User talk:Cliché Online: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:52, 6 March 2010

/Archive 1 (August 2006 pt.1) /Archive 2 (August 2006 pt.2-May 2007) /Archive 3 (June 2007-December 2007) /Archive 4 (2008) /Archive 5 (2009)

Talkback

Hello, Cliché Online. You have new messages at ChimpanzeeUK's talk page.
Message added 14:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 14:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cliché Online. You have new messages at ChimpanzeeUK's talk page.
Message added 14:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 14:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motto

Good job creating the motto page, I didn't even know there was that much data on it! Thanks for the good work filling that hole of info.- _J.Logan`^t: 07:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, don't mention it. I've done my part, now it's up to the other wikipedians to complete the article. Cliché Online (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comments in article Malta

Please don't add personal comments to articles, or underline anything. Use fact tags if you want a source. I've replaced one of your comments with a tag, the other I just deleted because it was already sourced. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of France

I said nothing about when Franco-German enmity started, and if you were looking for an answer, 1806 wouldn't be the right year anyway. You can find the roots for the future rivalry all the way in the early Middle Ages with the division of Charlemagne's empire. And the more modern aspects of their stern opposition to one another trace their history to the Thirty Years War, in which Turenne burned Southern Germany to the ground and made France the devil incarnate in German eyes for the next three centuries. But the main point is that Franco-German rivalry has absolutely nothing to do with the sentence under question. It's a matter of pure chronology, and you completely destroy that when you start talking about the War of the Fourth Coalition, which happened over six decades earlier from the Franco-Prussian War.UberCryxic (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, of course the historical fuzz started at the division of the frank empire in 843. your "german" perspective is not the same as the french perspective. anti-french resentment of german queen Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz against the french (the french wiki article will give you an hint of what i mean) led prussia to attack france who defeated it. from my position that's the same as when the Ems Dispatch angered the french against the german. they were the attacker and were defeated. in both case the victor defended itself against the aggressor and humiliated him. that's french-german enmity from my POV. Cliché Online (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anything you said relates to my statement. The perspective isn't German or French; both sides would easily agree that their rivalry predates the Napoleonic Wars. But again, regardless of when their rivalry first surfaced in history, it has nothing to do with that sentence. That sentence does not talk about Franco-German rivalry. It only mentions the Franco-Prussian War as an event in and of itself, not in relation to some other larger concept. You're reading more into it than you should.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading here and there that the french were humilated by the german in 1870-1871 like History_of_the_Armée_de_l'Air_(1909-1942)#The_early_years_of_French_military_aviation_until_1914 "The French collective memory of the humiliating defeat of the army at the hands of the Prussians during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 was still very fresh, and France was preparing to face Germany again.", (a recurring claim without source but that's a different matter). also nobody says the german were previously humialated when napoleon I defeated them as prussians. it reads like it all started there with a french defeat, but that's lies or propaganda as you wish. humiliating defeat was what driven hitler in 1940 and france in 1914 but also the said prussian queen in the napoleonic battle of iena auerstadt. i'm repeating myself so forget it. Cliché Online (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

I've deleted image [1] as it is a blatant copyright violation of here. Taking an image from another site, resizing it slightly and changing the colour pattern does not make it your original work, it is misrepresentation and copyright infringement. Canterbury Tail talk 13:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how do you know this old map is copyrighted?! Cliché Online (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because all maps are copyrighted unless they are specifically released as otherwise. And how do you mean old, it was created post WW2. Canterbury Tail talk 13:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm gonna ask them, because this site hosts archives for educational purpose. Cliché Online (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point here is you passed off someone else's work as your own. This a formal warning for uploading copyrighted images, making false claims on the origins of images and deliberately mislabelling uploaded files. Canterbury Tail talk 13:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yakuza 3 false claims

Hello. I am not a new user, and I can not let you get away with your edits. You are making unsourced claims, the level on which the cuts are made have not been made public yet. It can very well be that the dating is only kept in the way that the player is called by the hostesses.

What you write are mere assumptions.

