User talk:Pak21/Archive4

Warhammer 40K

sure, you can use the pics on the english wikipedia. Take what you need. --Pacifier 13:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for teh delay in responding, I hadn't checked my wiki page in a while. You're welcome to keep the images. --PIngp0NG 18:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I join with the 40k project. I know a fair bit about all the armies and even about thsquats a dicarded army. I also own 2 codeices. If I'm allowed please tell me on my talk. Create if you have to. Tahnks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.177.68.238 (talk • contribs) .

Replied at User talk:124.177.68.238#WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 --Pak21 10:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing (Diplomacy article)

Pak: That the edited section (Diplomacy (board game))did not explictly mention sources doesn't mean that the sources don't exist nor are in the article. In fact they are, they were even before I first read the article: basically you "only" have to read most of the articles of The Diplomacy Archive (and maybe other sources too). When you do, you will be qualified to question wether what I wrote is sourced or not.

Anyhow, the sources were always there: in the external links section (logically). It's just ridiculous (and unnecesarily bureaucratic) to have to add a link to each sentence or paragraph just to justify well documented data to people who doesn't seem to know enough.

I did, just not to give excuse to wikibureaucrats to deteriorate the article with further ugly tags. But I find it wrong and ugly (the references are in the corresponding section, they were before my edit.

Anyhow, the text I edited was also unsourced. --Sugaar 16:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion

Hey. Haven't contributed to the Wikiproject in months but Tyndarian_24th_Light_Infantry_and_Reconnaissance needs deleting as fanfiction. I have no clue as to how to go about it, so I wonder if you would be so kind? --Charax 19:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded this article. the wub "?!" 10:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Pak21 10:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your USA Volleyball contribution

Hi Pak21,

I reverted your deletion of the Region links section. However, I removed the links as you suggested as I feel the region breakdown is important. I didn't have the intention of making the article a link farm, but I can see your point. --BrianZ ^(talk) 14:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speccy Tour is not spam

Hi Pak21,

You deleted a link I put on ZX Spectrum page pointing to Speccy Tour. I think it isn't spam, I think it's the only event running since 2001, that tries to encourage people to play old Spectrum games. Well, it's not a very important website, but at least we try people get fun playing those games. We don't sell anything, we don't have advertisings and we haven't a lucrative business. Eyp 16:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dab piping

Sorry about Crimson (disambiguation). Yes, the policy says that albums/films/books should use piped links, but I feel that that policy was intended for dab pages with only one album on it. When a dab exists with multiple albums with the same name, I think it makes sense not to pipe the links. Perhaps this should be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). --Alcuin 13:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPL Talk

Considering that those links had survived for probably months, and several edits, I'm not sure anyone else regarded them as linkspam. Maybe if it only linked to the EPL Talk page? Unless you don't think that page is Wiki-worthy... Drjayphd 05:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Science

Pak21, I came across this article by accident and as far as I can see someone had made an unwarranted attack on the article which is disgraceful and should not be tolerated. What am I supposed to? Walk across the street and let the newcomer get beaten up.

The point of the rule is not to protect old hacks who (perhaps unthinkingly) attack others (by deleting their articles) but to protect those who cannot defend themselves (like newcomers).

You cannot delete an article without attacking the author(s) that wrote it., the newer they are the more careful you should be and the more explanation I expect to see in the talk pages (not none!) What I saw was a nasty unwarranted attack in a way that would be highly unfair to a newcomer and that is why I made my comments! --Mike 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pak21, I was utterly sicked by the way I was relentlessly attacked when I posted my first couple of articles. I'm not going to watch it happen to someone else without making a fuss. I think the policy says "assume good faith" (I'm can't put in a fancy link like you!) - as far as I'm concerned that means you should assume the author is going to improve the article unless it is obvious they will/cannot. Therefore it would be wrong to post a deletion notice on the type of article that I saw until there is no response to an "improve it" request. --Mike 14:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zx Spectrum

I used to build the ZX Spectrum in Dundee, I was told at the time you could buy them for a few quid at the local market. --Mike 14:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd closing

Thanks for the tip! Dina 17:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW

Well, in that context I meant that these articles could have been speedied, they could have been ProDed, and now they're up for AfD. They're cruft related to an article that was already deleted, and thus they don't really have a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving. An admin might see this and just close the AfD early due to that. They have the right, at least.--Rosicrucian 13:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were prodded. It was contested by I-think-you-can-guess-who-without-looking-at-the-diff. Cheers --Pak21 14:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I just wanted to make obvious that since a single user with an obvious stake is the only one making these go through full procedural AfD, and everyone else wants them gone pretty much, the snowball clause applies.--Rosicrucian 14:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DAB

It looked like vandalism to me! (I've notice an awful lot on democracy - I check teh allotment talk page and there was nothing there!)

