User talk:Rindis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem, all part of the service... -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding my Hydrans.

I have no objections to you moving the article, or moving the purely SFC related info. It's just my knowledge regarding SFB only really stretches as far as what I know from the 1st SFC game and reading a few articles on this site. Thanks for the heads up. cya around-Ktan 11:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simulations Publications

I just wanted to congratulate and thank you for your superb work on that article.

Also, I see from your user page that you've edited the The Space Gamer article. You may be interested in the note I just left on Talk:The Space Gamer.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured it needs to get the same sort of attention that Avalon Hill already has. I'll leave you a note directly, but at the moment Wiki is barfing on your talk page (but not the main user page), so....

Also, if you read this before I get a chance to leave a message, It would be nice if you could tighten up my editor info on The Space Gamer, your collection is much more complete than mine. --Rindis 16:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wargames

Thanks for the good edits and formatting of the "notable" wargames list. A big improvement over the laundry list that was there before.Michael Dorosh 20:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, just got done thanking you on Talk:Wargaming. ^_^ I'd also like to thank you for the edits to the end of the History section. Much better. I've been largely out of the wider wargaming community since '82, so anything you can do to extend the history past that point would be good. I might manage something off some of the magazines I've been buying off eBay, but that project could take me years to get around to. -_^ --Rindis 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. How stupid were we 20 years ago (if you were out of diapers, I mean) :-) not to buy this stuff when we had the chance. I am now buying up WARGAMER, FIRE AND MOVEMENT etc. on ebay also - I find the anniversary editions provide great references on the "history of wargaming" and WARGAMER especially published great anthologies on individual topics (ie history of naval wargames, history of Civil War wargames, etc.) Unfortunately my library is only up to the mid-to-late 80s, as reflected in my wikipedia edits!Michael Dorosh 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Born in '70. My dad was in the industry (I'm doing my best to stay away from WP:AUTO), but went out of business just as I was really reaching the point of being able to intelligently observe some of what was going on. Sounds like I need to pay more attention to The Wargamer. --Rindis 20:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of board wargames

Hello! A game like the classic Terrible Swift Sword is considered a grand tactical game (the entire battle of Gettysburg in regimental scale) while a smaller game such as Devil's Den would be more tactical (company level). Operational games are at the brigade level (Battle of Atlanta). Strategic games are campaign or operational in nature. I'd love to hear your ideas, and would welcome your changes to the list - not a problem! I've been a gamer since collge in the late 1970s, and now much more into miniature gaming. I merely wanted to differentiate the levels (similar to what we do in the ACW miniatures world to segregate company level games (Brother Against Brother), regimental (Johnny Reb 3), brigade level (Fire & Fury) and strategic. Scott Mingus 21:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Rindis - thanks for fixing the formatting on the Operation Kadesh link. I'm new to Wikipedia and am largely clueless about formatting. Anyway, I'm interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and figured that I'd slowly fill out the game descriptions if no one else is going to. I'll add a description for Fast Attack Boats at some point in the next couple of weeks. --Bookshelf

No problem. I've slowly learned (and re-learned) all the tricks over a period of time. I still have a lot of things that I want to get in there, and then a heck of a lot of red-links to do something about... ^_^ Pity I don't get paid for this, it'd be great job security! --Rindis 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House organ

Nice job on this as well!Michael Dorosh^Talk 21:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I have to thank Answers.com and Barron's on that one. I knew more-or-less what a house organ was, but was having a hard time writing anything better than an 'ehh' wiktionary definition until I saw the 'internal vs. external' bit that I hadn't really thought about before. So, I learned something new and passed it on to Wikipedia. ^_^ --Rindis 21:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of miniature and terrain manufacturers

Well, as you might have noticed the deletion review has been closed with no further comments from anyone that would really explain why, or answer our questions that we had. At this time I see two (or really three) options... (1) The information could be reinserted into the Miniature wargaming article as it was there before; (2) This kind of thing could be handled by creating a new category, something like [[Category:Miniatures manufacturers]] or something else that's appropriate and then applying this category to any article to which it's appropriate. Of course this only gets those companies that have articles on Wikipedia already. Maybe this isn't such a bad option though. And the third option is that we just drop it (at least for now). I don't know which one of these is the best, except that just dropping it will likely leave a bad taste in my mouth. (In any event, I'm also off on business for three weeks, so I probably won't be doing much editing. This whole experience, together with what's happened in the List of miniature wargames small edit-warring has really been souring my enthusiasm here.) Craw-daddy 21:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ogre (game)

Hi Rindis, thanks for the correction on the Ogre article; I realised my mistake as soon as I saw a photo of the Mk IV but you beat me to it. In your opinion, could the article do with one more photo to illustrate the smaller units, or are the existing two photos enough? Marasmusine 07:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, a photo of a collection of some 'conventional' units might be good. Whether to make that a third, or replace the Fencer photo is another question. Personally, in preference to any of that, I think some photos of the components from the boardgame editions would be good. ^_^ --Rindis 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good edit on the Ogre page--You left in the game balance issues of 1st edition while mentioning the changes.Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acquire, abstract or not?

