The Rogue Penguin (talk | contribs) →Talk pages: comment |
SanchiTachi (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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== |
==Darkson== |
||
Line 4: | Line 6: | ||
I think I may have confused you. When I mentioned Imperial Fists, I was refering to your talk page and two posts up. [[User:SanchiTachi|SanchiTachi]] 15:46, 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. [[User:SanchiTachi|SanchiTachi]] 15:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
== smackbot == |
|||
Replied on my talk page.[[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[WP:CLIMBING|<small><sup>On Belay!</sup></small>]] 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== good work == |
== good work == |
||
Line 29: | Line 27: | ||
Thanks [[User:SanchiTachi|SanchiTachi]] 22:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks [[User:SanchiTachi|SanchiTachi]] 22:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:As you have responded on my page, I shall respond here - fairs fair. Administrators do not hold a heirarchical position of power on this site. All users are permitted and encouraged to enforce our policies (it is a community site). You ''did'' attack the user by saying they were behaving like a jerk You cannot deny it. No semantic arguments to get around it will make it any less of an attack. Simply describing his actions as being a jerk also calls him a jerk, simple. Now, I would advise that you spend some time studying our policies in a bit more depth as you do not understand some of the fundamental aspects of this site - namely that things are done by consensus and that all users are equal. Please note the line 'A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y' which pretty much covers my warning/advisory against incivility/personal attacks. Now I am going to drop this now as it is a pointless discussion and not helping the site.-[[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]]<sup>[[User talk:Localzuk|(talk)]]</sup> 22:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: Behaving is an action. NPA clearly says that Personal Attacks are not those that describe actions. It '''is''' an attack. It '''is not''' a personal attack. Furthermore, the rule "be bold" is above a consensus, and using sources is above a consensus. Saying you are wrong because a source was cited is appropriate. You have misrepresented myself and wikipedia, and you continue to do such by saying "our." You do not speak for Wikipedia, so please, stop. [[User:SanchiTachi|SanchiTachi]] 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: Well as it appears you will not drop this subject and you seem to not understand the main concepts behind this site (community, all are equal therefore 'our') I am going to stop discussing with you as I do not see you as being willing to compromise or listen to other people's points of view. Please do not reply to me as I will simply ignore it, thanks. [[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]]<sup>[[User talk:Localzuk|(talk)]]</sup> 22:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I will keep the above user's post as proof that he feels that he is speaking for everyone and does not want to contribute to Wikipedia except in exerting his position of speaking for everyone. [[User:SanchiTachi|SanchiTachi]] 22:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Talkpage reverting == |
== Talkpage reverting == |
||
Line 54: | Line 44: | ||
Hi SanchiTachi, please stop removing comments from my talk page. I archive my own page in accordance with the guidelines on archiving. Please take a look at [[WP:TALK#Editing_comments]] which tells you that removing other people's comments should be avoided. If you do remove it again, as it is my talk page, I will start to see it as a [[WP:POINT]] violation. The easiest way to sort this out is if you simply drop the matter. Thank you. [[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]]<sup>[[User talk:Localzuk|(talk)]]</sup> 07:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC) |
Hi SanchiTachi, please stop removing comments from my talk page. I archive my own page in accordance with the guidelines on archiving. Please take a look at [[WP:TALK#Editing_comments]] which tells you that removing other people's comments should be avoided. If you do remove it again, as it is my talk page, I will start to see it as a [[WP:POINT]] violation. The easiest way to sort this out is if you simply drop the matter. Thank you. [[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]]<sup>[[User talk:Localzuk|(talk)]]</sup> 07:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Your behaviour == |
|||
I know you don't seem to like me but can I give you some advice? You seem to persist in using comments such as: |
|||
*''Accept it or leave. Thats how Wikipedia is.'' |
|||
*''Deal with it.'' |
|||
*''Now please apologize, because once again, I was right, you were wrong, and you have accused me of something unfairly. I expect your apology soon, and I expect the above original research to be removed by their respective owners.'' |
|||
etc... Can I ask you not to? These seem to imply that you have some overall higher knowledge on the site/subject and as such seem condescending to the other editors on here. This will serve to do one thing and one thing alone: alienate them. As an editor who has only been registered for a month or so, it would be advisable to take the advise of those of us who have been editing for much longer. It will mean that other editors respect your comments rather than simply ignore them (this does happen, and I have seen it happen many times). |
