Talk:Empire of Iuz

583:, readers with different backgrounds, education and worldviews to mine will find this article difficult to understand as it presupposes an understanding of what this fictional empire is about. As it stands the article is not accessible nor understandable for non- experts; the opening section should be written based on the assumption that readers are reading the article to learn, not to reafirm existing knowledge. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the leading section needs to fully explain the subject, which it does not do. I don't understand you objection to the cleanup template other than 494:

disagree with the reasons I have given, please discuss this now. I acknowledge my use of the word dummy in my initial edit summary is not appropriate (appologies - no insult was intended to be made against any specific person), but don't use this as an excuse to avoid the issue: the opening sentence is written from an in universe perspective, and does not provide any real world context for a reader not versed in the role-playing publications of Wizards of the Coast. I put it to you that this is a reasonable basis on which to add the template, and I request that it be restored. --

548:

than a Kingdom, Confederacy, Protecterate, Realm or Commonwealth? Why did the authors use this Roman term used to describe this fictional territory? What significance does this Empire have, other than being the domain of Iuz? The leading section provides little or no content or context to help the reader understand the sections that follow, or why this territory is significant. I am asking very straight forward questions that should be answered in the leading section. --

474:

discussing and agreeing upon changes. Your combative approach here isn't at all helpful toward collaborating on improving the article. (Didn't I see an edit summary where you called another editor "dummy"?) If your actual goal is to improve the article, you'll stop edit warring and name calling, you'll stop asserting ownership of the article by insisting that a tag you added must not be removed, and you'll actually edit the article to improve it.

258: 815:, in the hope that someone will comeforward with either a complete rewrite or at least provided footnotes citing the passages to which the plot summary refers to. If footnotes cannot be found, I propose this article be merged or deleted, as its content makes no assertion of real-world notability, nor does its in universe perspective provide any real-world context, content, analysis or critisism of the subject matter. -- 103: 162: 52: 21: 1036:, by applying generalisations without justification. I have not only given reasons why the cleanup tags are useful, appropriate and highly applicable to this article, but I have also cited the relevent Knowledge guidelines in every instance that relates to them. Feel free to remove all the templates, but I doubt you will find a guideline to quote that says "The 509:

are relevant because they distract people from actually improving the article. You say that this is your goal, but your behavior says otherwise. I'd suggest that you rewrite the lead to demonstrate how you think it should be written. If everyone agrees that your version is an improvement, then you've achieved your stated goal without edit warring.

134: 807:

and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. This is why footnotes are so important when presenting fictional content: they assist the reader to distinguish what is primary source material from

1242:? Since the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, such that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation, then can you provide footnotes which identify content that can be transcribed? -- 679:

getting involved. In the long-run, articles only improve if other editors are involved, not just me. If you are trying to put people off, I must agree you are working very hard at this. Lets put the templates back, and discuss how cleanup can be effected, rather than pretending that there is no problem at all. --

1181:

One question Gavin: you're rather quick to call content synthesis, but have you read the sources behind the article? If not, and I suspect so, how exactly do you make that determination if you lack the background to do so? If you've got some manner of crystal ball, please share with me and others, it

1044:

of fictional content because....". As far as I can see, you are basically POV pushing on the basis that this article does not have any specific cleanup issues to be addressed. Nobody was interested in this article until I added the cleanup templates; now at least these issues are being discussed, not

740:

because I felt a POV tag was warranted in one section. In spite of the vehement arguments, the parties involved didn't remove the template because I provided justification for keeping it, and it stayed for three months until I got around to rewriting the questionable section to address my concerns in

663:

I think you need to understand that adding tags doesn't improve the quality of an article. If you sincerely want to improve the lead, try rewriting it and including the answers to the questions that you think require answers. No one is preventing you from editing. I'll invite you again to demonstrate

562:

I agree that the answers to those questions might be interesting and appropriate to add, and those questions are straightforward. But I (and at least two other editors) disagree that the lack of those answers warrants the addition of the context tag, or that a non-expert is going to be confused about

