Talk:Shockwave Assault

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Merge. Apparently there's no objection to my proposal, so I'm going ahead and performing the merge. Martin IIIa (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

---

I propose that Shock Wave (video game) be merged into this article. "Shock Wave" is simply an alternate title for Shockwave Assault (specifically, the title which appeared on the 3DO version), so having it as a separate article is patently unnecessary and confusing.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article blanking and locking

Okay, so what exactly is going on here? I see above that we have a completely unopposed consensus to merge Shock Wave (video game) to Shockwave Assault. Makes sense; the two are the same game, and "Shockwave Assault" is a name unique to the game, whereas there are multiple games called "Shock Wave".

So why the heck is editor Stormwatch repeatedly blanking this article, while an incomplete and poorly written version of the article is at Shock Wave (video game) - which is in turn locked so that neither I nor anyone else can make improvements to it? I have reviewed the edit histories for the articles but still cannot make sense of why this article is being assaulted (pun not intended) like this.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

As an addendum, Stormwatch ignored my directive to use the talk page, reverted my restoration of the article (like all his edits, no justification was provided), and posted a cease-and-desist note to my personal talk page. Pretty clear by now that Stormwatch is not acting in good faith. Since he's been at this for well before I came along, I think it's time we reported this to administrators; unless someone posts a better idea in the next three days, I'll go ahead and do just that.--NukeofEarl (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... I have to say at this point, I have no better ideas, and indeed I must apologize for allowing Stormwatch's nonconstructive editing to go this far. It was actually pretty clear from the beginning that he was acting in bad faith: Note that while he didn't participate in the merge discussion for the month it was up, he reverted the merge within mere hours of my performing it. Also, you may have to review the article histories carefully to see this, but he actually shifts positions mid-dispute. First he was saying that Shockwave Assault should remain as two separate articles (see his posts on my personal talk page - nope, you're not the first editor he pulled that on), but now he's pulling for a single article at Shock Wave (video game). Reading his posts, he shows no awareness of having changed his mind - he just flat-out forgot which excuse he was using to antagonize other editors.

Even on Wikipedia, I have better uses of my time than butting heads with guys like Stormwatch, and I figured that so long as I didn't rise to his bait, he would eventually get bored and leave the article alone. Instead, he persisted with his edit warring and reported me to the Administrators' noticeboard. Here's where it gets bizarre: Stormwatch didn't even bother lying about my behavior. He just posted an argument for why my edits are wrong. Despite this, the responding administrator, Darkwind, opted to preserve Stormwatch's version of Shock Wave (video game) by blocking all editing from the article for six months. That's why you (and every other editor) has been locked out from improving the article. I posted this message to Darkwind's talk page, requesting an explanation for his blocking of the article and indications on how I was supposed to proceed with the dispute. He never replied. Odd behavior for a Wikipedia admin, to say the least.

So I thought if I just let Stormwatch have his little victory, he would allow me to restore this article so that other editors could improve it. My mistake. Before you report him, though, I'm going to try one last revert and posting a warning to his talk page. Virtually no chance of this doing any good, but it's best if you can say that we really have tried making every effort to get through to him.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this: Seems Stormwatch reported me to the administrator's noticeboard a second time. Why "just stumbled"? Because this time, he didn't post a note to my talk page informing me of this. Luckily, the administrator responding this time (slakr) behaved less sketchy than Darkwind, and gave the standard "work it out amongst yourselves" response. Stormwatch has dug quite a hole for himself here for when his behavior finally gets reported.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you two are in the wrong here.

Let me explain this again: the game's original release is called Shock Wave (not Shockwave, that's a different game). The expanded re-release is called Shockwave Assault. By logic, it is Shock Wave - NOT Assault - that should get an article.

Martin, your behavior is irrational. The articles must be named after the original game, not some expanded version. It would be like moving Unreal to Unreal Gold, or Rune to Rune Classic.

And the page is only locked because of your tomfoolery, Martin. --Stormwatch (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll be doggone. Stormwatch just went crying to the Administrator's noticeboard for a third time. Apparently no one ever told him that Wikipedia administrators, as a rule, don't like editors who waste their time with petty disputes. He also posted more flamebait to your personal talk page, Martin.

And holy cow, he's finally learned how to use the talk page. Too bad he apparently has yet to learn anything about Wikipedia naming conventions or about the game he's edit warring over. Ordinarily I'd provide a polite rebuttal to his argument, but his behavior clearly shows that would be a wasted effort.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal is the opposite of what anyone with common sense would do.--Stormwatch (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)