User talk:RainBowAndArrow/Archives/2009/Early

Dispute resolution in Shell to Sea related articles

Hi. I'll gladly try to help. I'm informing all involved parties that I've made a suggestion on how to resolve the Shell to Sea related issues on Talk:Shell_to_Sea#Dispute_resolution. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 01:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

MGS4 Res

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Metal Gear Solid 4. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Thanks! Cliché Online (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, there, Falcon. Firstly, I'd like to say that, IMHO, if a discussion hasn't been touched in 10 days, as this one was up till yesterday, I'd consider it dead. Secondly, Herr Gruber is using slimy tactics, introducing changes to the plot that most people won't see by using the "Compare" feature, because he changes the section's name! So, he changed "Act 1" to " Act 1-" and made completely unfounded changes. Case in point, he wrote Nomad is a FICTIONAL aircraft, when you can easily google "nomad aircraft" and got to Wikipedia's NOMAD aircraft page. Please revert his changes, cause otherwise, he gets away with writing anything he wants! I put a lot of effort in the MGS4 plot article, and seeing it slowly reverting to a lump of semi - pertinent, unresearched information is disheartening to any further efforts for improvement.BigbossSNK (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ah yes, because the large, futuristic jet transport in MGS4 looks just like this: [1]. What are you, blind? You're just grasping at anything you can to keep the article your way now; your summary is so condensed it talks about concepts it hasn't introduced (for example, talking about Big Boss' body being thrown into 'the flames' but not saying where these flames are supposed to have come from) and is fairly difficult to get anything much out of. The copyedit I did was to fix grammatical issues (like that you screwed up most of the posessive apostrophes, or using incorrect terms like referencing a 'battalion of ships' when it's actually a flotilla of boats) and use clearer language, for the most part, as well as cutting down on some ugly abbreviations like constantly using 'Rat Pt 01' when in game they're referred to in shorthand as 'Rat Patrol.'

And on the accusation of 'slimy tactics,' I put a line break after each subsection. Hysterical allegations aren't helpful. Neither is lying about timespans (from the ninth to the sixteenth is seven days, not ten) or the edits I made (the section headings have always had a dash in them). Herr Gruber (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for listening, but the changes you reverted don't reffer to Gruber's unresearched edits (which he has the audacity to call "copyedit" in his comment). If you truly want to maintain objectivity in this "argument", revert to Gruber's change on 15:05, 9 March 2009. The edit he made with the infamous "copyedit" contains changes to the plot, far beyond our Gameplay dispute.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes

As you know, 9x5, I flagged the changes I proposed to make at Eamon Ryan well in advance of making them, as I have done with many articles. This is in stark contrast to your incessant changing of articles before ever visiting their talk pages, and often refusing to defend those edits when challenged by myself or Garda40. Naturally, I always try to write with a neutral point of view. While you state on my talk page that I haven't done this, you haven't provided any examples or referred to NPOV at all on our numerous talk page discussions. Because of this, I find it increasingly difficult to assume good faith on your part; I can't think of many edits you have made to articles I contribute to that didn't at least border on the politically motivated, and I've gone into detail on the relevant talk pages as to why I think that. If you believe certain articles shouldn't exist, you are free to request their deletion.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Conker: Live and Reloaded

This article is not relevant to the remake discussion. There's no assertion of notability, ONLY "it's a different game, so it must have a separate article no matter what!". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of content on Duke Nukem Forever

Hello. I have now added two (Probably) reliable sources. 217.42.208.35 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Killzone 2 - Edge

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Killzone 2 appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nu89 (talk • contribs)

