User talk:SanchiTachi

This talk page is used to pass temporary messages or deal with pages of the WikiProjects that the user is a member of. Thus, archives are not in use, unless for the above, and old/outstanding messages are removed arbitrarily.

Darkson

In regards to the message you left on my talk page, I think you may have confused me with somoene else, especially over the Imperial Fists. Darkson - BANG! 08:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have confused you. When I mentioned Imperial Fists, I was refering to your talk page and two posts up. SanchiTachi 15:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

good work

hay just wanted to say well done on tyranid page thanks for tidying up the bit on catchan devil being stuck in milky way, i meant to get back to it as i didnt have much time when i made original edit meaning to come back but forgot to change , anyway ure version is better than i would have done as i had completly forgotten about brain leaf any way good work. p.s. i used to play warhammer a while back and would be interested in helping u with what u meantioned on ure user page in any way i can however i am fairly amiture when it comes to editing wikipedia. Kobol 18:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Star Child

Cheer, I'll see what I can do with it. Might be a while though, as I've a few other pans in the fire so to speak, so times a little limited at the moment. Darkson - BANG! 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it. I've also added a section to the Chaos Gods section, as a power in the Warp is a Chaos God, even if one for good (if the Imperium can be called "good"!). Darkson - BANG! 20:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nids

Yes, I absolutely understand that you don't want to get into fights again. However, I'm not convinced that accomodating the wishes of people who are not operating in the interests of wikipedia is the way to go about things. It just struck me as a deplorable situation that an article I worked hard on cleaning up some time ago has degenerated into a mess again. I appreciate your taking note of my hyperbole though; I had said it with the goal of attracting attention to the state of affairs. I am extremely unhappy with the state of this article and many others and will do my best to rectify things. Sojourner001 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, bollocks, yes you're right. I was playing around in my user sandbox with several different windows open and I imagine at some point clicked something in the wrong one. Thanks for the save. Oh yes, regarding the Tyranids page and following your example - I don't think the biomorphs should be in there at all. Such information is not relevant to an encyclopedia article - and although I've read your views on availability of information I and most of the wikipedian community fundamentally disagree with you - obscure information is not what Wikipedia is about; and this is very obscure. Wikipedia is not the place for fancruft; there are specialised fan wikis for such things and perhaps your talents would be put to better use there. Sojourner001 17:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I don't think they like the idea of putting in anything that the game wants, or really, putting in anything. When I write my entries in Wiki, I tend to look at Brittanica or other encyclopedias to see what kind of language and the like is needed, and what kinds of things are important. Then I try to balance new people looking for brief overviews/understandings with people well rooted in the subject looking for a quick fact check. The strategy section I created was to remove the constant adding by IP addresses of fan strategy that had no real importance or any verifiability. I put in a brief list of important things that the Codex mentions, then I condensed that even more to stuff that really matters. I don't understand why people would bother complaining, as I have gone through and revamped a lot of the article, condensed, and moved things to appropriate pages. But I guess when you aren't able to contribute on your own, you complain as much as possible. SanchiTachi 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll find that a good number of the members of the 40K project are exclusionists. About six months ago, we had a rash of AFDs on 40K articles initiated by members of the project that I fought hard against, so I understand what you're going through. My advice is to keep WP:Ignore All Rules in the back of your mind and just get on with writing. If you get too emotionally involved you can go through a burn out (I certainly have at times) where you wonder why you write anything, if someone who hardly adds anything to the project is just going to jump on it and delete it. Best of luck! And if you need me support in anything, just leave a message, I'll back your strategy idea (and pretty much anything that adds material that's verifiable and sourcable, I'm big on putting more information in Wikipedia, it's why it's here after all) to the hilt. Oh, and a quote I've found reassuring at times when I feel like everything is getting removed: "Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for." by Clarence Darrow. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was looking over at the Churbael page, and I had an idea. Why not create a Daemonhost page and give him a large portion of it, and a tiny portion for some others. There is no Daemonhost page, but there should be a link to one in the Daemonhunters, Witch Hunters, Inquisitor game page, Inquisition page, and Chaos pages. It would kill two birds with one stone. (cross posted that here for consistency, heh ). SanchiTachi 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I purposed a very similar idea for Phoenix Lords (make a Phoenix Lord page for basic information on them, and then throw the characters on the bottom as specific examples) when the merge debate came up. It is something I would support as long as we wouldn't lose information from Churbael (which I don't think we'd have to). --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I reworked the character page. I believe that the Pheonix Lords, even with a fancy title, belong on a generalized list of Eldar characters (the page there is a "super" page, i.e. the really great guys, the Primarch level guys), which keeps the Pheonix Lords as "feeling" the same as the others put in there (you can look at the page to see). I would also put in more info for Churbael, from the Inquisitor Rulebook and from the Daemonhunters book. I don't really like to have characters have their own pages if they are part of a group, because the characters serve as a great example for that group. Eisenhorn is special, because he is a whore of a character and has 6 or 7 different pages that would link to him. SanchiTachi 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the reworking of the character page, and I don't disagree with it. Splitting out the Phoenix lords really would be impractical at this point as well, as it would leave the character page with almost no content (and I don't believe they've been done a disservice with in the current form). Merging in characters strengthens the article, and makes it not only easier to maintain, but harder to delete. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice Clean Up