The section in allotment is a short resume of the meaning of allotment so that those arriving there can understand the basic content and context without having to read the entire sortititon page. Please don't quote DRAB policy this or that. I've seem plenty of entries where there is a short resume of the term and a link to a much larger page. I find them very useful other people will find them useful and what you are proposing is .... well I can't say it!

As for biting the New comers, I'll quote from an email I got:

I Just want to thank you for seeing some good in my article "*******" which was proposed for deletion -- I think without your kind words the article could have been deleted, instead the positive input you provided inspired me to continue and expound on the write-up. I am not finished yet, but I'll get there .. (with a little help from my friends). --Mike 12:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pak21 - I was invited here to write good articles not study law! But I've had another look at Allotment and perhaps you are right that it goes over the top in a few places for <WHATEVER IT CALLED> disambulance or whatever. I've left in one hanging comment about "not being democratic" to encourage people to go and read the whole article - remove it if you like, but its true and I thought WIkipedia wasn't censored (particularly the truth) - it'll encourage people to read the article!

Just as an aside, there is a huge amount of information on the origins of allotment which suggest that it was originally the random allocated of property using lots. I've not had time to research that aspect or find a source for the evidence that would warrant including a definiate statement to that effect. What I'm saying is that allotment as an agricultural holding and allotment as selection by lot probably originate from the same idea - anyway read it and see if you still object. --Mike 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a disambigation

Pak21,

why is allotment a disambigation? An allotment is something that is allotted - a word coming from a-lot , lot from Anglo saxon hleotan (to assign by lots). Most of the terms in the entry are just different ways of allotting things. Land allotment derives from the use of assigning ground by using lots.

I had a quick look at election, and there is no similar disamiguation to election (meaning a choice without voting) to elect (as used by ecclessiastics), if allotment must be a disambiuation, why isn't election?

--Mike 13:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pak21 - I'll leave allotment as is for now -thanks. Only thing is I have a sneaking suspicion that sortition may not adequalty cover allotment because allot is an action and a system (allot/allotment) and sortition is a only a system (you can't sortit a person to office). I'm not sure what implications that has - its not been a problem because there was an entry for allotment which covered both the system and the verb - I'll think about it! If I do think of a way in which allot, allotted or any of the other permutation is not adequately covered by sortition, I I assume I'm permitted to start an entry? --Mike 13:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirage Source

Nope, it was just an oversight. I've deleted the other two nominated pages. Thanks for letting me know. --Core des at 16:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WH40K Dreadnought image

I don't think it needs the fair usage tag in the way set out. While the minature design itself is copyright there is no copyright on photographing something that you own otherwise where we would be taking pictures of out favourite car, motorbike etc. You might hav eto argue fair usage if you were taking an image that GW had created eg off their website or a Codex or WD issue.GraemeLeggett 16:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vernian Process Deletion Review

I have provided links to various media with reviews and interviews with this music project. Including two samples of print media. Please see for yourself. --FACT50 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online English

So just what improvements were you thinking of? Why is it a non-notable company? Tony 13:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images for SpeedyDeletion

I'm an intern working at two connected Non-Profit Organizations called the Prague Society for International Cooperation and the Global Panel Foundation. I was asked to create entries for these two organizations and also an entry for the President & Chairman of these organizations Prof. Dr. Marc S. Ellenbogen. I uploaded images for these entries. I was instructed to use these images and they granted permission for them to be used on wikipedia. How do I tag them? --Praguesociety 16:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vernian process decision

That's fair enough I suppose. However there is one thing I would like to clear up. You seemed to think I was pointing to the same interview twice. I was pointing you to the Livid Looking Glass site, because I had a "review" (not interview) printed in their first issue. That interview was done for the site after he stopped printing physical magazines, and was used in the Girls and Corpses magazine. So i was citing two seperate printed articles (a review and interview). Unfortunately the only way to prove the existance of the first review, would be to mail you a physical copy of the magazine (which would be pretty ridiculous). But as I said, fair enough. In the next few months after I release my third LP, and send copies to every magazine I can think of, I'm sure one of the people in my fanbase will be more than happy to add a valid wikipedia entry. I still think it's pretty lame that the band I inspired Abney Park (band) has a valid article (they even unamimously agreed that was kind of stupid that my article was deleted, while theres was left alone). Oh well, I guess this is just further proof that there is no such thing as a perfect system --FACT50 00:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warhammer 40,000 images

I apologise for using English.

As you may have noted, all the Warhammer 40,000 images of miniatures on Commons have been tagged for speedy deletion. While the user who has tagged the images is not being helpful, I believe the reason for this is that they violate Commons:Dervative works and will probably have to be deleted. We would like to "save" some of these images for use on the English Wikipedia as fair use images: may we have your permission to do this. Thank you. --en:Pak21

Don't be sorry man :)

Okay, you can save my files, as you can notice, all my files are Public Domain, so don't be shy :D and take everything you want !

