dude if specifically addressed, such as through a ping. If this persists, your edits will be removed as being intentionally unproductive towards the purpose of this talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You say on your user page that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Gorthian: I updated Lava stringer per a new source discovered. It's now called Stone stripe. I'm looking for an article by Clark Nelson that should have more info, but can't find it. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does this Newberry Volcano paragraph mean then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Malheur Occupation Barnstar

---

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

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

The Malheur Occupation Barnstar

---

For useful comments and contributions at the Malheur Occupation talk page. LavaBaron (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi. I was wondering why you keep on deleting my edits on the Bat Guano Cave in Grand Canyon? Thanks in advance. Ljscro (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple really. Every edit I make has been notated as to why. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does one vet a personal conversation? Thanks in advance. Ljscro (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your original reference was just a ref tag without actually citing an actual source. Personal correspondence is original research and is unacceptable for Wikipedia purposes. What you need to do is have a third party source, whether it be a newspaper, magazine, internet site of some kind (not blogs, because those too are personal research, though they can be used to flesh out the finer details sometimes), etc. I recommend that before you continue to edit that page, that you first take it to that articles talk page. Continuing to revert edits when they've been undone is known as edit warring, and is also not allowed. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I noticed that you removed Myst III from the list, since its console and PC sales weren't clearly delineated. If you plan to use that criteria, Half-Life needs to go (the PlayStation 2 port isn't clearly separated from the 9 million figure), as well as Doom 3 (the Xbox port isn't separated), Half-Life 2 (the figure is not from the source, and the source doesn't separate between HL2's PC and Xbox versions), Myst (ported to the PlayStation and 3DO), Riven (Sega Saturn, PlayStation), Command & Conquer (Sega Saturn, PlayStation, Nintendo 64), Doom (Sega 32X, Atari Jaguar, SNES, PlayStation, 3DO, Sega Saturn) and so on. Most of the list will need to be deleted. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I'm coming back from a 4 month Wikipedia hiatus of sorts, so I've missed a lot. If the sources don't specifically say PC, then they can be deleted or reverted back to the original listing. As for most of the list needing pruning, that's an exaggeration. The list was pruned a little over a year ago regarding this very matter. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I looked at the Half-Life 2 source, as an example here. The source, all taken into context, is about Steam PC sales. It mentions Half-life 2 at 12 million or so. Within context, the source is fine, but you have to make sure you read the article properly. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is an aside relative to in-process Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of caves of Maryland. IMHO you overstated your position by a bit in the AFD and at the article Talk page previously, and I will acknowledge that I took a position in the AFD which is a tad over-stated in the other direction. The truth is that the article probably does contain some OR which should be excised, but not until after the material which can be sourced to "Caves of Maryland" source (_and_ the other sources cited which are offline) is fixed up. Perhaps the I-68 caves are covered in a usable source, perhaps not.

But, about the AFD, your stated reasons for seeking deletion have fallen apart, and IMHO you would do best to concede and state your withdrawal of the nomination. So that if the other remaining "Delete" voter also withdraws, then it can be closed quickly by any administrator. It doesn't matter really because it will eventually be judged a "Keep" outcome whether you concede or not, but IMHO it would be better not to force other uninvolved editors to wade through the arguments. I hope you don't mind, but I plan to collapse your long posting copied from the article Talk page so that other editors don't have to wade through as much. I will plan to reply to your 6 points within that, in specific detail at the Talk page, soonish. IMHO the AFD should be wrapped up. FYI, "AFDSTATS" report shows all of your AFD participation.

Either way, I appreciate your concern for the topic area and your obvious interest in it being improved. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, if you are suggesting my response (the part you collapsed) to my initial position is overstated, then I think you miss my intent. If you are intentionally being contrary for contrary-sake, then you should reconsider your role as an admin. I expect more from admins. I want them to be truthful and to uphold the policies of Wikipedia. All that said, I'm aware that it now looks like it's a "keeper", and if you fully reviewed my original discussion on the article's talk page from October, you will see that my ultimate goal was to improve this article. So I guess I kind of get my way, huh? What I'm not interested in doing, is cleaning up a big pile o'mess for someone else though, especially if it involves a local area I'm not familiar with. I used leverage to get people to act on this article until we arrived at this point, unfortunately that action hasn't come from anyone with a vested interest in the article. I will definitely delete anything that is not supported by the initial source this article claimed to be effectively using as a primary source. As for retracting my AfD submission, I'm fairly new to this even though I've edited Wikipedia for nearly as long as you have, so forgive me if I choose to see how it runs its course, even if I do believe as you say. Sometimes you can still learn more about the process even if you fail, which in my mind is still beneficial.

