User talk:Rindis

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

House organ

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Avalon Hill.jpg

Image Copyright problem

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Board wargame

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

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

AfD nomination of Omega Octant

I have nominated Omega Octant, 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/Omega Octant. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Plrk (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

board game categories

Please explain why you believe it is correct to remove an additional description of wargames which points the reader to three significant articles on board wargames, miniature wargames and role-playing games. Each of these sections is significant of itself.

As regards SCALE, it is "evident" that there is both a physical difference in the playing-pieces and the depth of involvement of the players at each level. The (hex-grid) Strategy & Tactics-type board wargame uses 1cm cards to identify forces. The miniature wargame uses small figurines which can either be individuals such as generals or can be blocks of infantry etc. For many participants, the preparation of the pieces is as important as the actual battle. The role-playing game uses one-to-one figures where the player treats them, in effect, as avatars. And I am surprised that there is as yet no reference to this but rpg are not my favoured topic. I see these three groups of game as significantly different; they each have a large article about them and they are sold differently to different people; is this not a significant difference best described as a difference in scale? Please advise.

In addition, there are the german-style board games and the Civilization 4X groups which do not get a reference in this section and may deserve a mention. If you are making changes then perhaps a brief paragraph differentiating these would benefit other readers.

Finally I note that the lower categories do not mention that the 'top' category is tabletop games; is this a subtlety of Wikipedia or should there be a reference of this sort? In error, I referred to this elsewhere as table games which redirects to tabletop game (but tabletop gameS has no such redirect. My amendment was then removed which I thought harsh so can you advise how to ensure that a genuine errors of that sort is dealt with politely. How does one arrange a new redirect?

It is clear from the comments on your talk page that you are the author of this and similar pages so presumably it is improper? rude? unauthorised? to make changes without your agreement. On that basis, I will of course desist from doing any work in this area. Please advise.

81.156.248.136 (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, no one "owns" Wikipedia pages. As you might imagine though, I do keep eye on pages I have an interest in. I generally try keep something of anything I come across, but was too confused as to your point to be able to do so in that case. Sorry. :( By the way, if you get a free user account, you can also 'watch' pages, and see a list of when they've been modified recently.

I think you have mis-apprehensions as to the meaning of scale, which in this context comes down to a combination of ground scale, unit scale (how many men per unit), and amount of time per turn. Even RPGs (uniformly one man per figure) can have different scales, for example, AD&D combat is measured in 10' squares and 10 seconds(?) per round, and GURPS uses 1 yard hexes and one-second turns. Miniatures and board wargames can have much more variation in scale. The differences between miniatures and board wargames are ones of form rather than strictly by scale. RPGs are generally a separate genre, having a different point and focus than wargames. They are also not board games (being an entirely separate high-level division). The relationship between the three is gone into a little in the history of wargaming, more in the miniature wargaming article. It's possible more needs to be said in the overview, which, frankly, still needs some cleanup.

The board game article does mention Eurogames/German-style games already (second entry in Categories). "Civilization"/4X games are not a generally recognized category of board games however. (The concept does come up in BGG conversations once in while, but it'll be eventually challenged/thrown out without a reliable article talking about the concept.

I think tabletop games has been a subject of some dispute. Mostly in that no one is happy with the name, and I think the article is technically a bit more recent. Certainly, no one has been paying much attention to it.

Thanks for the note, and be aware that WikiProject Board and table games is a good place to find more people than just me interested in the various articles we're discussing. --Rindis (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have put some work into the Gary Gygax article, which I have nominated for a GA review. If there is anything you can do to help it get passed, please join in! Also, feel free to comment on the D&D WikiProject talk page regarding our efforts to get articles in the 0.7 release. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster

Thanks for the shift to nested format here. I tried doing the same thing this morning, but it didn't work for me. I see what I did wrong, though <g> -- BPMullins | Talk 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Federation and Empire

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Federation and Empire, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Appearently non-notable game, if there are third party sources please include.

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, Rindis. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join.~~~~

Hello

Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. How's everything going?

I don't know if you've been around in a while, but I'd like to point out to you the success we've had with the D&D GA-drive so far: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and we plan to hit Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) after some work. :)

If you're interested in coming around to check out what we've been up to, you are welcome as always. :) BOZ (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy

Yeah but there is section in the Strategy game article on Wargames. Here. So that's why I went with that. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 02:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of House organ for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article House organ, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House organ until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Avalon Hill.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Avalon Hill.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Napoleon (game) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Napoleon (game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napoleon (game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SunDawn (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Star Fleet Universe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Star Fleet Universe, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Fleet Universe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]