User talk:RainBowAndArrow/Archives/2008/July
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game) Infobox
Hi Falcon9x5, I have put up two new versions of Infobox for discussion. Please check it out in the talk page and comment. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Rating Pending is a rating
Just for what it's worth see ESRB article with a Rating Pending sticker on it. Although I don't really know if its appropriate to rate that a game is rated RP just for rating's sake. Strongsauce (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Your comment on the GTA IV plot hoax
- "source please!"
Were you being serious?! :D Emil Kastberg (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, right, it's just I couldn't avoid reading it and I saw pretty quickly that it was a complete joke! You should actually go and read it, really. :D Emil Kastberg (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
GTA IV MC Review Score
Actually it was 99 when I added it with 11 reviews. Good thing you updated that :-) --SoWhy Talk 18:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
gta iv
its not my view, i put the links to the reviews and boards where i read realli bad reviews, its very important that ppl no what other gamers thiink, so please dont removed it again since it is sourced info. USEDfan (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
God not there-article, critic
Hi! In regards to your latest edit on the God not there-article: Do you think it'd be better to write "New Testament historian" or "New Testament historian and critic of the movie"? As I had understood it, this historian had formatted a wholely negative response to the film, which, if you agree with me, would justify add that he is a "critic of the movie". Scaller (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
/* Resolution Criticisms */
Could I get a valid reason for deleting this alt please? 78.16.21.48 (talk)
External links removal
While I agree with some of the link removals you have done, there is no policy-based reason to blanket remove all "unofficial" links. --- RockMFR 18:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
MGS4 Reviews
Why are you removing some of the MGS4 reviews? This game is an international anticipation and you've removed many credible publications and even though they are not recognized in the US, they are still very credible in the respective countries. --Stripedtiger (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ninja Gaiden 2
You don't the right to remove date and exclusitivity info from the paragraph bar. People provide release dates and exclusivity status for games all the time because not everyone is going to immediately notice it in the game's bar (much less read it). Info related to being provided in the bar is disengenous.Beem2 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ninja Gaiden 2
Okay, understood. Sorry for the misunderstanding.Beem2 (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
NASCAR 09 Soundtrack
Falcon9x5 why did you remove the NASCAR 09 soundtrack listing? I don't see any point in removing it. If a games like Madden NFL 08 and Need for Speed: ProStreet can have their soundtrack on their Wikipedia page then why can't NASCAR 09?--KaseyKahneFan 17:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Ninja Gaiden 2
You keep completely deleting the added paragraph. The paragraph above it, which you leave each time.. only shows three references.. and all are for one sentence about the storyline being poor. Every other sentence in the paragraph does not directly cite a reference.. The first reference for the story being poor is horribly taken out of context. Most of the review says the game is great and fantastic.. there is one paragraph that says that the story is poor. The new paragraph which I am attempting to add is not original research. If you take the time to read references 9 and 12.. you will see each sentence backed up by a review. The tone of the reception section is very negative.. however.. if you read the reviews.. most of them speak very highly of the game. Do you expect each sentence to point to the reference where it came from? How come so many other sentences all over wikipedia do expect the reader to look at the references themselves to see where information came from? Do you want me to write the exact reference for each sentence added..over and over and over? Have you played the game? If so.. and you are biased against it.. I would hope that you feel that the true point of wikipedia is to provide a starting point to research a given topic. Leaving a paragraph that has such a negative tone while deleting a paragraph that discusses the response to such complaints about the game seems pretty skewed. If you are so intent on deleting the positive statements.. at least take the time to read the reviews and see that the reception paragraph seems to highlight the bad.. where if you look at most of the reviews.. they speak pretty highly of it. If you are so keen on keeping accurate information in wikipedia.. then take the time to fix the negative paragraph.. instead of deleting any info that tries to show there are two sides to the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.150.198 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Additionally.. the very nature of game reviews screams subjectivity. They are generally written by a single person and to take a sentence from one that says.. for example "The camera in “NG2” is, occasionally, among the worst ever to grace a high-profile game in the 3-D age." is loaded with personal opinion. I will agree that many people find it confusing when they play.. but if you look at the reviews.. many people say that this is particularly noticeable for someone who has not played the original. If