Pak21,

I've noticed over the last year or so that you've done a lot of work with volleyball related articles. I just started the WikiProject for Volleyball and hope that you will be interested in helping out. Let me know BrianZ^(talk) 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just an error on my part. I take it you have corrected it.. Itsmejudith 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request that you and the other editor discuss this on the Cookie talk page, rather than continually reverting each other's edits. Thanks, --Oscarthecat 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you left some information on my talk page but could you give me some exact examples? So far I have been putting the rationale information in hidden comments. I have been on Wikipedia for about a year now and haven't had any trouble with book covers but I seem to be having problems with other images. From what I have read I think I am doing everything properly but apparently I am missing something. Unfortunately what I learned in technical writing didn't cover much of that imaging other than citing my source. Any additional you can help regarding this would be greatly appreciated. ThanksDm2ortiz 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You sent me a message saying that you dispute my picture as you claim that it is "copyrighted". Had you gone to the website where I got the picture on the bottom you can clearly see "© 2001-2005 The Ultimate Judge Show Page. All Rights Reserved." The images and contents on the page were copyrighted UP UNTIL 2005. Its now 2007 so I can use the images.

Nope :) Anyways, most of the images do not belong to the website host and are copyrighted by the producers of each show (which still has copyright for at least a good 70 years or so). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the copyright tag on the page simply states the time in which the content was created. Now back to your regularly scheduled talk page. Keegan^talk 05:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you have moved all the pages back to have (module) on the end? I believe there was a consensus at WP:D&D not to do this. Thanks for your input --Pak21 07:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

no we do not have a consensus. So far the matter is unresolved. So far we have two for and two against in one sitting on the fence us. I will be collecting votes so we can decide on the matter once and for all. You may notice I only moved the pages I have created myself those who that were created by others which I have only added to have remained unmoved. This is a group decision not yours, not mineDm2ortiz 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are just a bully don’t contact me again. Anything you have to say to me need to go thou Formal mediation see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes Wikipedia:No angry mastodons

I told you not to contact me; if you do so a again I will report you

Wikipedia:Harassment
Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic
WP:Don't be a dick

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:marines Dreadnought.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dm2ortiz 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• image quality concerns: to dark
• too large for a fair use claim. (The same applies to many of the other images uploaded by this user; bringing this one as a test case.) — Pak21 18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a question for you. Why did you nominate Image:I8 Ravager of Time.jpg for deletion instead of reducing its resolution? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to message on my talk page) - IFD is for deleting images. If there's a problem with an image, just fix it rather than reducing the quality of the encyclopedia by asking for things to be deleted. If a user continues to upload images of inappropriately high resolution and continues to refuse to write rationales for them, that's grounds for blocking, not grounds for removing the user's contributions. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Dm2ortiz against pak21 for harassment user Dm2ortiz is being harassed by user Pak21 The incident started over a dispute started over page naming. This dispute is currently being mediated by a consensus of the Dungeons & Dragons Wikipedia project. Since the start of this dispute user Pak21 as constantly harassed me DM2ortiz about every single one of my postings. He has not commented on any other users in the group but has focused his full attention on me I have repeatedly asked him not to contact me but he ignores this and continues to harass. Dm2ortiz 00:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, copy and paste error. I was dealing with an awful lot of moves and reverts at the time, as I am sure you can imagine! J Milburn 10:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and though I am sure you already know- you were in the right in the recent dispute, and dealt with it well. It was a shame Dm2ortiz had to be blocked, he was obviously a good faith editor, but I think all outstanding problems have been dealt with now. J Milburn 10:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just thought I'd let you know that as the discussion on the "-only" sub-categories ended with no concensus and all-inclusion seems best, I'm going to suggest on the talk pages of each of these categories that all the games in them are also included in their parent cats. If no one complains too bad I'll start including them in a few days, as there doesn't seem as many as I thought at first. Maybe find a few more entries for the "-only" cats themselves along the way. :) Cheers, Miremare 18:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #2, all that is necessary is:

Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

The image does not replace the miniature's market role. Commercial use is only needed for free content. --Grimhelm 19:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just got the message that you set the above image for deletion (here ). I don't understand this, as the article needs an image so that it can work towards having the "This is a stub"-bit removed. If the image is too big, then make it smaller. I, personally, am quite happy with the size. If you find something wrong with the image, then you can edit it. I've got enough to do on wikipedia, mainly trying to make an article on the webcomic "Titans" that won't get deleted by rabid-editors within fifteen minutes, than to edit a picture that I don't have a problem with. --D'Argent 16:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I really don't understand you. You've gone and tagged Image:Damnation Crusade1.jpg for deletion. Why? It's from the very damn website that sells the comic! If they didn't want the picture to be used as a representation of the series, then they wouldn't of used it as a representation of the series themselves! It's bloody well low resolution, too! What more do you want, Editor-Fag? Obviously, I can't argue with compulsive editor-fags like you. Fine, delete it, and the Image:Forge of War1.jpg one. I'm just trying to add images to help the community on wikipedia to improve the articles that call for pictures. I see it that it does comply to all of the image policies, except perhaps that one "resolution" rule, but, then again, if you've got a problem with it, then you can easily solve it yourself. I'm not going to be forced to do the work of an editor-fag like yourself. --D'Argent 16:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

low resolution" copy is simply untrue. --Pak21 21:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC) i didn't say it was. I just look for stuf that has no rationale and add it just going with what in the article. i don't even know what most of this stuff is lol. i do see iages that need to be replced (like watermarked) but i don't know how other then uploading a new "image page"Just-fix-it 21:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~I fully understand what I am doing and I do verify the souses of what I post. Yes, I have never heard of forge of war be for wiki but I did go to the boom website an learn all about it before I added to wiki. I learned about the cover A and cover B and who panted them and so on. I am new to wiki and only have been editing for 3 days now, so I know I still have a lot to learn. I don’t see where I am do anything wrong so could you explain in more detailJust-fix-it 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss understand.

• Image:Archfiends.jpg: " It is the primary means of identification of the archfiend set. The Image:underdark.jpg is the primary means of identification of the underdark set.

We could just reword it if you like or just remover the one line you don’t like

• Low resolution? Is a question on the template the could be answered ‘’yes’’ or ‘’no, explain’’ I wrote (no, so the details of the art can be seen)Just-fix-it 16:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i did not post any of these images. I have only read the wiki article about them. I do feel tha images helped me understand the article. Have you talk to the posters/editors of the article? I don’t play Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game I read it as any new reader would so I feel I’m not the one to decide if it is significant to everyone like it was to me. This may need to be put on the article's talk page so those better suited can decide. I’m just trying to help in my own little way.Just-fix-it 16:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chaos Space Marines, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos Space Marines. Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Someone linked to the page on Fancruft which I think is important to the articles I nominated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Fancruft I saw this and it summarizes why I originally put them up for deletion: "In fact, an article should not be entirely composed of summaries or biographies of fictional characters. "

I normally just go from page to page and comment in the talk on what changes I think should be done. However, the inactivity on some or the heatedness on others lead me to begin the delete process in order to discuss it at lengths. If the pages are about a game, then why don't they follow Mario and make them about the game and the history using third party sources to verify dates? If the pages are about information from a book, why isn't that information just compiled on pages about the book instead? If Chaos Space Marines are notable, please put a few third party quotes and sources on the talk page so that everyone can see. So far, it seems to be a page like a stub more than anything worthy of an Encyclopedia. If that is done, then maybe a merge of the many pages into one would work but there would be a need for a substantial cutting of the fancruft and long plot summaries. NobutoraTakeda 16:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! Didn't know that. :) Shrumster 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page at this article in relation to the AfD listing on 5th Dec 2006: this "title" has been a matter of discussion for more than 40 years, is on RSSSF.com, has its own website and has had books published on the theme, it has been referenced in reputable football magazines, and in mainstream press and radio. It is true that the same cannot be said for the Unofficial English Premier League Championship, which does look like a case of WP:NFT in imitation of this established ranking. Kevin McE 11:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to media reports added. Kevin McE 11:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly did you decide the only screenshot of the Spectrum's "OS" was better off replaced with yet more images of the hardware? DamienG 10:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted a 3rd "new" editor that tries to rename the ppic of the codex to 5th, that also just happens to use the name "Immortal Lord". Time to start a sockpuppet process? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I highly likely to be bloked? huh?

For not agreeing with you. oh wooops, the bottom line is its the 5th eddition codex, go to the games workshop to find out.

And why am i likely to be blocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridge is fat (talk • contribs) 08:27, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

What real proof do you have that it is the 4th edition, there have been 4 edditions in the past and the new one is the 5th.

I happen to know this for a fact, I own the 2nd, 3rd and the 4th edditon of the codex.

There is a difference between being pretty sure about this and being right. Look it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridge is fat (talk • contribs) 08:34, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Mate! The defiler was introduced in the 4th edition codex, there has not been two codex's that have been put under the same edition number.

