User talk:Falcorian

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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:

1. 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".
2. 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.
3. 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".
4. 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.
5. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

The IP you reported, 62.31.57.79 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • 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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)