User talk:Pkaulf

WP:RFP and Black Mesa (game mod)
Hey Pkaulf, I see that you were dealing with an assload of anonymous vandals at Black Mesa (game mod) and getting some crap from them. In future, these situations can be dealt with by issuing a notice at WP:RFP (Requests for Protection), where you can request semi-protection to get the page locked to anonymous editors. - Hahnch e  n 16:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

GeForce 8 Series
In your edit summary, you claim that nVidia will be releasing vista drivers next week. However, their web site claims an end-of-January release time-frame, a little more than ten weeks after the release of Microsoft Vista (to MSDN users). Do you have any evidence that they will be releasing the drivers next week? (Please understand I'm not writing this paragraph in a confrontational tone, it's just the first time I've heard anyone say nVidia has changed their mind about a release date). --Yamla 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's recently been claimed on several tech boards & sites that a driver will be available mid-december. Even if it doesn't appear until january, I think it's a bit pointless hiding the stuff about DX10 support - might as well temporarily remove all the other stuff about 128-bit HDR, Quantum FX etc since none of that is "supported" yet. Furthermore the 8800 cards don't work properly in vista at all just now, DX10 or otherwise. --Pkaulf 23:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like these sources were wrong. It's still possible that the driver could appear in late December or early January, ahead of nVidia's claims, however.  --Yamla 16:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary
What is the meaning of the edit summary in this edit: ? Please explain yourself clearer when you do edit summaries.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * jkkjjkgskjg94590490490jkfdkvklmvmcm,.vxcm,vmdsfjksdfjoire9439848j9j894uj43 --03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to STALKER
It's not every day that several thousand characters are removed with no reason. I reverted it, assuming the worst. But please, before you make edits on such a large scale actually mention what you are doing. For example, I would say that the "removed features" section, whilst perhaps not deserving its own section, should remain. Adding it back in to another section will be a hassle. Although, I do agree that the "inaccuracies" section should've gone. But yeah, explanation on the talk page helps clarify edits. Thanks! UnaLaguna 07:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

About Call of Duty 2
When I wrote about the expansion pack to Call of Duty 2, it wasn't meant to be spam. Can you give me a reason why you deleted that section? Because I'm not understanding that what I wrote was spam. -Zid1 01:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not an official expansion pack, therefore it doesn't warrant being mentioned. Plus your additions looked as if they had been made for self-promotional purposes. --Pkaulf 11:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see how the expansion not being official deserves a removal, but I didn't put the addition up for "self-promotional purposes." It was to inform the public and only meant to inform the public, not to attract the interest of the public. But, if you say so, we'll leave the section cut out. -Zid1 12:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Deep house/Deep Dish
You reverted my addition of deep dish to the deep house article. I believe that's where the name Deep Dish is even from. Do you disagree? -Mike Payne 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe their name actually comes from their combined love of deep dish pizza and deep music. That doesn't necessarily make them deep house artists. Honestly they stick out like a sore thumb amongst the other artists listed, since they are primarily known as progressive house DJs & producers (and also US garage earlier in their careers). Their latest commercial efforts don't even remotely resemble the deep house style described on the page.