As i mentioned before, the edition of the codex is not under what edition of rules there are, but of in the order in witch they were released!

Dont take my word for it, go to any games workshop and ask yourself.

Aand i noticed that User:darkson said that thee have been a few people saying its the 5th, maybe you should look it up.

And im not a sockpuppet! I may have the same opinion as Disturedrcool01 and The Immortal lord, but thats because we are all hobbist and know each other.

So no im not a sockpuppet. But i can see where you got that idea, but just because we have the same opinion on 1 subject dosnt mean im a sockpuppet!

I mean Im into women, and so are alot of other people, I like warhammer, so do alot of other people, and I know that the chaos codex is the 5th edition and THATS THE BOTTOM LINE BECAUSE Ridge Is Fat SAID SO!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.14.98 (talk • contribs)

Hello,

why do you revert links to Atarimania.com in the respective games sections (Spelunker, Dig Dug, etc.)? Atarimania is not a commercial site and has lots of useful information. The links you deleted are not different from those to World of Spectrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.116.15 (talk • contribs)

I'm not getting involved in any debate about the WoS links; see my userpage as to why and note that I didn't add any of them. Realistically, you were adding most of these links as the first of the external links in each section, without an edit summary and from a range of random IP addresses. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. Furthermore, edit summaries like this do not convince me any further about your intentions in this matter. --Pak21 10:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To speak in your words: it's not a duck. You better follow links first, then delete. I cannot see why Links to Atarimania should be worse than links to WoS or Mobygames. Personally I think the infos found at Atarimania are even better than those provided by Mobygames, for example. Furthermore, as the word Atarimania starts with an A and usually links are sorted alphabetically I cannot see why the Atarimania links shouldn't be on first position in the linklist. The whole thingie you did looks a bit random to me...

1. I did follow the links. There's nothing of substance there.
2. With regards to other links, please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
3. Links are not normally sorted alphabetically; certainly there is no mention of this in WP:EL.
4. A separate editor has reverted your re-addition of the Atari Mania link to Dig Dug. This isn't just me seeing these links as spam. --Pak21 16:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

# I did follow the links. There's nothing of substance there. You must be joking. Specific information about the game counts as no substance? Manuals and boxes - no substance? Screenshots - no substance? Contemporary game reviews from well-known magazines - no substance? What do you think is substantial info about a game? The complete sourcecode, perhaps? The name of the author's mother? Let me know what you mean by 'substance', please.

# With regards to other links, please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. For me, this implies MobyGames and WoS are crap, isn't it?

# Links are not normally sorted alphabetically; certainly there is no mention of this in WP:EL. Interesting. Each printed encyclopedia I know of sorts its content alphabetically. If there is no such criterion for sorting links then why do you complain about the link position I have chosen carefully?

...This isn't just me seeing these links as spam. Is that your argument? "I have no idea" but deleting is ok, because someone else has deleted, too.

As you don't seem willing to take this to WP:CVG as I suggested, I've done this for you. Please also sign your comments on talk pages. --Pak21 11:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Modern Gallae, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Gallae (2nd nomination). Thank you.

I see why you've deleted the links I have posted. Sorry for the inconvience, but I fail to see why you have deleted the link to the site in the list of cyberpunk works page as 1. it was not put there by me, and 2. as it is a game site it fits perfectly into where it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Currymaniac (talk • contribs) 11:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Josh, how are you? listen i need to change my user name, so can you tell me how, please? Due to privacy issues.

Pece Kocovski 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to know why you say I vandilised your page when all i did was change a number 4 to a number 5. I changed it because I thought you had mistyped it and I read that the new chaos codex is the 5th edition. If you could just tell me why you say it is the 4th edition plese let me know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.37.71 (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a clear puppet of User:Disturbedrcool1 and edited the page just after User:Deathtopplintheir40s (who is admitting to being the same user) had brought up the same point on the talk page. I see no point in discussing this here as well. --Pak21 07:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, im trying to be serious here, but i know if i made some rtical that cade so sence about my personal army someone would crack it with me. --Deathtopplintheir40s 10:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to say this, ok i dont have a spotless record, and i may have had an other account, but im telling you this, I was never Disturbedrcool01, im telling you this because i know who that user is personaly and its not me, I was "The King Of Kings King", and that record was as you said "not spotless". but i do agree with you, i will be carful on how i contribute from now on. --Deathtopplintheir40s 10:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]