517:

to revert their edit while calling the other editor "dummy".) It's called "be bold, edit, revert, discuss". No one objects to your right to be bold and make edits. But if people disagree with them, they have every right to revert them. At that point you have every right to discuss it on the talk page

473:

Since multiple users disagree that the template is appropriate, re-adding it wouldn't be helpful. I've seen no evidence that anyone is trying to stop someone from improving this article. And I've seen no one make any assertions about this empire being anything other than fictional. Knowledge works by

1088:

It's clear that this article needs improvement; the regular editors of this article should consider themselves lucky that it hasn't been put up for deletion yet, as in it's current state and with the trends in Knowledge leaning towards obliterating content rather than creating and maintaining it, it

601:

I don't understand why you don't accept my invitation to improve the article yourself then. I'm sure no one would object to your sincere attempts to actually improve the article by expanding the lead yourself. (You could have rewritten the entire article at this point. I'm sure everyone would enjoy

512:

As far as being the only other editor to "go on record" here, you re-added the template (multiple times) before anyone else who objected to it has even had a chance to discuss it on the talk page. If you add a template, and someone objects to it and removes it, the next step is to discuss it on the

508:

The opening sentence explains that this is a location in a campaign setting for a specific fantasy campaign. It also links to other articles which describe the larger campaign setting and the game. This provides context. No one is using excuses to avoid the issue. Your edit warring and name calling

493:

is highly appropriate to this article, and those reasons are derived from the relevant WP Guidelines which have been cited above. I assert no ownership over this article, but I am entitled to edit any article, and if I give reasons for doing so, then others can understand why I have done so. If you

806:

All of the in universe content of this article should be removed. However, there is a problem: all of this article as it is currently written is from an in universe perspective. Presenting fictional material from the original work is fine, provided passages are short, are given the proper context,

755:

At first glance, the article looks like Original Research to me, but an OR template doesn't really belong because there's a list of references. It isn't obvious that the article reflects the references, so somebody may come along and stick another OR template in. The way to fix this problem is to

547:

The template needs to be added because it is relevant to the incomplete state of this article; removing the context template does not address the issue that for a non-expert, it is hard to understand what the Empire of Iuz is about. For instance, why is this territory classed as an Empire, rather

751:

The Notability template can be removed once the lead section is expanded to describe why we need an article on the Empire of Iuz. If this empire is an integral component of the game that affects many Greyhawk campaigns, then explain why. If it's just flavor or background, then this whole article

678:

On the contrary, they do improve the quality of the article, but it takes time. The cleanup templates are there to encourage editors with either the knowledge or skill to actually make improvements. By deleting the templates, and reverting my edits, you are actually deterring other editors from

1013:

It's becoming increasingly hard to believe that this isn't just contentious editing on your part. I've invited you at least three times on this page to edit and improve this article instead of just grasping for more tags to add. I'll extend that invitation again: please demonstrate that you're

455:

be restored until these issues are addressed. Reverting my edits does not address these issues. This article is bad enough without trying to stop other editors from attempting to improve it. The attempt to uphold the illusion that this article not about a fictional empire ruled by a fictional

1017:

I'd also invite you, if you don't agree to that, to take a break and do something else for a while, and consider whether or not your behavior (edit-warring, name-calling) might be having the opposite effect of what you're intending. Articles are improved more effectively when editors try to

651:

tried to improve the article. You've repeatedly re-added tags that other users disagree with. That is edit-warring, plain and simple. (And not only that, but you called another editor "dummy" while doing so.) Repeatedly re-adding tags that several other users disagree with and have removed

532:

If the name-calling wasn't directed against a specific person, then it seems it was directed at everyone who disagrees with you. It's a clear lack of a collaborative attitude, and it's unfortunate and counter-productive. Name-calling doesn't improve articles. Neither does edit-warring.