|||
If you do continue to behave in such a, what I can only call, uncivil manner then it will not help the site at all. Thanks, [[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]]<sup>[[User talk:Localzuk|(talk)]]</sup> 14:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::This is the same as what I responded with over on his page: |
|||
::When I use those terms, its after people accuse me of being wrong, and they accuse me of being wrong without proof and while misquoting rules. Those are the people trying to attack me. It is my right to ask for an apology from someone falsely accusing me of breaking rules, or from people who do not use proper verifiability. If you do not like how Wikipedia requires such, then there are plenty of other Wiki like places that don't care that you can go to. Its that simple. [[User:SanchiTachi|SanchiTachi]] 15:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::All your response has done is taken my advice and turned it into another jab. Can I once again point out that administrators on this site are not in any position of power. They are equal to everyone else. They just have some extra buttons which can do extra things - if you don't believe me, ask on some of the admin noticeboards. |
|||
:::Regardless of how right you are/think you are, making demands of another user or users will not help any situation, it will simply make them dig their heals in more. |
|||
:::So, once again, stop acting like a mini-dictator and I am sure you will be a very useful contributer. Don't stop and I am as sure that your contributions will be met with complete disdain and a general air of negativity. |
|||
:::Finally, can I just point out that one of the things that I am seeing which seems to be a root problem of all this is your seeing our guidelines and policies as hard and fast rules. They are not - they are flexible. We can use other policies such as [[WP:IAR]] to ignore them and use common sense also. Nothing is 'required' of anyone. Thanks, [[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]]<sup>[[User talk:Localzuk|(talk)]]</sup> 15:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Is anyone else able to see the irony in him, coming to my page, acting like a jerk and saying that I broke rules, and then saying I doing this because I am so stuck on the rules and that we shouldn't listen to any rules? How vulgar is that? Honestly. I feel that if the person cared more about Wiki than whatever strange personal interest (the kind that does not belong on Wiki), then he wouldn't be going to many people's pages and doing such things, which he has a history of harassing people in the same way that he is doing now. For proof, see his archives on his talk page. There are quite a few that have brought up such things. [[User:SanchiTachi|SanchiTachi]] 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I have to say I am finding you to be incredibly difficult to talk to. You are simply ignoring advice given in good faith in an attempt to help get things flowing on the site and instead are choosing to focus on what other people have said to me. Also, as I have said before, calling people a jerk (or their behaviour) ''is'' a personal attack. |
|||
:::::I am not pretending to be an admin, as that would be completely pointless as they are not in any position of power above normal users. We are all equal and I am simply giving advice.-[[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]]<sup>[[User talk:Localzuk|(talk)]]</sup> 16:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
If Dick is not a personal attack term, then Jerk isn't either. [[meta:Don't_be_a_dick|Don't be a dick]]. Its only common sense and a strong rule of not ignoring the Ettiquette. |
|||
:Sorry but it is. Also, what 'actions' advising you that your use of 'jerk' is uncivil and a personal attack? That is a normal action taken by a normal editor. Other than that I don't see what else I have done.-[[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]]<sup>[[User talk:Localzuk|(talk)]]</sup> 16:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Lets see, I have a page citing information supporting me. You have nothing. Once again, you claim to speak for everyone. You are not an admin. You do not have a consensus. You are assuming things you cannot. Not only is that not in the letter of Wiki, its not in the spirit. Cease and desist. [[User:SanchiTachi|SanchiTachi]] 16:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Ok, what do you want proof of? -[[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]]<sup>[[User talk:Localzuk|(talk)]]</sup> 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Your request == |
|||
Hello. Thanks for your comments on my talkpage. I'm a bit snowed under with another matter on Wikipedia, and also in real life. However, I will try and have a look within 24hrs and respond further then. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 05:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Just a quick, and my final comment to you == |
|||