Secondly, your ironic tone of writing is unfit for an encyclopedia. Your edits read like you are a die-hard-fan wanting to denounce any criticism to the game, claiming an established source as Kotaku was wrong with no proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.138.159.78 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey this no un unverified claim, kotaku just have posted a update did you saw it? romancing is still there, there is no romancing without cabaret, i finished the game kotaku didn' even played it all they want is getting hits and ad-money even though it includes misinformation Cliché Online (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did not read the update; yet you must take care not to write in a tone that seems like bashing. After all the cabaret management is still gone, as are Shogi, Mahjong and the quiz. The dating is only one part. When writing for Wikipedia you have to do so in a neutral manner, else it will be dismissed as fanboy talk and deleted anyway.

--62.138.159.78 (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are right :) maybe i was pissed off because they are ruining the game's launch with their false rumors. Cliché Online (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm gonna check the primary sources to rewrite that article section about what is actually cut and what is not Cliché Online (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey i checked the sega blog it seems all the said fans are after a romancing game. they will not buy it without the hostess like it was a romancing game. there might be some xbox flamers as with the gran turismo/forza 2 case. when a forza dev was caught trolling gt last year. :) Cliché Online (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That´s no big deal, just make it better. ;) Oh, about the prostitution thing; there was no need to delete that for all western versions either, as prostitution is legal in most places outside the USA; and the legality is no issue at all, as beating up people and shooting them is illegal everywhere yet causes no problem with the law if it is shown in games. This does not justify a cut especially for the PAL-version.

The problems with a too short localization time seems like a fishy excuse as well; with only subtitles being translated anyway this should not take a professional translator working for a big company such as Sega more than a few day. All pretty dubious.

I am among those who have decided to wait a while to see if the content may be released as DLC. Personally, I spent so much time with the now missing features in the prequel that I am not sure about how much fun I would have missing these things. It was unwise to cut it out because Yakuza is only for "nerds" in the west, and these people mostly prefer things with original voices and uncut. Cutting out reduces even the small fanbase more...But that´s just a personal sidenote. ;)

--62.138.159.78 (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

point received. well there's still something i wanted to ask you, where the hell did you found the shogi thing? all (official) i read is 99% of the japanese is still there except for the club hostess Cliché Online (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shogi-thing I read somewhere when browsing Sega´s official US-forums. However, I just browsed and can not say for sure if this was said by a mod there or just a misunderstanding by the fans based on some article...there are several threads on the cuts on the Sega US boards already, so I did not have the time to read them all from start to end yet.

--62.138.159.78 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

got it, so the western release section should be rewritten without the kotaku trivia and plus the rushed version with 99% since this is it the official statement. Cliché Online (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, I am sure, English is my native language :) A lot of the European languages handle speech marks differently. Also, I'm sure I haven't misinterpreted the quote, the spokesman was talking about upcoming promotion for the main game, not DLC. 79.79.3.115 (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the tip, yes you're right about upcoming talk but you're wrong about extra dlc, check this. Cliché Online (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari Challenge: Trofeo Pirelli

Hello. Other articles are not relevant to edits. Gran Turismo 2 does not mention any individual car, and its a PlayStation game, does that mean the Ferrari article shouldn't either? Sega GT is only a single paragraph, should the Ferrari article be a single paragraph? I removed the lists per item 6 of WP:GAMECRUFT - "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts". In a racing game, the cars and tracks can be considered "items". Lists generally don't add anything to articles. Please try to be less aggressive in your comments. Thanks! Fin ©™ 16:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I explained all my edits in the summary, please do not revert them as "random". Thanks! Fin ©™ 17:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

