Misplaced Pages

User talk:Leitmotiv

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Leitmotiv (talk | contribs) at 19:31, 12 October 2019 (→Removing "underground": r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:31, 12 October 2019 by Leitmotiv (talk | contribs) (→Removing "underground": r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

OWN and COI

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)

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 Misplaced Pages.
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)

DYK for Redmond Caves

Updated DYK query 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)

Help adding pics?

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages standards—and unfortunately, Oregon isn’t one of them. Misplaced Pages has high standards for image upload so Misplaced Pages images are available for unrestricted re-use. Images that have copyright restrictions make re-use difficult w/o violating someone's copyright so Misplaced Pages doesn’t allow them. In addition to Public Domain, there are two other copyright categories that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages uploads. If there are any other logos added to these two, image can’t be used in Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

SoCal Grotto page

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)

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)

Conflict of Interest

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 Misplaced Pages. You have a clear conflict of interest; not least since you will loose exclusivity if information is published in Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Pressure ridges

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)

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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)

OHDG

Lava stringer

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Cinder cone

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. 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. 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Barnstar

The Malheur Occupation Barnstar

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

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)

barnstar

The Malheur Occupation Barnstar

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

A barnstar for you!

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)
It's simple really. Every edit I make has been notated as to why. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
How does one vet a personal conversation? Thanks in advance. Ljscro (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Your original reference was just a ref tag without actually citing an actual source. Personal correspondence is original research and is unacceptable for Misplaced Pages 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)

Re:Best-selling games list

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)

Absolutely. I'm coming back from a 4 month Misplaced Pages 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)
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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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)

List of caves of Maryland

Hi, this is an aside relative to in-process Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)

Indian Heaven

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)

Ceranthor It looks like a made an error in judgment. My apologies. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
All good. Thanks for clarifying. ceranthor 23:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

CCGs

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)

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

Planet Nine

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)

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

Cline Buttes geology

A page you started (Top of the Order) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Top of the Order, Leitmotiv!

Misplaced Pages 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)

Ways to improve Towers in Time

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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Elemental1.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Elemental1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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)

quote

"Science, though we love it, is still a narrow field for encyclopedic purposes and not the goal of Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Dragon magazine

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)

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

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

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 05:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

File:SimCity Card Game.jpg

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:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Prince of Darkness

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

Edits needed

You may want to look at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/April 9, 2019. Jehochman 08:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Super Nova

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)

dndtomb.com

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

Subsurface lines: terms of art

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" 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)

@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)
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)
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)

Removing "underground"

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)

@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)
"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)
"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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)

(talk page stalker) the users seemingly dismisses criticism and opts to proceed with this “anti-underground” agenda further. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: I'm sorry, what are you referring to? Your post was rather vague and not directing referring to anything in this thread. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)