I've noticed the edits you've made to the Eldar articles, consolidating and adding sources and whatnot. Nice work! --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For the Craftworld!

Thank you for informing me of the need for work on the Eldar articles. I am more than willing to help with them and yes I do play Eldar, I just started so I am still a newbie (The new 4th edition dire avengers look so nice) I might upload some pics of my Eldar when they are done. Unleash the swordwind! Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 08:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Psykic--->psychic

Thanks for correcting me- honestly. I'd rather be wrong and corrected (and fixed, I'm assuming) then wrong and ignored. Cymbalta 01:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Fixed- with psychic. Cymbalta 01:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Leonatas

The model belongs there as much as anywhere - it certainly doesn't belong on the BA page, as it was never a "legal" model to use - it needed the opponents consent, and the stats never appeared in any Codex or WD article. I started a section on "Leo in-game", which admittedly needs to be rewritten better, and possibly expanded upon, but that should be where the mini is.

On a slightly related note, it's worth mentioning that that particular picture is of a converted Leo - the bases isn't the original (though wheter that's worth mentioning ot not I've no idea). Darkson - BANG! 00:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but I've given up trying to upload pics to Wiki (somewhere between my brain, my PC and my 'net connection somethings screws up, and it all goes wrong). If you can crop the pic down to size and change it, all the better. Darkson - BANG! 01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk

Hi SanchiTachi. Thanks for getting back to me. I will speak to Localzuk and see if we can mediate some sort of constructive cop-operation between you two. However, on reading the comments below about you here and at AN/I I have noticed that you are in conflict on a number of fronts at the moment. There is so much going on that its not entirely clear to me what the core the issues are, but a fair number of admins and experienced editors appeal to be saying the same thing about WP:TEA and WP:COOL. I'm not apportioning blame, but it always takes two to tango - and you are dancing the night away at the moment! Please try and take stock and think about what you can do to help avoid these situations in future, as much as other editors can. In the meantime, I'll speak to Localzuk to assess his feelings and get back to you. Rockpocket 06:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi SanchiTachi, I noticed you would like to try and get on with me. Where would you like to start? I am willing and don't hold grudges (never have, never will) so anything you want my help with, feel free to ask! Cheers for now, Localzuk^(talk) 12:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi there. I ran into some random posts of yours and took a look at your user page and you appear to have an interesting personality. In the interest of spontaneity, I just wanted to say hi and introduce myself. I'm an admin here, a software developer from Seattle, and invite you to seek my assistance for any administrative assistance or conversation. Take care. Dcoetzee 03:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

HI

On my talk page you asked me what areas i am interseted in. I am in to warhammer both 40k and fantasy and i would like to help make those sections on wikpedia alot better. I own the latest editions of Codex: Tyranids, Codex: Space Marines, Codex:Necrons, Warhammer Armies: High elves, Warhammer armies: Orges Kingdoms, Warhammer Armies: Dwarves adn WD 255, 308 and 310+. I also know a fair bit about both worlds backgrounds. I hope i can help in some way. General Aion 04:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

3R

You are well over WP:3R on Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000) (I suspect you must be on 5 or 6). Please stop reversing the edits of 3 other editors and addess the issue on the talk page where I have been trying to explain the issue to you and avoid this edit war. If not I'll take it back to the open incident report. (Emperor 00:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

This is incorrect. You weren't reverting vandalism, you were reverting good faith (and tehncially correct) edits, made by three other editors (one of whom also went over 3R and I had to stop as I was on 2) to the page as outlined on the talk page. (Emperor 00:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Re: Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000)