1256:

I didn't suggest the merger; you did. I invited you earlier to fix the problems you've identified with the article. You did not fix those problems. I then suggested that you nominate the article for deletiog. You didn't do that either. You suggested a merger, so one would think that

659:

You then decided to try to find some other tags that might apply and added them, even though they were redundant and inaccurate. Reverting your mistakes isn't preventing you from editing. And if you don't agree to have your contributions edited mercilessly, then you're in the wrong

488:

I can't speak for the motivation of multiple users, since none of them gave any reason for reverting my edits - I presume they acted in good faith, but they have not gone on the record as I have done. I, on the other hand have given a reasoned account of why I believe the

923:

Since solving the one problem would solve the other, having two templates is unnecessary. At any rate, you have asked for third party opinions, I think. So we can look forward to some others weighing in. (I think you and I have both made our positions clear now.)

971:

the same thing as original research. I'd invite you (again) to make improvements to the article instead of adding redundant or inaccurate tags. Your stated goal is that the article be improved. At this point you've done nothing to actually improve the article.

450:

context, not a fantasy one. It is too easy to copy the in house style used by Wizards of the Coast in their publications and promotional material (such as their website) that applies a heavy in universe perspective as if it were fact. I must request that the

938:

So you agree there are two cleanup issues to be addressed? I don't understand you perspective whereby you object to one cleanup template, and not the other? Please restore the plot cleanup template so this issue can also be addressed.

744:

Which brings me to another point: If you slap a cleanup template onto an article, and you have knowledge of the subject, it behooves you to make improvements to the article to get the template removed. You don't have to do this right

1005:

Accusing me of edit warring is absurd. You've repeatedly added useless, redundant, and inaccurate tags to the article. I've removed your tags in good faith. Since you add literally dozens and sometimes hundreds of tags a day which I

563:

whether or not this fictional empire is real. At any rate, why don't you research these questions and make the changes you'd like to see in the article? I'm sure no one would object to a sincere attempt to improve the article.

848:

Adding tags isn't meant to be used as a replacement for actual editing. If you're really interested in improving the article, actually edit the article instead of adding as many tags as you think you can "reasonably" justify.

664:

that you really want to improve the article. You can do this by actually editing the article and make the changes you think are appropriate instead of insisting on adding tags that are either redundant, inaccurate, or both.

759:

The "nofootnotes" template can be partially addressed through inline references, but it would be nice to have some reliable references from something other than "in-universe" sources. This tag should stay until some can be

991:. I cannot stop you from removing the template, but it is clear to me that you are trying to precipitate an edit war and that further progress on improving this article it dependent on obtaining independent perspective. -- 1408: 864:

The plot summmary, or description of this fictional empire in fictional terms, makes up the whole of this article, as there is no real world content. It was added in good faith, and if your read the section

609:. Your assumptions about other people's motives are irrelevant. At any rate, I believe you've asked for other opinions, so perhaps it's time to move on to something more constructive and let them weigh in? 732:

As a draft article, templates are warranted. I agree with Gavin Collins that the whole point of templates such as "cleanup" and "OR" are to encourage other editors to address the flaws identified by the

1104:

be happening is the overall improvement of the article. I'm sure that the two of you combined could have addressed at least some of the concerns that have been brought up as part of this discussion.

72: 444:

should give the shortest possible relevant characterization of the subject. If the subject is amenable to definition, the first sentence should give a concise one that puts the article in context".

729:

Adoption of this article by another wikiproject is needed. Perhaps that would get more editors involved in improving the article. At this point, it looks like a draft with several empty sections.

391:

Three users think this tag is inappropriate here. One thinks it is appropriate. It shouldn't be re-added without discussion, and re-adding it multiple times without discussing is edit-warring.

1127:, I have highlighted the main problem with this article - it has no real-world content, let alone any reliable sources which can be used to build an article that meets the requirements of 887:

Templates should be used sparingly. Adding two templates to address one problem isn't helpful. Let's see what others' opinions are before we decide whether or not to restore the template.

1398: 1403: 771:

Actually it points to an article called LUZ, not IUZ (I'm capitalizing it because L and I look the same in Knowledge's default font). I agree the article could be merged to

1275:

Since you cannont provide attribution for any of the content you have contributed to this article, there is nothing to merge other than a mention of the empire on the

186: 1014:

actually interested in improving the quality of this article by making real edits meant to improve the article, instead of just adding redundant and inaccurate tags.

1010:

revert, it seems hard to make a case that I'm interested in an edit war. (Removing three or four tags that shouldn't be there in the first place isn't edit warring.)

