| Revision as of 23:03, 20 June 2007 editLamename3000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,229 edits →Revert← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:05, 20 June 2007 edit undoLamename3000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,229 edits →RevertNext edit → | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| :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. ] 23:02, 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. ] 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Exactly, you really are being a hypocrite, Rob. ] 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | ::Exactly, you really are being a hypocrite, Rob. ] 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. ] 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:05, 20 June 2007
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 (). >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 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 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)