Also, can you forgive my ignorance and tell me why I should be concerned about my AfD stats? Are you suggesting that it makes me look like a hypocrite? Potentially, yes. Assuming people are impervious blocks of granite that don't change. But I will also direct you to my comment above about trying to spur the editors of the Maryland cave list to improve the article (this is the third time I've told you to do this). The difference here, is that I had an invested interest in those articles in my AfD history. I was actively involved and that showed interest in fixing the problem, to speak nothing of being actively involved fixing the problem before it was nominated. You can't say the same for any of the editors watching the Maryland cave list article. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several miscommunications here. Thank you for replying with enough basis to discuss several things. To partially respond:

• I am not in fact an administrator, though I do aspire to be truthful and to uphold Wikipedia policies.
• AFDs are structured contests in which competing points of view are welcomed, and sort of strong positions are taken. In this one you made overstatements: either your assertion the article effectively was all plagiarism was an overstatement or your assertion that it was all original research was an overstatement. Also your assertions that no one has done anything in response to your prodding at the article and its Talk page are overstatements: several editors did respond to you. I was trying to be sympathetic by asserting that I too had made overstatements, although this may have been a mistake to try to be nice this way. What I referred was my characterizing the article to be A-okay; perhaps I went too far in that, is what I was suggesting, though I did temper my remarks several times by saying I did not know some things for sure.

Oh, further, I obviously overstated something by my assertion that "I removed the "refimprove" tag from 7 years ago, so that is no longer a problem." I was being a bit facetious, but so obviously that I don't think that rises to the level of being untruthful. It was kind of overstatement for effect. I wouldn't have said that in a regular Talk page discussion, but in the structured contention of an AFD, I thought it was appropriate (and not misleading, i.e. easy for everyone to see exactly what was going on). There is a legimate point there which I did not express explicitly: the generic "refimprove" tag indeed was in place for many years, but there was no good direction provided by that to the original writer(s). The fact is that the original article was, I believe, extremely clear about its sourcing. It just didn't use a zillion separate inline references, which was an okay way to go, though not how articles are done now. More specific feedback was needed, i.e. that separate page-specific inline citations are wanted. And I think that was not spelled out at the Talk page or otherwise, and the generic "refimprove" tag was inadequate. So it would be fair to say the clock should start now, or it should be started when some examples of prefered referencing are provided. --Doncram (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I should not have collapsed the long passage you pasted into the AFD. Any "refactoring" of others comments gets dicey. I meant to streamline the AFD so that it would be possible for more editors to process it. I meant well by it. After a good long time now with no editors participating, though, I have chosen to Undo that collapsing. My undoing it could be criticized too, but no one had responded to my action there so I don't feel it is a problem for me to undo myself. What would be better is if YOU would collapse the too-long passage. Others would say about you and me both, that we write too much. Less is more.
• Your trying to spur improvement in an article is okay to a point. But you have to understand that complaining about other volunteers not performing work is usually not a good idea. We are all volunteers. It is absurd really for you to complain about me not fixing the article; why should I? Why shouldn't you? The editors who watch the list-article and the editors who did respond to you at the Talk page were making a contribution, in addressing your apparent concern, as helpfully as they could. See wp:SOFIXIT.

I'll stop with that for now. --Doncram (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm not sure why you replaced references with citation needed templates as you did here, but I've restored the sfn tags because they were citing the Harris source, which is listed in the sources part at the bottom of the article. I'm working on improving the article, so it's currently under construction, but I want to make sure everything is reliably sourced as I continue working on the text. Best, ceranthor 23:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor It looks like a made an error in judgment. My apologies. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Thanks for clarifying. ceranthor 23:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Thanks for writing articles about CCGs. If I can make any requests, whenever you can get to them, List of Wizards of the Coast products#Collectible card games should list all the CCGs that WotC produced. Most of them have articles, except for Hercules: The Legendary Journeys (card game), the CCG version of MapleStory (there is a link to a source in the article), Star Sisterz (deleted at AFD, but could be restored if sources were found), and Xena: Warrior Princess (card game). 73.168.15.161 (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

73.168.15.161 I did Hercules, Xena, and one you didn't mention: C-23. Not sure if I will be able to do Star Sisterz or MapleStory. Btw, are you gonna register a handle? Leitmotiv (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Star Sisterz is done now. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and happy new year! I notice you reverted my edit on Planet Nine. My apologies, but I'm having trouble understanding your edit summary. Could you please amplify the meaning of 'coincides with previous' for me? I removed 'coincidentally' because it does not seem to have an encyclopedic tone, and I feel that is a fairly uncontroversial edit. Clarification would be much appreciated. Gabriel syme (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To appreciate and understand the use of the word, you should probably read the sentence preceding it. It too, is talking about the tilt, and therefore it coincides. Because the sentence also talks about tilt, it is a good segue and breaks up the monotony of sentences beginning with "the" and "this". I honestly don't understand the knee-jerk reaction here. Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of the word coincidence? Leitmotiv (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for coming off knee-jerky, it wasn't intended. While I understand that dictionary definitions aren't an arbiter here, I'm coming up with two generally similar definitions. The first is something that coincides, or occurs alongside another phenomenon. In that case, to my mind, all events occurring within our solar system during a certain timeline can be said to coincide with eachother. The second definition I'm finding is something that results from chance despite being unlikely, which I'm not certain fits what's being described, and seems at least slightly off in tone as well. I've taken another look at the paragraph in question, and I think I have a possible solution. Amend the sentence to:

"This hypothesis could also explain TNOs with orbits perpendicular to the inner planets and those with an extreme tilt as well as the tilt of the Sun's axis."