I'm sure you appreciate finally being "welcomed" to Wikipedia! :) Just thought I'd drop a friendly reminder to avoid edit warring. You reverted Nu89's edit without giving an edit summary or leaving a comment on his/her talk page. I can see this potentially getting into an edit war and thought I'd try to nip it in the bud before it started. You might want to try and get the user to engage in the discussion on the talk page. I'll mention it to Nu89 too. Cheers. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 19:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Me and you were aware of the concensus but I'm not sure that Nu89 was which is why I thought it could of been mentioned in the edit summary. I thought it would be futile for me and you to revert his edits and get into an edit war because he didn't know about the concensus. I'll change it back again now that he knows. - Nevermind, just noticed you'd done it. Cheers. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 22:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just woken up and saw that he actually took part in the discussion! I glanced over it but I must of missed them (bloody unsigned comment template!). Anyway, disregard all that! I think I need to go to bed! POSTED AT THE SAME TIME AS YOUR COMMENTChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 22:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Giants: Citizen Kabuto fansite

Hi, it slipped my notice that you have removed GiantsWD from the External Links of Giants: Citizen Kabuto. It might be an unofficial site, but per WP:ELMAYBE, "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." can be considered and included by concensus. The talk page carries a discussion on the inclusion on this site—Talk:Giants: Citizen Kabuto#External Link. Could you offer your opinion on why the site should not be included or indicate a change of mind? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

MGS4 reso discussion

What to do about Cliché Online? He keeps resurrecting the argument. I think it is just unknown. Nobody really knows. You can't really measure it. At least I don't think you can. Nor will anybody in the near future. Honestly, I don't really care one bit about the resolution. It's best to just not have it. Ffgamera (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha honestly though. MGS4 is my favourite game (ever, so far). And of the 7th gen, I own a PS3 only. And I dont intend to get a 360 ever. I think that's proof enough. What I find ironic is that majority of his edits are resolution-based and ALL of his edits on the MGS4 page and its talk page are in fact ALL resolution-based. He has not contributed to the rest of the article at all. I find that quite sad. Ffgamera (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:VG reviews

Hi, I noticed you reverted the changes I recently made to this template. That's OK cuz I'm not sure they were working anyways. Could you add GameDaily and Just Adventure to the template for me, with the codes GD and JA respectively? They're both listed as reliable sources at the video game project's sources page. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack Sections on Tony Hawk games

hi i've noticed that you've been deleting the soundtrack sections on the Tony Hawk games. i also noticed that you don't use the talk pages before you do such edits. i can understand how you might find that they are irrelevant or inappropriate, but there are many pages that have these lists and have been nominated for Good Article status such as the Guitar Hero articles. instead of deleting them why not try to improve them? anyways, if you feel really strong about deleting them, please use the talk pages so that we can discuss what can be done. i can see that you have done much work on wikipedia and i congratulate you for that.---djsiniestros (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

it is obvious that the relevance of a track list for a Guitar Hero game is going to be much greater than for a TH game. I am not trying to make that case. I was seeking to make the point that "good lists" can exist in game articles. It is obvious that some editors feel that the relevance of song lists on the Tony Hawk articles is debatable. I (and judging by some of the comments on talk pages) many other editors disagree with this and think that they are significant and should be included in some articles. An example that I mentioned before that comes to mind right now is the Tony Hawk's Underground game which was nominated for Outstanding Achievement on a Licensed Soundtrack by the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences. [[2]]. Nevertheless, if you don't like something in particular article I invite you to make your case in the talk page before you delete it (which you just did) and we'll try to find a consensus. Now, regarding the current lists, I agree with you that some of the song lists' formats not encyclopedic. When I brought them back, I was reverting the deletions. Clearly, some of them need improvement so I invite you to go ahead and do that if you want, but please do not delete them arbitrarily. Case in point, you suggested that for the Tony Hawk soundtrack CDs I may either create separate pages and list those songs there or make a separate section for them in the articles. Well some of those soundtracks used to have their own pages (most notably TH3), but were merged into the main TH articles. The TH3 article in particular had a list for the songs for the CD soundtrack and list for the songs in the game. Yet. you just deleted them both. I cannot emphasize more that this is not how this is supposed to go. Let's put a stop to the edit warring and try to find a solution, so as to stop wasting everyone's time. If you want to continue this conversation (which I hope you will), please refer to the talk pages on the individual articles and we can discuss the relevance of these lists on a case by case basis.---djsinietro (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

