Hello, Leitmotiv. You have new messages at JamesLucas's talk page.
Message added 15:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

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]

Please note that according to [[WP:MOSTM] we favour the use of standard English capitalisation rather than the stylistic preferences of a band. Even though Of Montreal may style their name as of Montreal, in Wikipedia, we only render this as Of Montreal. For examples see Dredg (rendered as dredg), Blink-182 (rendered as blink-182) and the example provided at WP:MOSTM, Kiss (rendered as KISS). Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSTM is horribly inadequate. Leitmotiv, Nouse4aname, please see WP:MOSPN instead. riffic (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sor--Orygun (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)ry, but there is a clear consensus that WP:MOSTM should be applied to band names, as evidenced by the fact that the band Kiss is used as an example for MOSTM. Regards, Nouse4aname (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw a venn diagram for you. In one circle you have band names, in the other you have trademarks. These two circles can possibly intersect. Not all band names are trademarks. riffic (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty pictures aside, MOSTM is quite clear, and its application to band names more than evident. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that EBay is listed as eBay on their site, but is redirected eBay. Why the inconsistency? eBay can skirt this, why can't a band? 17:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

eBay is a specific exception to the style guideline, with the second letter capitalised instead of the first. The same is true for iPod. This is an entirely different situation regarding Of Montreal. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not different at all. If Wikipedia's layout can allow the name of corporations it is certainly possible to allow bands to do the same. The only difference is in the mindset of Wikipedia's policy. Inconsistencies in policy makes it looks like Wikipedia and its editors are playing favorites. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not only this, but this issue completely falls outside of the scope of the policy being applied. Leitmotiv, I invite you to have a word at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD, perhaps we can get this boat steered around. riffic (talk) 19:38, 8 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]

Hello. Why the revert ? the page numbers I inserted where relative to the years cited and I checked the text against the book to verify the fact where listed.--Moroboshi (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

go ahead and revert. my bad Leitmotiv (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thx done. BTW I tracked and ordered a second hand copy of the book from Amazon after seeing your edit of 28 August. It arrived yesterday. Very useful for articles on old trading card games.--Moroboshi (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, very good books. What edition did you get? Second edition is the best, because it includes everything from the first edition and then some. Lots of awesome writeups on obscure CCGs. Stuff you will have a hard time finding anywhere else. Definitely worth the money if you love CCGs. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I got the second edition (more material). CCG are not my preferred games, I dont like the trading/collectible aspect (I stopped playing Magic when Alliance was published), but I'm interested in rpg/board games/wargames history and I try to get every book that can be useful for sourcing information on wiki.--Moroboshi (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a good source for Wikipedia. You saw the war CCGs in there? Leitmotiv (talk) 16:01, 7 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]

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]

It's not clear to me that this TCG is notable. Could you add some third-party reliable source references? Otherwise I would be inclined to recommend it for deletion. Thanks! CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I notice that over teh last day you've changed the tense on a large number of CCG related articles from the present to the past tense. This is unfortunately incorrect. As per MOS:TENSE those card games still exist, even if they're no longer published, and therefore should be written in the present tense. Production stopping of something doesn't eradicate the existence of said products and therefore the game is still existing in the present tense. Past tense should only be used for things that are truely defunct such as the Holy Roman Empire, or things that can't possibly be in existence any longer such as saber tooth tigers etc. While production can obviously be used in a past tense, as it happened in the past, the existence cannot. As a result I'm rolling back those edits and wanted to inform you as to why. Note it's only those tenses that I'm rolling back, the rest of the edits you've been making are extrememly good and useful and thank you for that. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of collectible card games (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ensky and Gree

