Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cailil (talk | contribs) at 18:12, 12 March 2008 (→Cailil's constant involvement here: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	Warhammer 40,000 (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Warhammer 40,000Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000Template:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000Warhammer 40,000

Archives

1, 2, 3

Importing / Reprinting RPGs

I don't see any references to the problems that GW got themselves into, regarding reprinting/importing other companies games to the UK. As I understand it, other companies made a deal with GW to reprint their games, and GW would then pay them the money. However, GW understated the number of games sold, and therefore paid the companies less than they should have. This, as I understand it, is what drove GW's move north, their abandonment of reprinting/importing other companies games and their focus on GW games/materials/etc.

193.243.227.1 (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find any reliable references to such actions, by all means add them. I've personally never heard that, but that's hardly surprising - if it is true, it's not something they'd brag about in White Dwarf. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 22:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

thats probably a hard one to find info on, would be nice to have some more on the earlier history of GW 90% seems to be a long list of their "achievements" more than anything. --71.205.253.125 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

removal of comments

I have reverted this edit in which another user refactored my comments and removed their old comments to which a number of users have replied. This edit was a breach of talk page etiquette - if anybody wants to retract old comments just strike them and leave a note on this page. WP:TALK explains that removing old comments, to which others have replied is disruptive as other users will not be able to follow the converstaion on the talk page. Please review WP:TALK for further information and details of process and site policy in this regard--Cailil 14:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cailil's constant involvement here

I'm a little concerned that there is a significant swell of opinion that some of the old criticisms section was encyclopedic, relevant and correct, and yet Cailil seems to be on a one-man crusade to bend the rules into getting it all removed. I have no position either way on the removed material, but it seems to me that the original research and NPOV rules - which, let's be clear, tend towards the noninclusion of information - are risking misuse in this case.

I think this deserves reexamination, especially if we can find someone other than Cailil to champion the removal cause. No offence intended, but the onesidedness of this debate, and Cailil's willingess to summarily remove possibly good information, concern me. Cailil, your case would be stronger if you were not so very notably alone in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.95.68 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Except it's not, and the information removed, as said, failed Misplaced Pages's policies on Verifiability and Neutral Point Of View. SirFozzie (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite the opposite of a one-crusade really, IP 91.84.95.68. This issue and the same ad-hominem remarks were made by User:RichSatan and were shown to be false. As can be seen in the archives. An RFC was opened and by its end 4 other editors all agreed with my position that if the "comments and criticism" section cannot be sourced it has to go. This is site policy, not my opinion. Also the fact that I haven't edited this article in 2008 at all, belies your assertion that I am constantly involved here. In fact my last edit was on December 10th 2007. If you have a problem with site policy raise it at the appropriate pages. However if this incivility and assumption of bad faith continues targeted at me I will bring it to to sysop attention again.--Cailil 18:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)