random is what they are. your so called "edits" are only random removal of indormation about a software you don't have a clue. they are irrelevant. Cliché Online (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't be aggressive. I'm editing the article to try and improve it, of course. You imply in your talk page comment that sourced information should not be removed - this is incorrect, if information is inappropriate (or whatever, it clutters, it's too detailed etcetc) it should be removed, regardless of whether its sourced. You also seem to imply that I want a barebones article - this is incorrect, why would you think so? I'm simply removing what I consider to be excessive detail, there's still plenty of information in the article. If nobody cares about my "agenda" (I don't have one, by the way), then why are you intent on branding me as trying to destroy PS3 articles? I note you do the same to other editors you disagree with. Of course WP:GAMECRUFT does not specify cars. Does it specify weapon attachments? Types of ammo? Shield types? Weapons? Just because something isn't there doesn't mean it's not included. Also, if you could be a bit clearer on talk page comments, that'd be good, I have a hard time understanding what you mean (though if english isn't your first language, that's cool too) Thanks! Fin ©™ 17:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've looked at the Forza Motorsport article - it seems ok (no excessive detail), much the same shape the Ferrari article is at the moment (with my edits). Thanks for getting me to take a look! Thanks! Fin ©™ 17:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just thought that maybe you can't see my edit summary, which is why you called the edits random? Here it is just in case - "reader can go to supercar challenge article to read about it; can only be one native res; patch detail nn; trim tracks". Thanks! Fin ©™ 17:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Em, have you looked at my edit? There's more to it than cutting down the number of tracks - instead of saying "There's track X, Y and Z in country 1, track D E and F in country 2" etc, it now just gives a short summary of the famous tracks. I don't see the problem. Also, you're at your WP:3RR limit (and I'm coming up on it fast). Thanks! Fin ©™ 17:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"PlayStation 3 only" is a peacock phrase, and its unnecessary - if people want to read about the followup game, they can go to the article. Also, games can only have one native resolution. The game is rendered at whatever (1080p in Ferrari's case), and then is upscaled or downscaled (downscaled in Ferrari) to suit the TV it's running on. This is the reason that HD games can run at any HD resolution and any SD resolution - its based on scaling, not the game having multiple res's. Thanks! Fin ©™ 17:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* No, I haven't passed 3RR, first edit, R1, R2, R3. That's three reversions, which is the limit. Thanks! Fin ©™ 18:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

good i could report your own conduct and obvious agenda pushing. Cliché Online (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do believe I have an "agenda", I think the conflict of interest noticeboard might be the place to bring it up? If you want to bring up my conduct, the administrator's noticeboard is probably the best place. Thanks! Fin ©™ 18:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

of course that's what you are doing otherless the xbox360 article you are editing would look like the ps3 articles i edit which is not the case. thanks for wasting my time. Cliché Online (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Ferrari Challenge: Trofeo Pirelli

Regardless of how you spin it, both you and Falcon are edit-warring on this article. Rather than blocking outright, I'm giving you both a warning; you would be well-advised to cease editing the article for now and instead seek outside input to resolve your disagreement. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i've answered on the incident board talk page. this user upsets me because he makes me waste my time, i spend hours bringing infos, he comes in and removes them just because he had decided. :| Cliché Online (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm not sure what you mean by "answered on the incident board talk page"; I don't see any messages from you there at all.

By the way, regarding messages like this, please see What vandalism is not before frivolously accusing other editors of vandalism. Content disagreements and edit warring are not vandalism. I am not defending Falcon's edit warring, but playing the "vandalism" card against other edits is never conducive to discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 99: / Line 99: @@
 Regardless of how you spin it, both you and Falcon are edit-warring on this article. Rather than blocking outright, I'm giving you both a warning; you would be well-advised to cease editing the article for now and instead seek outside input to resolve your disagreement. <b class="IPA">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;<small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 18:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 :i've answered on the incident board talk page. this user upsets me because he makes me waste my time, i spend hours bringing infos, he comes in and removes them just because he had decided. :| [[User:Cliché Online|Cliché Online]] ([[User talk:Cliché Online#top|talk]]) 18:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
+::Um, I'm not sure what you mean by "answered on the incident board talk page"; I don't see any messages from you there at all.
+::By the way, regarding messages like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Falcon9x5&diff=next&oldid=348093221 this], please see [[WP:VAND#NOT|What vandalism is not]] before frivolously accusing other editors of vandalism. Content disagreements and edit warring are not vandalism. I am not defending Falcon's edit warring, but playing the "vandalism" card against other edits is never conducive to discussion. <b class="IPA">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;<small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 18:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)