Talk:Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day!/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

As a treatment for Depression and Schizophrenia?

I recently read an article in New Scientist which said that brain training can largely decrease the symptoms of depression and schizophrenia - should this be added here? 88.107.225.14 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide more information, such as issue, page, perhaps maybe a web site that quotes this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd Google for the article the original person mentioned. I haven't read the whole article, but it may appear to be this one. londonsista | ^Prod 00:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Brain age2

my glasses are so dirty I can not see you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.107.15 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sight Training

Was just wondering if it'd be worth mentioning this game? It's not essentially a sequel but it does follow the same principles of training a part of the body (in this case the eyes). I don't know much about it anyway, just thought I'd mention it. :) londonsista | ^Prod 00:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

May I also suggest archiving this talk page, it's rather long (94kb) and takes a bit of time to load. I'm gonna be bold and attempt to do so. :) londonsista | ^Prod 00:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about reverting you there. I didn't spot the addition of the archive, I just saw a big red (-95,324) on my watchlist and undid it, and after noticing that you had previously posted, just assumed it was accidental deletion of discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, didn't actually notice any reverts anyway, good to see fellow editors keeping a watchful eye though! :)londonsista | ^Prod 20:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move.

Despite the game was being released in North America first, the title should be at Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain?. A number of reasons add up - for one, Brain Age is still one of the top-selling games in the PAL regions. For another, the sales in the US were the lowest among NA, PAL, and Japan - so much so, Iwata criticized NoA for their marketing, directly comparing them to the divisions of Nintendo in the various PAL regions. For yet another, there are more DSes sold in PAL regions than in North America. Seeing how much the game has dropped in NA and held on in PAL regions, there's even less to argue for the curretn title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - pretty much per nom, except the page should be Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain?, which is slightly different from the proposed name, but is the actual title in PAL regions. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you're interested, I also proposed a move for Brain Age 2. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose A moderate difference in sales performance is hardly an exemplar for region-based renaming per WP:ENGVAR. The game originated in Japan and is not especially relevant to any English-speaking region of the world, and was highly successful in both of the regions in question. WP:NCON states If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the commonest English-language name. Following that, "brain age" has 1.67m ghits, "kawashima's brain training" has 168k, a difference factor of 10. "brain training" by itself produces unrelated results, which indicates another problem, this phrase is generic and more open to ambiguity in search strings. Also from WP:NAME: Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 1. "Brain Training for Adults" was the original title."
    2. It is very relevant to Europe. If Iwata thought that NoE/NoAu did so much of a better job with selling the game than NoA, how can it be called a moderate difference in sales? And no, Brain Age was highly successful in PAL regions and Japan. Brain Age in NA, comparatively, was not highly successful. It was the least successful version of this game.
    3. Those Google searches are, by your own admission, invalid. You call it "Kawashima's Brain Training" - who in the world calls it the full name? I mean, anyone with any sense would know that those Google searches are totally biased. Brain age is a term used in all English versions of the game, and the phrase would be mentioned in any site that mentions Brain Training, logically. If you search "Brain Training" Nintendo DS -"Brain Age", you get 1.3 mill hits. If you search "Brain Age" Nintendo DS -"Brain Training", you get 1.6 mill. So we've got a 300,000 hit discrepancy, despite the fact that the US has a much stronger gaming media industry. IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, GamePro, 1UP, Game Informer, every one of those is based in the US.
    4. And the fact that Brain Age 2 isn't even on the top ten DS chart in the US shows that while Brain Training continues to be extremely popular in PAL, shows that interest in the series in the US is stagnating, while the series is more than thriving in PAL. Brain Training has sold in excess of 2.5 million copies, while Brain Age has sold less than 1.5 million.
    5. No one is disputing that Brain Age is and has been popular, but the only reason it was titled Brain Age was a North American slant. I've pretty much proven that while Brain Age is not nearly as relevant nowadays, Brain Training is still plenty relevant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to agree with A Link to the Past on this one. As a PAL-based gamer, the huge majority of people I have heard discussing the game (both online and in real-life) simply call it "Brain Training", just as most people in the US don't call it "Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day!" in everyday discussion.
• It is very relevant over here, and while it may go largely ignored by the hardcore gamer (the same is even more true of the sequel), the game was picked up hugely by the casual gamer market, which is far bigger (in terms of a percentage) over here than in the US. These same casual gamers don't really tend to use internet forums or have their own review sites, you know? Hence the low ghits. But the game received large amounts of media coverage, and even to this day continues to be popular, and is still mentioned in the media. See this from The Guardian, and this from the Daily Mail, which references the "popular Brain Training game".
• The game was so popular over here that it spawned a huge raft of clones (even more than those in the US, yes), many of which also sold quite well (As an aside, a search for ""Brain Training" clone" reveals almost three times as many results as ""Brain Age" clone").
• The fact that the game sold 1m more copies is even more relevant when you consider that the videogame market in general is much larger in America, hence why almost every other game sells more in the US.