we want to get rid of subjectivity.. particularly in the reception section.. then you should just show links to the reviews and not say a thing about them. This is not the way most game articles on wikipedia do it.. but you have to allow for some subjectivity when you are looking at reviews. It is after all just a single person who played the game and liked it or didn't like it. If you read the reviews cited.. there is probably 90% positive language and 10% bad. The impression someone is left with from reading the reception section is that the game has design flaws that make the game terrible. If you want to get rid of subjectivity, read the paragraph above the one you so quickly deleted. And read the reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.150.198 (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Once again you patently deleted a section. Someone had already labeled it to need citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.225.121 (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind not deleting the entire section? The section was not out of line and I am going to add quotations from the very articles that are present there. This is not your personal article to run. Let the community see edits and decide to elaborate on points. By completely removing an opinion of the facts.. you are hurting this article's chances at having meaning. Clearly you feel strongly that this game's negatives are the most important aspect of the critical reviews posted. If you read the IGN review.. you will count many more glowing words of praise than this small section portrays. Many of the other reviews right there in that section have many good things to say. Please allow the community to weigh in on the matter.. and don't patently delete entries by other members unless it is harmful. I believe that you like Wikipedia since you appear to spend much time on it. Don't you want this article to expand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.225.121 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ninja Gaiden 2
Don't agree that the IGN quote is out of context. The first half of the paragraph reads as follows:
"Of course, the story along the way makes no sense. If you thought the last Ninja Gaiden game was confused, be prepared to be amazed. The plot has something to do with the CIA, defeating Greater Fiends and the resurrection of the Archfiend. One of the Greater Fiends is named Volf. He's a werewolf. Volf the wolf. That should tell you about all you need to know."
The second half reads as follows: "But who are we to complain about plot in games when Hollywood blockbusters have endings like the latest Indiana Jones movie? This game makes at least as much sense as that flick did and fans of the Ninja Gaiden universe will find a few welcome surprises along the way. In other words, don't worry if you haven't played the last game before picking up this one."
The fact that the second half of the paragraph states that gamers shouldn't care about the bad story does not refute the facts in the first half that the story is bad.
Anyway, once again, I'm willing to compromise. What if I simply add in a sentence that says "The story and plot line have been described as nonsensical and immature (followed by the three citations)" or something along those lines (puerile means immature so that is not inaccurate).DeKreeft27 (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks DeKreeft27 (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ninja Gaiden II
Okay.. so you have looked at the article. We have one paragraph that describes the problems with the storyline. Immediately after, we have a single sentence paragraph that says, "This isn't a game about story.". Much of the rest of the article is describing, in pretty powerful terms, that the game is very fun and perhaps even great. To use that one paragraph in the article to convey that the storyline is weak is particularly misleading when the other two articles (which I presume you removed) are particularly acidic towards the game.
This is taking the article completely out of context. The main problem here is that we have one paragraph in this section that uses very strong words to convey a negative feeling toward the game. To be fair.. time should be spent showing both the positive and the negative. The problem is that not everyone wants to spend 4 hours editing a post to everyone's satisfaction. This is the purpose of the community here. Someone maybe sketches out a section.. and perhaps misses directly citing references. After you completely deleted it twice, someone came in and put a mark that it needed citations. You then deleted that.
In my opinion, your paragraph is still very skewed and does not reflect the language used in the reviews. This is why I am saying that you should not delete a whole section so haphazardly. Have you looked at the articles on the Apollo Missions? There are numerous paragraphs that do not have any citations. This is an important mark of history and it is accepted that not every sentence will have a citation.. but if someone wants to look further.. there are references at the bottom.
You are hijacking this article by completely removing other people's opinions. People.. other than you.. can look at the paragraph and add citations or expand. Or.. perhaps.. after much editing.. the original paragraph won't even be there. But for you to completely remove another paragraph like this is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.225.121 (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ninja Gaiden II
If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is policy, says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time (or immediately if it's about a living person), may be removed by any editor.
I love wikipedia and use it all the time. I have edited many pages. But I do not want to sit here and argue with you about the weakness of the "Reception" section for days. Above it mentions a "reasonable time". You did not allow for a reasonable time to add quotations or references. You chose to challenge it.. and then simply deleted my entry. Multiple times. Another member put the standard note that a citation was needed. You then deleted it again. I do not feel that your style of writing is balanced. You are not the only person who has control over the small paragraph under that section (although the freedom of wikipedia gives you the power to control it). You seem to feel that you are the best judge of what is fair when describing the critical review of the game. I think you should have let the other paragraph stand.. and I am sure that many people our there would elaborate or expand this section or, as a group, edit it out. By cutting out what you don't like so haphazardly.. you are stifling discussion and the expansion of this article. I don't care at all now. Way to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.225.121 (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Resolutions
hello, why does the ninja gaiden 2 article does not show the actual 585p native resolution please? Cliché Online (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
upscale
if it was just an upscaling matter why all games are not upscaled to 1080p but most of them run at 720p? Cliché Online (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Need help
Hi. Please help. There's a persistant vandal on the Guilty Gear 2: Overture article page who keeps intentionally removing all references to the US release date. This vandal apparently goes under several accounts. I can't undo his/her vandalism because each time I do, I'm told too many conflicting changes have occurred. Thus, I have to keep entering all references to US release dates all over again. I have the slightest idea how to report this constant vandal. Please help. If you pay a visit to the page, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks.Beem2 (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Cliche Online
Hi there. Thanks for pointing out my mistake - I've been spread a little too thin lately, so that particular item escaped my notice. Sorry for that. Just wanted to let you know that Cliche Online has been blocked for a week for his gross incivility, and particularly for his comment to me just below your comment - his comment included some rather threatening language. If he keeps up the incivility after this block, he'll be blocked indefinitely.
It's unfortunate that he seems to think anyone who disagrees with him on a technical matter (and/or civility matters) is automatically an Xbox-360 "fanboy". Just goes to show what his agenda really was, I guess. He started calling you and SeanMooney "fanboys" long before anyone leveled that name at him. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow!!!!
Where the hell was my head..................Thank you again for helping me on this article (Guilty Gear 2: Overture Vol.1). Really where was my head........LOL. Seeya!!!!!
Guilty Gear Freak (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ninja Gaiden/Lair
Hi, who told you the English language speaking Hong Kong is not kind of relevant to the English language wikipedia? By the way, what makes Japan more relevant than HK? Synchronicity I (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please use proper History log info when editing an article, using false info to cheat about your actual edit like you have done Here is considered Vandalism and is not tolerated here. Synchronicity I (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- By the way there is a Demo section in the Nija Gaiden 2 article, i don't understand why you've changed the Lair Trial Version (which is its excact name) section title to Development. Synchronicity I (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:Haze Weapons
I think explaining the names of weapons is not a good idea at all. Tell me what do you see in it. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
vgrelease
Changing it to the new way is the only way it would work, that I can think of anyway. I know it won't work with the current parameter form. MrKIA11 (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, if there are named parameters, they can only show up in a pre-defined order, they can't be show in the order that they are given. MrKIA11 (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey
Im not trying to tick you off, or be a smart alec, but just in case you didn't know, your supposed to have that info, because it is part of a game, and in NASCAR games, the drivers play a BIG role in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominic Edward Aragon (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
R u even an admin?--Dominic Edward Aragon (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know, MAYBE that you act like you WP: OWN all of the articles relating to video games!-Dominic Edward Aragon (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Howcome
Curious question....i am being civil, don't take this offensivly, but sir, r u stalking me, and why r u answering questions for user: ZimZalaBim?--Dominic Edward Aragon (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Falcon9x5. Recently I deleted Mappy (editor) as the result of your WP:PROD nomination. Since then another editor has re-created the article. In my opinion the new version is not even as good as the old. If you still believe the topic fails notability, I suggest you nominate it for WP:AFD. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
NASCAR 2004
You know I am getting tired of you. Some of the other Sports games have the soundtracks. Why delete the soundtrack for the game. The article was ok until you came along and started acting like you have Ownership Rights to it. - Dominic Edward Aragon (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
NASCAR RACING 4
Why did you remove the drivers list from the page the other games by Papyrus contain a simular list.T18 (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
RE Wii Remote pricing
I was probably thinking of the peer review. In any case, your edit removed a reference that is used later in the article, and therefore caused a major formatting problem. Just64helpin (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Infobox Flagicons
Thank you for informing me about my errors. I must let you know that the flagicons are also used on other games I viewed. I only remember NR2003, but I do remember others. If you wish, I will find them for you. Once again, thank you for correcting me. Mattokunhayashi (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)