User talk:Pak21/Archive5

WP:WAF

Thanks for the heads up. I added links to it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your warning

sorry if i come across as uncivil or unsocial, but Tauonline links keep getting back onto the warhammer 40k page, despite the pages near constant mod watching. and if you date check, you'll find that the link has been up for a week unchecked. you cannot preach rules and threaten banning if i find that has happened! and why is it i'm getting the rough end if they are the ones breaking the rules!?! just because a 'customer' or 'client' (as the Wikipedia readers are) complains does not mean you have the right to complain and threaten me about my actions when its your customer and modding service is at fault! Shas'o sodit 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pak21, just as a note, your reply on the above user's talk page is almost the same thing I told him independently on the article page. MSJapan 20:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanismtongs Apologises

Hi,

I apologise for vandalising this site around 5 months ago, and just want to say i have grown up since then and apologise to anyones time I wasted. I am not going to edit wikipedia anymore, unless in the future. Thanks, and by the way i stopped vandalising ages ago, so many of the sockpuppets u think i am, actually aren't Thanks Mechanismtongs—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechanismtongsapologisestowikipedia (talk • contribs)

Katana (photocopier)

When you create stub articles such as Katana (photocopier), please try to find the appropriate specific stub tag(s) on the page WP:STUBS. This saves other editors work in categorizing the page, and makes it easier for editors with experise in the subject to find pages that need work. Thanks, — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I was cleaning out the stubs and leaving that message on talk pages of page creators who stub tagged their own pages - you were at the bottom of the history, and I failed to note the page move in the edit summary. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 17:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very strange - I can't figure out for the life of me why I did that then. *scratches head* — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 19:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Games Workshop Online Community

I have cleaned up Games Workshop Online Community per these edits, and have left comments left on the AfD page. You may wish to review the article, change your decision and/or provide further recommendations to improve the article even more. Thanks again! :-) --Grimhelm 17:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:User-page vandalism

I know how you feel, there is someone called Jordan Sluss who keeps creating new accounts and vandalising my user page (check the history). James086^{Talk | Contribs} 04:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eldrad Ulthran

About your Warhammer 40k notable charaters page, i'd be willing to write the Page for Eldrad as i am a collecter of the Eldar. be good to hear for u.Pterodactal 06:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Page is pretty accurate but is missing the Wargame rules/in game terms section. see the Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Characters page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pterodactal (talk • contribs).

never mind then. be willing to help if their is anything to assist with in Eldar Pterodactal 09:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Thanks. The wiki deletion system is a little odd at times. I probably should have AfD'd those because they're quite obviously garbage. Sojourner001 17:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that's what I'll do. It appears to be advertising, but my main gripe is that not only is it advertising a product, the product doesn't exist (yet...)Sojourner001 17:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection

Thanks. Another problem with wikipedia is that there are so many places to find help, it is hard to actually find help on what you need help on. Maybe you can help me. This guy- 86.18.4.5- is doing good stuff on some pages, mainly related to boxing and WWE. But he keeps blanking the dungeons and dragons page. Is there anyway to block him from just that page? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NightFalcon90909 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Deprod comment Pamulaparthi Sadasiva Rao

I've deprodded this with a couple of new facts for the article. It doesn't prove 100% notability yet, but sources are probably pre-internet and partly Telugu too. What do you think? --Mereda 17:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question

why did you erease everything?

xVx is a company known in the gaming market field, please do your research before going and erasing things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xvxonline17 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Google this information

you didnt do a good research then, google these keywords:

xvxonline

xvx monstruo

http://computershopper.com/roundups/200501_small_names_big_power_1

In the yahoo search engine, xVx is on the first pages if you search these keywords:

custom laptops,

custom gaming laptops,

gaming laptops,

and alot more...etc.. etc.

there is alot of info about xVx, so please again do your research before you start erasing things.