736:

Templates do no harm, especially if their presence is given reasonable justification on the talk page. For example, I was recently embroiled in a huge debate at

82: 31: 1413: 175: 139: 1293:

I haven't made any contributions to the article other than to remove some redundant and/or inaccurate tags. (Removing tags doesn't require attribution.)

579:

These are just some of my ideas based on my very limited knowledge of Dungeons & Dragons. However, because the opening section does not provide any

152: 412:"In the World of Greyhawk campaign setting for the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game, the Empire of Iuz is an empire ruled by the demigod Iuz". 1375:

I say to leave it alone. Merge if you like, but apparently you can try to delete it over and over and it's indestructible or something. ;)

1145:

There is no stalemate. The article has problems, and they've been identified. What remains to be done is to edit the article to improve it.

1096:

This discussion shouldn't be about what tags shouldn't or should be on the article; that kind of behavior is only slightly less lame than

299: 295: 605:

I've expressed my reasoning for removing the tag, as have other editors in their edit notes. No one cited anything that would indicate

1261:

would have an idea of what content you'd like to merge into the other article. All I said was that I had no objection to the merger.

631:! It seems to me that I have been prevented from editing, no matter how reasonable an argument I make for improving this article!.-- 1334:

Nobody has problems with a merger. Someone has reverted the redirect, and I just restored it. Please, make further edits over at

967:

I removed this tag as well. I don't see any evidence that this article contains original research. Excessive plot summary is

350: 359: 287: 167: 114: 324: 1196:

If you think the article should be deleted, feel free to nominate it. I think you're familiar with the AfD process.

338: 58: 27: 185:-related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the 1284: 1247: 1215: 1172: 1136: 1061:

I am not flaming or pushing POV. And I've been quite specific. Your comments to that effect are ridiculous.

1050: 996: 944: 914: 878: 820: 722: 684: 636: 592: 553: 499: 461: 331: 102: 756:

provide inline references on specific sentences, not just list a bibliography at the bottom of the article.

316: 623:

You don't understand why I can't improve the article myself? I tried, but my edits are being continously

606: 584: 120: 246: 181: 1360: 51: 20: 425:"An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the 1344: 1280: 1243: 1211: 1187: 1168: 1132: 1110: 1046: 1033: 992: 940: 910: 874: 816: 791: 680: 632: 588: 549: 495: 457: 437:

effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info".'

426: 291: 270: 1018:

collaborate. Your combative behavior here discourages collaboration and article improvement.

490: 452: 1356: 1164: 1085:

This is an answer to the request for a third-party opinion on the issues in this article.

1041: 808: 306: 769:

to do with this article. I don't see another similar article to which this can be merged.

1238:

Is there any of this article's content that you believe should be merged in the article

587:, as one short sentence can hardly explain this fictional domain to a wider audience. -- 1298: 1266: 1229: 1201: 1150: 1128: 1090: 1066: 1023: 977: 929: 892: 854: 737: 669: 614: 568: 538: 523: 479: 396: 281: 257: 841:

The in-universe template has already been applied. Redundant templates aren't helpful.

1392: 1380: 1339: 1183: 1160: 1105: 1097: 906: 902: 870: 866: 786: 580: 430: 417: 1131:. Otherwise, we are at a point where there is stalemate as to what is to be done.-- 812: 355: 987:

I have already explained the reasoning behind adding the template in the section

844:

It seems to have been added as a retaliation for the removal of your context tag.

1279:

page. I will add a redirect template to the article page and we are done here.--

1037: 1182:

sounds like it might be fun to have that degree of divination at my fingertips.

157: 1355:

I'll work on the merger on Thursday, APril 24th 2008 unless someone objects.

1294: 1262: 1225: 1197: 1146: 1062: 1019: 973: 925: 888: 850: 665: 610: 564: 534: 519: 475: 392: 61:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: 838:

The plot summary simply isn't too long. The entire article is quite short.