I am going to back out of this current discussion about [[WP:OR]] as I see it is going to go no-where. Can I just ask you one thing? Where did you get 'It is highly frustrating and by Localuz and Pak21, who have both histories of not contributing much to the group except to accuse people of rule breaking.' from? Considering Pak21 and myself set up the Warhammer 40,000 project, I completely rewrote the [[Warhammer 40,000]] article, created various sub pages, introduced inforboxes for the chaos and space marine armies, created the template which sits on all W40K articles, and Pak21 has done even more than that. If you mean 'group' as in the entire site, just take a look at my edit contributions - I have 6300 edits, ~3500 of them in main space and only ~1500 in talk space. |
|||
So, using your persistent [[WP:WL|wiki-lawyering]], can I ask you to provide some proof, else it is simply a egregious rant against myself and Pak21.-[[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]]<sup>[[User talk:Localzuk|(talk)]]</sup> 10:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, it isn't stalking seems how you are posting comments about myself all over this site. I have just shown you that I have done a lot of work on this site. Lets not get into a pissing match over who has done more - my comment merely shows that you were wrong. Pak21 and myself have done a huge amount to improve the W40K articles (they were in a truly dire state before, with no sources what so ever, with huge expanses of nonsense and full of opinion), and to state that you are doing more is just arrogance.-[[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]]<sup>[[User talk:Localzuk|(talk)]]</sup> 15:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Nids== |
==Nids== |
||
Line 102: | Line 49: | ||
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. [[User:Sojourner001|Sojourner001]] 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
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. [[User:Sojourner001|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. [[User:Sojourner001|Sojourner001]] 17:51, 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. [[User:Sojourner001|Sojourner001]] 17:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Original research debate == |
|||
This is pointless. If you think that the discussion as put forth by myself is inherently against policy to even discuss, please contact the admins and have it removed. I will accect that. However, I will not sit idely by while people spam the discussion with irrelevant material. My behavior and my comments are seperate from the discussion itself. If you wish to address my behavior and comments, use talk pages or complain to an admin. Anything else is an off-topic personal attack. Please, stop the edit war (I LEFT THE FREAKING LINK IN so people can still read it, it just doesn't need to be blockquoted) and cease your hijacking attempts. --[[User:Lode Runner|Lode Runner]] 01:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:If you wish to address the style and "legality" of my behavior and comments, I mean. Addressing the content would be very much welcome. --[[User:Lode Runner|Lode Runner]] 01:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Warning == |
== Warning == |
Revision as of 02:19, 15 May 2007
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)
Warhammer 40,000
I'm honestly confused as to why you seem to have become so aggressive suddenly: I fully understand that useful misspellings and plurals etc must be linked together, which is what my last post was intended to imply. If you interpreted it differently, I apologise for not writing clearly enough, but there is no need to make such personal attacks as you have been doing. Please relax and try and contribute in a friendly way. Cheers --Pak21 21:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am trying to be friendly and constructive here, but all I am seeing at the moment is aggression from you, which is certainly not civil. I don't quite know what you're referring to with respect to the out-of-universe issue (I've been on holiday, so my memory is not as clear as it might be), but I don't think that the tone of your recent comments is improving the situation, and I would urge you to be more friendly with your comments. Please consider this, even if you disagree with me on specific points. Thank you --Pak21 21:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whether or not I have been uncivil, and I'm sure I have in the past, that does not excuse incivility on your part. As for your statement about "holding votes in which few people get to vote", the poll was advertisted on both the Warhammer 40,000 talk page and the WikiProject page. If you feel it should have been advertised elsewhere, please suggest further locations. --Pak21 07:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- While your comment about reasonable numbers of participants is valid, I didn't close any of the "characters on the main page" !votes... Cheers --Pak21 15:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whether or not I have been uncivil, and I'm sure I have in the past, that does not excuse incivility on your part. As for your statement about "holding votes in which few people get to vote", the poll was advertisted on both the Warhammer 40,000 talk page and the WikiProject page. If you feel it should have been advertised elsewhere, please suggest further locations. --Pak21 07:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Spelling
I have removed this section because its no longer appropriate. If you would like to discuss or participate in the Spelling Variation issue, please go [for the Survey] or Here for the Discussion.
