User talk:SNAAAAKE!!

Archives

Jiukiukwe

Hi Niemti. Jiukiukwe should be deleted, but {{delete}} should only be used for articles that meet a criterion for speedy deletion. If you find other articles that should probably be deleted then you should add {{prod}} (proposed deletion) instead. I've changed the templates around accordingly. SmartSE (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WL2 undos

Wasteland 2 is no longer isometric as stated and linked to in the IP editors summary, the camera is rotatable as well as the height can be changed. I'll give you the chance to revert your undo mistake.--Sxerks (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which means it's isometric. --Niemti (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isometric projection is orthogonal, which means there is no parallax distortion. If objects that are further back are smaller than objects that are closer, it isn't isometric. You are misunderstanding the meaning of the term.Frogacuda (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which means you have no idea what isometric is. Not too hard to find, it's even here on wikipedia.

Isometric like Fallout: Video_game_graphics#2.5D, 3/4 perspective, and pseudo-3D
3rd person like WL2: Video_game_graphics#Third-person perspective

--Sxerks (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "it's there on Wikipedia": Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art. And no , W2 isn't TPP (FO3 is, optionally). --Niemti (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, did you even read the article you linked to? Can you read and understand English? Have you been keeping up with the development of the game see:video time index and developer comment for WL2--Sxerks (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I did, LOL, you didn't (read or understand). LOL, By the late 1990s, RPGs like Vandal Hearts (1996), Final Fantasy Tactics (1997) and Breath of Fire III (1997) were using 3D graphics to create rotatic isometric environments where the player could freely rotate the camera.. LOL, Leaked video of Wasteland 2 shows off isometric view - Destructoid, Wasteland 2 video shows off isometric perspective, “camera angle diversity” | PCGamesN. LOL, anything else? LOL. --Niemti (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are linking to OLD videos, the CURRENT one is linked in my previous comment. The camera angle they are talking about in your old link is the height, and didn't include rotation at that time. Did you even watch the video and listen to the Developer's comments?--Sxerks (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you calm down? Yes I did, now you know an isometric view with an adjustable camera exists, and the world is safe again. --Niemti (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isometric means the camera is locked and can't move left or right, in the September video the camera moves up-down, but is still locked left to right (isometric). In the current February video, the developer states that it is no longer "a static isometric camera" as it rotates left and right allowing you to see the back of objects which are not shown in a static isometric view. Do you understand the difference now?--Sxerks (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you often talk to yourself on the Internet? It's no longer "a static isometric camera" indeed, it's now a rotatable isometric camera, like in Syndicate Wars in 1996 (Wikipedia: Syndicate Wars preserves the isometric view of Syndicate, while adding rotation and pitch controls over the view). That's fine that you finally understood the lack of difference now. --Niemti (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must be one of those people who hates admitting you're wrong, I feel sorry for you. You're really searching hard to find even the smallest thing to back you up, but, "rotatable isometric camera" is an oxymoron, and whoever wrote that on the article is also one.--Sxerks (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop talking to yourself, it's just really sad. --Niemti (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your argument lost credibility when you resorted to using content from a Wikipedia article (that is clearly flagged for original research) for evidence. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I think your argument lost credibility when you resorted to using nothing from nowhere to advance your original research. Anyway, for example: [1] OK? Now shoo. --Niemti (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been wrong from the beginning, you have reverted twice today, if you do a third it will fall under Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The three-revert rule and you may be blocked.--Sxerks (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you. I made 100 constructive edits to the article for 10 months, you only came recently to remove sourced content based only on your stupid original research. --Niemti (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's just that much patience for someone who obsessively keeps arguing against the very basics of what Wikipedia is and stands for, and wasting everyone's time, all while not ever contributing anything of any actual value to the article. And now some the original researchers are even canvassing people who had never even edit Wikipedia before at all, somewhere (maybe they made an angry thread on a forum, or maybe it's their "GAME BLOG" of some kind, I don't really care, they just won't pass). --Niemti (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this talk page to discuss this, since it's not related to the wl2 discussion. I was just reading up on whats been going on with WL2, and that included dropping by Wikipedia. When I read the article I noticed that it claimed the camera was still isometric, which is OUTDATED/INCORRECT in relation to that video, as well as the official comment here http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2/posts/412225 So I removed the mention in the article, because the information was BAD. Maybe I'm wrong, but even if information has a source, if that information is WRONG is should be removed, Correct? Ideally replaced with correct information, but CLEARLY OUTDATED/INCORRECT material needs removed. The fact I've never edited wikipedia from this IP address before is totally irrelevant, merely being an old editor does NOT make you right. And for the record, I've made several dozen (mostly small, as this should have been) edits to wikipedia over the past few years, and this just happens to be the first from this permanent IP address. I do not care to make an account, either. 173.197.176.165 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FSB Alfa Group