In this version of the page Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000), there is a lot of prose and text. Are you the original author of all the text in this page? If not, please do tell me now. You won't be in trouble for it at all, but this is a legal copyright matter. If you've inappropriately copied text from a source or not properly attributed it, we could have a few problems. So, is this your work? --Deskana (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. In that case, I apologise for the somewhat patronising tone of my message, as when I attempt to deal with such matters I must make clear the importance of the issues. :-) --Deskana (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a problem. Due to the license we use here, content can't be copied and pasted between pages if it isn't mentioned in an edit summary or something, as that violates the GFDL. This isn't a problem, if we make some permenant note in the article history. So, you copied your work from User:SanchiTachi/Graphic Novels Current and pasted it into that page? If this is the case, then I'll add a note in the page history as such, and we don't have a problem anymore. --Deskana (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please answer this or the page will have to be deleted as a potential copyright violation. --Deskana (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Formatting issues on Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000)

I've protected the page. You did violate the 3RR, but I'm not convinced blocking you is the correct course of action. Everyone else right when they were telling you that your formatting was incorrect per the Manual of Style. I will unprotect the page if you promise you will listen to what other users have to say. You should consider that you may be wrong if other users end up ganging up on you. Also, please note that you're somewhat lucky you weren't blocked, as not every administrator handles things in the same way. Please do learn a lesson from this. --Deskana (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the three-revert rule on Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000).  Your block will expire in 24 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Deskana (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid this is necessary as you have stated intent to continue to keep reverting edits once the page is unprotected. This is unacceptable. If you continue to edit war once your block expires, you will be issued another one. --Deskana (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SanchiTachi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Deskana has seriously misread my words. I did not express intent to do anything but continue adding to the page after the block is ofer. Not only is Deskana ignoring the situation, but also ignoring Wikipedia:Verifiability, by claiming that putting the proper title of an object is edit warring even though putting in the proper title when an incorrect title falls withing Wikipedia:Vandalism.

Decline reason:

No dispute that this user violated WP:3RR. — Yamla 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

People reviewing this unblock request should consider the following part of the user's post on my talk page...

"I would prefer the page blocked for at least a few days until the people who kept pouncing on my page have grown tired and leave."

Aside from WP:OWN issues, I think it's pretty hard to misinterpret the user's comments. Secondly, it is unarguable that you violated 3RR. --Deskana (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Wiki Policy, you must teach people what the rules are. Since Deskana does not realize that correcting Vandalism does not count as a Revert, I believe that they should read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Putting in broken links in place of a working link is vandalism. I fixed the broken links. Putting in incorrect correct citation information when there was correct citation information previously is vandalism. Changing the name of a cited and verifiably correct title for a non-verified title after it being pointed out is vandalism. Moving a page can be considered vandalism.

Furthermore, Deskana does not understand that when people come up to a page to harass another person, its not an Own issue. If he wants to put forth that, then I will invoke my GFDL right to take back my information which I do own according to GFDL (the law, not the "policy" version which is incorrect), and will move it to the Warhammer Wiki where they believe in people contributing meaningful information instead of letting users WP:STALK others. SanchiTachi 00:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if I have broken 3RR, then Someguy and Emperor have also, and have shown via their past experience that they did it intentionally and did not provide verifiable information to back up their claim, which should be deleted immediately (because its verifiably incorrect). Deskana has shown that they are not operating correctly in this case. SanchiTachi 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SanchiTachi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Admin above have failed to provide where I have reverted the same text more than 4 times, and where I reverted that same text to a format that wasn't proper, i.e. proper citation of name, proper citation of source, and the like. Admin has also not blocked the people that kept reverting in whole sale improper information. Admin has also brought up the GFDL issue which -I- have not released yet, and it cannot be used under GFDL unless I release the information. Subsequent edits by those involved until I put up the release are violating GFDL which means that their edits go against Wiki Policy.

Decline reason:

What is the issue here? You reverted at least six times not including moves. Reverting edits with which you disagree is hardly fixing vandalism - clearly people in good faith dispute what you assert as fact (namely, that you're formatting is the correct one). Edit warring will not help convince people that you are right. – Steel 01:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Could someone please point out that fixing Dark Angels to Dark Angels is not edit warring, or that repairing information lost in previous reverts such as the proper name of an author or the company who publishes it is valid under Vandalism. I believe that Steel has failed to actually read the revert logs and speaks in ignorance. SanchiTachi 01:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Whenever you submit something to any page on Wikipedia you agree to submit it under GFDL, so your threat of revoking GFDL as a way of getting unblocked won't work since I can easily fix the GFDL incompatability. --Deskana (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you do not. I must make it blatant that I release it to Wikipedia. Merely posting it would be copyright infringment. I forgot to say it earlier, but that does not mean that I so called released it. It does not legally get released until I mentioned it. I sure can't mention it now that I am blocked. So you have yourself an issue. You claim that I have ownership issues, but yet I legally own it at the moment. Remember, I accidentally violated my own GFDL, but that doesn't mean that it should be then allowed to stay after I decide that my accident was a mistake. I have chosen to move my intellectual property to a system that respects users and doesn't abuse admin power to allow Stalking. SanchiTachi 01:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanchi, you cannot 'revoke' the GFDL... You have released something under a license as soon as you post it on the site (hence the 'You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL' line under the submission field). Once it is up, it is available for anyone to edit and use as they see fit. That is the nature of this site and the nature of the GFDL I'm afraid.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats not true under law. I must explicity release my information. I failed to do so. That was my mistake previously, but that means that I am at fault and its not released at all. SanchiTachi 01:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are you from? I ask you this question because the servers are in the USA and therefore subject to US copyright laws, and this is obviously true in the USA. Wikimedia Foundation has had lawyers work for them before and they never saw any problems, so therefore you must be mistaken. Continue to argue that you should be unblocked becuase of a copyright violation all you like- you're proving my point somewhat by demanding unblock on grounds that don't address the original blocking reason. --Deskana (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I will be blunt. Deskana, you have a reading problem. I never said I would edit war on the page, but you claimed I did. The above I said I violated copyright by posting it. That doesn't mean I should be unblocked, it means the page should be deleted. I did not legally release it and, under GFDL, you are not allowed to take whole say copy of my words unless I release them, which I obviously and clearly failed to do. I have released them to another source. SanchiTachi 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I will be blunt, too. Shut up with the moaning. We've told you you're wrong, and we were nice about it too. But I'm bored of it now. --Deskana (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not heading the request of the original intellectual property owner to remove a whole sale copying of text without explicit liscencing release by that person is a serious violation of Wikipedia procedure and the ignoring of such a request to remove the copyright text is something that the Foundation frowns upon. I suggest you stop being snide and do your job before you find yourself without that job. SanchiTachi 02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see you try to remove my admin powers. Like the power to protect this page to stop you moaning about a non-issue. --Deskana (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've left a message with SwatJester to come over and see what can be done here. I'm not going to make a decision here myself, one way or another - Alison ☺ 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, I am taking my intellectual property elsewhere where it will be respected, and to a place that doesn't have Admin who fail to read logs, Admin who do not understand the rules that they rule on, and respect of people instead of allowing obvious Stalkers from harassing them. SanchiTachi 01:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanchi, you did *explicitly* agree to its release by clicking 'Save Page' underneath a line saying 'You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*'. Once you click save, you have released it. That is all there is to it I'm afraid. The Wikimedia foundation have lawyers who ratified the licensing model in use on the site as binding and completely legal. There are no extra steps required to release your text.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia only accepts work on two points: one, that they are written by the person and agreed to be distributed, and two, if they are not already published in an area that is not GFDL compliant. My information is not published is an area that is GFDL compliant already (my personal website and the wiki I use), which means that there would need to be explicit permission of release (like they have on the upload pictures) to have such. It would further go against Wikipedia because it was not from a GFDL compliant site (thus, only a "screen shot" would be permissible). SanchiTachi 16:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

italics

SanchiTachi: Italics ARE the correct use in the manual of style. Bolding should not be used that often and that repeatedly on a page. That being said, you were right that the "games" word should be outside of the italics.

However, come on man, that doesn't give you any right or even reason to be edit warring. It's just stupid italics. It doesn't matter, and it's not worth being blocked over.

As for the copyright issue, well that's being addressed on OTRS. I gotta say, your block appears valid to me: you DID violate the 3RR, and it wasn't one of the exceptions (doesn't qualify as simple vandalism: that's for things like adding "gay balls" to an article.)

I would strongly advise you to limit yourself to a 1RR: only one revert per day on an article. It will go a long way towards destressing you and stopping blocks like this from happening. I know it can be tough, I got into an edit war the other day...I backed off just short of the 3RR, and then realized how stupid it was, and I just ignored it. I'm much happier now. Remember, this is just an internet encyclopedia: it's not life. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 10:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

On a technical point games wasn't in italics (at least in the last dozen or so edits that took place on the word in question). If you look through the history and the talk page the reversions were removing the bold from "games" which was incorrect as it was the subject. That was where the problem came from and why 4+ editors got involved to try and put the formatting back as it should have been. (Emperor 15:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC))