User talk:RobJ1981/Archive 10

List of Psychopaths in Dead Rising for Deletion

Since i saw you put the List of Dead Rising Endings up for deletion, could you say the same for the List of psychopaths in Dead Rising as it could hold the statement of "Video game cruft, better suited for a gaming wiki." as well?? --WarDragon 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Crystalis

This is not a redundant year. The game was released in the 90s for NES and in 2000 for GBC. Stop removing the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.104.50 (talk • contribs)

Query

Thanks for your message, and sorry for my somewhat late response. I would like to hear what other articles you believe this editor asserts WP:OWNership over. If a single user is the problem, we have ways of dealing with that, if necessary. I would suggest not losing sleep over it, but asking outside help whenever it becomes problematic. >Radiant< 14:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• It seems that said single user was dealt with in the expected way ([1]). >Radiant< 11:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Marks

Wohwohwohwohwohwoh hold on there. These guys are the same people every week coming in, renewing their IP addresses, and adding the same nonsense by the hour. And calling somebody a mark isn't meant to antagonize anybody. The term isn't even used to defame either. Just to clarify a few things. And believe me, they do know better.-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

TJ never called anyone names. His only edit summary directed to these vandals has been "...because all these marks who think he is really dead". Its like saying "...these trolls..." etc. The word "Mark" just like the word "Troll" is not meant to antagonize anybody or call anyone names. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance

The nine (or now ten, no, wait make that eleven) random editors who keep adding TBD or guessing at championships may have been encouraged by seeing such information added then deleted, and that is what I meant by encourage, not that you or Mshake3 were contacting tham and encouraging them by that by you actions they have copied you. The difference is of course that you and Mshake3 respect the consensus, whilst of course making your case, others (such as those eleven) just edit without discussion and make the page end up with a hundred edit in 24 hours. Darrenhusted 20:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Argument with PeanutCheeseBar

Copied from message left on PeanutCheeseBar's talk page

Rob and PeanutCheeseBar, you both need to stop arguing. Even if I mediate the dispute now, what good will that do? You're going to be back fighting each within a few days. I request that both of you guys take some time off to cool down, and stay away from each other and the Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America) page. Also, if the attacks and incivilities continue, a formal mediation request may be necessary. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Video game year categories

Hi -- I noticed you've removed a lot of "redundant" year categorizations for video game articles. Your efforts are appreciated, but they're generally there for good reason; the same game may come out in two or three different years for different systems, with substantial differences. Each release stands on its own, but a single Wiki article covers all releases for the sake of efficiency. In such cases you'll notice that, as per agreement at Wikiproject CVG, the norm is for us to have categorizations for each year of release. It'd be great if you could go back and restore the categorizations you've removed; but if that's too much trouble, no worries, the rest of us will get them eventually. Do as many as you can though -- thanks :) --Ecksemmess 13:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. Strange, some discussions I had with various project CVG members reached the opposite conclusion. I'll try to find them, and I'll back off about the years in the meantime. Our thinking was that the year categories and the system categories had pretty much the same rationale behind them, so if games should only be categorized for their original release year, it doesn't make much sense to categorize them for systems other than their original release system as well.

And yeah, I really should be better about the edit summaries. I'll have to work on that :) --Ecksemmess 18:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Marvel: Ultimate Alliance VA's

Is deleting the VA's from this video game necessary. Both X-Men Legends games have their VA list. Wouldn't it be easy to know who voiced who to this game on this site. Outside of that, I'm still trying to figure out who voices Cyclops, Hawkeye, Hulk, Magneto, Sabretooth, and Venom in this game. Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 12:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert

You are the one who is reverting to YOUR favorite version, so don't lecture me. Conversation can continue, and you are the one who is not being civil. Lamename3000 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You did the same thing before, Rob. When we were discussing the issue before, you continued to remove the points until you got the article locked without them. TJ Spyke 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, you really are being a hypocrite, Rob. Lamename3000 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Active discussion doesn't mean the article CAN'T change. You are being really uncivil, and I can't believe you are pretending that you are right about the reverts. Lamename3000 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rob, I told you stop editing the article, but you failed to listen. As a result, an edit war started and the page is now fully protected. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Attacks, incivility warning

If you engage in any incivility and personal attacks at Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America) or on any user's talk page, you will be blocked for disruption. This is a final warning, and I don't want to see any more shenanigans at that article. If someone else engages in incivility, please report to me. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, RobJ1981/Archive 10, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Jreferee (Talk) 14:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo's Virtual Console List

The problem with alphabetical order is that it's NOT an easy method to find what i'm looking for. I, like many others, come to the wikipedia list of Virtual Console games article every monday for updates on new games. Nintendo's combined list in alphabetical order makes it very difficult to find which games just came out that day. You may not like my (i should say "our" as we're a pretty significant group) reason for coming to that article, but the fact is that it's the best resource on the internet for that purpose. At least, it WAS until it got blocked from editing, and i have a feeling that this block is going to last a lot longer than the last one. Also, before you ask, the problem with checking for the new releases on my wii directly is that i have a very poor wireless connection, and i even have to move my wii to a different location in my house when i want to go to the wii shop channel at times, and that's too big of a hassle just to CHECK what just came out. That's all for now. Thanks. Briggity Brak 03:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Match taglines

I agree it should be consistant. Man this project is irritating. For example, in regards to Vengeance, one reason I was given for not adding all nine matches was because it wasn't on WWE.com. So it's estlabished that the website is a main source. However, we can't rearrange the order of the matches as listed on WWE.com because of POV.

They want accurate sources, but box art for videos released that year doesn't count because "someone probably alterted it."

I'll just keep doing what I can do. Maybe I'll cause a few 3rr bans to myself just so they can suffer them as well. Mshake3 15:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, yet sad at the same time. Mshake3 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Console

I can't revert without violating 3RR, but you do know you are in the wrong? There is zero valid reasons to remove the points, and the obvious consensus is that they should be included. TJ Spyke 04:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Console

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of Virtual Console games (North America), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Miles Blues 05:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

VC Mediation

I see you've dealt with them in the past, and that they have proven difficult to compromise with, but I think you'd be a good addition to the mediation. If they won't compromise at all, then the article will probably end up with no points at all. Please join the mediation, though. Miles Blues 05:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, no need for emails oranything, and I'm about ready to call it a night as well. I'll be out most of the day tomorrow, but I'll check back on the mediation page and my talk page tomorrow evening for updates with this whole fiasco. Also, have a little more confidence in the goodwill of people (that they'll make a compromise).  ;) Miles Blues 05:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Both sides are equally to blame, so please quit making it sound otherwise. Rob, I think you need to reconsider your disagreeing of mediation. If we don't do this, this thing could last forever. do you want that? LN3000 05:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of Virtual Console games (North America). For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

about your question

I have no idea what dispute you're talking about but I see that the mediation committee has opened a case (presumably about that dispute). That's actually a much better option than anything like writing new guidelines or policies which is both time consuming and often superfluous. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re your question

Have a look at point 4 here. Someone added this a few days ago, based on the discussions on the talk page, and no-one seems to have objected so far. Consensus on Wikipedia is funny like that sometimes. Carcharoth 09:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Carcharoth 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that argument will work. LN3000 15:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You will have to explain that. The "consensus is a funny thing" argument works both ways. Sometimes things are done against local consensus, sometimes not. Carcharoth 16:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A good example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Sometimes a group of editors really get involved in an article, but get a rude awakening when the said article is deleted after discussion and consensus at a venue other than the article's talk page. The AfD consensus trumps the talk page consensus. Carcharoth 16:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Commander Civility

See? It wasn't such a big deal. And now you get a fancy star on your userpage. If you let it, Commander Civilty may equal Commander Cool. LN3000 00:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)