User talk:RainBowAndArrow/Archive 2
 | This 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The article Lego Batman: The Video Game change in Lego Batman: The Videogame
Falcon9x5, you could arrange for the Article Lego Batman: The Video Game in Lego Batman: The Videogame changed? In the title are Video and Game namely together. Tim Auke Kools (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
" Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Falcon9x5. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Fin©™ 08:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)"
My edit was in fact not reverted. The point of my edit was to break the logic of that user box since the edit was in line with a request it can be thought of as not vandalism yet if it is not vandalism then the edit is vandalism, thus putting the userbox in a infinite loop. Of course I missed the icon syntax, which might mean that it really was vandalism due to the incompletness of the act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.171.197 (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for keeping an eye out for copyright infringement in this article. Very important work. :) In this case, we seem to be clear. This article was listed at the copyright problems board and duly investigated. Evidence suggests that this material was published first at Wikipedia. Please see the talk page for more detail. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Completely understandable. :) Again, I do appreciate you keeping an eye out for copyright problems. Keep it up. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Reply
No worries! Check out WP:TWITTER; I think the middle paragraph sums things up nicely. It's interesting that companies are using Twitter 'officially', but I don't think Wikipedia is ready to recognize that just yet. "However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." DP76764 (Talk) 15:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Rossport Solidarity Camp
An article that you have been involved in editing, Rossport Solidarity Camp, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rossport Solidarity Camp. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. GainLine ♠ ♥ 15:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Forza 3
Could you please tell me why you reverted my editing on Forza 3 about the Limited Editon??? --Troggy (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Requests for Arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Lapsed Pacifist 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 02:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 03:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
MW2
But it is confirmed now—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingoftheair (talk • contribs)
SEPIL
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
·
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply
Ok thanks, you should have just gave me a link like you did with PSN card instead of writing of writing "peacock" didnt know what that is.
Reply
I think its only fair to note that he has contributed, but he has not yet left a note in the Evidence page, perhaps because he is completely unfamiliar with this rather legalistic process that seems to be completely obscure to a newcomer - for example I know that I had to bookmark the pages I contributed to - since I couldn't otherwise find them. And I'm still not sure what is done next and by whom. Hopefully he will be able to participate soon, since it isn't clear what the deadlines are (if there are any?) Shouldn't someone at least communicate a schedule to the participants in this process? Jgui (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Please update your status with WP:VG
Dear WikiProject Video games member,
You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in the recent months.
The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.
All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:
- Editing video game-related pages in the Article namespace
- Participating in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)
Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
All articles related to Corrib gas controversy and the Shell to Sea campaign are placed under probation. All fall under 1RR, and a stricter rather than laxer interpretation of addition of and removal unsourced content.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for edit warring and is topic banned, indefinitely, from articles related to the Corrib gas project, broadly defined. He is also subject to an editing restriction for one year, namely is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
While GainLine (talk · contribs) is admonished for vandalising BLPs and sockpuppetry, he is also commended for desisting from early problematic behaviours and encouraged to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, and seek administrator intervention when required.
Non-compilance to any of the above editing restrictions may result in a block, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.
- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 09:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm awaiting your response on the modern warfare 2 talk page.--Mark0528 (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Chinatown Wars soundtrack
Regarding your recent edit that removed my contribution - do you think it would be a better idea to make a table where the columns would feature:
- the in-game radio station name
- the name of the band/record label
- artists under that label whose work is featured on the radio station
Maybe creating a separate page with all the radio stations and such? IJK_Principle (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well actually the songs (actually music pieces since they don't have lyrics) DO have names, although only mentioned in the manual. It's just that for example GTA2 had a soundtrack that was never released commercially (from what I know) yet it still has a page. So I figured out I would do the same for CTW. IJK_Principle (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
COI
Thanks for the link, Fin. Perhaps you could explain to me what constitutes a conflict of interest on my behalf, so I can avoid it in the future. Thanks again. NFSKirk (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
GT5 release date
Hi,
Has there been a further announcement from Sony that GT5 will be released March 31, 2010 in Japan? I haven't seen that reported at any reliable source just yet. 24.80.177.235 (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
no, i understand perfectly.
Mirror's Edge has nothing to do with platform games, also the game-play is described below. it is not required to understand it. why must the text be kept? --88.218.156.195 (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
so?--88.218.156.195 (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
i do not care about your beliefs. i care about the facts. why must the text be kept?--88.218.158.182 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Mirror's Edge is a 3D action-adventure game, not a 2D platform game.--88.218.158.182 (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
RE - PoP: Forgotten Sands
I've got what you are trying to say, no issues. But, dude please don't try to make this article a wikipedia A standard in just the beginning just doesn't make sense. Ok, let me put them in your way then-
- No information have actually been REMOVED from the edit, perhaps rearranged, revised, enhanced & enriched.
- You have your editing right to modify bad grammar and converting "&" into "and", but reverting the whole article is hardly any solution.
