User talk:Darkson/Archive 2

The Future of WP:40k
Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Chaos Legion technology
From what I recall of my fluff reading the Chaos legions have more advanced technology and the human population have lost a lot since the fall and they are trying to find out all about it again in from their huge uncategorized library. Am I still stuck in old fluff since 3rd edition? Lord Metroid 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Primarch
Hi Darkson- just saw your revert on the Primarch page. I agree with losing the bit about genetic tampering, as it is obviously the author's conjecture, but I don't see a problem with stating that Fulgrim is possessed by a daemon. It is canon and a point of difference to the other traitor primarchs. Can I ask why you decided to remove that particular line? Primarch 22:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if we aren't going to take the HH (specifically the novel titled FULGRIM) novels and Visions Artbooks as canonical (or that they are, but better left unmentioned to avoid confusion), we probably need to remove Ferrus' fate as it comes exclusively from these books too. My question is- where do we draw the line? If we take the IA articles as the base, then the contradiction between Lion El'Jonson's fates must also be removed and left more open. Info on Angron beyond his IA must also be reconsidered. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.Primarch 10:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understood your point originally. So I ask again- does that mean you will now be altering other Primarch fates to fit in with the ideal? The Lion's fate is clearly contradicted on the page itself, as is Dorn's and Ferrus' and Russ'. Each of these have at least two different fates (some like Ferrus have 3 or 4). Indeed, by logical extension of your argument Fulgrim's needs to be simplified to "unknown" and we need to remove him laying claim to any sort of planet (an impossible act if he is possibly dead).
 * FYI Emperor's Children article summarises the events of the novel.Primarch 10:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I suppose. Though I have to say, I personally disagree (my view is that the latest fiction is the the most current canon)- I think the least that should be done is listing that there have been contrary and various possible fates for each primarch (that is what an encyclopedia should do, after all). Summing it up with 'fate unknown' is your personal interpretation, rather than a representation of the facts. Be careful here, please.Primarch 11:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it could be simple and clear- simply state that there is contradicting material published in much the same way as Lion El Jonson's does. Otherwise, it'll run the risk of being inaccurate. No single source from GW states any of the primarch fates as 'unknown' specifically.
 * The idea that BL publishing and the novels are made out-of-house is a misconception. Black Library is not a sub-contractor, it is GW's publishing wing. GW have stated on numerous occasions that Black Library novels are as official as codex and WD articles. There is a huge discussion on the Primarch discussion page between myself (with the help of other wiki-editors) and NobutoraTakeda, where we illustrate this point clearly. There are links to the Black Library and Games Workshop sites that back this up. Take the time to read this page, if you can. Again, the novels are not second party and are subjected to the same 'fluff scrutiny', by the same people at GW as any codex. All of it must be signed off by Alan Merret himself. And as confusing as it might prove- this includes Soul Drinkers ;) Primarch 11:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see- fair enough. Still, whatever liberties we perceive in their work- they've all been edited and cleared by GW's IP management!Primarch 21:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Humo(u)r
So, after reading your post to the Durova subpage, I went to your user page, thinking that you must have a good humor. And then I noticed your good humour ... I must also say that your comments at the bottom of your user page are quite funny! Thanks for the laughs. :-D --Iamunknown 19:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000 conflicts
Yeah, thanks for informing me, it was a bad idea, i can see that now. I agree with the editor, delete it. Revoranii (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Query relating to a football article
I have just noticed a "L2 warning" on my home page from you given last year (yes, I know it's old - I still want it removed) I have no idea why this is and want an explanation - the IP is a home computer, not a public one. I am wanting it removed immediately. Furthermore, you posted it twice. Note: you say you don't respond to IP's - yet you feel free to come and accuse me of vandalism which I have not done. You strike me as someone who has just assumed that because I've not registered I'm just here to destroy. I suppose you will now go and post me another message citing vandalism on your home page discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.23.162 (talk • contribs)

Darkson, looking at the logs for Nani (footballer) and Anderson Luís de Abreu Oliveira, all I see are bold edits made by a new editor in an attempt to improve those articles, and you don't appear to be assuming good faith. --Muna (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Darkson, I was talking about your assertations that this anonymous user had vandalised the pages for Nani and Anderson. --Muna (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The anonymous user who made this section. --Muna (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. records and statistics
I was actually trying to make the article more similar to the other ones that are going for FL status, but I can revert if consensus demands it. – PeeJay 08:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Man U" as a nickname
Actually, I'm pretty sure we all decided a few weeks ago that "Man U" is just a contraction of "Manchester United" and, therefore, not a nickname. Check Talk:Manchester United F.C. for a record of the discussion. – PeeJay 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000
Your removals of my edits make no sense. The reason for them are listed as "list is not exhaustive", but my edits were simply adding the missing key chapter of Chaos and adding a link when one had not been given. I am going to readd these things, and I ask that you give a valid reason if you remove them again. --Muna (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Darkson, Horus is listed on the project page as a character who should be included in the notable characters list. In addition, Chaos has four gods, each of which has an army linked to it. Only three of these armies are mentioned, when all of them should be. I'm sticking Horus back up, and I'm going to contact someone involved in the 40K Project about the Emperor's Children. --Muna (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)