User talk:The Great Unwashed
Re:Tyranids
[edit]Ha! I had reverted it in the first place, and then reverted back because I wasn't sure if it really was vandalism. Honestly, I don't know anything about these games, so for me it's entirely possible that Tyranids carry spoons and atlases. Thanks for letting me know. ... discospinster talk 13:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The Future of WP:40k
[edit]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) 06:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Civility
[edit]With reference to this edit summary, please remember to always be civil in your actions on Wikipedia, and don't bite the newbies. Wikipedia is a community, and such comments as this don't help us build an encyclopedia. Thanks --Pak21 08:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your rebuke is noted, but I'm afraid I don't agree - nor do I consider it too much to ask that people a) read the article they are editing first to see if the information is there, and b) know how to spell the information that they are attempting to repeat. If it's uncivil to be blunt, then consider me uncivil. I'm hardly going to say "Thanks for your enthusiasm, but unfortunately we're looking for someone who can spell" or "Gee nice try but I had to revert it because it was useless and wrong". It's all a bit molly-coddly-pointless when six words make it plain, and are the real reason it was reverted without any window-dressing to make it all palatable. Besides, comments like that DO help us build an encyclopaedia, because they keep it pertinent and readable. Contributions like the one I reverted, do not. The Great Unwashed 03:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is no problem with reverting the contribution: it didn't help the encyclopedia, I think everyone would agree. However, an edit summary along the lines of "reverted badly spelt contribution" would have accomplished the same effect, while still being civil and hopefully encouraging the editor to come back later. Wikipedia needs editors to build and grow, and those who encounter incivility (including overly blunt comments) aren't likely to come back and contribute in the future. I think this is slightly a matter of assuming good faith: one badly spelt contribution doesn't mean an editor isn't going to make positive contribute to the encyclopedia in the future, so they should be encouraged, not scared off. Hope this makes some sense --Pak21 09:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: TF2 edits
[edit]Thanks! It's always good to have some support in these style edits, considering they are mostly very unpopular with the anomalous masses. Regarding barnstars, take a look over at Wikipedia:Barnstars and the corresponding links in the awards table on the right of that page. -- Sabre 10:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Opinion on TF2 edit
[edit]I want your opinion regarding an edit I'm considering making. I'm thinking about adding a brief one-sentence summary of each of the maps if I can find proper references for it. Would you regard the following as guide material? It simply lays out an overview of the design of the map with no plans for further elaboration, but considering my fairly tyrannical come down on other edits under WP:NOT#GUIDE I want a second opinion before I go ahead on it:
- 2Fort, a capture the flag map. The teams attempt to infiltrate the enemy control room and steal an intelligence briefcase.
- Dustbowl, a control point map. BLU attacks a RED compound with a missile launch pad, progressively moving up to the main control facility.
- Granary, a control point map. Both teams try to take over the other's granary, housing a number of missiles.
- Gravel Pit, a control point map. BLU attacks a RED quarry containing a laser cannon.
- Hydro, a territorial control map. Each team battles over facility with a dam and a satellite dish before attacking the enemy's main control room.
- Well, a control point map. The teams assault each other's warehouses to capture a missile launch pad.
-- Sabre (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Warhammer 40K Project updated
[edit]
- 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) 05:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.
Project activity
[edit]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) 21:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)