Talk:Field Commander

Dispute over World Champion Section and Link to Discussion Forum

Hungrywolf,The section "World Championship" is inappropriate material for Field Commander wiki page. There is no verifiable "World Champion" of this game, nor is there any World Championship tournament sponsored by Sony Online Entertainment. You may keep the link to "Unofficial League". However, reference to any "World Championship" or direct link to a discussion forum is inappropriate for this page.Blackbeard2k7 04:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear BlackBeard2K7,You have attacked me personally with wild allegations which are libelous to the extreme. Let me refresh your memory of what you wrote :

The owner of the site has been known in the past for making hacking attempts on computers of users he does not like by using the IP address they used to register on his forums with. In addition, he has publicly harrassed other users on the official Sony forum for Field Commander, frequently accusing other players of cheating, threatening their family, using extreme vulgarity toward them and posting personal information about them in public.

If the above isn't libelous and personal then what is.Please refrain from Vandalizing the Field Commander page.Hungrywolf 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack and it certainly was not libelous and my edits are not vandalism. I will agree to keep the warning removed. However, there should be nothing to warn anyone about since the "world champion" section and discussion forums are inappropriate for the Wiki site in the first place.There is no officially supported World Championship from Sony Online Entertainment, and you have no proof of the legitimacy of such. The link to your private discussion forums does not belong here (refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL section "Links normally to be avoided" #10).Blackbeard2k7 04:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to request at 3O: In cases of disputed material, one needs to view the relevant guidelines and policies strictly.

• As every editor should be aware, fora are not classed as reliable sources, since they have little or no oversight and no fact-checking.
• Contested material that is unreferenced or inadequately referenced may be removed if a satisfactory reference is not forthcoming after a reasonable period of time.
• Finding a reliable and suitable source is the responsibility of the editor who wishes to keep the contested material.

The complaint must be reasonable with respect to the state of the existing references or absence thereof, and this complaint is not unreasonable in light of WP:RS and WP:V. I therefor recommend that the editor who wishes to keep the contested material should work to provide a reliable independent reference source. If that is not forthcoming after a reasonable period of time (normally a few days or a week), then the material may be modified or removed. Where possible, modification is usually preferable to complete removal. Adrian M. H. 11:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The disputed section was added on March 2, 2007 [1] by an obvious sockpuppet of Hungrywolf. Since that time, no reliable source has been provided. How do we prevent the material from being continuously re-added to the article? Blackbeard2k7 13:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Be careful about making accusations of sockpuppetry. If you have good evidence, go to WP:SSP. If objectionable material is repeatedly added, remove it but be careful not to let it get into a revert war and be very wary of coming close to violating 3RR. Regularly going to the limit of 3RR without stepping over it is often considered almost as poor form as actually breaking that limit. If you find yourself getting into a revert war, you could take it to RFC for further consensus. Adrian M. H. 13:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is here.[2]Blackbeard2k7 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already begun an RFC on the user [3]. However, it has not helped resolve the issue, and from what I understand the RFC will disappear after 48 hours. Not only has the user re-added the section, but he has greatly lengthened it adding more useless information to the article. He has also re-added a SPAM link to the end of the section, advertising his personal forums. He was warned on his own talk page several times by an admin, but ignored them and even reverted THEIR edits. Another annoyance is that the user keeps reverting the removal of a blank "See Also" section. Blackbeard2k7 16:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The DR processes are not perfect, unfortunately. But talk of alternative DR routes is premature at this time; I recommend that you see how this dispute plays out and you might well find that you can easily see it through on your own through diligence and calm. Not to belittle the situation in any way, but it is a routine type of dispute that occurs many times every day in WP. When I get into a disagreement with someone (which thankfully does not happen very often) I deal with it as best as possible and always bear in mind that, whatever happens, there are more important things to worry about. It helps to stay positive! Adrian M. H. 17:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this even considered a dispute or disagreement? The offending editor isn't disputing or disagreeing with anything. He just ignores everyone and does what he wants. Blackbeard2k7 18:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that counts as a dispute, because you have a dispute with his additions and behaviour. Adrian M. H. 19:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If he can produce an independent source (ie. something other than http://www.ttmac.co.uk/fieldcommander.htm) that verifies some or all of the disputed section, then whatever it verifies can of course remain in place or be rewritten if needed. The onus is on him to do so, though anyone else could do it if it serves to resolve the problem. I will remove the blank See Also section myself, because its existence is ridiculously pointless unless/until relevant internal links are included. Repeatedly reverting good edits can be classed as ownership. Adrian M. H. 19:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only has the user continued to revert everyones edits based on the dispute above, he has taken the dispute into the talk pages of everyone involved, copying and pasting the same argument into every involved individuals talk page, rather than continuing the dispute here. I have created an RFC against the users conduct[4]. Blackbeard2k7 13:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC) In addition, the user User:Hungrywolf has lengthened the disputed section and added more spam links to his personal discussion forums. Blackbeard2k7 17:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I please put things straight here. I am the League Manager and I run a league for up to 8 people at a time, and my league is totally free and a friendly offer for people to have some clean competitive fun. I would politely ask both users to put a hold on it all. To clear things up the league title is "The Field Commander Championship" which is nothing more than a powername to enhance the leagues status - a bit like the old english football league 1 is now called The Championship. Also the said winner of each season is crowned the Champion and not "World Champion" as mentioned before - as there is a US and EUR version I felt it was no fair to crown a World Chamipion, so on Season 2 I changed it to just "Champion". I hope this debating and edit war can stop and we can all get on with more important things. Thanks & Regards, Tezmac Tezmac 06:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC) — Tezmac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree totally with you. Hungrywolf 08:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This dispute is already over. You are beating a dead horse.Blackbeard2k7 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hungrywolf continues to add this fan site[5][6], even after this lengthy discussion and being warned repeatedly on his own talk page[7].Game Collector 13:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sections from Game Manual

