User talk:Falcorian

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post, and probably also make a copy onto your page of the whole discussion just to keep all replies together while still letting you know I have replied to your comment.

My archives: Archive 1

Category:Timeless Classics

Bostonboy is Chicagoboy? Maybe...

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Falcorian, is it just me or is User:Bostonboy3's Category:Timeless Classics similiar to User:Chicagoboy3's Category:Killers From History nonsense? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with Killers from History, but I have noticed that Bostonboy has created multiple categories, all of which are criminal related and nonsensical. I think it's a vandle attempt as well, as he replaced the categories some articles already had with these. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've seen with Chicagoboy3 (the names seems similar as well), and since he's now putting articles into a new category, Category:Outlaws And Theives, for which I am going to block him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The userbox has a fever, and the only prescription... is more cowbell!

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thanks for fixing the cowbell box! -- PKtm 22:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Glad I could help. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go category

Go: A boardgame or a strategy game?

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments made by your edit: [a]bstract strategy games is a subcat of boardgames

I wonder if we should add the main category, in addition to sub-category. A few checks don't get me anywhere. Different pages do differently.

Personally I think it's beneficial to add the article to the main category too since someone who search for board games may not notice abstract strategy games. It may miss that article in this regard. After all, it's no hurt to provide multiple ways to access to the same article. Some sorting/category trees do the same, placing the same link/resource in different possible categories. --User:Wai Wai

When I reverted, I thought that was policy. I have since checked and it's not only a guideline, but also says "There are many cases where articles should be in both". So, basicly, having checked, and thought about it a little, I now agree that it probably should go in both places based on "When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well." from Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained to User:Wai Wai, please follow the guidelines, and the work of countless editors before you. "In straightforward cases an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory" and this is as straightforward as it gets. The article is in a subcategory that is only a subcategory of a very general parent. Clearly we do not want to put all articles in higher level categories as it destroys the usefulness of categories and makes parent categories with thousands of listings. Thank you. (Added... also you both seem unaware there is a Category:Go, which is a subcategory of both Board games and Abstract strategy games. It should be clear that the individual entries in the abstract category for the Go article is redundant already, but ignoring the Go category completely and placing the article in parent and child categories too is completely inappropriate. The Go category exists for a reason.) I hope that helps clear things up. 2005 23:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a second thought, it might be okay not to add the Go article in Category:Board games. It is because I forget Category:Go is listed already in Category:Board games, so the article Go may exempt from it. However this reason do not apply to other articles of board games like backgammon. They should still be included in Category:Board games.--Wai Wai (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a check, it is not true. There are cases where it is listed in several places, eg Monopoly has been listed itself as a subcategory. It is also listed in various board-gamed-related field, namely "Party board games", "Board games", "Economic simulation board games". --Wai Wai (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individual board games and category of board game

Sorry to say, but what you say appears you haven't read the guideline before you make your judgement. You simply judge based on your own reasoning which is inappropriate. The reasons why your categorization method is wrong is as follows:

From the sound of it, what you try to do is to avoid duplication. However the wiki policy has stated it prefers duplication to "1 article must be in only 1 category".
You keep mentioning there is redundancy, as in "the individual entries in the abstract category for the Go article is redundant already". Again the wiki policy is written after the long discussion by many editors. As stated in the page, this policy has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. You shouldn't delete a cetegory simply because you don't like duplication/redundancy.
It appears you don't understand why the category of Go and its related duplication are for, as you just keep it because "The Go category exists for a reason." If it were me who created the category and the duplication, you would have deleted it. They are here due to the "Topic Article Rule".
You misunderstood the straightforward case. "Straightforward" is not the rule when you judge where to put your article. This word merely describe the case (the author thought it is easy to understand why. However the case is not straightforward as shown in your understanding to the situation). Actually the article does not specify the reason for this categorization. You may have imagined the reasons behind and made the wrong judgement. Maybe the article should rewrite to provide a better overview, so less misunderstanding will occur.
1. The reason why the bridge case is similar to "Board games" vs "games". "Games" is the structure head of the category. People will not expect to find "Game of Go" when they browse at "Games". But this case does not apply when it goes to "board games" VS "abstract strategy games". I will explain it later.
All these imply you haven't read the policy before making your own judgment.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticising or blaming you. The reasons why I spend time on listing all these is to encourage you in revisting the WHOLE policy before making your judgement again. I have attempted to ask you to revisit, but you may be in a hurry, you probably just read the first introductory statement or so and perform the action. I guess you haven't read the WHOLE article once, have you? If negative, it would be great if you read the whole policy of Wikipedia:Categorization CAREFULLY (not just the sub-topic which I mention previously).