Sangokushi Taisen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hybrid

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that card games should be introduced as "out of print", any more than 98% of television shows should be introduced as "out of circulation" or "no longer in current produciton." It's understood that a game is historical. I think date ranges work better; e.g. "its first release was in 1996, and the last expansion was released in 2000" or the like. Only in unusual circumstances is this kind of thing worth talking about - e.g. "while Polaroid stopped selling its cameras in 2001, Polaroid film stopped production in 2016." ( ref that this is relevant for weird cases ) SnowFire (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, for the most part. However, Collectible Card Games are often divided into two groups: living and dead CCGs. And people want to know if they are active ccgs, but instead of calling them living or dead, out of print suffices. As for Game of Thrones CCG, this is even more important to let people know this is not the LCG but letting them know it's out of print. Date ranges would also suffice, but a lot of times that information is not available because there is so little documentation. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the date ranges seem in the articles already just fine as is? e.g. Doomtown says it was "Discontinued in 2000", but also that a 2014 reprint in different form happened. I don't think adding "out of print" clarifies things, really. Guardians (card game) says it was "published from 1995 to 1996", right in its first sentence. I think that is more accurate, helpful, and clear for readers. SnowFire (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're trying to say. Guardians may say this or that, but plenty of articles on CCGs say little to nothing, or are vague. Consistency is not common, but "out of print" is a catch all that will let readers know if the CCG is dead or living. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Stesmo. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of List of digital collectible card games. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stesmo (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the edits, but it's clear you didn't read my annotation for my revert. This is currently being worked on as you can see these past few days. Everything is being converted. I understand the policy, but I also understand that there is no urgency here. Please allow more time to convert these external links to refs, because a lot of these need citations and when you deleted them, they have nothing to stick em to the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read the annotation, but it has no bearing. If those are meant to be cites, then add them as cites. If they are placed in the body of the article as External Links, they need to be removed to meet WP:EL. These aren't reliable, third-party, published sources used as cites. These are just links to the actual company websites or archives of the company websites. I appreciate that you are trying to improve Wikipedia and these articles, but please don't add external links to these games in the body of the article. If you need a place to work on an article that might take days, your Sandbox is a great spot for that. Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree, my annotation does have bearing as does yours, which is why you should annotate to reflect you clearly understood previous edits which you didn't do and makes it look like you edit unilaterally. There is no need for urgency, and these external links can be used as citations and that's exactly what is going to be done. So when you say "add them as cites" - yeah, no shit sherlock, I'll remind you of my annotation for no urgency needed and it is being worked on. This article and the sister article recently went through a serious overhaul as a process to clean them up and that is one of the things I intend to do. There is no urgency, because the articles have existed like this for years so for you to come around and act like it's life or death is, quite frankly, retarded. I've done a lot of work on these two articles recently and intend to have it cleaned up before the end of the month, so just hold your god damn horses. I need those external links and it makes it much easier for me to work when you don't delete them wholesale. As for your claim about these aren't reliable citations, that is also bullocks and shows you don't understand in what manner primary sources can and should be used. Third party citations are best for any article if the source would otherwise be primary. But if the article is not directly related to the citation such as with a list of digital collectible card games, they can certainly be used to flesh out the article, especially if its the only link in existence capable of being cited. So my recommendation, is take a breather for a couple of weeks, get some fresh air and go for a walk, work on some other articles, and when you come back in a month you'll see it will be fixed and we can stop wasting time here on minutiae. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had not realized that you had continued the conversation here, as you didn't ping me. We can hold the conversation here, or on my talk page, it's your choice. I just request that if you continue the conversation here, please let me know that you've replied to me.

As I've mentioned in my Talk page, I'm not sure what you want to talk about before you'll stop adding external links to the body of an article per WP:EL. However, as you've stated in edit summaries, you expect me to talk with you before you'll stop adding external links to the body of Wikipedia articles. What do you want to talk about? Did you want me to answer if I'm retarded?^[1][2] Did you want me to answer if I'm going to quit removing external links and spam for a month so you can convert not-WP:RS links into cites? I frankly am dismayed by your lack of WP:CIVILITY here. And, I'm unsure of what questions you want answered.

Perhaps you can start with a new paragraph below that contains the meat of what you'd like to discuss without the insults and incivility. I'd be happy to let you start fresh and continue the discussion. Stesmo (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, gonna call some bullshit out. You responded to me on here twice, in fact, you started the conversation here thereby creating a responsibility for yourself to follow up. Pinging also isn't required, nor standard practice (at least in my experience). But since, you operate that way, I will @Stesmo:. In fact, you started the conversation here, so the onus is on you to finish it. I congratulate you on wanting to start a conversation, although that should have been done beforehand, rather than after the fact.

I'm honestly dismayed with you. You turned me off from the very get go, because you don't annotate to reflect you are acknowledging the other editor and appear to be editing unilaterally, suggesting you take ownership of articles and edit like a robot with no etiquette. Only after an edit war, were you drawn to the talk page, which seems to reinforce my point of view. I can certainly tone down my language if you are willing to converse in the first place, but I warn you I have a strong bullshit-meter and condone people who act as if they're somewhere on the autistic spectrum and lack basic civility when it's required - which I am calling you out on (my bullshit-meter) because we're both clearly guilty of an edit war here, so don't get on a high horse and try to put this all on me. My recommendation is to read other people's annotations and be sure to acknowledge their edits, especially concerning a revert. Otherwise you are making matters worse for yourself.

New paragraph requested: Can you ignore this article for 2 or 3 weeks so I can convert the EL's to refs? I don't think that's asking much. There is no urgency required and it will improve this Wiki article rather than just deleting everything wholesale. Contrary to what might be your belief, cleanup doesn't improve articles as much as people who are knowledgeable about certain topics and are expanding related articles such as myself. We're the experts, and our fervor is what makes Wikipedia as great as it is. You're recent editing however is akin to dusting the floor, but trying to strip the varnish off too. The reason I ask (and I really shouldn't have to ask permission from you), is because I don't work well with sandboxes as you proposed. I'll admit, I've never used them except on a couple occasions creating new stub articles. I usually make my edits piecemeal. If you can do that for me, I think you will find that this conversation was not required and could have been avoided with a little patience exercised. When you came in here like a bull in a china shop, I was in the middle of creating these articles, transforming them, etc, and wasn't done. For a person that doesn't use sandboxes and doesn't like to, it's very frustrating to conform to some other person's style of editing. I think it would behoove you to learn not everyone operates on your timeline nor in your manner. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me and letting me know you have replied to me! I rarely keep an eye on individual Talk pages; I have thousands of pages in my watchlist and it's pretty easy for me to miss a conversation without a little help from others.

I may be misreading your comments here, but I am getting the feeling you believe that I was supposed to ask you before editing the page in question. While Wikipedia doesn't have Wikipedia article owners, I can understand how you'd feel a sense of ownership over articles you've put a lot of effort into. It can't be easy having someone come in and change what you've done, take an article in a different direction, etc. What I've done by removing the external links in the body of the article isn't trying to change the direction or content of the article. It isn't a reflection on the work you've put in on that article. It's more of a cleanup in order to meet WP:EL. While I didn't clear this removal beforehand with you, the consensus on Wikipedia is that external links do not belong in the body of the article. Now, this may seem draconian, but this is how the Wikipedia community wants ELs to be handled in Wikipedia articles. Regarding the article in question, another editor read your article and was concerned enough that they placed an External Links tag ({{External links}}). This was my entry point to your article; addressing the EL issues tags being placed on hundreds/thousands of articles in Wikipedia.

This is not personal with me. I'm not trying to ruin your life or the articles you edit. Like you, I am trying to improve Wikipedia. I help Wikipedia by editing the flow of articles, making nitpicky grammar / spelling changes, removing promotional language, fixing WP:ORDER, tightening the lead paragraphs, etc. But, the bulk of my edits are around cleaning up Wikipedia articles by removing vandalism, spam and external links in the body of the article/pruning EL sections to meet WP:EL. For the latter types of edits, I cannot see my having to ask permission from every editor on each article whether they mind if I remove what is already not supposed to be in the article. This is why I always try to include the link to WP:EL when I remove ELs to give fellow editors a chance to see if the edit was off-base, read up on the subject, etc. While you state my cleanup work with vandalism, spam and ELs doesn't improve articles as much as your work here (and you are probably right!), I and others still believe it's useful.