What is the purpose of listing a description of every possible unit, building and commanding officer in the game? It seems like the editor basically retyped the game manual into the article verbatim. I don't have any objections to having them listed, but without the descriptions. The items themselves don't describe the game itself, and so the article seems more like a game manual than an informational resource. Any other opinions on this? Blackbeard2k7 13:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If the manual has been copied verbatim then the plagiarized text must all be removed. CIreland 21:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why I put the gameguide tag on the article. --Orange Mike 18:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sections removed

I came here from the 3RR report on Hungrywolf. Looking at the article, the section on COs is copied from http://www.gamerhelp.com/psp/FieldCommander/111680.shtml, so I've removed it. It's complete trivia anyway. The "World Championship" section isn't encyclopedic either, sourced only to forums etc. The rest of the article still needs to be re-written to make it less of a game guide. ELIMINATORJR 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

False Accusations

User Blackbeard27K is now posting from IP 24.6.65.83 pretending to be another user. If the IP of BlackBeard27K is checked it will be the same. Proves BlackBeard2K7 is here only to cause mischief, vandal and deface the Field Commander page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hungrywolf (talk • contribs) 07:19, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

A baseless accusation, as any review of my contributions will show. But sure, put in a request for Checkuser if you want. 24.6.65.83 07:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. That is definitely not my IP address. I have no reason to be editing from a separate IP. I am not the one who has been blocked here. However, if you check the log, it looks like there may be a sockpuppet floating around somewhere. Blackbeard2k7 12:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your false accusations have no place in this discussion page. Two wrongs do not make a right. Blackbeard2k7 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hungrywolf, now you are falsely accusing me of vandalism again? Stop reverting my edits for reasons that don't exist. Every edit I performed was discussed on this page.Blackbeard2k7 05:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion About Reception

I've added some relevant text to reception section which can be verified by visiting the official field commander forums. You will see there almost 20 pages worth of posts, the majority of which are complaints about the myriad of problems with multiplayer mode. Blackbeard2k7 16:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid posting your Personal Opinion here BLACKBEARD2K7. Also let me quote you,

As previously noted, discussion forums cannot be used as a reliable source of information

