User talk:Planewalker Dave

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Planewalker Dave}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

You have a very interesting name. I'm bored and figured I'd tell you that. Rau's Speak Page 13:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I normally use the name "Grim Squeaker", but it was taken. So, since my name is Dave and I work for Planewalker Games I decided to go with "Planewalker Dave". Seemed to make sense at the time. Planewalker Dave (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to make sense now. But "Grim Squeaker"? Thats original. Two-thumbs up. Rau's Speak Page 14:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Read a bit of Discworld when I was a kid. Still love the name. Planewalker Dave (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this - rst20xx (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Cassie Hack.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think it should be a redirect, I guess we'll thrash it out at AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This is just a DVD that has a few episodes on it not a "direct-to-dvd film". It doesn't need its own article." That goes by your opinion and no guideline. It was released together as a film and there is significant coverage so it passes WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to read WP:EPISODE. What guideline backs you up? None. Joe Chill (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, first of all, calm down. Secondly, this DVD isn't a film. It is just a compilation of 4 episodes, released together on a DVD, so WP:NF isn't particularly relevant.

If it'll help, I'll expand on my reasoning for the proposed deletion. The episodes in question already have articles of their own (e.g. Tombstone_(Spider-Man_episode)), which is good. If you want to add to those articles that they were included on the Spider-Man vs Daredevil DVD, fair enough. But surely we don't need an article just for the DVD itself e.g., we don't have an article for "the DVD of season 1 of the Simpsons" or "the DVD of episodes 1-10 of Battlestar Galactica Season 1", because the content of such an article would be superfluous i.e., it'd say which episodes were included and, say, cast information (which is included in the episode or story arc article). Can you see my point? Planewalker Dave (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Planewalker Dave, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Daredevil vs Spider-Man has been removed. It was removed by Joe Chill with the following edit summary '(remove prod. the article passes the notability guideline whethet you think that it should have an article or not)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Joe Chill before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ultimate Comics Avengers 1.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dave.

Exactly, what's the problem with the merge of the List of films based on Marvel Comics. That's the purpose of the wiki-boxes.

Or not?OscarFercho (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a slippery slope in my opinion. With one "merged column" on the left, it's alright. Nice and easy to read at a glance. But I think once you've got lots of merging going on, almost overlapping, certainly some people would find it increasingly hard to read. Personally I have no issues with it in terms of reading it, I'm just thinking of other readers who might find it a bit confusing.

Another reason why I'm less of fond of "over-merging" is a database kind of idea. Merging the years is great because you're saying "in this year there are a lot of films" i.e., 1 year has many films in it. But if you have, say, 3 Marvel Studios films (all with different years) and the Marvel Studios entries all get merged into a big box, it's like you're also saying "these three films are a subset of the studio, but the only reason we merged it was because they're next to each other in the list". Maybe that's the computer scientist in me whinging on that last one, so it's probably an irrelevant argument in the grand scheme of things.

To summarise, I just think if we start merging beyond the year column, it'll start to get harder and harder to read for some people. But that's just my opinion. If you want to do it, go ahead. I'm in no position to stop you, nor should I. Planewalker Dave (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the two-page spread from Ultimatum: X-Men Requiem showing all the X-Men who died in Ultimatum; which one's Northstar?

Also, I sent Aron Eli Coleite (the guy who wrote the issue) a message on facebook asking him if Northstar was dead or not, and he replied "I believe northstar and colossus are still alive." --DrBat (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I glanced at it a bit too quick. I apologise! Planewalker Dave (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Sorry. Thanks for reverting my foul-up. I misread the previous editor's diff and changed it back to one of their other diffs with a slight difference. I fail epically, clearly. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added your link back in the Baldur's Gate 2 article. I can't understand why you did this.

I've looked at TBH and its relevant website and it looks like you're simply designing a mod for the Baldur's Gate 2 game. There are many excellent mods out there for Baldur's Gate but none of them need to be linked to here. Wikipedia obviously isn't a mod indexer. As you have said you are not designing a mod I'm interested what exactly differentiates your "game" from a mod?

If it's not a mod for Baldur's Gate then why would you keep placing the link on the Baldur's Gate page? Its only relation to Baldur's gate (that I can see, again I may be wrong) is it being in the same role-playing genre in which case it shouldn't be linked to. There are many other CRPGs which are not listed on the Baldur's Gate page. Why is yours?

Also just out of interest when (if ever) you were planning to release your game? Examining the website development appears to have started in 2005. That seems a long development time, you'll match Duke Nukem if you're not careful :). Has this game turned to vaporware or will it be released within the next five years? Thanks. 85.249.223.23 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, if that's what you think then you haven't read the website particularly well. TBH is an independent game designed with a completely new engine entirely seperate from BG2. No part of the game requires anything produced by Black Isle, so it is certainly not a modification of one of their games. However, the point is it was designed by BG2 modders in an attempt to recreate a sadly dying genre whose highlight, it could be argued, was BG2. A lot of the engine decisions were made with the BG2 game and players in mind (but clearly not in terms of the ruleset) e.g., GUI format, party control, dialogue display. Also the engine itself (in particular the dialogue compilation) is built upon WeiDU, the language created for modding BG2.

Now, it could be argued that such a link in the BG2 article would need better explanation or could be removed entirely. However, such reasoning needs to be more than "stop advertising your mod", because for many reasons that argument's just wrong. Oh and, for the record, I wasn't the person who originally added the link.