- The time of Announce IS notable, not for 6 months after, but Now.
- Why should the page contain "unspecified platforms" when they are "specified"? Ubisoft indeed specified the game on usual "consoles & handhelds" they usually release & didn't mention PC [[Windows] version, people have the right to know that information, when its available.
- When the OFFICIAL site "reports" its not considered "unreliable". Perhaps you should add official site announcements from next time the links you posted are really not too much "reliable" enough.
- You could add the external link as reference, just a bit formatting. I did a speed edit, you could enhance that, rather than reverting the whole article.
- The text isn't pulled from the website, you'd have known if you read the official announcement.
- I don't know what to call an "Exclusive" premier, other than Exclusive.
- Do you have any scale of Notability? Cause, in this case, I think this is notable enough. Most people who would have visited this article then would like to have a sneak peek at that date (I'm telling again - its not for long term purpose, when a popular article like this one starts, many people gets in it & it's very bad practice to restrict the article growth)
Actually, you should've known, Wikipedia is suffering from a MAJOR editor loss - know why? Cause, some senior members are just not letting the juniors to take part in it. Come out of it bro, we are seniors cause we can let the juniors make work in organized way & NOT cuz of we can work even without 'em or work alone. Wikipedia is co-operative encyclopedia, So co-operate please.
This not-so-notable, sub-wiki-standard, copied-alike-texts will be here for an article like this fro some times & thats how it gets popular, when its rich on information enough, you can think of making it more tidy & sleek wiki std. But please, not now - you are just making most of the people NOT TO TRY editing this page.
Well, quite a lecture really :P :D pardon my continuous '&'s it just saves me 2 more characters. Hope I didn't hurt you by no means, just want to clear things out, ok buddy? – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 21:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: Quantum [Theory]
Hey. All the links even the official point at "Quantum Theory". I doubt there would be any problem in moving it to original name that is "Quantum Theory".--SkyWalker (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Yakuza 3
the Japanese version is totally relevant indeed. how you mister falcon9x5 did nothing to the english article except coming after the fight adding a tag claiming it has too much details. why did nobody tagged the japanese article which is more detailed than the english? Cliché Online (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
RPGFan
Hi,
RPGFan is an official fan site that is reputable and has served the community, as well as the game industry, for over ten years. Please recognize that RPGFan is a valid source of professional content, and its reviews have been used commercially by many publishers and developers in the gaming industry. Please cease and desist your unwarranted edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapturous (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Forza 3
Stop undoing my changes to the article. They are not just my complaints, they are the complaints of the majority of the community. The only reason you can't see too many complaints on the forums anymore is because Turn10 have banned 90% of the people who complained and deleted their posts! Leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedge2k (talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI
When I was referring to your edit summary, it wasn't a criticism of you. Basically, I was attempting to say that your edit summary meant "revert if you are adding sources", and that type of summary may negate the need for LP to discuss the revert on the talk page despite his restrictions. 2 lines of K303 15:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The Forgotten Sands section layout
Hey, to avoid an edit war, I've decided to simply contact you here and elaborate upon what I meant in my edit summary. Simply, an article where there is only a lead section is not a proper article. The lead section is meant to take main points from the other sections of the article, and to lay them out in a simple manner, covering them in an unspecific way in order to get the reader acclimated with what they're about to read. Right now, The Forgotten Sands may look a little bare and odd, but this is proper form; even if the sections are just repeated information from the lead, this is how it's supposed to be. It's proper layout here. It only looks odd because of the general lack of information regarding this game, but I'm sure with the release of the trailer, it'll be remedied soon. Anyways, as you told Deblopper, it's better to get the article ready early instead of late. I'm simply setting it up so that expansion into different sections will be much easier, and therefore proper article structure is more likely to be assumed. If we let everyone post things only in the lead, we would, down the line, have an article with just a lead section, and a bunch of info that nobody feels like sorting into relevant sections. I am simply trying to prevent that by starting to organize properly early on. Give the article time, and you will definitely see the benefit of this. Thank you. The Guy (edits) 21:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- There are a few objections I would like to make, as proper article structure has all important points in the article stated twice: Once touched on in the lead, and then a more detailed, in-context description in the actual article. This is the way it's supposed to be. Would you be willing to compromise if we put at least the extremely important pieces of information in the lead and the proper article places? The Guy (edits) 21:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I simply meant covering the plot return to The Sands of Time (which, as you said, you've just covered; and I'm going to tweak just a teeny bit). However, in the future, be certain that I will add information to both the lead and a relevant section as it becomes available. I definitely see where you're coming from in saying that it's currently definitely not needed, but as more information becomes available, I will be pushing harder to stick to this structure. Thank you for your cooperation; you've been a real pleasure to deal with, and I mean that (: The Guy (edits) 21:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
GT5 ref
Hi. The ref you provided for the GT5 resolution appears to be broken. It just redirects to the Eurogamer home page. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 17:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)