User talk:SanchiTachi

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

Darkson

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

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

good work

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

Star Child

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

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

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)

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)

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)

WP:EQ says "editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally not acceptable". The keyword is words. It's ambiguous exactly which characters constitute your comment. I don't think the symbols you use are so attached to the meaning of your comment. The : and # stuff are arbitrary and wouldn't be there if we were discussing this in some other medium. Changing formatting is not analogous to changing your words or quoting you inaccurately, or falsely portraying you in some way. –Pomte 04:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotation mark is not that important: the people there are familiar with history pages and thus will understand that you copied and pasted 2 entries from it; thus, no one will think that you typed it, that it is not a quote. If it is that important, why haven't you put it back?

I agree with you on the indentation when it's not clear cut. –Pomte 04:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice Clean Up

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

Please do not contact me again.

I'd perfer not to have to speak to you in future, so please don't bother to leave messages on my talk page. As for "what my problem is", I think your list of proposed additions to the lists proves it. It says in the article that the list isn't exhaustive, and yet you are intent on adding every little army that has even the tiniest change. Who cares if Behemoth is green compared to Kraken's read - the list the army is taken from is still the same. Well, that's it from me - enjoy your project - looking at the list of participants and when they last "helped", I get the feeling I'm not the only one fed up with you taking "ownership" of the project. Goodbye. Darkson - BANG! 15:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Message deleted unread - please do not contact me again - as I said, you do what you like with your project - I am no longer involved, and no longer care. Darkson - BANG! 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Giving someone the silent treatment does not resolve issues. SuperVideoGameKid 16:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Shane Ruttle Martinez

In fact the information provided on the DVD is defamatory and makes claims without justification. It's basically an attack piece on this individual. AnnieHall 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Where I'm from, slander is not encyclopedic. AnnieHall 20:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I know exactly what defamation and slander are. Now please do not bother me again. Anything else you write on my userpage will go unread and unanswered. AnnieHall 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Slander isn't on Wikipedia, I believe the term you are looking for is Libel. The fact you're not certain of this seems to be telling. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI: A wheel war is one when an admin undoes another admin action. Vigouros debate and discussions between admins about the appropriateness of admin actions is what admins should do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop editing this page you are in the wrong. --CmrdMariategui 20:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

For the Craftworld!

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

WP:SYN discussion

FYI, Your tone on the talk page for the WP:OR WP:SYN discussion comes off as incredibly rude. Not sure if that was your intent but that's how it sounds to me. Just wanted to give you a little feedback... MPS 01:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Psykic--->psychic

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

About time

Congrats, after much pestering over a completely unrelated issue, you've managed to find a corroborating source for the thing I reverted you for in the first place. Now I ask you again, what relevance does it have? Does anything come of it? Your source doesn't even list Marcell by name. I will readd it if, and only if, you answer this question. Though it should remain unsaid, you'll need something better than "because it happened". — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Gaming

Your articles are filled with major errors. I'm assuming you're either intentionally abusing the articles, or you are very ignorant. I suggest you learn more about gaming. SuperVideoGameKid 13:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I came off as rude, but my edits were indeed correct.SuperVideoGameKid 15:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear sir, which box do you have? I think we're using different editions, as a revised one was issued in '97 as well, although it was recalled upon incomplete pieces. SuperVideoGameKid 16:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But the information I have is correct? Why should it be discussed or debated? I think the real issue here is the 2nd edition which was released and recalled. It was actually something the company tried to cover up, but the fact of the matter is that it was much better than the one listed on the page, aside from the pieces missing during packaging and shipping. SuperVideoGameKid 16:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a grouchy Gus, but would you like me to come to your house to show you my manual? Look for product ID code #43822-A. This is not some phantom mystery. I have the manual sitting right in front of my face, and my edits were per its factualities. I know my stuff on this. SuperVideoGameKid 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the same manual as the one you stated, same everything, just 2nd edition. Everything is alike except for some specs, etc. SuperVideoGameKid 16:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already told you numerous times, it was recalled. They try to act like the 2nd edition never even existed because of the factory goof up. Those of us who follow these things know quite well what the real deal is. Did you look up the product ID I gave you? SuperVideoGameKid 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what makes it unique though! Not many people have these, but I (and 1 other person I know) have them. They're collectors items, so I think they deserve some sort of mention, don't you? It's only fair. SuperVideoGameKid 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I have no problem doing that. I obviously know what I'm talking about. Please tell your friend "Darkson - BANG!" to back off. I'm someone he doesn't want to mess with. I know my stuff, and often have the inside scoop. SuperVideoGameKid 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARRASS

I point you to WP:OWN. To put it simply, don't bitch at me for supposedly violating one thing unless you're going to address your own problems. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 16:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't need consensus to fix your mistake. It's called being bold. No manner how much you whine and yell, Graphic Novels (Warhammer 40,000) is not and never will be a proper title. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 16:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I somehow think you are misunderstanding the role of Wikiprojects. The page does not have to follow the naming convention of the Warhammer wikigroup; It has to follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Any other consensus decisions made about titling a group of articles are not binding, even if they are supported by a Wikiproject. Wikiprojects are groups of like-minded individuals who band together to improve a series of articles; they don't make policies and guidelines. Discuss the issue on the article talkpage.--Isotope23 17:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is something you really need to be discussing on the article talkpage. Personally, I don't particularly care what the article is named I just don't want to see move/revert warring on the article and I also don't want to see 2 wikiprojects fighting over article jurisdiction.--Isotope23 17:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, two wikiprojects were not fighting over article jurisdiction. Without sufficient cause to think the comic project participant even knew this article existed, ST brought this to the attention of WikiProject Comics members by griping at us for edits made by someone who's not even a WPC member. Doczilla 20:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but you named it graphic novels. Graphic novels are comics. An article titled G. I. Joe graphic novels would automatically be identified as comic-related. Doczilla 20:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You seem to be in the process of breaking 3RR on the List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels page - please stop. --Fredrick day 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

You may find it rude, but my point still stands. You appear to have one idea about what this article is supposed to be, but it is apparent that it appears to be something else (i.e. a list of the individual works) to several editors. I'm suggesting a rewrite to make it more clear that this article is about the project itself. By placing your article in the mainspace, you've opened it up for general editing by the community at large. I'm sorry if you see my criticism as rude; I'm just giving you my honest opinion.--Isotope23 19:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal from Talk Page

Removing "incorrrect interuptation of fair use" is one thing, but to also remove the discussion where it was pointed out you were in the wrong about references before/after puncuation, and then to try to hide behind another edits comment? And isn't "you don't have the right to edit my post" something your complained about recently? You can't quote the "rules" at others if you're going to ignore them yourselve. Darkson - BANG! 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but but you did "hide" it behind the edit summary. I only knew it was missing because my comment was missing. Darkson - BANG! 00:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Leonatas

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

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

Images

"[Need I point out] that your above two contributions to your talk page shows a conflict of interest regarding the non-compliancy of fair use?"

I dislike the recent hysteria on Wikipedia and am having difficulty understanding it all. You see, fair use law does not equal Wikipeida fair use policy. It is not intuitive, so I'm tripping up all the rules written only in abstract consensus talk pages. This doesn't mean that I'm going to ignore them, however. I'm not going to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

"Furthermore, the images were there and are vital to educational purposes. It complies 100% with fair use. "establish context" That is the purpose of fair use. Educational value is only attained when providing a connection between both comic and minature, as the page is designed 100% for that purpose. SanchiTachi 00:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)"

You didn't make your intention clear in your fair use justification for your images, so misunderstandings are understandable. If your intention was to express a visual connection between the world of comics and miniatures, you'll need to state so explicitly. Under resolution 4 of Wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy, images lacking correct rationals are subject to deletion. Until you explained yourself here, I had assumed that you uploaded the miniatures to demonstrate the characters in question.

While we're on this subject, the article as you envisioned it, User:SanchiTachi/Graphic Novels, does not explain this "connection between both comic and minature" that you mentioned. Is this an academic connection, or as connected as, say, Lord of the Rings and a Frodo action figure? –Gunslinger47 00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)