This version also has the advantage of avoiding another "the" or "this". What do you think? Gabriel syme (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel syme Sounds good, go for it. Be sure to annotate your edits, which is one of the reasons I hard-reverted your original edit. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, I appreciate your discussing it with me, thanks. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Leitmotiv: Answered your question on Cline Buttes talk page. Thanks for your thoughtful comment/question!--Orygun (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Top of the Order, Leitmotiv!

Wikipedia editor Willsome429 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I came into TCGs long after this was out of print, but it looks like it would've given Topps Attax a run for its money around 2010. I enjoyed reading the article.

To reply, leave a comment on Willsome429's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Willsome429. Leitmotiv, thanks for creating Towers in Time!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Another source would be nice to improve the credibility of the page.

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.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Elemental1.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Science, though we love it, is still a narrow field for encyclopedic purposes and not the goal of Wikipedia articles." I had been looking for someone to state that point blank, do you mind if I quote you? cygnis insignis 05:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cygnis insignis I did say that didn't I? Sure you can use it, but I don't mean to say that science is bad. Just that for encyclopedic purposes, science jargon will go over the layman's head. Wikipedia is to educate people at their level, not a scientist's. Where do you plan on using it? And where did I use it? Leitmotiv (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it is an unspoken position that you have merely concretised. Nothing in the statement says that science is bad, per se. The common made in response to a perplexed user during a discussion at Talk:Bat#Rename article to Bats or use scientific name. I'm writing up an essay or RfC, haven't decided, that opens up discussion of … well I'm not going to say exactly what, lest you think I'm implicating you. All you have done is stated unspoken assumptions that I think have confounded articles about animals, if you find it astonishing to re-read 5 months later that is all the better. If you want to be left out of the meta review I'm doing, I'm happy to comply. cygnis insignis 06:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cygnis insignis Sure you can use it, I don't mind being in the meta. But context is everything! Glad someone finally recognized a quote of mine as worthy. Maybe it means I'm just barely readable now. hahah Leitmotiv (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea "educate people at their level, not a scientist's" or some similarly expressed sentiment is a recurring theme in discussions. Is the current 'level' of jargon in the article appropriate? cygnis insignis 07:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I am the best person to rate an article in that regard. My general opinion of any article is that it should start out as simple as possible in the lede, and as it's fleshed out, can become slowly more complicated while trying to simplify the language and educating with new language at the same time. Generally, more jargon-esque language, more scientific nuance, should be reserved for the end of subsections, or the article as a whole. But that's just my opinion, and it may not be fully informed. Astronomy articles such as Planet Nine often suffer from too much science at the beginning of the article. I've worked on simplifying Planet Nine's lede to simplify it for the layman, leaving the remaining body of the article to get progressively more in depth should the reader choose to learn more. I try to employ the KISS acronym. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a reasonable position and I'm happy to discuss how that might apply. The title Planet nine is arguably jargon, and it may be interesting to stretch that to an analogy; I imagine our theoretical 'layman' is going to think the ninth plant is Pluto and any other interpretation is 'scientific nuance'. cygnis insignis 03:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking here, I see that Dragon (magazine) has reviews for BattleTech Collectible Card Game, Star Trek: The Card Game, and Star Wars Customizable Card Game, as well as Sim City: The Card Game (which could be restored from its last good version). 73.168.15.161 (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the Sim City CCG article, in case you have anything you want to add to it. :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit. Most of the cited material is from the main release. I didn't look much at the expansions. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned for edit warring per the result of the edit warring complaint. You may be blocked the next time you re-add remove the word 'underground' unless you have obtained a previous consensus on the talk page. A consensus requires that some number of editors express agreement with your change. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston Seems like you got your facts wrong. I'm not adding the word underground and never have. I'm deleting it because it is redundant. Also your warning is a little vague... Am I disallowed from doing it anywhere, or just a certain page? Also this seems to be against WP:BOLD, so what is your response to that? Leitmotiv (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply; I got the warning backwards. I've changed my sentence above. The warning applies only to the Pikmin 2 article. Notice that WP:BOLD is a guideline, while WP:Edit warring is a policy. A policy takes precedence. The warning will be a success if it persuades you to get the agreement of others. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston Oh I agree... getting people to enforce a warning/ban is much easier than getting them to actually discuss the subject matter at hand however. Most people would use it as a chance to not do the very they they are arguing for - a discussion. The irony is not lost on me. The only thing I don't like about this whole ordeal is conflating my old edits with my new ones. I didn't just pick up the old mantle, I found new evidence that specifically addressed the concern of an editor brought in as a third opinion. No one has been able to address this, except for me. And here we are with no one discussing it.