I won't revert your edit for now, but please explain your position in more detail on the article talk page. I don't understand the basis on which you judge the game to be an abstract. Thanks. -Chunky Rice 17:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Avalon Hill.jpg

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Avalon Hill.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 10:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Updated. --Rindis 15:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defending the SFU on Wikipedia

Looks like Gavin.collins has it in for just about any sub-article, including any centered on the SFU. Shall we resign ourselves are push hard to keep what we have? --Donovan Ravenhull 02:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Haven't been paying too much attention lately, but I'm noticing that it's mostly going towards Merge and Keep results, which I'm generally fine with. He's also not just picking on SFU (I wondered if he noticed us through PD while going around the GURPS stuff.) So, I think we're going to weather it fairly well. I'll join in on the discussion if I can think of something intelligent to say. ;)

I'm not exactly happy with the Merge on Minor Powers..., but looking at the main SFU article, I think we really need to clean it up again. There's really no reason to list all the powers from one unsupported playtest module. As far as I'm concerned, one of the reasons for these articles is to try and bring together basic information that is often scattered in ADB materials. I'd love to find an article somewhere on the differences between canon Star Trek and current SFU, then we can get it here without violating OR, and it's the type of information that Wikipedia really needs.

I noted you mentioning an SFU-Wiki. I've had the same thought for a while. It could be a great way to untangle a lot of half-buried info. However, I think it'd come up against some really nasty copyright and licensing issues fast, so I'm not sure that it's doable at a level that would make it truly worthwhile. --Rindis 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I kinda agree that we need to be willing to let go of some of the SFU stuff, like the Xorkeans (who have barely been mentioned anyway by the game itself) and maybe let go of the playtest stuff. The whole issue has hit the Village Pump/Policy page in a discussion of what constitutes notability and original research for fictional entities.

As for the SFU-wiki, I have proposed that directly on the Federation Commander forum as something that would be directly under the umbrella of SFGs, partly to give access to all SFU copywrited material, and partly to let the Steves be able to go in and make thier view of what can and can't be webified (i.e. what will and won't detract from people buying thier products) as they see fit. --Donovan Ravenhull 16:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Star Fleet Battle Force

An article that you have been involved in editing, Star Fleet Battle Force, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Fleet Battle Force. Thank you. Gavin Collins 09:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for footnote help

I get impatient with the multiple forms of footnoting/referencing used here. Thanks for the help. --Orange Mike 16:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, I refused to use the current 'ref' system for a long while, and only recently converted one of my bigger articles to it. Anyway, I'm always happy to clean up the obvious stuff. The obsessive detail-oriented streak in me is happy. --Rindis 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omega Octant

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Omega Octant, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Omega Octant. Judgesurreal777 19:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orion Pirates

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Orion Pirates, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Orion Pirates. Judgesurreal777 20:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe). Judgesurreal777 20:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

what the hell?!?!?!?! who is deleting articles now automatically?! Am ir eading this correctly?! thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was PRODed, which can lead to deletion of an article if no one objects. The theory, I believe, is to speed up the process where everyone agrees it's a bad idea. One person objecting will halt it. Looks like this happened here, and then it got AFD'd to death. (sigh) Part of a chain of events that put me off Wiki for a while. (Of course, I have too many hobbies as it is anyway.). --Rindis (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe)

Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe) (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Universe logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Universe logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for image help

thanks for your help. I'll see your "bleh", and raise you a blech. I agree with you entirely. this is just seeming silly. Wikipedia is making it harder for its own editors (and by the way rewarding people like us for treating this like a blank exercise, and penalizing those who take things like this seriously, since in the end the only way to handle this is through the use of ordinary boilerplate). oh well. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The true measure of Wikipedia's success is that the bureaucracy is moving in....

I wouldn't mind the this particular rule as much if they had helpful text about it anywhere (including samples of what to do). The current versions are obtuse and overwrought. --Rindis (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but if they do that then ~~it might let people know the rule is meaningless and depends only on jargon~~ errr, I mean ~~it might detract from the sublime purity of this whole idea~~ err scratch that, I meant ~~people might forget the ancient art of filling out forms on Wikipedia~~ oh, just forget it. :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CommanderSFB.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:CommanderSFB.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

I tried to fix this. let me know what you think. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(shrug) They've got enough moving parts that I don't know what is or isn't deemed necessary. It's pretty obvious that Beta is being let loose on anything that has a 'non-free' tag and doesn't have the requisite notice per page. So, I'm just adding those notices (which I'd already done, but hadn't talk-noted it). --Rindis (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] need assistance

please take a look at Federation Commander when you have a chance, some people have added some tags. also, who else do you know has edited this article favorably, and is currently an active editor? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image for Charge Magazine

I am the publisher and freely give myself the right to use the cover of the magazine, which I write, produce, edit, and publish. I think this more than qualifies for FAIR USE. It's my own copyright and creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Mingus (talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe)

I have nominated Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe) (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jobjörn (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Orion Pirates

I have nominated Orion Pirates, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orion Pirates. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jobjörn (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation?

Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Board wargame

Awesome article. Good work! -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And to think it only took me a year and half to piece together. >.< --Rindis (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)