May 2007
Hi, the recent edit you made to House music has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks – Gurch 21:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Arnon Chaffin Got a message? 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * good grief, have you actually read the tosh you reverted back to? --Pkaulf 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Geforce 9 listed on Geforce page
You have claimed that nVidia has not officially announced the GeForce 9 series yet. Stop senselessly editing out things you do not know about. If you do this again, i will notify an administrator. At least take the time to learn about what it is you are editing out. As for proof that nVidia has, in fact, announced the existance of the Geforce 9 series, go here and read the second sentence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_9_Series KittenKiller —Preceding unsigned comment added by KittenKiller (talk • contribs) 17:52, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't give me that shit. There are no official Nvidia sources that confirm the existence of G90, its name or any of the claimed specifications. Only rumours and hearsay from tabloid tech websites. Maybe it's you who should do a bit of homework --Pkaulf 21:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Team Fortress 2
Again, before you make edits on such a large scale, please mention what you are doing. If not it will often be assumed to be vandalism, or will be undone or reverted based on the ambiguity of the edit. For example, was the section at TF2 removed because of a lack of citation, because of origonal reasearch (I'm sure that this is probably the case), or because you didn't like it and are planning to rewrite it one day? It takes other users time to go over and check large edits when they may not need to if there's an explanation to go by instead. Cheers and happy editing! BURNyA 18:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Resident Evil 5
Would you please start letting the rest of the wikipedia community know why you are undoing edits and removing (or adding) information? The edit you undid on the RE5 article was not vandalism, therefore should have had an explanation. This is becoming a problem. BURNyA 21:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It WAS vandalism --Pkaulf 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case than I apologize for jumping the gun, but it is possible that it was a misinformed user and not a vandal. BURNyA 21:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wrong, that guys vandalized quite a few pages and probably needs to be blocked... I humbly apologize. BURNyA 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

GeForce 8 Series
This post states "Hey looked at wikipedia lately, well if you have a look at the 8800, At the bottom or half way down, it has a picture of the G92 which is just a 8800GT. Very unusual for an 8800GT to be codenamed G92. The questions is now, is Nvidia going to do a 9800GTX. these G92's are coming out this month on the 27." If the Wikipedia image mentioned is incorrect, would you please correct it. Thanks. -- Jreferee    t / c  15:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tiberium
As a member of the Command & Conquer task force, I thought I would make a basic ammendment for MrStalker's unwelcoming attitude regarding your good faith edits to the Tiberium (video game) article. It has caused him to collide with other users in the past, so don't feel singled out. Also, if you have a fair background knowledge on the C&C games, then please don't hesitate to come join us. We're a bit too low on active members for my liking. Kalamrir (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiberium #2
Hello Pkaulf, I think Kalamrir is trying to turn someone else against me just because of his frustration. However, contrary to what Kalamrir says, I have no problems with any other editor, except in this case Kalamrir, who his kind of a issue for me right now. You are more then welcome to do constructive edits to the Tiberium article or any other article, and if you have an interest in Command & Conquer please join our task force. I believe that even though we don't always agree about things, we can still remain civil and follow wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sometimes my way of expressing myself can be very straight to the point, and some individuals may misinterpret that as offensive, but I assure you that it has never been my intention to offend anyone. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
I was just wondering why you deleted my modification of Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory in the section regarding Competition. It is not “spam” when somebody goes around and actually makes an effort to research something. I was merely noting the fact that when I went onto Wikipedia’s W:ET page to look up competition info, there seemed to be tons of crap about useless things like skill advancement (and some of that info was even incorrect. Lack of research much?) but absolutely nothing really important. So I thought I’d go and post some of my knowledge about the Competition aspect of the game and my work gets deleted with nothing more than a grunt of “spam.” Would you like to explain further?

EDIT: Actually, on reviewing the modification, I realized there was a line at the bottom: "SHOUT TO WINGHAVEN" which may have been classified as spam. However, why was there any need for you to delete the other portion of the section? It would have been sufficient to merely erase the shoutout? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.20.248 (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think Pkaulf was right to delete your contribution. It reads like something out of a fan site - and is related to this: WP:CRUFT. This is a major problem with the article, and much of what remains can be classified as this: it might help to rewrite the section so that it is accessible to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. Please also do not edit your signature; you will need to create an account if you want to be called 'Luda From EE'. Thanks! The Missing Piece (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help to improve Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Hi, I noticed that you edited the article Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare recently and I am just letting you know that I plan on working on the article over the next few weeks in order to bring it up to Featured Article status. If you have time, please consider helping out with the article by improving the referencing, content, and other miscellaneous activities in order for the article to meet the standards set out at WP:WIAFA. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)