User talk:Falcorian/Archives/2007

Cherenkov radiation post

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).

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)

American Academy of Arts Redirect

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)

Vehicles of the Space Marines

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

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

Buena suerte con Bullfighting

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

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

Edit Summaries

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)

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

User:WAvegetarian/OBproject

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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposition 209

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)

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

michael masley

blush. Thanks for the praise. -- Akb4 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bolo

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)

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)

RfD

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)

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)

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)

Note: I've started a discussion on Talk:%s, please share your opinions there. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:59, 6 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. 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) 17:09, 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 17:17, 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) 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

PGNx Media

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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