. You may note that players in the World Championship League have played thousands of games online without any significant problems. But, if you persist in deliberately spreading false information, and repeatedly reverting the deletions, action will be taken against you. Thank you. Hungrywolf 06:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to this article for proof of my statements in the reception section: http://www.netjak.com/review.php/1229. As you can see from the review by this gaming magazine, my statements were not false information as you suggested. Blackbeard2k7 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

For additional reference, see This Web Site, where a well-known game manufacturer BioWare lists Netjak on their page as a reputable game review source. You can also plainly see from Rotten Tomatoes that NetJak is not one mans blog. It is a large group of game reviewing authors. You can see even Microsoft considers them reputable enough to respect their opinions on their own games. Blackbeard2k7 12:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I also would like to point out, relevant to this dispute, that you yourself confirmed the problems with online play in this diff. I wonder why you are so adament about having this information removed from the article, if you actually support it? It can be easily seen that you are 203.212.203.238 (talk · contribs) by checking this diff [8]. Blackbeard2k7 01:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Enclyclopedia and not a Game Review site. If people want the read Game Reviews, there will be hundreds of sites to do that, putting (selective) extracts of Game reviews here has no meaning. If everyone starts putting extracts from Game Review sites there there will be nothing but that. Also, Wikipedia is NOT a repository for links. There are tons of reputed Game Review sites which have said great things about this game. We (the Field Commander League players Field Commander League & Championship) have played thousands of games without any significant problems. Also, the review in question above is dated October 15, 2006 which is nearly a YEAR old ! Whatever problems there existed were corrected by SoE long ago. FYI, At the time of the above review by unreputed reviewers, Field Commander won the PSP Strategy game of the Year at IGN [9] Please don't put outdated information here from a insignificant site written by unreputed reviewers.Hungrywolf 05:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and not a Game Review site." Then why are you adding more game reviews to the article? [10]. Why don't we just remove the entire reception and awards section then?Blackbeard2k7 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not added any Game Review information. The only information I have added is the scores received by this game on REPUTED game sites and an award received by this game from another REPUTED game site. Hungrywolf 05:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Posting scores violates WP:NPOV. One person says the game is great, another person says the game stinks. And so game scores should not be posted in the article at all. Refer to this list of reviews.Blackbeard2k7 16:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion first, let me say that this is probably a question for discussion at WikiProject Video games. I'm an active participant at WikiProject Albums, and it is helpful that they have clear guidelines on what kinds of reviews to include and how to incorporate scores. I did not see such a policy at the Video games project ((see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Critical_content), and it seems potentially beneficial. Because I did not find such a policy, my opinion here is based on my examination of featured class articles on video games from that project page. These, obviously, are the articles that have been reviewed and selected as the best by consensus of Wikipedia editors. By their precedence, it seems that review scores are considered appropriate for game articles. See, for example, Final_Fantasy_X#Critical_response, Final_Fantasy_VII#Critical_response, Half-Life_2#Critical_response, Perfect_Dark#Critical_reaction, and Shadow_of_the_Colossus#Critical_response. I think you raise valid points, Blackbeard2k7, about questions of which reviews are worth quoting and how to make sure that neutrality is maintained by a reasonable sampling of reputable scores. Again, I think this is probably something you should raise at WikiProject Video games. --Moonriddengirl 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links Discussion

Hungrywolf, I see that you have added a link to the official Field Commander forum. However, the link is redundant. There is already a link to those forums from the official Field Commander page, which was already listed.Blackbeard2k7 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tezmac, you have asked if it is okay to add the link to your league here. Please refer to the discussion about "Dispute over World Championship Section". Wikipedia is not a collection of fan sites. It was already determined that the links to both your league web site and the associated forums are inappropriate for Wikipedia.Blackbeard2k7 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok that is fine - worth a try Tezmac 12:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any problem giving Sony Online Entertainment credit for the link to their web site. However, the word "official" should not be removed from the link description. Their web site is in fact the official web site for this game.Game Collector 13:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Page Cleaned Up