Also hank you for the warning, as you may notice, i have no internet since a long time (many reasons) and my contributions are nosw limited (but it's temporary), so i haven't noticed.

Well i have a question ... Did the images of Bolters and co are tagged ? because it's really MY work for the community and i used no GW stuff for this !

Sorry for the late answer :)

ThomaK WarheaD

Thanks

Thanks for your pointer. Sorry about that. I am still learning the ropes around here. I never knew about the whole list tittle thing. thanks for your help I will rename the page now. Thanks again. PS:Do you play 40k? Culv e rin ? ^Talk 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did I undo other editors work? I copyed everything over. I decided to do this a the eldar page is long and unnecessary. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 08:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I was wondering about that. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 08:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any admin in mind? Culv e rin ? ^Talk 09:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Why cant I just move the page? Culv e rin ? ^Talk 09:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But couldnt the page be called list of notable Eldar not just list of Eldar. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 09:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the eldar in the list of Eldar article are notable hero/leaders. Arnt they notable? Culv e rin ? ^Talk 09:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What 40k race did you play? Culv e rin ? ^Talk 09:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

? Culv e rin ? ^Talk 07:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Matthew Patty is a very important member of our community. Currently at age 18 he is well on his way to becoming a great politician and leader. I am sure that you will know his name soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Narlysk8boarder (talk • contribs) .

Edit conflict

(Vandalism warning removed by original editor. See below and User talk:Heligoland#Basketball court for reasons)

I was attempting to revert the vandalism by 209.33.59.221 myself, but only got the last edit... --Pak21 16:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (slightly disappointed by the assumption of bad faith here as this diff clearly shows I was improving the article)[reply]

Hi, the diff I got was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basketball_court&diff=87779336&oldid=87779300. I'd already seen the original vandalism being removed from the page by User:Whispering which is why I reverted your last edit and dropped a vandalism warning on your page. There's no way to know with a diff like the above that a user is removing vandalism and not adding more vandalism to articles, especially as a vandal will attack an article several times before they're banned. I was in the process of removing the warning when you replied. Reverting the page and leaving a vandalism warning is in no way an indication of bad faith. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response on trailing slashes

See User Talk:Jesup#URLs and trailing slashes ---- jesup 18:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing advice in 40k

Pak21, as someone who's been able to supply a good sense of direction in my efforts to bring the 40k articles up to snuff, I'm hoping you can fill me in on certain etiquette: When another editor alters an article so that the tone becomes disrupted by personal theory and conjecture- what are the usual responses to this (as can be seen in the Lucius the Eternal article, in the Weapons and abilities section)? I don't want to be so presumptous as to completely delete this new entry, but it is obviously a pet theory that does nt conform with the article of Wiki guidelines. As they are anon, it is also impossible to strike up a discourse on the matter. What sort of measures are usually taken? Perhaps a "dispute relevancy" tag or something? TaPrimarch 02:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean? From Fastzander

Do you mean to remove the Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures from the creatures I am adding to the standard creatures section, so that Dungeons & Dragons creatures is completely broken down into subcategories? Just didn't understand. Mail me again if this is right. Fastzander 9:25 PM 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ty for advice. That date and time thing is going to proove very useful. I'll remove the Dungeons & Dragons creatures thing as soon as I can. Fastzander 10:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realm of Chaos move

Hi Pak21. Many thanks for the speedy notice of inappropriate copying and pasting. Is it now too late to do it the correct way since I created the Realm of Chaos (Warhammer) article, or can I revert the changes I made and Move the Realms of Chaos (Warhammer) article properly? - Heavens To Betsy 09:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. At the very least, I've now reverted the redirect on the Realms article. If and when Realm gets deleted, the Move should be able to go ahead. Thanks again. - Heavens To Betsy 09:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on XPLANE talk page

Hi Pak21,

I noted you had reverted some edits on the XPLANE talk page, and when I looked, I was alarmed to see edits there that were attributed to me but that I had not made! This is pretty scary to me. To your knowledge has this happened before? I am wondering if it's some kind of glitch or if maybe my account has been compromised in some way. The edits looked like a bunch of football gibberish.

I had added some links a few minutes ago. Do you have any idea what could be happening?

Here's the last edit I made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:XPLANE&oldid=91475410

I appreciate your help.

--Dgray xplane 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minsc pc vs npc

Hmm yes I see. Well I'll start a discussion on the Minsc article then. Thanks Bragador 15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to distinguish between World Champion and World Titles

Cuba Women's Volleyball Team had 8 titles winning streak of World Champion in 1990s (1991-2000)
Please don't edit my article unreasonable!
The World titles article is actually wrong statement.

WorldGrandPrix 09:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

OK, fine but I don't see your point.
Please read WP:OWN: it is not your article
Please correct it then.

Cheers --Pak21 09:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Keep up the good work!!!

Just wondering, are u an admin??--Boris Johnson VC 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]