As a reminder, judgement should be made based on the reasons given in the policy, but not one's own. Next time, if similar things appear, please back up your decision with citation of specific statements of the policy, not just the policy name because we have arguments within the policy.

As to "board games" VS "abstract strategy games", the reasons are simple. If you care to read Falcorian's explanation, you may understand why. It is simply due to the following policy:
Quoted from Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories_and_subcategories#Reasons for duplication:

SECONDARY CATEGORIZATION METHODS When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well. This includes articles placed in ethnic subcategories within national menus, for example articles in Category:African American basketball players should also be left in Category:American basketball players.

--Wai Wai (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you insist on duplicating this discussion everywhere, but please go to the Go talk page if you want to present an argument for why Go should be listed twice in both Board games and Abstract strategy games. You have as yet, on several talk pages to even address that. Go is in both categories you want it in. In the future I suggest you read the guidelines as guidelines and not looking for exceptions, and also familiarize yourself with the categories since it appears you are still unaware of what is actually in them. 2005 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is because you have missed reading my reply. Sorry about the confusion. In the Go talk page I am to ask third-party advice, not your advice again.

Read this reply as it seems you have missed it: "After a second thought, it might be okay not to add the Go article in Go. It is because I forget Go is listed already in Category:Board games, so the article Go may exempt from it. However this reason do not apply to other articles of board games like backgammon. They should still be included in Category:Board games. "

Go is a special case. But why do you revert others too? You have to explain your reasons with reference to the policy.

(Updated) I'm wrong. There are cases where it is listed as well.--Wai Wai (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we should continue as this page is Falcorian. Maybe I should copy (but not cut) the whole discussion to your page.--Wai Wai (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the discussion pages for articles, rather than make comments on multiple user pages. 2005 01:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where we should ask. This question is not specific to any particular board game. --Wai Wai (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a page for any game or article or category you want to change policy on, or in one of the general wiki discussion areas/pages. 2005 01:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so bloody confused... I go away for a few hours and my talk page explodes! --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Just ignore the above. The incident occurred when User:2005 was going around and reverted all my category changes. I referenced to the policy which you have mentioned and reverted the change. However User:2005 kept reverting so quickly and violated Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. To prevent another edit war, I stopped my edits first. Originally the discussion started at User:2005 page. Later User:2005 deleted all the discussions in its talk page and switched the discussion here. That's why your talk page exploded. Sorry about that.--Wai Wai (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems... Glad my space is of help. ;) --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet cluster

Hubble images for Bullet Cluster might not be PD.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note: Please also see User_talk:Mac_Davis for full conversation.

Thanks for checking, the pdf is a record of a presentation at a 2005 symposium about the data by Chandra, who's website is http://chandra.harvard.edu / http://csx.harvard.edu The satellite is owned by NASA, but CXC Harvard operated for NASA by the Smithsonian Institution, according to the site. So the SAO operates it for Harvard, who is taking all the credit of doing it for NASA, who takes all the credit. NASA's site for Chandra seems very small, and they only have one picture of the Bullet cluster. It looks like NASA has a page up just to show that they have a page. http://chandra.nasa.gov I don't know what the rules say about pictures that you took with a shared space telescope, but it seems to me it is NASA-PD— [Mac Davis] (talk)

Ah, you take care of it. I don't know what to say. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

WP:AIV

AIV Rejected for 62.31.57.79

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The IP you reported, 62.31.57.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), is admittedly engaging in a protracted campaign of vandalism, but there hasn't been any within the last 6 hours. It's possible he could have read the warnings. Hold off a bit before posting on AIV. alphaChimp ^laudare 05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

VanalProof Approved

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Falcorian! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe 's talk 11:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks for adding me. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalSniper

VanalSniper Approved

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You've been approved to use VandalSniper. Please let me know if you have any problems getting it working. --Chris (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! No vandals won't be safe regardless of which OS I boot. ;) --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answers.com Gibson Research Corporation copyvio

Turns out Answers.com Mirrors Wikipedia.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

O_O Ok, somebody was copying somebody, I'd still suggest the merge to Steve Gibson and will, I never knew that about answers.com :-) Thanks for dropping by. --Elomis 23:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Feel free to propose a merge though! --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Appeal for my views on a deletion review.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sorry to bother you, but as an Inclusionist wikipedia things are getting desperate and I need to appeal to your for help. We are facing a situation where a deletionist admin is free to declare inclusionist arguments "absurd" and ignore them at will. If you don't agree with this situation, please share your opinion here. Kappa 02:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Also, as a note to other editors, DO NOT remove content from my talk page. I will consider it vandalism. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warhammer 40,000 Weapons and Equipment

New editor asks for help.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am not sure how to edit and such on Wikipedia yet, nor am I comfortable doing it to a page I did not create. I saw your name on the article on the headline and was looking to correct an error in it. It says that the Nova Cannon is a large laser weapon, but it is actually a solid munition. This is stated in the BFG rulebook under the entry for the Nova Cannon, IIRC.

