User talk:Sojourner001

Yo

Yo man, you'll pick things up...read guides and copy, heh. Dace59 11:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved sandbox

Hi - I moved \sandbox to User:Sojourner001\sandbox, which is where I expect you intended it to be, but User:Sojourner001/sandbox would be better. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I made the same mistake once myself, which it why I noticed it! -- ALoan (Talk) 18:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved the page to User:Sojourner001/sandbox. Cheers --Pak21 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Make some contribution yourself to provide a better example to follow

No problem. Please have a look through my contributions, and note the Barnstar of Diligence given to me for "constantly maintaining the Warhammer 40k pages and insuring the same high standard is present in all pages" and the Working Man's Barnstar for my "excellent work in formatting and including references in the many Warhammer 40,000 related articles".

Do the same for articles written by people other than me

If other (Warhammer 40,000) articles are created which are of the (to be blunt) same low standard as the articles you are creating, I will do the same. Actually, I'd be more likely just to propose them for deletion one way or another.

Back up your actions on the talk page so that I and others have something to work with as opposed to being a rules robot.

If you want "something to work with", I suggest you start by working on some existing articles, rather than trying to create new article of dubious value. There's a lot of work which needs to be done there already without creating more work for other people to clean up. --Pak21 13:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm filling it out in a more suitable style on the history page.

Honestly, I don't think you are. Wikipedia is still not the place for a plot synopsis, yet this change is just that: an overly detailed plot synopsis, written in an in-universe style and presenting fiction as fact. Much the same applies to Imperial Date System. Realistically, you can criticise my contributions or lack thereof as much as you like (by the way, it's the week and I'm at work. I have more important things to do than fix up badly written articles at the moment), but it doesn't affect the fact that your contributions are not of the required quality for Wikipedia. You're of course very welcome to keep on working on them, but I honestly believe that unless you start concentrating on the quality of your contributions, your work will just be deleted sometime soon, and that seems an awful waste of everyone's time. Your call. --Pak21 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Libors.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Libors.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LiborSpacek

The article LiborSpacek has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This happened because the article seems to be about a person or group of persons but it does not indicate how or why that person or group is notable. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 08:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Violation?

You got around to my general guidelines and said it sounded like a NPOV violation?

Ahem.

That was the POINT of the suggested guidelines, to promote NPOV. NO POV'ING AT ALL!!!

In other words, don't say, "Well, this race is evil and this one sorta is, and this one is just that, etc, etc."

That's stupid, and its opinion. "But some people think..." *wags finger* uh-uh-uh. No, none of that. State was 'is', not what people think. Colonel Marksman 15:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyranid Page

I don't think I understood your complaint. See the discussion. Colonel Marksman 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

Just a quick note that you don't need to list {{prod}} candidates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion — that's for "full" AfD listings only. Cheers --Pak21 17:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say {{prod}} is exactly the right way to deal with them: it's the "lightweight" version of AfD for non-controversial issues. About the only other way I could see to deal with them would be to try to get them through as a speedy deletion under criterion G11, blatant advertising. Cheers --Pak21 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive Clarification

I posted a few replies to you (and to other people) and I wanted to say that I am not attacking you or singling you out. I am, however, going to defend the Tyranid page to the best of my ability. People kept adding in things left and right, and it caused an edit war. I found a happy medium and sourced it. If you could look at the history of the page and see that, and also see how I organized it for clarity, I hope you can respect my position. I would like for you to improve the page, not revert it back, because it will just cause the same problems over again and get rid of the lots of sourcing that I added. If you want to condense categories or some how condense the information, that would be good. A note- the Army pages, in order to not be in-universe, have to have some aspect of Mechanics so its not all history/fluff. The other armies have the luxury of having unit types and the rest. All Tyranids have are biomorphs and the strategy section in the first Codex to distinguish what units are like. I hope you understand my position. SanchiTachi 17:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you accidentally killed the Timeline page and put the Wikiproject page onto it. Editing error. I fixed it, but go through the history and see what things you ment to put on the other. And yes, I will be willing to go through the Tyranids history page and merge things up. I, personally, feel that the biomorphs page needs its own section and that the page should be organized like the other army pages. I tried to do what I could to make it readable (which was hard) and condensed sections/organized sections. Now, it doesn't burn your eyes when scrolling down the page. I stick to the Ecclesiarchy Pages, and thats all I really care about (Inquisitors, Crusading people, Imperial people, etc), so I have no desire to adopt the Tyranid page. I just made whatever I could to make a blunt fix to help. But we can go together to find stuff. Feel free to drop messages, suggestions, or whatever in what you are looking for or what you are planning on fixing. SanchiTachi 17:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't obscure. I have three Tyranid Codexes and over 5 White Dwarfs devoted to it. It is needed in the same way Imperial Vehicles are needed, as it also applies to two games. However, it is not needed in full on the Tyranid mainpage, hence another page for Biomorophs with a "main article" link to it after an explaination. Not only do the biomorphs cover genetics that are fundamental to what Tyranids are (and thus must be included on the topic), it also would deal with their weapons and the like. A combined page of biomorphs and weapons for the Tyranids would conform to the standards of how other Armies deal with such pages. SanchiTachi 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tyranids&oldid=101326380#Biomorphs

Thats what the page looked like on your last edit. If you notice, I moved the History up to conform with other pages, condensed the species into easy to read catagories, and your page had biomorphs listed. The unweildy "model range" section was broken up into the "species" section and the "gaming" section. Also, appeal to players was removed. I believe that my changes since your edition have removed any of the messiness from back then and fixed many things (organization wise) without actually changing any of what you said. SanchiTachi 18:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up some of the stuff on the Tyranid page and moved it to: Warrior Genus (Warhammer 40,000) and Tyranid Genetics (Warhammer 40,000). I will make a Gaunt Genus page (like the Warrior page, following the codex info). With that, we can clean up some of the information on the mainpage. What is left is to clean up the gaming section. SanchiTachi 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk page

I have moved Wikiproject talk page to User:Sojourner001/sandbox. It does not belong in the (Main) namespace. -- RHaworth 17:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of WP:40k

Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dreadnought (Warhammer 40,000)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dreadnought (Warhammer 40,000), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --EEMIV (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Timeline of the Warhammer 40,000 universe

I have nominated Timeline of the Warhammer 40,000 universe, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warhammer 40K Project updated

File:W40000 Symbol.png

The Warhammer 40,000 project page has been updated!

Assessment tags have been added to the project banner.
New material, including transwiki instructions and an organizational chart, has been added to the main project page.
Please help us get the Warhammer 40K project back on track!

Protonk (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.[reply]

Project activity

File:W40000 Symbol.png

This message is a test to check to see if members of the Warhammer 40K Project are still online, active and interested in helping the project. If you are no longer interested in the project all you need to do is...nothing! If you don't respond to this I'll take your name off the list and you'll never here from us again. If you're the proactive type you can remove the name yourself or talk to me and I'll do it.

If you are still interested in helping out the 40K project or otherwise still want to be listed there you can say so in response to this message on your talk page or on mine. Alternately you can add our new userbox ({{User WikiProject Warhammer 40,000}}) to your userpage and I'll take that as a response. The userpage doesn't automatically include people in a category of members yet, but it might in the future.

We've assessed most of the articles in the project on the Version 1.0 assessment scale (the table on the project page should take a few days to update) but we need to push to get the core articles in the project up to GA status. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help the project along. Protonk (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]