One question for you. If people are actively avoiding discussing it and enough time has passed, at what point can I reedit it for lack of participation and no consensus? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No particular person is required to discuss, but people can be blocked for continuing to revert. You could also create a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. An RfC can be closed by an uninvolved party. After that happens, the result of the RfC is binding on everyone, even on those who did not participate. You would have to decide whether the single word 'underground' is so important that you want to go through the full process, which could take as long as thirty days though it is usually quicker. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. The issue is that I may bring it up, because I edit all redundancies of "underground cave" I find, so it would set a framework for other articles. I've never met so much nonsensical resistance before, to such a simple edit that is common sense. Thank you for your responses. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Leitmotiv, in spite of the prior warnings to get consensus, you have continued removing the word 'underground' from articles. In the Underwurlde article you have been warring against User:Czar. I don't see you trying to get any agreement on talk pages to support this change. Your contributions show you have removed the word 'underground' more than a dozen times in the last two days. Can you explain why you shouldn't be blocked for continuation of the edit war? EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston Czar gave insincere info suggesting there was a cave above ground in the game by saying: "moving vertically is one of the defining aspects of the game, so worth accentuating the difference" - but there is no difference. There is no above ground cave in the game as supplied by my evidence. In my opinion, his revert was terribly insincere. If you click on my evidence in my edit link, you will see that the entire cave, the singular cave, is below the house. Czar started off his revert as arguing for the need to distinguish the difference in the Underwurlde article and my link suggests there is none, since the entirety of the cave is below a baseline. Now he is arguing semantics with me, rather than the need for the article itself requiring a specific need for distinguishing the difference. I honestly was hoping that when I went looking for evidence of the type of cave/s in the game that I would indeed find a cave in the sky, above ground if you will. But I found none. If I had, I would have moved along.

To why I shouldn't be banned: So I did originally revert when I saw evidence that contradicted his blind revert. I have not reverted on top of that. I'm not looking to push right up against 3RR and I am currently discussing all my edits on a case by case basis as you can see here: Talk:List of show caves in Germany, if they are contested. You remark that I haven't discussed it on Underwurlde is extremely premature since in my opinion, I haven't had the chance yet after supplying the evidence I felt was needed to back up my edit. I most definitely would have taken it to the talk page after Czar's recent revert and no I would not have instantly reverted - and this would have happened even if you hadn't posted just now, but rather, it would have come from my experience with my previous edits at Pikmin 2.

Concerning disruptive edits - I think that's also an exaggeration. You can see that I've edited probably around a two to three hundred articles with redundancies to this effect with only 3 being disputed: Pikmin 2, List of Show Caves in Germany, and Underwurlde. One of those was resolved in my favor. Please don't cherrypick Underwurlde while overlooking List of Show Caves in Germany. I feel Underwurlde could be resolved in my favor too, but if it reaches a conclusion like that in Pikmin 2, I don't intend on "having it my way", but will move on. So definitely some hyperbole by stating 3 contested edits (1 in my favor) out of a couple hundred is disruptive. I'm just being WP:BOLD and handling each disputed case in the talk pages. I have no intention of blind reverting, but I may revert if the reasoning isn't sound and I have evidence to back up my claim, like I did at Underwurlde. I may just avoid video game pages altogether if each one is irrationally contested as Pikmin 2 was. I may have "disrupted" two pages, but I also got thanked for my edits too. My intention going forward is to be be bold, but I'm not looking to start a fight. I like arguing the details of my edits, and I shouldn't be punished for that, because you should realize that there is a world where the word "arguing" doesn't have a negative connotation. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a revert is edit warring, not being bold. You've been around long enough to know how BRD works. czar 06:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you're guilty too. I wasn't intentionally edit warring. I may be breaking a rule, but I'm not intentionally breaking a rule, nor intentionally edit warring. I don't spend my time on admin boards, nor arguing about the inner machinations of wikipedia, I just try to edit wikipedia to improve it. I'm literally looking at your original revert as being insincere. From my perspective, I posted the image link to show you where I was coming from because I saw a cave entirely underground, with no "vertical" relief above ground as your edit claimed. That's fine we disagree. I wasn't trying to revert for revert's sake, as evident in my previous post to EdJohnston. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice, if you were already warned to stop edit warring, saying 'but they did it too' or 'I didn't know' rarely helps. Especially when you are edit warring in multiple different articles against multiple different people over highly related issues. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that it takes two to tango. Multiple, in this case, is 2. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 05:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leitmotiv, I reverted your edit to Prince of Darkness and wanted to let you know why. Disambiguation pages are supposed to be navigation aides to information already on Wikipedia, so (1) external links are not used and (2) if an entry is added to a page like Prince of Darkness, than the article should include that term. Roger Stone does not mention 'Prince of Darkness'. Leschnei (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages don't use references/external links, so I removed it from Prince of Darkness (but left Roger Stone). Leschnei (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 9, 2019. Jehochman ^Talk 08:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I gave a start to Super Nova Card Game if you have anything you want to add to that one. BOZ (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started Aliens Predator Customizable Card Game not long ago, in case there is anything you want to add to it. BOZ (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, have you ever taken a look at Car Wars The Card Game or Battle Cattle: The Card Game by Steve Jackson Games? BOZ (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: I may have in the past. I went through all my available literature just now and don't see a single mention of those games, either in passing or in full. I have about 6 books on CCGs and satellite products. I thought maybe I would find something in RPG & CCG Artists but no dice. A few mentions of Steve Jackson though. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a CCG, but have you heard of Creatures & Cultists which I recently started? BOZ (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: Haven't heard of that. I did look through my sources and found nothing. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a look at The Doctor Who Collectible Card Game when you get a chance, I just started it as a stub from a redirect. BOZ (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! @BOZ: Leitmotiv (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are not CCGs, but yesterday I started Paranoia Mandatory Bonus Fun! Card Game and Zombie Fluxx in case you are interested in those. BOZ (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: I've have zero sources for those! Leitmotiv (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: Super Nova Card Game got deleted. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw, thanks for letting me know. BOZ (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: Interesting discussion at Talk:List of digital collectible card games to merge the DCCG list with the List of card-collecting video games. Leitmotiv (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found and restored Cyberpunk (collectible card game) in case you have something for that one; if not it can be redirected to the RPG article. I started non-CCG articles Spammers yesterday and Titan: The Arena last week in case you have anything for either of those. BOZ (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: Been rebuilding my computer lately. Got around to looking at this, and none of my sources on hand mention Cyberpunk. This article may be useful. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, gotcha! I will use that, at least. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: I've added a handful of The Duelist magazines to the Internet Archive. Issues 5, 10, 12, 21-23. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leitmotiv, I've started a discussion about using dndtomb.com as a source at Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archives/ 8#dndtomb.com. Feel free to contribute if you'd like. Cheers! 23:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Leitmotiv, I know you think subsurface=underground=obvious=tautology=redundant for tunnel, but in London Underground's oldest lines, "subsurface" means "just below the surface", generally dug by cut-and-cover, distinct from "tunnel[ed]" which means in that context "drilled with a boring machine", generally at much greater depth. It really is necessary to check the context in every instance of apparent tautology, as you may well be encountering terms of art. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: My approach has been to find those articles where it appears to be a tautological error. I'm aware there is jargon out there and am learning along the way. I can definitely understand that some articles with the London and greater area make a distinction with sub-surface, however, I'm still unaware if all the articles need this distinction. I'm inclined to say no, because most of the articles probably have no context in that regard, that require a distinction. I don't know, but I guess I intend to find out. From my eyes, it appears most of the instances are just referring to a tunnel with no nuance or jargon implied. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you start with the presumption that any London Underground article that uses "subsurface" means something special by it. Of course the presumption could occasionally be wrong, but anything that's based on LUL documents will use that word as a term of art. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. The London Underground will be given a greater berth. Take care and thanks for the heads up. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you have a history of being advised against this, I thought I'd be preemptive and drop you a line. In the amusement park industry, artificial tunnels are occasionally not underground. Millennium Force, one of the most well-known coasters in the world, is a great example. Specifying "underground" is not redundant in this context. If you'd like to discuss further, please begin a new discussion at Talk:The Beast (roller coaster). Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60: I'm not sure what you are referring to. The last conversation regarding roller coasters, I assumed was about that one in specific. Apparently this is a thing needed across all roller-coaster articles? I have no issue with the reverts. Wikipedians are a fickle lot. I have about 10 thank yous for my edits, and then a few stragglers that resist. I fully understand some of the nuances, even for rollercoasters, I just didn't think this was required for all roller coaster articles. I mean, I doubt it, but I'm not too worried about it. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure what you are referring to."

And I'm not sure what you're confused about. Is it any of the comments here, or are you talking about something that was said at Talk:Titan (Six Flags Over Texas)? --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Apparently this is a thing needed across all roller-coaster articles?"

Is this a serious question? Why would we treat one roller coaster article differently from another? I hate answering questions with questions, but I'm not sure what angle you're coming from. I also listed several examples at the Titan talk page showing reliable sources using "underground" to describe tunnels in general. Roller coasters aside, your rationale for applying a mass change across hundreds of articles may need more thought before continuing down that road.

"Wikipedians are a fickle lot. I have about 10 thank yous for my edits..."

Just Wikipedians? If you told a random group of people outside of Wikipedia that the use of "underground" was incorrect and redundant, I'm not so sure you wouldn't encounter the same "fickle" reaction. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically gave multiple examples of coasters with above-ground tunnels, and also stated that underground tunnels are far less common, therefore, the distinction should remain. I can promise you that none of the people who regularly maintain these coaster pages will thank you for your edits. Call us fickle if you like, but stop changing these pages.—JlACEer (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I'm not against the distinction. As you can probably see, I've edited a lot of underground tunnel/s, underground burrow/s, underground cave/s, underground cavern/s, underground catacomb/s, subterranean cave/s, subterranean cavern/s, and so forth. I did not recall all the entire conversation I had a rollercoaster talk page, but I do recall it being an issue for that specific article. I perhaps interpreted that as no need for consistency across all roller coaster articles, since as far as I know, they're not referring to each other for the needed context that you guys are arguing about. For that I apologize. Humans have a hard time admitting they're wrong, saying I don't know, or even apologizing. So no surprise that pointing out their tautological errors makes them want to flee into their metaphorical underground caves. For the record, I don't approach these edits by telling them they're wrong, I encounter it when asking Platonic questions. If a simple edit makes them get this bent out of shape, I'm not the problem. Good day to y'all! Leitmotiv (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, also disagreeing with this, in the context of an art gallery exhibit on the Cheshire Street article. The typical reader would assume that an art installation featuring a "tunnel" (with no further explanation) was some kind of enclosed tunnel within the existing gallery space. That it was literally a tunnel dug under the ground of the gallery is remarkable enough to be worth making clear. --Lord Belbury (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Belbury: There's always exceptions. I will remark that if a tunnel is dug or a part of a dig, then it's fairly clear we are talking about the underground. If you need clarity for this particular article, I won't stop you. However, I will point out that the article already suffered from a lack of clarity. Even an underground tunnel through a fridge freezer left me a little confused. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article didn't mention digging, only an underground tunnel through a fridge freezer to where a prehistoric animal stood encased in stone. I agree that's quite oblique, and researching the show it sounds like it was a chest freezer through which visitors could literally descend into a vertical tunnel underneath the gallery building (the building was possibly on a temporary lease prior to demolition and allowed for this kind of thing).

If you're confused by a sentence and aren't going to research it further yourself, flag it with {{Clarify}} for another editor to look at. Don't delete an adjective from it on the assumption that the word is there for no reason at all, when you don't understand what the sentence is trying to describe in the first place. --Lord Belbury (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. A vertical tunnel is called a shaft. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leitmotiv, Not that it matters, but I think that the aspect of your behavior that Cullen, Vermont, and Rschen7754 were commenting on at AN was the failure to step away or disengage. The need to have the last word prolongs arguments, makes them more unpleasant, and generally doesn't cast one in a good light. It also makes it harder for third parties to assess the situation. Just my two cents. --JBL (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're definitely right! However, it wasn't a need to have the last word, and more of a need to discuss things, especially if I feel the other person is being disingenuous. A need to actually discuss things in a thread where you're supposed to discuss things, shouldn't be a mark against me, especially when alternate reasons were given by the admins. Should I let the other person tar and feather me? To me this looks like a dereliction of duty. But I get it, I understand that it's not appealing getting entangled in an argument, but here I sit with at least two points not addressed in my ANI post - 1. Was it the right place to post that, and 2. Why was he allowed to disingenuously edit my comments? I think it's clear the admins wanted little to do with the entire post and just throw both parties under the bus, yet I felt forced to go there after the other editor's unwillingness to communicate on my talk page and their edit warring. Thank you though @Joel B. Lewis:, your comments are noted. I want to improve myself, but how do I bring up another issue there, should I need to, without feeling like I have to defend myself? (rhetorical) Leitmotiv (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should I let the other person tar and feather me? Yes, sometimes. In particular, in this instance, you made it harder for others to tell who was the problematic party by repeatedly engaging them; letting the other party get the last word would have made it easier for observers to determine that the bad behavior was not yours. (In fact, it was the other party's inability to let anything go that ultimately backfired on them.)

Anyhow, you were dealing with an extremely unpleasant editor; it's not like I am a saint, either; and the resolution of the situation seems reasonable. So the situation is probably not worth even the further discussion we have given it here.

All the best, JBL (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think it's gone past the point of even talking about it now. I will try harder next time to get tarred and feathered. I don't think I'm a saint either, but I don't think I go out of my way to make the editing experience for others more difficult than it has to be. But I'm open to trying to improve. Thanks for the tips. It's appreciated. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for your patience on Skeleton Cave. --evrik (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Are Grotte de Spy and Spy Cave the one article? Анатолич1 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you're right @Анатолич1:. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[2]A short and relevant quote from the Constitution for the United States of America is NOT a "personal bias edit." It is directly germane to the issue.Clepsydrae (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things. This should be talked about on the actual article talk page so others can see and discuss (same for Baron's talk page). Second, inserting law has no context. What about other law that you may be overlooking? It needs context and a source to state it's relevance. Inserting random law, without being a lawyer, could be problematic. I'll not respond to any other comments here, only on the article talk page. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sage advice, Lietmotiv, particularly, "This should be talked about on the actual article talk page so others can see and discuss (same for Baron's talk page)." With that in mind, would you please encourage Baron to do the same instead of posting false accusations on my talk page? As an academician, I find his bullying and threatening behavior reprehensible, particularly for those of us less "well-versed" in slinging around various policy tags. Thank you.Clepsydrae (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my place to interject and interpret intention. If you're having an issue, I'd seek arbitration. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know these are just FYI, although they do "turn on" the possibility of sudden admin action for violations of the underlying WP:ARBCOM decision. For details see links in the standardized message. I am going to give them to others in the conversation too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy: has something changed? I'm looking at the dates of the links and it's all from 2015 to 2019. Is there anything relevant you want to point out? Thanks for the heads up! Leitmotiv (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... every time I pass these things out, I always make sure all interested parties have them. That way, no one can feel like they are being tagged with a badge of shame. The idea is to make effective use of DS to keep the train on the tracks. That's all. Carry on! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Leitmotiv, I see for the page Sorare, you deleted the Category 19:28, 7 August 2020 diff hist -92‎ List of digital collectible card games ‎ Undid revision 971684800 by TGcoa OK I agree for Crytokitties But for Sorare it is a digital collectible card game par excellence, if ever there was one You say "The other while it uses cards, doesn't say it has strategic play between opponents with those cards".

But that ought to e very obvious from the description of the game. It involves amassing a digital team of soccer players. These play against each other in real worl leagues. Your performance as a manager is then notched. So the strategic play between opponents is your skill each week in managing the team, against all the other managers. If you do well, you get more points, and so on.

There used to be such soccer card games when I was a kid in Europe, and now it has moved online. The idea works brilliiantly. Sorare in my view has the best case to make to be in the digital collectible card game category... there is no better category for it.