Hello

I thought this user was a vandal, and it turns out he was a fellow physics major at Cal...

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

hey I'm Zelam Ngo, Facebook me, I'm also a physics major at Berkeley! (and it wasnt vandalism)

Good to meet you! Maybe you didn't intend it to be vandalism, but some would see it as such. But please, edit the article further! We can use all the help we can get!

And unfortunately I can't Facebook you, I canceled my account a while ago. ;) Best of luck on finals! --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherenkov radiation post

New user thanks me for pointing him right instead of flaming him... Awww!

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was a little hasty in posting a change request to the Cherenkov radiation article, and I clearly ignored the context of the sentence under question. You are of course correct in defending its veracity. Thanks for being so gracious about it though, and not flaming me! My first forray into the wiki-world ended painless enough on account of it. :) — Kavrod (talk • contribs) 20:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Of course! It was a simple mistake, and it would be quite rude of me to make anything other than a polite reply, regardless! Best of luck with the rest of your time here on Wikipedia! --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy of Arts Redirect

Steenmitchell points out a bad redirect I made.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi. I reverted your redirect of the American Academy of Arts to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. They are 2 different institutions with entirely separate goals on separate coasts. The American Academy of Arts is an Indie Film school located in southern California. There are a number of entries in Wikipedia that refer to the American Academy of Arts that were not intended to point to the academic institution in Cambridge. Although you may think of the American Academy of Arts as an abbreviated reference to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, I can't think of anyone that would think the same way. The Academy of Arts and Sciences is a prestigious institute that I have always heard of referred to in its full name. There is also the American Academy of Art which has a separate entry in Wikipedia and should be distinguished from both. You have to be careful with those redirects as they are a big problem here on Wikipedia. Way too many entries have redirects to pages they don't belong on and essentially have nothing to do with. Regards... Steve. Stevenmitchell 00:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles of the Space Marines

Shrumster thanks me for a barnstar I gave him.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thanks! :) Shrumster 16:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You earned it! --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buena suerte con Bullfighting

EspanaViva wishes me good luck on the Bullfighting FAR.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Good luck with your FAR! EspanaViva 02:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope to find some help there... --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

A vandal asks if he can do lude things to edit summaries, I reply in a somewhat witty manner, and WAvegetarian approves of it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is it okay if i abuse edit summaries by putting my penis in their butts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.198.231 (talk • contribs)

Only if they're of legal age and give consent. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good answer.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 14:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:WAvegetarian/OBproject

I ask WAvegitarian about a template he made, and he replies most politely.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey there. The template you created is a little large and loud, might you be willing to trim its width a little? It doesn't fit in well with all the other talk page templates at the moment. It'd also be nice if you would unprotect it as well. Since it's not a likely target for vandalism, the only effect the protection has now is preventing contributors from editing it (which I think they should be able to do, since it's being place on talk pages). Cheers! --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the color scheme, set width to 85%, and unprotected it. I'm having trouble getting it centered and it appears to be more than 85%, however.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 14:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have just used the standard .messagebox class but I didn't have an appropriate free use image, so I tried to recreate some semblance of a logo using the school name and colors. This was easy enough using a div, but I couldn't figure out how to do it with a table. After refamiliarizing myself with table markup I have now changed it from a div to a table. I think I have addressed all the concerns that you had. Let me know if there is anything else that you think could be improved, or go ahead and make the changes yourself.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 15:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response, you addressed everything I had asked about! I hope I didn't come off as nit-picky, but I think making things (even talk pages) look nice is a laudable goal. So once again, thanks for the quick response, see you around! --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition 209

JianLi informs of a change he made based on a request I had for Prop 209.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've added the text of Proposition 209 to the article, as you have suggested on the article's talk page. I agree that the article would be inadequate without it. --JianLi 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nice. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

michael masley

Akb4 did an excellent job on the Michael Masley article, and blushes when I compliment him on it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
blush. Thanks for the praise. -- Akb4 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bolo