I've re-arranged this talk page and reduced the amount of repetetious topics.Blackbeard2k7 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hungrywolf, stop reverting my edits for reasons that don't exist. I did not remove any comments from the discussion page. I rearranged them so that there is less clutter here and people can understand what is going on. When you reverted my edit, you in fact removed MY comments.Blackbeard2k7 05:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I support you 100% if you add value to this page. I have not reverted the clutter that you have corrected. I thank you if you help & support in making this Field Commander page GREAT ! Hungrywolf 06:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The First Military Turn Based Strategy Game for Playstation Portable

I was looking at the referenced press release by Sony [11]. However, they are mistaken. The game Metal Gear Acid[12] is also a military turn based strategy game, and it came out over a year before Field Commander[13] did. Maybe Field Commander was THEIR first, but not THE first. Game Collector 17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Sony Press Release "Field Commander is the first military turn-based strategy game for PSP". This editor seems to know more about this game than Sony. Hungrywolf 07:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, BLACKBEARD2k7 & GAME COLLECTOR are the same person Hungrywolf 07:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Press releases aren't generally considered the best sources, and they shouldn't be used to verify contentious or self-serving claims.

Stop making sockpuppet accusations without proof. Go to this page if you think you can make an argument that they are the same person. Since you don't have any evidence, other than they both edited this page, I'm guessing you won't get very far with that.

Stop adding your league site to the external links section. It isn't an appropriate link per WP:EL as it doesn't add any useful information about the game to the article.

Stop calling good faith edits vandalism. Game Collector came to the talk page, and he explained his reasoning for removing the map section. It's fine if you disagree, but it's not fine for you to call it vandalism because you disagree. I won't remove the section, but there are still some peacock words that need to be sourced or removed.

And, just as a side question, what exactly is your problem with calling SOE's website the official website? I don't really care which way it's stated, but it seems to be a pretty stupid point to edit war over. --Onorem♠Dil 11:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history of this article, as well as Hungrywolfs history of contributions, it seems to me that he has a recent history of making reverts to legitimate edits without discussion, making personal attacks against other editors, making continued accusations against other editors without providing evidence as well as wikistalking. He seems to have a very strong sense of ownership of this article and I would not even bother stating these obvious facts here if he weren't now unjustly directing his anger toward me. Back to the original topic, Sony's press release is quite obviously mistaken in claiming that their game is the first turn based strategy game for PSP. It has nothing to do with who knows more than who. The release date of the actual first TBS game for PSP pre-dates Field Commander by over a year. Facts are facts.Game Collector 13:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

New "Maps" section discussion

The fact that there is a built-in map editor is all that needs to be stated in the body of the article. This doesn't require a whole dedicated section to it. The rest of this section is a combination of obvious facts (i.e. specially for PSP owners when the game only exists for PSP; user maps are restricted by the users creativity as opposed to what?) and the editors personal opinion (i.e. one of the most exciting for Field Commander players, well maybe most players didn't find it so exciting). Also we do not need to see examples of user created maps. Game Collector 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that Hungrywolf has reverted my edit with a false accusation of vandalism and without discussion here on the talk page.Game Collector 13:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Open Vandalism on this Page

The user BLACKBEARD2k7 now calling himself GAME COLLECTOR is openly vandalizing this page. If you check the edits of GAME COLLECTOR...they are only to vandalize this page.

The reason : This person was kicked out of the official SoE Field Commander Forum, Kicked and banned at the Field Commander World Championship League Forum http://fc.ueuo.com/Forum/, so he comes here to destroy the Field Commander Wiki page in frustration. I am amused. Hungrywolf 14:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop calling good faith edits vandalism. Several of his edits are clearly not vandalism. Game Collector came to the talk page, and he explained his reasoning for removing the map section. It's fine if you disagree, but it's not fine for you to call it vandalism because you disagree. I won't remove the section, but there are still some peacock words that need to be sourced or removed.

Stop making sockpuppet accusations without proof. Go to this page if you think you can make an argument that they are the same person. Since you don't have any evidence, other than they both edited this page, I'm guessing you won't get very far with that. --Onorem♠Dil 14:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Good faith editing?? Is that meant as a joke? Hungrywolf 14:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)