Thanks SanchiTachi 22:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Talkpage reverting
Hello SanchiTachi. I have been following the situation on Localzuk's talkpage after noting the first revert by Arnon. While I applaud your good intentions in removing a dispute, and realise you have done so in good faith, other editors often prefer a record of exchanges to remain. When the disagreement is on a user's talkpage, the wishes of the subject of the talkpage are usually respected. Therefore I would recommend you avoid a revert war with Localzuk and permit him to decide what happens with that text. If you wish to indicate that you regret the dispute, you can always withdraw your contributions. You can can do that by striking out your comments and noting that you wish to withdraw them. Thanks for your consideration on this matter. Rockpocket 00:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I stand strongly by my right to delete my own comments, or to delete other people's comments on my talk page. If anyone wants to have a record of what I said, there is definately their history (they can link to it) or they can perform a refactory by adding a summary of what I said previously. SanchiTachi 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, and thanks also for re-editing your comment to tone down the rhetoric. I'm not interested in getting involved in a dispute, so I would prefer to keep things cordial. I hope you agree.
- Firstly, you appear very keep to exercise your "rights". I'm afraid Wikipedia is not a democracy, so none of us have any rights here. You are certainly permitted, perhaps even encouraged, to remove personal attacks you have made. However, it is not a right, nor is it a rule. When the target of those comments wishes they be re-instated - especially when they are on his own talkpage - the situation becomes much cloudier and your perceived "rights" clash with his perceived "rights" (despite the fact neither of you have any rights). There is no 100% correct course of actions here, but a stubborn persistance to exercise your non-existant rights is most certainly an incorrect course of action.
- Should he revert your comment again, you both will fall into revert-warring and 3RR territory. This is the basis on which I requested you consider whether it was really worth it, because it could be interpreted that this reverting is less about removing personal attacks and more about continuing a personal dispute. If this continues, you could end up being blocked. Rockpocket 01:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I will remind everyone that the 3R rule does not prevent me from reverting my own text back to the original text, thus, effectively deleting my post, but a revert of that would count towards the 3RR rule. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time" SanchiTachi 01:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thats an interesting interpretation of 3RR. You forget that, in "effectively deleting [your] post" multiple times you are still "undoing the actions of another editor". I wouldn't advise you try and justify more then three reverts using that logic, because it wouldn't get you very far. Rockpocket 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- But what you failed to see is that his revert of my undoing would be the first revert, not the second. Which starts my count off after his, which places him as breaking the rule first. That was my point. SanchiTachi 01:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi SanchiTachi, please stop removing comments from my talk page. I archive my own page in accordance with the guidelines on archiving. Please take a look at WP:TALK#Editing_comments which tells you that removing other people's comments should be avoided. If you do remove it again, as it is my talk page, I will start to see it as a WP:POINT violation. The easiest way to sort this out is if you simply drop the matter. Thank you. Localzuk(talk) 07:59, 4 May 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)
Warning
SanchiTachi, your edits on the Village pump (policy) page have been less than civil. You also do not appear to be assuming good faith in Lode Runner. While I understand that we all have strong feelings on this issue, discussion must be civil. If you are going to accuse an editor of violating a policy, please be prepared to cite specifically what they have done to do so; otherwise the result may be a civility breach.
I'd also advise you to maybe take a break from editing WH40K and wikipedia policy page articles for a while. Do some new page patrol, or random article improving, or FAC improvements.
One last thing: while I don't mind reports of policy violations on my talk page, you are likely to have better luck posting them at WP:AN/I-- that way other administrators may review it, and you're likely to get a quicker and more fair result. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Noted and responded.SanchiTachi 06:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
We have to assume good faith until we have convincing evidence that to continue to do so will be detrimental to the encyclopedia. I'm not impugning your character, just saying you're getting a bit heated and you need to cool off a bit. Lode Runner was wrong too, and he was blocked for 24 hr for it. Still, that doesn't excuse incivility. Just cool off a bit and you'll be alright; this isn't a statement on your character. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, Thanks for your quick reply. SanchiTachi 06:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
My Take
Howdy. So I have finally got a chance to have a look at some of the issues you mentioned on my talkpage. I'll try and break them down and address them one by one.
Variants
Its very difficult for me to offer an opinion of the merits of either case, as the subject is so esoteric. Moreover, since this is a dispute over content, my opinion is worth no more than anyone elses. I accept that you provided a source for your statements, but if it is true that these codexes do expire, then an expired codex is not much or a reliable source (mind you, no source is hardly an improvement). I don't think this one is going to be solved by "rules-lawyering" (as your colleagues charmingly put it), instead it is going to have to be settled by consensus or by compromise. I'm not sure how to to form consensus, since I think you would need experts to offer and informed opinion, perhaps you could invite a peer review or a RfC? In terms of reaching compromise, since it appears that the communication between you and them is barely civil, I would think getting back on polite terms would be a good start. Then you might want to try mediation, either informal or formal, to try and reach a constructive outcome.
If I could offer some advice. I know how frustrating it is when you feel another editor is being obtuse or obstructive, but ending communications with terms like "This discussion is over" and "Deal with it" is simply inviting more conflict and thus is counterproductive to your goals.
Lode Runner
I think he is certainly needs to cool off, and it appears he has been blocked to permit him to do just that. New accounts jumping into policy discussions are usually sure signs of problems ahead, though there is little you can do unless you have an idea, and some decent evidence, of whom he could be a sockpuppet of. Also, him proposing changes to policy as a result of a recent conflict is never a good idea. However, you don't need to make it your personal mission to deal with them. The community tends to nullify the efforts of these sorts of "wiki-anarchists" (as you call them) and, if push too far, they will be blocked. The danger is if you are seen to be taking this too personally, then you will get labeled as a extreme editor also. So I would take SWATJester's advice. If you find yourself in conflict with another editor, just take a break for a while. If they are too disruptive, they will be dealt with eventually.
Localzuk
I actually know Localzuk reasonably well myself, having had a few run ins with him in the past. You know, while he can be a bit terse and stubborn at times; he is a good editor with a strong grasp on policy. He is also reasonable and willing to compromise, but you really have to work with him; not against him. I'm not sure if there is any ongoing conflict with Localzuk still simmering, but if you are willing to start afresh with him, I can have a word with him to see if we can't get you two back on terms. Rockpocket 08:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
SanchiTachi: good work striking your own comments. That goes a long way towards fostering a good editing environment. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
User:LessHeard vanU
Thank you for striking through those comments. Thank you again for the information otherwise contained in your replies, which did prove useful to aiding my understanding.LessHeard vanU 20:41, 8 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)
- 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 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 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)
Talk pages
It's more than acceptable to remove sections of text that have no relevance to the discussion page. A complaint about the format of Earth is not a policy issue, especially when it's from an editor who repeatedly blanked the page. Just as I restored your comment because it was relevant, I agreed with the deletion of that one because it was not. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- One does not need to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, nor does one need to be an admin to remove irrelevant comments from a discussion page. Wikipedia is neither a discussion forum nor a soapbox, both of which that section is being used for. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Those threats won't work, but if you feel you can accomplish something in doing so then by all means try. You'll break 3RR before me, though, and the vandalism excuse won't get you out of it. I've performed similar actions countless times for the same reasons because it's accepted practice, and as there is already one other person holding the same point of view, is see no reason to change. The fact remains that article complaints belong on article talk pages. This user has simply been spamming the complaint everywhere in order to draw attention. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're not going to accomplish anything by quoting me policy I've already read. Spamming complaints is disruption. The disruption was removed. Simple logical progression of events. This person's complaints were denied and they have simply become more persistent about them. One does not encourage such behavior. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to entertain your complaints any longer. I honestly no longer care what your opinion is, because you're clearly just looking for blood for the sake of it. If you had any interest in being helpful, you'd let it the fuck go. Kindly find something else to do, because at this point your comments on my page will either be ignored or outright reverted, as I do not have the patience to deal with you. You're just harping on me because you can't win. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)