Dealing with OR on Bolos.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Yeah i left him a comment on his talk page too. I think its simply he's a new editor and not aware of Wikipedia guidleines so i tried to explan why i removed it on his page. Hopefully this won't turn into a problem. Its not the worst theory i've ever heard in anycase.Trey 17:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw the note on his page. Left a message there. Probably no harm meant on his part. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD

My conversation with Phil on my request to leave the RfD notice on %s

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't suppose you'd consider putting the RFD notice back in. Sure it breaks the page and is annoying, but without the notice, the whole process is hidden from the users. I mean, honestly, how many people read RFD regularly? ;-) I for one don't, and wouldn't have had known their was a discussion going on without the notice. --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to, no. It's a shockingly bad thing to nominate, in that it is actively used by people to navigate into Wikipedia - enough so that a friend puzzledly asked me why her navigation to Wikipedia kept dumping her on the non-functioning redirect. It's bad enough that it got nominated - clogging the page with the redirect notice and thus breaking it, when the logic for keeping is "lots of people use it" is just silly. Phil Sandifer 04:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, of course, that without the notice all the people who use it won't be able to see that it's use if up for discussion. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've started a discussion on Talk:%s, please share your opinions there. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

My conversation with Sanchi on Deletionists, and merging 40k stuff.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. SanchiTachi 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PGNx Media

Sometimes I get depressed about all the articles getting deleted and go spend days on AfD... Sometimes people come back to me later and ask me to share my opinion again on articles I happened to run into during this time. This is one of those cases.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An editor has asked for a deletion review [1] of PGNx Media (see article here [2]). Since you participated in the discussion, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Arielguzman 01:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VFD of Chaos Marines

Question: If the armies were put into the Chaos Space Marines page, the character information put on the Primarch page, and their "Horus Heresy" thing put onto its own page, would you agree with that? It would remove 8 pages devoteed to fiction and improve two others and create a new page. NobutoraTakeda 15:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would be opposed to this. I do not see how you could complete a merger without a loss of information, or making very large articles, which I'm opposed to. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not needed. It is OR - Synthesis, Fan Fluff, POV, In-Universe, and no third party sources to back up notability, and does not belong. If you want to make a fan page to list the alleged histories of fictional characters from admittedly conflicting sources, thats appropriate. But not in an encyclopedia. NobutoraTakeda 16:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we disagree on very fundamental points, that are unlikely to be resolved. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians

As you may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:SubGenius Wikipedians, and others, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word. If, on the other hand, you are not interested in the slightest, feel free to delete this. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 11:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bevatron

Hi there, thanks for your comments re Bevatron edits. I'm slowly learning my way around this madhouse, and happy for guidance. Wwheaton 07:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. After your helpful and encouraging comment about the Bevatron article, I added about 10 KB to the general article on particle accelerators, which had organizational and other problems. All of that has been lost, I think due to vandalism by an apparently unregistered editor in the past three days. I have reported the problem to ClueBot following its 20:42 November 20 revision, and copied most of my complaint to the discussion page for the article (which has had no recent discussion except for some chatter by me). Anyhow, could you take a look, and let me know if I am somehow way off base, and what, if anything, I should do further about it? I have not yet tried to revert to one of the earlier versions, never having done that before.

Thanks! Wwheaton (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look at it later today when I'm back! --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warcraft templates

I've updated several Category:Warcraft templates to reflect two recent list deletions (locations and races). Template {{Warcraft Navigation}} is new and many templates you contributed now depend upon it. List of Warcraft characters is nominated for deletion. Best wishes with the project. – Conrad T. Pino 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40K

Thanks for the heads up on 40k. It sounds like this is the sort of thing that will affect a lot of other projects too. A generic response should probably be developed. Mathiastck 23:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a sound idea... Do you have any thoughts on how to start such a response? --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the thing to do is to participate in discussion on talk pages. It sounds like this is a reaction to a change in wikipedia policy, so the related wikipedia policy pages would be a good place to start. Mathiastck 10:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message

Hi there, thanks for the message I think that i should start to put in a bit of effort aswell. Halo legend 00 11:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

Felix Rohatyn

Hi. Thanks for your work here. I followed your suggestion on the BLP page and removed the negative material from this article. There was nothing left so I tagged it as non-notable. Happy New Year. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminatus

I initially reverted your blanking and redirect of the page, because it had the appearance of vandalism - having been seemingly redirected to a random sparsely related page, NOT merged as claimed, and with no hint as to where it had supposedly been transwikid to. Since then I have been keeping an eye on your W40K-page edits, and many of them also have these characteristics. Please, if you are going to claim to merge a subpage into what would be considered a parent page: DO SO. Imperial Navy (Warhammer 40,000) I feel would also be far more appropriate location to merge Exterminatus into and redirect to. I suggest you also revise your future edit summaries so others may know where has been deemed appropriate for this content. Southen (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 7 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nødhavn Ved Norskekysten, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on this one! I added the WP:DYK hook to Portal:Norway, and it will be updated into the randomized rotation once there are 2 more WP:DYK hooks to fill out the newest set of 3 (the 19th set). Cirt (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Gude

FYI, I hope you don't mind, I came across your great work at User:Falcorian/Hans Gude, and used a quote and source from there for Portal:Norway/Selected quote/12. Cirt (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad to see some of my work spreading around the project! Feel free to use anything on my scratch HFG article, but if you wouldn't merge it in just yet, that's be great. I'm not done writing it, and I'd like it to qualify for DYK as well! Hope to see you around (I'm sure I will since I plan on work on a few more painting articles)! --Falcorian ^(talk) 09:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I wouldn't merge that stuff, though it looks really good, I can see you are still working on it. Do me a favor though and drop me a note when it makes T:DYK successfully, and I'll update Portal:Norway accordingly. Great work! Cirt (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for expanding the lead, I think this article is now good enough to also be added to the bio portion of Portal:Norway. Great job! Cirt (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Portal:Norway/Selected biography/21, you might want to take a look, I used the lede and then shortened it to about 10 lines, I'd prefer to keep it short, but you might want to tweak/summarize it better. Cirt (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look! Thanks for the heads up! --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for generating great content to use in the portal and elsewhere on the project. In part thanks to some of your work, hopefully the WP:FPORTC discussion will result in the portal getting promoted soon. Cirt (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hans Gude

On 23 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hans Gude, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bencherlite ^Talk 08:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kitty Lange Kielland, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu

Care to join the hornets nest? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. ;-) Not a battle I want to fight right now. --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to redirect

Hi - Links to redirects are useful when that redirect will (or should) some day be an article of its own. The author of that new article will already have some input on what other articles should link to that new article. PAR (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is the case for the redirect I removed, which specifically listed it self as an "Also called" of the link a few words back. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

Yup, I agree. PAR (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Timor

User Merbabu is trying to erase the infobox included on the article Portuguese Timor. This kind of infobox exists in many other articles in Wikipedia. He is just trying to impose his own view in the article. Is there some action that can be done against it? Emerson

The hell? What have I done to be canvassed like this? --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Catch

Sorry that I disappointed you here, but good catch! Thanks for correcting it :D!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright, I was already to listen and transcribe a version of the article from the future, but then I realized the mistake! :-( Maybe next time! --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 1 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sulamith Goldhaber, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of paintings by Hans Gude - FA status

Do you know if the current list is an exhaustive list of the paintings by Hans Gude. If so, I was thinking that this article maybe could qualify for Featured List status. What are your thoughts? Remember (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm certain it is not comprehensive. It currently consists off all the paintings listed by Haverkamp (Haverkamp, Frode; Gude, Hans Fredrik [January 1992]. Hans Gude (in Norwegian). Oslo: Aschehoug. ISBN 8203170722. OCLC 29047091.), but I believe his book is incomplete because I have come across other images online that he does not cover. I don't know of a source though from which to expand it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. thanks anyway. Remember (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's an interest of mine so I'll expand the list as I find sources. However, I'm not sure if it will ever be complete (or how often it will be updated). --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Guy

I have been editing some pages from experience and not be vandalize other peoples work. Please except my apology if i have broke the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.128.116 (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating geo lists

Hi I've made an intital suggestion at the GEOBOT talk page in that it would be an excellent idea to generate a full lists of places in a tabled list. Once this is accomplished we can work through what articles could be started in their own right if there is enough info avilabale. I see it as a solid comprehensive base to build geo content on if we have a full world list organized like this. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Bot#Creating lists. Please offer your thoughts thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Physics participation

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backing up Warhammer Articles

I've read you have the three weapons and vehicles articles for Tau, Necron and Imperium backed up.

There are also a few more articles that need backing up, as they have been nominated for AfD:

Space Marine Scouts, Adeptus Mechanicus, Cult Mechanicus, Iron Hands, and Officio Assassinorum

If I may take the opportunity to ask, how do you back up articles? Copy paste?

AlmondManTwo (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]