STOP

Please lay off the THPS soundtracks

De Mattia (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this user. I find that the Tony Hawk's soundtracks are just as notable as the game itself is and are a integral component to the success and longevity of the game. The soundtracks have also been able to open up a wide range of bands that would be unheard of otherwise by the general public. I feel -djsinietro is providing you with rational and justified arguments to keep the soundtracks available on the articles. I should also point out to you there are also a large number of other articles on video games that include soundtracks, all of which can be used for the basis of information and research of whatever songs have been used. I do not consider the Tony Hawk's soundtracks to be an "indiscriminate list" as it is just important as the actual game itself as per my argument above. I also agree that soundtracks are not notable, however this only applies if the soundtrack was known as a seperate article rather being inside the article itself. There are many other articles which also have their soundtracks included as per arguments previously stated. Although I will not be reinstating the soundtrack lists for these articles as I'm too lazy, I suggest you realize that if a fan of the game series were reading the article, the first thing they want to know is the songs included. Don't take that statement as a biased point of view, not neutral, etc, etc, as anybody reading the article would also be interested in what songs were used in the games. One notability for the inclusion is that the lists contains link to many of the band's Wikipedia pages and this will help allow the viewer to research information on a particular band that was used which will in turn benefit the band as it has most likely done greatly for a considerable number of bands I'd not have known otherwise. Djskein79 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I know I haven't given you any time to reply but there was something else I feel I need to add. I don't like being offensive towards people unless they deserve it as I don't want the same thing to happen to me but I'm just going to go ahead and say it: Wikipedia doesn't need asshats like you ruining everyone's fun. There are much worse decisions being made on articles than this one. Please just leave this alone, it may only apply to a niche audience but that audience can still kick your ass if you persist.Djskein79 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for attacking you. I was thinking of saying at the end of my message that if the soundtrack lists were appropriately formatted and sourced, then would you be happy then? Djskein79 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN

WP:IGNORE

WP:GETOVERIT

WP:EXCEPTIONS

WP:POINT

Djskein79 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's all I wanted to hear. Djskein79 (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

COI

If COI troubles you, why didn't you bring it up at mediation? Seems disingenuous of you to start that chant again. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I refer specifically to your entry under "Participants' views". Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, RainBowAndArrow. You have new messages at Twinzor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The way it is

"...that's the way it is."?! Can you back that up in any way at all? It appears an obvious double standard to me. And if you go to the spade article, you'll see it's about spades. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So when Maura Harrington's husband refused to move for the police in July '08, he was being violent, and when they crippled him, they were merely using force? That's some brand of common sense you have there. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If people use violence, they (or others acting on their behalf) should not be allowed to mask it with a euphemism. Have you ever seen the POU in action? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I get it now. When they're faced with armed and violent opposition, like the Dublin rioters, they use force. When they're faced with unarmed and nonviolent opposition, like the Shell to Sea protesters, they use violence. We can easily amend the sentence to show this. I want to genuinely thank you; I never put this together before. It explains a lot, like the reaction to the Reclaim the Streets protests in Dublin in '04. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic; it's all to do with the relative scale of the force/violence employed. To brutally attack unarmed and peaceful people, including women and old men, with batons, choking them, throwing them such distances that bones break, etc. can't be described as anything but violence. But when faced with an extremely violent (and armed) mob, I can see how the same weaponry and tactics could reasonably be described as force rather than violence, i.e. they're closer in scale. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I thought we were gearing up to a workable compromise on the force/violence issue there. I prodded our new mediator on the 4th of March, and didn't even get a reply. There is no mediation worth speaking of right now, and hasn't been for some time. As most articles in contention still bear more of your thumbprint than mine, I'd appreciate it if you started restoring links you deleted from them, as per what has been agreed in the mediation so far. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)