Discussion IS NOT necessary.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is. When you feel another strange urge to act on your gut feelings and wild guesses like that, instead of any sources, you need to first ask people who actually know about the subject. Always. --Niemti (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One, you are a judgemental twat. Two Wikipedia is not a democracy. Have a good day :-)--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might be "a judgemental twat", but you're just an ignorant asshole. Have a bad day. --Niemti (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project Fedora

Look, man, fundraising and 10 years of false starts AREN'T part of the devlopment cycle, but they are relevant historical context for this article. There are many other articles out there that use similar structures to make this distinction, and organize a large chunk of info in a way that is readable and useful. There are no laws governing what sub-sections can appear in game article, and even the standards regarding the main sections are merely suggestions for standardization. Whatever you feel about stupid IMDB (which is 100% accurate in this case and is used throughout Wikipedia as a source) stop deleting the part about actually making the game, and stop trying to create a wall of text without meaningful organization. Those are both destructive. Frogacuda (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have setions about "relevant historical context" in video game articles. Yes, we "laws governing what sections can appear in game article" (sections, not "sub-sections"), they are: gameplay, plot, development, reception, references, and optionally external links (in this specfic particular order). IMDb is not a reliable source because anyone can edit it (including you and me). --Niemti (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you minds citing where it says a large section cannot be broken into sub-sections? Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist, and until you do, the article stays how it is. Frogacuda (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wola massacre

I have reverted your edits on this page because quite frankly you are not fit for purpose. Firstly you don't understand page alignments, secondly there are far too many images of the same things (there is already a link to these repetitive images (or image farm) on Wikicommons), thirdly the removal of referenced text is a disgraceful act (what is it WP:IDL?), fourthly I suggest you take a look at WP:CITE before adding your own version of unformatted references. It is Notes, Citations and References (sources on which the page is substantiated). Not just version of ad hoc: year here, puiblisher there etc

All you have done is messed up a perfectly good article for no valid reason. I am not going to try and revisit all your cosmetic changes because I don't have time. Fight me if you want, but I can already see you have a record for being someone who is self-opinionated and out of their depth!!86.184.58.240 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? --Niemti (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article wasn't even correct - the mass graves are of the KIA fighters, the "references" fail verification (especially BBC onem supposedly "sourcing" the figures, but actually not at all - actually it's only a news about a museum being opened), it's awkwardly written (including claims that the instruments of the massacre were "Automatic weapons Armoured fighting vehicles Flamethrowers" - no, it was only all kinds of infantry small arms including pistols and rifles, hand grenades, and flamethrowers to set the buildings and corpses on fire), it doesn't even mention the largest massacres (like the largest one, on the railway enbankment where 7-10 thousand people were killed), and more. --Niemti (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SNAAAAKE!!. You have new messages at Talk:Sniper Wolf/GA1.
Message added 17:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Ṟ Ṉ 17:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wasteland 2. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Odie5533 (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed nominations

Perusing your passed nominations articles, I noticed at least two of them use me as a source by name. I just thought you'd like know that, because it made me chuckle.Frogacuda (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, and what source could it be? --Niemti (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not giving an unbalanced internet stalker my real name, but let's see if you can guess.Frogacuda (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You broke my heart and crushed my soul. --Niemti (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waco Seige

Hi

I like the work you have done on the Waco Siege page, but have to ask why you removed this text during this edit [2]:

"...and that they were "willing to kill but (were) not cold-blooded killers." It explains..."

I feel it has changed the balance of quoted material from that source to being negative instead of neutral. Prior to your edit the negatives were balanced by the "not cold blooded killers" part, which is now removed. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the quotbox later on. --Niemti (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the quick reply :¬) How about moving that quote box up to the section that you edited and then we can remove all that duplication. The quote box does seem a little out-of-place ~~there~~ where it is now, it does not seem relevant to either the preceding or following paragraphs as far as I can see? Chaosdruid (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be the last part of the text before the report sub-section, following another quote from Stone on the same subject (his evaluation of the group's state of mind and criticism of the FBI tactics). Btw, for some strange reason this sub-section header is not showing up (even as it's still in the article menu). --Niemti (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we'll leave it as is then, good work btw :¬)

I'll check that header you mentioned Chaosdruid (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fixed Chaosdruid (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Mortal Kombat (2011 video game) to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkwatch

Thanks. In the interests of really being a cool guy, I have now limited my objections just to six footnotes where I can't verify that the sources (the books and magazines) exist, so I went and did that myself ... and now that information needs to be added to the notes in question. Once that's done, I'm good. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout: New Vegas GAN process

Hi there, I'm a new-ish user who happened upon your nomination of the Fallout: New Vegas page for Good Article status. I noticed you've managed to get many video game articles good article status, and as someone who loves F:NV I'd love to have your feedback about the problems I noted in the article! Thanks, and please go easy on my lowly n00bly self. TI. Gracchus (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Wasteland 2#Game_Camera_View".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:

It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:

Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cryogenically preserved characters

Isn't it better to leave Simon Phoenix et al. in the category they were in? — Brianhe (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it's just a redirect. --Niemti (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]