User talk:Hrimfaxi

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello Hrimfaxi, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 01:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BHD[edit]

Did that part at the end of the DVD actually specifically refer to the ac-130s and tanks? IIRC it only referred to "Mike durant was released, garrison retired, Aidid died, US pulled out, etc". ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At 21 minutes 51-59 sec on the DVD, Garrison states something to the effect of 'I had requested light armour and AC-130 Spectre gunships, but Washington in all its wisdom decided against it.' And akk, put that on your talk page instead of mine first time...Still new to using this. Which way's right? Hrimfaxi 09:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lesbian[edit]

I'm not a lesbian, but I don't see what was wrong with the definition that fitted into the introduction (and now there is none):

A lesbian describes a women, or rather women, who have a more intense physical and emotional relationship with other women than with men.

What about that relates to bisexual? Perhaps you should bring that to the bisexuality article.

For the article to state (dryly) that a lesbian is a homosexual woman, sounds clinical. There is not much to be learned from that. GilliamJF 10:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the passage you quote describes a bisexual women who prefers women; it speaks of preference, but 'lesbian' is normally used to descibe women who only form romantic and sexual relationships with members of the same sex, not those who simply find such relationships better. Hrimfaxi 10:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how it's possible that one prefers two of anything of a pair, or rather how one has a more intense, physical relationship with two different people. GilliamJF 10:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don't understand what you're getting at: what I'm saying is that as it's currently worded, it could describe, say, a woman who'd have sex with either gender but if faced with the option would choose a woman over a man. Simply 'having a more intense relationship' doesn't imply the exclusivity-to-one-gender normally associated with the word 'lesbian.' Hrimfaxi 10:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thank you for clearing that up for me. Actually, I contributed that def myself a while back; I translated it from an unabridged German-language Langenscheidt dictionary. I think it's pretty accurate, actually. I don't think it would be fair to say that the page for male homosexuality and that for female homosexuality must be identical, written in a form style. I guess the actual definition will vary, and there will inevitably be some controversy. GilliamJF 11:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I didn't mean to appear confrontational; to give a better example, if you placed a plate of spaghetti in front of someone and they said they 'would have preferred a curry' then all you know is they like curry more, not how much more. You certainly couldn't say they would not eat the spaghetti just because they'd rather have a curry. We have the same problem here: the description essentially says lesbians are women who like women more than men, but leaves a blank over how much 'more' or how much they like men; thus, it also could be applied to bisexual women with a preference [no matter how slight] for female partners, and can't be used to define 'lesbian.'

I don't think further notes are really needed; 'a lesbian is a homosexual woman' is short and to the point, there's no real need to go into defining what a homosexual woman is as well.Hrimfaxi 11:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

imperial vehicles template[edit]

Why are you including vehicles without articles? There are dozens of imperial ships that don't have articles of their own, and they can be found through the links to the lists at the bottom. If there isn't enough about them out there to give them their own article, why are they worth a place in the template? Night Gyr 12:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure AT-AA warrants inclusion [it's a tiny section and only appears in the videogames, apparently] and was just about to remove it, but 'walker dropship' speaks of a fairly major vehicle and warrants inclusion for anyone who ever asked 'just how the hell did those walkers end up on Hoth?' It's quite a large section that deals with the deployment of another major vehicle, the AT-AT. Hrimfaxi 12:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's still not important enough for its own article, and the lists are full of interesting vehicles that fill in nice little points of info, but we can't put them all in the template and it's not useful or helpful to do so either.

Also, I was breaking the lines on the Film/EU division, as that seemed to make distinguishing the two easier, but you changed that. I think the slightly wider box is made up for by the ease of navigation when you have a line break, rather than just subtle italics to go on. Night Gyr 12:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking them up by film / EU division is already done by the italics, there's no point doing it again with line breaks and making the table wider than it has to be, particularly since all the articles in question say if they're EU or not, usually in the opening sentence. Also, the dropship isn't a little tidbit, it's a major piece of information; namely, how Star Destroyers land ground vehicles. It includes the AT barge as well, and is the largest article on the page; extended slightly, it could easily warrant a page of its own anyway. It's article is about the same size as Skipray Blastboat, which is on the list. Hrimfaxi 12:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boss (video games)[edit]

It needs references everywhere. Well, not on every single statement, but it doesn't have a single reference for things like its classification system for bosses, or for claims that this or that game was the first. Are we inventing our own classes for bosses, or explaining someone else's? If it's the former, it's OR, if it's the latter, it needs to be cited. Night Gyr 11:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing fiction with reality[edit]

Rv. The vast majority of notable super-heavy tanks are not real

That's nice, but please don't mix them into the categories for real vehicles.

Please don't continue to add science fiction vehicles to category:superheavy tanks. This category is part of the main hierarchy under category:armored fighting vehicles. Fictional tanks belong to category:fictional tanks, under category:fictional vehicles. —Michael Z. 2006-08-08 15:13 Z

"Centers around"[edit]

Apologies in advance - I just changed it to "revolves around" before reading the discussion page for Shadow of the Colossus. After reading it, whichever is fine with me - I've just been weened to avoid it. But again, I'm fine with either and feel free to change it back. I just hate editing something twice and leaving it the same as it was. Bkessler23 05:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:GunPS2small.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:GunPS2small.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates[edit]

Hey! If you're interested, I started a series of userboxes for the game NationStates. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]