1376: 869:, you will see that it is applicable to this article. Please restore the 320: 37: 765:

Get rid of it. It points to an article about a Biblical city, which has

161: 1384: 1364: 1349: 1302: 1288: 1270: 1251: 1233: 1219: 1205: 1191: 1176: 1154: 1140: 1112: 1070: 1054: 1027: 1000: 981: 948: 933: 918: 896: 882: 858: 824: 796: 688: 673: 640: 618: 596: 572: 557: 542: 527: 503: 483: 465: 400: 602:

seeing what a Gavin Collins compliant article would look like, too.)

151: 133: 1040:

should always be removed where an article is entirely made up of a

752:

should probably be deleted. In either event the template goes away.

1124: 1089:

is extremely unlikely that it would survive the AfD process under

988: 433:. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making 656:

edit-warring. It's an attempt to use brute force to get your way.

1409:

Redirect-Class Dungeons & Dragons articles of NA-importance

1335: 1328: 1276: 1239: 776: 772: 96: 46: 15: 1167:

that makes up virtually all of this article, what is left?--

408:

of this article reads (at the time of writing) as follows:

189:, where you can join the project and find out how to help! 905:

and the other (which I think you agree) is that it fails

901:

Its actually two problems: one is that the article fails

738:

Talk:Zinfandel#Wine_distribution (USA) POV and accuracy

628: 624: 237: 232: 227: 222: 179:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 834:I removed the plot template for three reasons: 1399:Redirect-Class Dungeons & Dragons articles 1093:. I've seen far better articles get deleted. 429:, treating it as if it were real and ignoring 1404:NA-importance Dungeons & Dragons articles 802:Removal of Original Research: Merger Proposal 8: 195:Knowledge:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons 1100:, as they are non-substantive edits. What 337:add sources to novels planned for merge to 198:Template:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons 265:Here are some tasks awaiting attention: 210: 128: 173:This redirect is within the scope of the 113:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 1210:I am proposing merger. What say you? -- 431:real-world context and sourced analysis 130: 30:on 24 April 2009 (UTC). The result of 627:and I am then accused of starting an 100: 7: 296:Variant Dungeons & Dragons games 1414:All Dungeons & Dragons articles 721:I'm responding to a plea posted on 119:It is of interest to the following 763:The merge template is ridiculous. 748:Regarding the specific templates: 416:As it stands, this sentence fails 176:Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject 14: 1224:I have no objection to a merger. 741:a way that also satisfied others. 256: 160: 150: 132: 101: 50: 19: 201:Dungeons & Dragons articles 57:This article was nominated for 26:This article was nominated for 1: 811:and I have therore added the 518:and try to be collaborative. 513:talk page. (The next step is 442:Secondly the first sentence " 360:Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) 313:Rewrite to be out-of-universe 168:Dungeons & Dragons portal 325:Elf (Dungeons & Dragons) 1159:So if you take out all the 288:Dungeoneer's Survival Guide 1430: 1385:11:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 1365:11:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 1113:22:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 1071:22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 1055:17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 1028:17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 1001:16:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 982:16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 949:17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 934:16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 919:16:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 897:12:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 883:11:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 859:05:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 825:16:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 797:22:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 689:17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 