You do not need to ask permission from me to keep the ELs in the body of that article; What I would recommend is to take this to Wikipedia_talk:External_links or WP:ELN. The external links in the body of that article don't belong there as it stands. They aren't WP:RS links that would qualify as cites, either. It is still my intention to remove external links from the body of any Wikipedia article I see them in as long as that's how WP:ELs are handled. Especially on articles that other Wikipedia editors have requested that exact work be done with the EL issues tag. And, that's how anyone who stumbles upon your article can/will do as well if they are aware of WP:EL. Brief the folks at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/WP:ELN and let them weigh in on keeping your external links in the body of that article. Maybe we need to change how External Links are viewed and handled on Wikipedia and you can be the catalyst for that!

I am *again* asking you to please start being civil. It is hard for me to keep trying to WP:AGF here, as apparently I'm retarded *and now* showing signs/behaviors of someone on the autism spectrum. There is no 'since you're talking to me, I'll now start being civil' here. Please assume good faith and please, please, please keep it civil with everyone on Wikipedia, even those you believe are located somewhere on a spectrum. :)

Thanks again for pinging me. Hope this helps, Stesmo (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stesmo: Again my bullshit meter is going off. If you want me to treat you as an equal, or if you want a better response from me, stop with the bullshit - I'm the one saying you're taking ownership by trying to have your way with your personal EL crusade without compromising in the first place. I'm not taking ownership as much as I'm the only one proactively working on these articles and asking for you to help me work on them in the way that is comfortable for me, which ain't happening if you want to go and delete a bunch of useful ELs that can be converted into proper citations. This looks a lot like your earlier messages of trying to twist stuff around so don't continue to ask for civility if you can't stop with the heaping amounts of bullshit. You keep trying to make this all about me, but you seem to have a blindspot for yourself, which.... I digress. Bullshit is bullshit and you have yet to show me you're not full of it. You're immediate Wikirule-spam was condescending from the get go and got you know where - you fail to see that I've been around as editor just as long as you and this ain't my first rodeo. Here's an object lesson for you - stop spamming with wikirules out of the gate like you did, because it's received, and I dare say as intended, as the insult it looks like. Everyone thinks they're so funny and cute when they do it, but you look like an arse. Start having meaningful conversations that are constructive and don't come off as a robot. Prove me wrong, on some of these things.

It also seems you haven't fully read or digested much of what I've wrote, further supporting my claim that you're acting unilaterally. I'm not suggesting you ask me for permission and I'm not claiming ownership. I'm literally asking you to turn a blind eye until I can get to this, because it certainly doesn't look like you will. I would have done it sooner but dog-sitting and then getting sick on top of it has delayed things on my end.

I'm asking you specifically - can you personally, chill on this page for a couple weeks while I work on it? I'm not asking to never delete the ELs, I'm not asking to keep some, I'm asking for time so I can constructively get rid of them in a useful manner. Since you are unwilling to convert these useful ELs into citations, I am, and am asking you specifically to cater to my personal editing preferences on this article. My follow up question is: what is the need for urgency (noting this page has been like this for many years, and only now that I'm working on it, do you come waltzing in like you own the place)? I've been on plenty of talk threads on allowing some freedom for time edits, so your stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise only furthers my belief about you. I've had entire articles deleted, but because I asked for time to supply sources, I've saved articles. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this conversation is constructive. I try to ignore your insults, accusations and medical diagnosis; explain why I am taking the actions I'm taking while treating you with respect; and you answer aggressively and insultingly, ignoring it all. I'm not sure if you've had much success insulting people into agreeing with you or building consensus, but it's not working here. At the risk of looking like an arse, I'm going to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this discussion with you. Stesmo (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]