After reading wiki guidelines.....

to determine if a company is notable, i was reading the section here on wiki, and a company is automaticly notable if is rank with other compaines in a top source file, well, tell if i am wrong, but woundt this make xVx automaticly notable, or am i understanding this wrong...

http://www.pciexpressdevnet.org/integrators_viewsol.asp?cid=105

http://www.pciexpressdevnet.org/solutions_catalog.asp

xVx is listed on the INTEL page with other companies like AMD, ALIENWARE, APPLE.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xvxonline17 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Edit summaries for articles sent to AfD

Greetings! I saw that you nominated Symmetry454 for the articles for deletion (AfD) process. However, I nearly reverted away the AfD header from the article based on your edit summary, since it identified the AfD as a proposed deletion. It would be easier on my weary brain if you made sure to distinguish between the two in edit summaries :) . Personally, I either say "nominate for deletion" or "AfD" myself in edit summaries for AfDs. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but just wanted to point this out. Regards, —C.Fred (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sol calendar

You proposed the Sol Calendar page for deletion. Please indicate on that page *where* the discussion about this deletion is being held, otherwise, please remove the notice immediately, if no discussion leading to consensus is being held. - Nhprman ^List 16:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The process your are citing notes: "Proposed deletion is a process for deleting articles (and, under certain circumstances, user pages) that are uncontroversial deletion candidates but do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Articles flagged with prod can be deleted without a full Articles for deletion debate after five days — if no one objects." The process clearly states that you may simply delete the article after five days if no one objects. I am objecting. I also feel that deleting these calendar reform articles en masse, as is apparently the plan, is an aggressive application of WP guidelines and is yet another example of making WP a sterile, less informative place, although I'm sure admins and editors like yourself feel it's making it more "pure." - Nhprman ^List 16:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly try to be more civil, but I am quite disturbed when I see what I percieve to be aggressive deletions on Wikipedia. It does not improve it as a resource and I think the guidelines are being mistakenly applied here, and elsewhere in the calendar articles. I've added a verifiable resource to the Pax Calendar article. Please feel free to re-add the notice if you feel it is not sufficient. - Nhprman ^List 16:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in outlining the terms of the guideline. My point is that you are applying the guideline as if it were a policy, and I am suggesting that perhaps doing so is unnecessarily aggressive. - Nhprman ^List 17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miniatures Images

Ok, I've fixed this image to the proper licence would that be acceptable? If so, I will correct all the other images with the right info. Thanks for telling me. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 05:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. The description is more or less lifted from your description. I'll fix it up and then get it on all th images. Thanks for your help. Dfrg.msc 20:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reporting User:Anandvemp at AIV. That was a big one. I've blocked him indefinitely, deleted all the other userpages he was using, marked his sockpuppets, and blocked them indefinitely as well. Thanks for your help in letting us know! Kafziel ^Talk 14:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for dealing with the whole mess. Cheers --Pak21 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pax calendar - category deletions

Could you please explain your elimination of the categories from the Pax Calendar article? I'm going to assume good faith here, at this point, although I can't see any possible improvement to this article coming from the separation of it from other calendar reform proposals. - Nhprman ^List 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a clarification and you gave it to me. Thanks. Do your worst. - Nhprman ^List 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

(from User_talk:Greatwalk#Sources)

You appear to have a complete misunderstanding of the attribution policy. "Sources" does not mean "a pointer to a random webpage", but a "reliable published source" (my emphasis). You would also be advised to read the reliable sources guideline. You have also misused the {{hangon}} template, but I'll leave you to sort out that mess. --Pak21 13:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and believe I understand the attribution policy. I know you have already had Wikipedia:Attribution#What_is_not_original_research.3F quoted: Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions.

The articles you have proposed for deletion are perfectly acceptable, well-written additions to Wiki if merged to appropriate subheadings. The suggestion, "keep for now and merge later" is the best way to deal with these. I've also removed the prod notice as you suggest. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 22:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the tl thingey

Brilliant! thanks! N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' ^{T a l k} 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calendars

(from User_talk:Greatwalk#Calendars)

You are now moving from acceptable behaviour into unacceptable behaviour. Your addition of deleted material to Lunisolar calendar is wrong for at least two reasons:

The votes were to delete that information, not to merge it. The fact you don't like this doesn't change that.
Your additions violate the GFDL, which requires that all information by attributed to its original author. You have not done that.