674:16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 641:16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 619:16:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 597:16:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 573:12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 558:10:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 543:05:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 528:05:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 504:05:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 484:05:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 466:04:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 401:04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 339:List of Dragonlance novels 1350:21:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 1303:12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 1289:07:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 1271:21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC) 1252:12:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC) 1234:19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 1220:11:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 1206:21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 1192:04:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 1177:17:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 1155:16:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 1141:16:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 446:That context should be a 209: 145: 127: 725:. Here are my thoughts. 491:context cleanup template 453:context cleanup template 723:Knowledge:Third opinion 456:character must stop. -- 81:, 11 October 2007, see 317:Companions of the Hall 192:Dungeons & Dragons 182:Dungeons & Dragons 140:Dungeons & Dragons 963:Original research tag 71:, 14 April 2008, see 1081:Tags and improvement 873:cleanup template. -- 785:I hope this helps. ~ 406:The opening sentence 1118:What is to be done? 1038:OR cleanup template 813:OR cleanup template 292:Swords & Spells 1371:No consensus again 427:fictional universe 115:content assessment 1348: 795: 420:, which states: 384: 383: 380: 379: 376: 375: 372: 371: 368: 367: 249: 95: 94: 91: 90: 45: 44: 1421: 1342: 789: 276:Various articles 260: 253: 252: 245: 211: 203: 202: 199: 196: 193: 170: 165: 164: 154: 147: 146: 136: 129: 106: 105: 97: 63: 62: 54: 47: 23: 16: 1429: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1389: 1388: 1373: 1332: 1120: 1083: 965: 832: 804: 719: 389: 364: 251: 242: 200: 197: 194: 191: 190: 166: 159: 12: 11: 5: 1427: 1425: 1417: 1416: 1411: 1406: 1401: 1391: 1390: 1372: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1331: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1194: 1119: 1116: 1082: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1058: 1057: 1015: 1011: 964: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 951: 846: 845: 842: 839: 831: 828: 803: 800: 783: 782: 781: 780: 761: 757: 753: 746: 742: 734: 730: 718: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 661: 657: 644: 643: 607:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 603: 585:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 510: 440: 439: 414: 413: 388: 385: 382: 381: 378: 377: 374: 373: 370: 369: 366: 365: 363: 362: 341: 327: 302: 277: 264: 262: 261: 243: 241: 240: 235: 230: 225: 219: 216: 215: 214:D&D to-do: 207: 206: 204: 172: 171: 155: 143: 142: 137: 125: 124: 118: 107: 93: 92: 89: 88: 87: 86: 76: 55: 43: 42: 32:the discussion 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1426: 1415: 1412: 1410: 1407: 1405: 1402: 1400: 1397: 1396: 1394: 1387: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1346: 1341: 1337: 1330: 1326: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1281:Gavin Collins 1278: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1244:Gavin Collins 1241: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1212:Gavin Collins 1209: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1169:Gavin Collins 1166: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1133:Gavin Collins 1130: 1126: 1125:above section 1122: 1121: 1117: 1115: 1114: 1111: 1109: 1108: 1103: 1099: 1098:wikilawyering 1094: 1092: 1086: 1080: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1059: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1047:Gavin