Thanks TGcoa (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is... are you actually playing with cards against other cards in a strategy fashion, or are you playing with soccer players? Leitmotiv (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are trading digital cards. Each card represents a certain power, that is set to the test (or indexed) on the performance of real world soccer players. The game is wholly strategic in that you, as a manager, need to make judicoous choices if you are to outperform other players.

So is Sorare a card game. Yes! A digital one? Of course. Collectible? Emminently so.

Is there any better category for Sorare? No, not that I can find.

Can you suggest a solution? I suppose one would be to create a subcategory....

eg

"Digital collectible card games based on Blockchain" ... a bit of a mouthful. THere is only one such true game now but there will be more in time.

There are two innovations with Sorare

1/ compared to conventional games, this is blockbhain based ... a very radical innovation but very likely to stay

2/ blockchain technology allows linking the performance of the cards to real world games.

I see as well that you also deleted all that I wrote for the digital collectible card game article !

I could write better I am sure... but sooner or later, there will be recognition of how technology is changing digital collectible card games. TGcoa (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TGcoa: Collectibility and tradeability by themselves or even combined is not what a DCCG/CCG is. You need strategic gameplay between your cards and an opponent's. I'm still not sure if this game qualifies. I looked up a youtube video, and it appears that it may qualify, but so far I haven't seen a single video of a person using the cards in a strategic fashion against an opponent. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leitmotiv

So a digital collectibles card game has indeed to be strategic, as is the case for Sorare. However the gameplay is not player vs player (pvp) but rather a collective contest. People strategically create card lineups for that weekend and based on their strategic choice of lineups and the actual performance of the players in their cards they've used, they'll get a team score and will rank against other players.

It's more a multiplayer strategic card game.

Let me know what you think and if you need more information.

I still think it qualifies very well in the digital card collecting game, and I can't see any better category, can you ?! TGcoa (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TGcoa: I'm well familiar with the definition of CCG/DCCG. I started the DCCG page and have added about 50% of the content to the CCG page including the focus of the overview on what defines a CCG. CCGs have strategy, which means they need an opponent to play against. If you're just picking the best 5 cards and playing against a real life meta versus what could conceivably be the random results of a real life game (given that some things are left to chance in a game such as injuries, fouls, weather, etc.), then that doesn't seem to qualify. You need an actual deck of cards, and you need an opponent to play that strategy against. That's how it's defined at CCG and DCCG is just a derivative of CCG where the cards have become digital. It would seem that in a way, Solare is more a betting game. You pick cards versus how you think reality will unfold. That's not strategy, that's guessing and a lot of luck. I don't think this game qualifies, per two important measures: you have to have an opponent to play against (to use the strategy part of the game), and you need a deck of cards. This doesn't have either. Solare appears to be a different type of card game, and definitely shares overlap with CCGs, but doesn't fit the strict definition. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leitmotiv: Just to tell you that I did not remove the non-sports cards manufacturers; otherwise, I moved the chart to the non-sports trading card article to be improved and expanded. As you stated, the Trading card article does not necessarily refer to "sports cards" only, but most of its content covers that specific topic. And I think that any chart or detailed list of non-sports items should be placed on a specific article, which does exist on the Wiki so I simply moved it.

For the reasons given above, I suggest you not to revert the change again, but if you want to discuss it, you'll be welcome. Fma12 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fma12: If you recognize it is not an article specifically about sports, than it shouldn't be deleted. Perhaps the type of edit you are looking to make is one where there is no chart at all on the article, but the relevant tables are moved to sports trading and non-sports trading card articles. Otherwise, I fail to see the importance of your edit and it would appear that your edits are catering to a "sports" only interest, when there shouldn't be any sort of bias like that. My suggestion to you, is to not delete relevant info from an article without a good reason. That's fine if you added it to the non-sports article, but that doesn't necessitate deleting it from other relevant articles. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding other table to the section, which includes non-sports cards made by sports cards manufacturers. It would add a point of interest to the article, that was the change I had thought at first. Having the same table on two different articles does not make any sense, at least for me. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not interesed in "sports" cards topic only. That's why I've been editing the article and adding other information. Fma12 (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well there's the rub! It may not make sense to you, but it makes sense to me. As someone that doesn't look at the other article much, I would want to see the pertinent info on the trading card article. It appears relevant to the article, because the sports cards benefit from it - likewise the non-sports cards on the trading card article benefit as well. In my opinion, the article should be all encompassing by including the table, or, the table is deleted entirely and disseminated to their respective pages (sports and non-sports trading card articles). Leitmotiv (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see the article and let me your feedback. Fma12 (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me right now. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [3]. This is the wording as used at The Sideboard, The Duelist, and InQuest Gamer. Let's be consistent. Can you self-revert? If you would like to change the wording on the others, please let me know what MoS has to say about this since my reading of MOS:VERB suggests past tense is preferred "do not use past tense except for... periodicals and similar written material that are no longer being produced". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. FYI: my request for clarification. The current situation is confusing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Yeah I changed it back, but made some minor corrections that make it a little bit more palatable. I think my hangup is that I look at those magazines on my shelf everyday... how dare you say they were magazines!!!1 I still see them in front of me! heheh! Leitmotiv (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leitmotiv, Ha. I kind of agree. Hence the MoS discussion. Coincidentally, do you know if they are digitized anywhere? Recently I was trying to find some old puzzles they used to run. Also, check this out: [4] - quite nifty :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:Nope, just the internet archive. If you're interested, I recently uploaded a few issues of The Duelist in October/November Internet Archive which had Rosewater's puzzles. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leitmotiv, Nice, thanks for the links. I hope IA doesn't take it down, I don't think those are really in public domain :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed several from List of Wizards of the Coast products as seen here:[5] Are any of those legitimate entries for this section? BOZ (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers is. Probably the others too which is why they were added. While they don't have their own articles, they could be referenced if found to be actual products. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Leitmotiv,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username John B123 and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Northwest Post-Grunge, for deletion, because a consensus decision previously decided that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to restore a page deleted via a deletion discussion, please use the deletion review process instead, rather than reposting the content of the page.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|John B123}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: It sure seems like you didn't actually compare the old deleted article with the new, because they are not close to being identical. The new one has far more substance as provided by the non-trivial source I found. Be sure you are doing your homework by reviewing the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: I'm not deleting it because I contest the deletion, per se. I'm deleting it because you added it without actually comparing the old article with the new. You were mistaken in adding it and you should really review it properly, which it's clear you haven't. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Northwest Post-Grunge. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --John B123 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: I also ask you to stop applying tags that are disingenuous. This article was not recreated as a copy of the previous - and you would know that if you had spent time reviewing it properly. Please try harder in your work at Wikipedia. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Northwest Post-Grunge. --John B123 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all can, a man enjoy dinner with his family in peace? I've been away from the machine for but a few hours and already you initiating futile attempts to recreate an article that won't come back. Tread carefully, here, you may end up dinged for disruptive editing. Now on to the original post and its points:

• Even @John B123: admitted he couldn't compare the original deleted article with the new one he tagged for speedy deletion in his claim that they were identical.

I can see the deleted version, as all admins can, and in G4 or any other deletion by speedy deletion criteria were asked to check that before killing an article. You're rewritten article added literally nothing the article that wasn't there already when it was deleted the first time around.

• Can you tell me why the album was deleted without anyone discussing it on the talk page like I had contested?

They are not required to. In speedy deletion its entirely on you to convince an admin that you're page should be kept, and to do that you need to cite chapter and verse from policy and guideline statues along with the special circumstances surrounding the article's situation. All you did on the page was whine, and with no credible reason from you for for why the article should be kept vs the very credible reason from the poster for why it should be deleted I felt the deletion argument carried the far greater weight. Always remember that in CSD based deletions the people who argue keep are the ones who have the burden of proof on showing the article meets all established criteria and should stay, and to be brutally honest out of every 100 articles there's maybe 2-3 that succeed in reaching that criteria.

• More than one article referenced that album, and others can be expanded to include it.

So what? More than one article references members of the administrations in the US in the 1700s and they still get axed. More than one article links to the women on this site who have yet to be created in hopes that someone rises to the task. That more than one article links to another article that doesn't exist means nothing here, and while its true that other could be expanded to include it they weren't.

• I also fail to see how G8 applies. The article was not dependent upon another page.

...Yeah, a lot of people get confused by this one. G8 deletion is for the talk page specifically, which is 100% dependent on the article page being present. If the article is deleted, then the talk page is deleted too; at afd its usually done with links to the discussion but for csd the deletions are treated as two separate moves by the admin corps, so the article will be deleted as CSD GX, where X is whatever criteria happens to be cited at that time for the deletion, while the talk page will be deleted as CSD G8 as being dependent on the now non existent article talk page. On rarer occasions, talk pages can also be deleted on CSD G6 grounds (Housekeeping and routine non-controversial maintenance), but it depends on how they were created.

• Additionally you supply A7 as a reason for deletion, but A7 states: "does not apply to articles about... ...albums" and this is an album.

CSD A7 and A9 were split some years back, and as a result some of us till select A7 for album deletions. That being said, there is no credible ascertain of notability: no noble prize, no grammy, no oscar, no platinum certification, no notable impact on pop culture and music at large, its just not present. Some proof of notability would help the article, but it wasn't supplied, and since it wasn't given I'm incline to broadcast that fact so others no the album may not be all that by Wikipedia standards.

• As I noted in the talk page, G4 doesn't apply because it was not an identical version of the previous deleted version - the new version had over 50% new content.

One new paragraph with lots of quotes and a single new source does not G4 avert. Its way, way, WAY too close to the original version since 95% of the old deleted article was used in you newer version and that too much to justify even a redo afd - hence the G4 speedy deletion. "Identical" in htis sense usually applies to any article that recycles about 70% or so of the original content with no meaningful additions, or massively new sources, and you had none of that. You also failed to demonstrate on the talk page what this new version laid claim to that the other one didn't, so with no new source or sudden display of notability it got the axe.

You're best bet at this point is to tinker with it either at AFC or in a sandbox, and come from it again, but be cautioned that the more people try and force an article thats already been through an afd back out to the mainspace without massive improvements the more apt you are to discover the article's destination title ends up locked down by the admin corp (WP:SALT) to prevent its recreation. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NorthwestPostGrunge.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jolly Mon (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keyboard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.TomStar81 (Talk) 12:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]