I am more than willing to discuss these issues, but you seem to be heading down a path which is highly likely to get you blocked if you continue. I strongly suggest you reconsider your actions. --Pak21 09:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pak21, I think it would be better to get your facts straight before making accusations and threats, and frankly I've seen little indication so far that you are actually willing to discuss anything with anyone. Regards, --Greatwalk 01:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...I did seek further clarification, you can find the discussion continued on my talk page (link above). Your edit reverts to Lunisolar calendar will be left as they are. Please reconsider your approach to WP:Consensus...and also, you are not correct that the links or passing mention of the subjects of any of the deleted calendar articles should be removed from other articles. It is indisputable that Hermetic Systems provides examples of lunisolar calendars, solar calendars and lunar calendars that are all appropriate examples of each type...even the creator acknowledges they are not intended for wide-spread use. They simply contribute to informing the calendar reform debate, and may later become the subjects of perfectly valid Wiki articles. Please stop removing these references to the calendars, thanks. Regards, --Greatwalk 04:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my own talk page. Hesperian 10:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit summary

Please do not accuse people of copyright violation as you did at Lunisolar calendar. That is a very serious accusation to make without any proof. Secondly, I believe you are confused about the deletion process here at wikipedia. When an article is deleted on wikipedia, that does not prevent portions of the information contained in that article from being included in OTHER articles. For instance, if an article about George W. Bush's dog was deleted, that does not prevent the George W. Bush article from containing information about his dog. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not lecture me on how GFDL works. I'm very well aware of how it works. However, there is no copyright violation unless you can show that the work was posted elsewhere. Please be a little more civil in your responses next time. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are confused. The section of the Deletion policy you quoted only applies to AFD's in progress. However, the AFD is now closed. The information can safely be re-added now. This is a very common process on wikipedia: an article is deleted for whatever reason, and any relevant information is merged into a similar article. However from looking at the dates on Lunisolar calendar, the information began to be added to the article on March 7, two days before the AFD started. More information was added during the AFD, however I view this as a continuation of the March 7th process. The AFD closed March 14th, and the information was reinserted on March 16th. This is AFTER the AFD, so that section of policy no longer applies. Also, my initial point is not about the GFDL or the appropriateness of removal. My initial point was that you should not accuse someone of a copyright violation unless you can show that there actually was a copyright violation. Just the fact that something is not attributed is not itself a per se copyright violation, it just means it is not attributed. A copyright violation would mean that the information is copied word for word from somewhere else on the web AND the other website does not have a compatible license with Wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then who was it writen by? If you can show that it was written someplace else, then you'd have an argument, but if you can't you must assume good faith that whoever contributed it wrote it themselves. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You realize both of those are internal Wikipedia articles? Wikipedia contributions are GFDL licensed. The transfer of information between one Wikipedia page and another is not a copyright violation: the attribution remains there in the deleted page's page history. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it satisfies the attribution requirement. Who do you think enforces copyright policy? The people with the ability to delete pages: the admins. You're arguing that a technical process is incompatible with the GFDL, but the technical process and the GFDL have been well established by the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. Everything works properly. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to continue this later, I've got to step away from my computer for some time, but my point stands.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I maintain my stance, and whether you are shocked or not does not really matter to me. Especially since only 1 other person commented on deleted history attribution. You might wish to learn exactly what consensus is before bandying about the term. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZX Spectrum

The discussion is 20 days old and should not take place on the ZX Spectrum talk page but there. I don't ignore the discussion but you are actullay reverting against current MoS. Sarenne 12:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warhammer 40k

I just wanted to say: I respect your contributions to the Warhammer Wikipedia group. SanchiTachi 00:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TEA, I have made my feelings public here under May 2007. SanchiTachi 02:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-bike

Hello. Please check and correct the A-bike page. I don't have ability to correct by myself. -- Binch Shin on 00:26 2nd May, 2007.

Greetings, Spec-Chum!

How come you haven't yet placed yourself in the Spec-Chums category? :-)

40K

Sorry, i won't be back. Sanchi has shown he is incapable of seeing anyone elses view other than his own, so if he wants to "own" the 40K project, good luck to him - life is to short to waste on dicks like him (from his own page). To be honest, I'm almost done with Wiki completely - there are to many people like him, that either can't see anyone elses view, or spend all their time hiding being "wiki rules" because it makes them feel clever. Wiki is a great idea, but with to many knobheads online, it's quality is suffering. Anyway, cheers mate. Darkson - BANG! 19:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SanchiTachi

You may be interested in participating in the WP:AN/I involving SanchiTachi. Finell (Talk) 05:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]