Collins 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1016: 1012: 1009: 1004: 1003: 1002: 998: 994: 993:Gavin Collins 990: 986: 985: 984: 983: 979: 975: 970: 962: 950: 946: 942: 941:Gavin Collins 937: 936: 935: 931: 927: 922: 921: 920: 916: 912: 911:Gavin Collins 908: 904: 900: 899: 898: 894: 890: 886: 885: 884: 880: 876: 875:Gavin Collins 872: 868: 863: 862: 861: 860: 856: 852: 843: 840: 837: 836: 835: 830:Plot template 829: 827: 826: 822: 818: 817:Gavin Collins 814: 810: 801: 799: 798: 793: 788: 778: 774: 770: 768: 762: 758: 754: 750: 749: 747: 743: 739: 735: 731: 728: 727: 726: 724: 717:Third opinion 716: 690: 686: 682: 681:Gavin Collins 677: 676: 675: 671: 667: 662: 658: 655: 650: 646: 645: 642: 638: 634: 633:Gavin Collins 630: 626: 622: 621: 620: 616: 612: 608: 604: 600: 599: 598: 594: 590: 589:Gavin Collins 586: 582: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 570: 566: 561: 560: 559: 555: 551: 550:Gavin Collins 546: 545: 544: 540: 536: 531: 530: 529: 525: 521: 516: 511: 507: 506: 505: 501: 497: 496:Gavin Collins 492: 487: 486: 485: 481: 477: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 463: 459: 458:Gavin Collins 454: 449: 445: 438: 434: 432: 428: 423: 422: 421: 419: 411: 410: 409: 407: 403: 402: 398: 394: 386: 361: 357: 354: 352: 351:Collaboration 348: 346: 342: 340: 336: 334: 333: 328: 326: 322: 318: 314: 311: 309: 308: 303: 301: 297: 293: 289: 286: 284: 283: 278: 275: 273: 272: 267: 266: 263: 259: 255: 254: 250: 248: 239: 236: 234: 231: 229: 226: 224: 221: 220: 218: 217: 213: 212: 208: 205: 188: 184: 183: 178: 177: 169: 163: 158: 156: 153: 149: 148: 144: 141: 138: 135: 131: 126: 122: 116: 112: 108: 104: 99: 98: 84: 80: 77: 74: 70: 67: 66: 65: 64: 60: 56: 53: 49: 48: 40: 39: 33: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 1374: 1333: 1258: 1161:plot summary 1106: 1101: 1095: 1087: 1084: 1032:Now you are 1007: 968: 966: 847: 833: 805: 784: 766: 764: 720: 653: 648: 514: 447: 443: 441: 436: 424: 415: 405: 404: 390: 356:Dave Arneson 349: 344: 343: 330: 329: 312: 305: 304: 280: 279: 269: 268: 244: 180: 174: 121:WikiProjects 110: 79:No consensus 78: 69:No consensus 68: 35: 1357:Web Warlock 1327:Merge with 1045:ignored. -- 903:WP:NOT#PLOT 867:WP:NOT#PLOT 387:Context tag 1393:Categories 1165:synthsesis 733:templates. 448:real-world 187:discussion 83:discussion 73:discussion 1163:based on 1042:synthesis 809:synthesis 36:merge to 1340:Amatulić 1184:Shemeska 1107:Celarnor 787:Amatulić 647:But you 629:edit war 625:reverted 321:Dark Sun 111:redirect 59:deletion 38:Flanaess 28:deletion 1129:WP:FICT 1123:In the 1091:WP:PLOT 1034:flaming 767:nothing 649:haven't 581:context 300:More... 228:history 1102:should 907:WP:WAF 775:, not 760:found. 660:place. 418:WP:WAF 332:Verify 307:Update 117:scale. 1008:don't 989:above 745:away. 345:Other 282:Stubs 271:Merge 238:purge 233:watch 109:This 1381:talk 1361:talk 1345:talk 1299:talk 1295:Rray 1285:talk 1267:talk 1263:Rray 1248:talk 1230:talk 1226:Rray 1216:talk 1202:talk 1198:Rray 1188:talk 1173:talk 1151:talk 1147:Rray 1137:talk 1067:talk 1063:Rray 1051:talk 1024:talk 1020:Rray 997:talk 978:talk 974:Rray 945:talk 930:talk 926:Rray 915:talk 909:. -- 893:talk 889:Rray 879:talk 871:Plot 855:talk 851:Rray 821:talk 792:talk 685:talk 670:talk 666:Rray 637:talk 615:talk 611:Rray 593:talk 569:talk 565:Rray 554:talk 539:talk 535:Rray 524:talk 520:Rray 500:talk 480:talk 476:Rray 462:talk 397:talk 393:Rray 247:view 223:edit 34:was 1377:BOZ 1338:. ~ 1336:Iuz 1329:Iuz 1277:Iuz 1259:you 1240:Iuz 969:not 777:Luz 773:Iuz 515:not 435:any 1395:: 1383:) 1363:) 1301:) 1287:) 1269:) 1250:) 1232:) 1218:) 1204:) 1190:) 1175:) 1153:) 1139:) 1069:) 1053:) 1026:) 999:) 980:) 947:) 939:-- 932:) 917:) 895:) 881:) 857:) 823:) 687:) 672:) 654:is 639:) 617:) 595:) 571:) 556:) 541:) 526:) 502:) 482:) 464:) 399:) 358:, 323:, 319:, 315:: 298:, 294:, 290:, 1379:( 1359:( 1347:) 1343:( 1297:( 1283:( 1265:( 1246:( 1228:( 1214:( 1200:( 1186:( 1171:( 1149:( 1135:( 1065:( 1049:( 1022:( 995:( 976:( 943:( 928:( 913:( 891:( 877:( 853:( 819:( 794:) 790:( 779:. 683:( 668:( 635:( 613:( 591:( 567:( 552:( 537:( 522:( 498:( 478:( 460:( 395:( 353:: 347:: 335:: 310:: 285:: 274:: 123:: 85:. 75:. 41:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index