As for release dates, I have no idea. It's not my game and never has been. Yes, I did some freelance work for it, but it's not my project. So I'm afraid I can't answer that. Planewalker Dave (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Planewalker Dave,

I "reverted" (not quite) your edit on the Avengers page. It seems that the title was wrong ("Anti-Avengers") for a section that referred to the New Avengers... so what I did was re-add the New Avengers section and rename it from Anti-Avengers to New Avengers. I suspect someone was screwing with the title or somehow simply screwed up when creating the title...

Hope that works for you... if not, feel free to clean it up, remove it or whatever.

Best, Robert

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 18:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, by the logic of including all those guys you could include almost every single person on the Anti-Registration side of Civil War. Also, that particular "team" is never referred to in the comics as the New Avengers (all that happens is Cap shouts "Avengers Assemble!" during the final fight). In addition, that new section is overlinked, and typo heavy. Finally, who on earth is Chaos? I've read the Civil War arc a fair few times and I'm pretty sure he's not real. Planewalker Dave (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know... it needs to be cleaned up (I didnt write it, btw). Considering the page has other similar sections (of higher quality though), perhaps all it needs is a clean-up. I dont have the time right now, but if someone hasn't made a dent in it in the next couple days, I will take a whack at it.

Best, Robert

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 19:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, though you may not think they are/were an Avengers group, Marvel does. Our opinions in this matter dont count on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Avengers_%28comic_book%29

Best,

Robert

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 19:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, there's nothing there that says that the team during the Civil War was called the Avengers. However, having done some poking around there is a reference to the "Secret Avengers" as a reference name for Cap's side in the Civil War ([1]). However, as it states '"Secret Avengers" is used here for reference only. The term is not used by the inhabitants of the Marvel Universe'. So perhaps there could be cause for a passing mention of this somewhere in the article, but given that it's not a name that was ever used in-universe, it's dubious at best. But whatever it is shouldn't be that garbled entry added in the "Other Versions" section of page, which looks mostly like fanboy vandalism to me. Planewalker Dave (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... I think unless someone wants to spend the time correctly creating such a section so it accurately fits (portraying that there is indeed a title of that name, even though the group possibly never called themselves that) without all the fanboyism, then we let it stand...

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 22:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice :) --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 18:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you keep critisising my work but to be honest i may not have the perfect grammer but at least im putting the work in.. its been almost a year since i added the last lot and thought the rest would be done by now so got fed up of seeing a page i care a lot about and topic having nothing done with it.. i appreciate ur concerns but tbh isnt it better to have to make minor edits than have to write the whole bloody thing urself.. least im contributing so i ask nicely get off my back regarding this issue.. least im doing something about it.. if u didnt want to be responsible for the topic then i suggest ou hand it over to someone else who doesnt mind editing contributions.. I have been a fan of hack/slash since day 1 and follow its process on a daily basis getting all the latest news and keeping track of its development.. especially now its changing publishers.. Im sorry i am not a web expert in the do's n donts of wiki n how things work.. but to be honest its better to have th work and details out there than to not have them at all.. Im not the only one who has complained about the lack of imput on the H/S wiki and thats why i couldnt sit back and do nothing anymore.. so i shall keep adding my imput to the h/s wiki and im sorry in advance if you have to make any alterations but like i said befre.. least something is being done about it... simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowangel666 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, chill, alright? I'm very glad that you're someone who's willing to put some love into an article that has precious few editors. I'm just offering some advice, because as it stands your edits mean someone else (often me) has to do serious rewrites and edits to make it flow better as an article.

Secondly, it's not my article as it's not anyone else's. Wikipedia's not like that. I just happen to be one of the few people who makes serious edits to it (and gave it a serious overhaul a few years back).

In general, here are some suggestions to make for better reading:

- Grammar doesn't have to be perfect, but make sure you capitalise letters when appropriate. Similarly avoid using amphasands (&) in sentences as it breaks the flow.

- Issues summaries need to have the barebones of the plot. What important events happen? They also need to be written in an objective manner. While I love the drama of some of your edits, they often read like an advertisement or film trailer.

As I've said, I'm glad you're taking the time to make edits and look forward to seeing your additions in future. I'm just giving some friendly advice, which I hope you'll take to heart, in order to make the Hack/Slash page and damn fine part of Wikipedia. Thanks. Planewalker Dave (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crowangel - Thanx for your advise and yeah i wil try and add some of those points and cutbacks to my work on the wiki.. but i will also have to add that in your breaking down of my series descriptions.. facts that have been put in there are NOT right.. ie. (sons of man) cassie and vlad escape while samhain is captured... they dont escape.. they are left fighting while samhain gets dragged off.. Ive advertised this wiki to a lot of h/s fans as well now to the creator Tim Seeley whom i corespond with about facts/details for making sure i have the current and upto date facts before i post.. sometimes i have to improvise as hadnt got the essential exact data needed but 99% of the time its correct.. as for shortening down synopsis.. fair enough.. its hard work trying to put all the key points in while still keeping it short but can work on that.. but if im gonna be saying to people and especially the comic creator come to the wiki and have a look at the great work being done there to keep it up to date as possible then i think a little more detail might be needed, cos for some of the guides as someone who knows the storys well even i look at them now and end up scratching my head wondering what it was about?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowangel666 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea on the mistakes. I'll admit I didn't have my issues to had, so couldn't remember the exact details on those ones. I was just trying to refine your writing a little. Oops!

As for synopses, it's a tricky one. There's some Wikipedia rule that goes along the line of: a summary shouldn't be a replacement for the actual media i.e. it should be a summary but not a page-by-page commentary. It's a difficult line to walk. Planewalker Dave (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits on Beast Rider. Just got the game and I noticed the wiki was sorely lacking so I just slapped some information together from memory while at work. Xelliz (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hack-Slash Stagefright.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!