• And finally, to say that User:A Link to the Past is "editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another" is incorrect, and bad-faith. That user has more than 50 of the most recent 500 edits to this article. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• You guys are missing the point or using a straw man with regard to the google hits. I did not claim that "kawashima's brain training" was the common reference to the title in the UK. I pointed out the fact that the common phrase, "brain training", is ambiguous and is not specific to this game. In other words, Brain training can and should eventually redirect to a general topic, not this article. On the other hand, the google phrase that would be specific to the game, as Link suggested "brain training" and nintendo ds, show roughly equivalent returns with "brain age".
• Sounds to me like you are making excuses for why it's ok to use the proposed title even though it is neither the most common nor of special relevance. I can sympathize with your disappointment but this proposal is clearly not well-founded, and you having to bring up totally unfounded speculation about the game's demographics affecting its google returns is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
• Again, brain training is a generic phrase, hence why the phrase alone receives some 2.7m hits. Similarly, "brain training clone" uses the phrase generically as well. This is in line with facts previously established and again illustrates that this phrase is generic and ambiguous.
• Please read the policy more carefully. The word "solely" applies to editing the name, not to the edit count of the page. In other words, the sole reason why the name is being changed is because of a controversy, not because of other problems with the title (e.g. grammar, spelling, and scope are correct). However, I do appreciate your accusation of bad faith. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• If I have misunderstood the policy I was reading, then I'd like to apologise for saying you were acting in bad faith. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • 1. And the proposal is not for that title, so I'm not sure why you bothered mentioning it.
      2. Again, comparative sales figures do not establish special relevance. Whether or not Kawashima is happy with the relative sales performance is a red herring -- the point is that he obviously considers NA to be an important market for the game, else he wouldn't care either way. (Did he complain about poor sales in Africa?) The article states that the game was the 15th highest-selling game in the month of release and has remained in the top 10 of Best Buy, an American retailer. Kawashima's profit lust aside, that makes the game highly successful in the region by any neutral observation.
      3. "You call it "Kawashima's Brain Training" - who in the world calls it the full name?" Exactly. Few people would refer to the proper, non-ambiguous form of the name. On the other hand, who would call the game "Brain Age"? Everyone who owns the NA version of the game. "Brain age is a term used in all English versions of the game, and the phrase would be mentioned in any site that mentions Brain Training, logically." Thank you. That is all the more reason why this name is more universal and better suited for this article. By your own arguments, you acknowledge that the phrase "Brain Age" is more easily identifiable in specific reference to this game, by all regions.
      4. This discussion is not about Brain Age 2. The same principle applies, however. You seem to be under the impression that relevance is a popularity contest. It isn't. WP:COMMONNAME is a the popularity contest, and "brain age" is winning that one.
      5. In spite of your self-proclamation that you have "proven" the issue (I didn't realize that we could expect to be taken seriously doing this on Wikipedia), I would like to point out that you have not, at all, addressed any of the salient points with respect to WP policies and guidelines that are very clear about proposals like this one. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
      • 1. Um, hi, Iwata is the President of Nintendo and in charge of basically all Nintendo around the world. And I have a strong feeling that Iwata would care if any region of the three biggest gaming regions had Brain Age bombing horribly (and I like how you compared the biggest gaming region in the entire world being last place in Brain Training sales to a fairly minor region of gaming having it bomb there).
        2. And Brain Training is used in all versions of the game. Hell, MTV called the game Brain Training. The majority of sales for the series in English territories lie outside of NA. The series is noticeably less relevant in NA than in PAL regions. That's many, many reasons. It has nothing to do with sales, and everything to do with relevance. If Brain Age were to become a bomb in NA eventually, one that few people cared about, the title would most certainly have to change if it remained relevant in Europe regardless. You say that the title is stable, really? The title is significantly less popular, significantly less influential, and significantly less relevant - it basically beats Brain Training in a whopping "nothing". There is no aspect to the title that implies it's more well-known than Brain Training. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support because of the game's success in Europe compared to North America, and the other reasons mentioned above by User:A Link to the Past and User:Dreaded Walrus. Also, it's probably a good idea to note that the game's title is not in fact "Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training" in all countries in the PAL region, but localised translations, e.g. "Dr. Kawashimas Gehirn Jogging - Wie fit ist ihr Gehirn?" in Germany, so that will skew google results in favour of "brain age". As will the fact that "brain age" seems to be a term used within the game itself, as the Amazon.co.uk review of "Brain Training" mentions: "There’s also a multiplayer mode for up to 15 people where you can try and compete to record the youngest brain age" (emphasis mine). So WP:GHITS applies I think. Miremare 16:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a very good point. It didn't even occur to me, but most reviews of the Brain Training game will mention "brain age", as getting a low brain age is pretty much the central concept of the game. Just look at this Eurogamer review of the sequel, for example. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, foreign-language titles have absolutely nothing to do with the English title, which is why we didn't use the Japanese version in the first place. And again, the fact that the phrase "brain age" is recognizable to ALL users is a good argument to keep the article where it is. The arguments in favor of the move are quickly degenerating into their basic, most honest form: pure unadulterated regionalism. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And may I add:

1. They do, because they use basically the same name as the UK. We take into account all regions when we were debating soccer (football) vs. American football, but not Brain Training vs. Brain Age? That seems like it's completely hypocritical to pick and choose when to ignore non-English regions.
2. The fact that the phrase is mentioned in the game is NOT evidence that people recognize the game by Brain Age.
3. Oh, and I love when people say that the guy who has shown no bias whatsoever in titling (having fought for and against PAL titles, for and against Japanese titles, and for and against NA titles) is saying I'm a "regionalist" (a regionalist of Europe from North America, lol.). I guess when you don't actually have any reasoning as to why Brain Age is the BETTER title, randomly describing people is the next best thing. You, sir, are a loaf of sourdough bread. Good day.- A Link to the Past (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that I am affected by "regionalism". I would, for example, strongly oppose a move from Bully (video game) to Canis Canem Edit (video game). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ham Pastrami, your last comment might have looked better if you hadn't, in the same edit, berated supporters for not assuming good faith. And what's to stop anyone levelling the same unfounded accusation at your good self? Being from North America, you'd naturally be opposing, etc... These things are easy to throw around aren't they? Perhaps we should just stick to the argument. Regarding "brain training" being a generic term, you're right, though I would contend that this has much to do with the game itself, and I'd be interested to see how often this term was used before 2005 compared to now (also, if you run a search for "brain age" and exclude the word "ds", you still end up with 457,000 hits, so it looks like we have another generic term there). Being from the UK, I had never noticed the term "brain training" before the appearance of this game, and despite the fact that I don't own it, or a DS, it's still one of the more recognisable DS titles over here. Which brings us back to the main reason in favour of moving, which is the game shifting almost twice as many units in the smaller PAL region than in North America. The popularity of the game in the PAL region seems to have spawned a number of video game clones, as well as books, more books and, er, miscellaneous items, all making use of the term "brain training" since the game was released. I can find none from before 2005. Added to coverage in the non-gaming media as mentioned somewhere above, these add up IMO to a pretty strong case of the game being much more relevant in Europe than NA. Finally, regarding your citing of WP:COMMONNAME, I would think the fact that "brain training" sold a million more copies than "brain age", makes "brain training" the more common name by default, regardless of Google hits, which of course we're discouraged from using in these arguments anyway. Miremare 05:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And looking at other games? Sight Training. English Training: Have Fun Improving Your Skills! Mensa IQ Brain Trainer. Teach Yourself Training Your Brain. Brain Training for Runners. Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method. Driving Theory Training. Quick Yoga Training. Brain Training 3-Pack. How many games were inspired by Brain Age's title? Few to none. Your assertion that more people know Brain Age is a question of "who owns this game?" We are to assume that the people who would most likely use the article - namely, the people who wouldn't understand what Brain Age is (but would have a good idea of what Brain Training is) - would not find Brain Age more common, because the term is exclusive to the games, while Brain Training is an idea that any potential reader of this article would be aware of. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The reasons to rename from the current title are far from pressing. As no convincing case can be made to favor either title, we should stick with the one we have. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see no argument to oppose the move - in all intents and purposes, the article isn't where it is at because it is the better name for the article, but because of (early in Wikipedia's lifetime) North American bias, which led to solidify the article at this title. Because Brain Training is a far more common phrase, and Brain Training continues to be not only a relevant DS game, but rather is still relevant in the industry as a still-popular title, I'm going to move to this title. While stability is a quality argument, the fact that Brain Age has not sold comparatively well to all other versions and has had a noticeable dip in popularity shows that the idea of it being stable as being a shaky idea, while Brain Training has shown stability in remaining well-known, as well as inspiring the titles for many games (even games in North America). - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The current name has a typo in the title. "Brain/" should be "Brain?". I tried to fix it myself, but as Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain? already redirects here, it will need an admin's attention. Care to take it to WP:RM? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. Could you post that on RM? Man, that just kinda annoys me - is there an option that doesn't let you move an article without a summary? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give it a go. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Ah. I see what's happened, after looking at the move log. First, you moved Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! to Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain/. This made Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! into a redirect to Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain/. Realising your mistake, you tried to fix it, by moving Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! to Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain?. However, as Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! redirected to Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain/, we now end up with the correct name redirecting to the current, wrong name, and being unable to fix it due to that. So it needs to go to WP:RM. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, AMiB reverted the move, so we're back to square one. AMiB, you haven't established why this title is stable, but I have established why it is not - while the value of Brain Age has been diminishing to North America, the value of Brain Training has stayed consistent, and we've clearly established that there's a better chance of people knowing Brain Training. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Naming conventions: "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." It never says that being stable is the end-all be-all. Me and Walrus have provided many arguments in favor of using Brain Training, which not only were never countered at all, but also the only arguments provided have BEEN from supporters of Brain Training. Sales, notability, advertisements, news coverage, influence, and even the Nintendo president flat-out declares how much more well-known Brain Training is versus Brain Age for Brain Training, and what reason is there to say Brain Age is better than Brain Training in any way? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, even though AMiB has been seen editing even though he was likely aware that the discussion is ongoing, he doesn't seem interested in this discussion (although he seems interested in maintaining his position). If someone can't be bothered to respond to the discussion, why should they be allowed to throw their opinion into the mix? There's only four people who actively participated in this discussion, and only one of them opposed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a message on his talk page asking him to contribute here might be in order? Or asking for wider input from WP:VG? I'm not sure that I agree with A Man In Black's assertion that you ignored the move discussion. You have been contributing to it quite a lot. If he's talking about ignoring the outcome of the discussion, then again I disagree with him. One user (User:Ham Pastrami) came up with some pretty good arguments for keeping the article in its current place, though I feel the arguments for are more appealing. But then I would say that, as I'm biased due to pure unadulterated regionalism. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I did leave a comment, but he never replied. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You repeated yourself. I don't find repetition very convincing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

God forbid that the almighty A Man In Black show respect to anyone and pretend that their response was worth acknowledging.

Well, I guess I now see why you didn't actually participate in this discussion - we wouldn't want you to repeat your taking advantage of a policy to achieve your ideal ends. You didn't actually acknowledge any argument provided, you just abused a policy by grabbing one line and conveniently only taking part of that line and using it. I wish I could just go from move discussion to move discussion and say "oh your arguments aren't good, I won't say why, but they just aren't". Logically, since this is a discussion, anyone who just "comes in, votes, and doesn't bother to acknowledge the discussion's existence" isn't a part of the discussion whatsoever. If you aren't willing to respond to anything anyone says, how can you be a part of this discussion? If anything, you're a part of a vote, and this is not a vote. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This attitude is supposed to encourage a productive response?

You didn't make any sort of convincing argument to move me, and you haven't seemed to have convinced anyone else. You haven't established consensus for a contentious move. The fact that people didn't linger to say "Yes it is!" and "No it isn't!" with you doesn't mean that you have carte blanche to decide they've given up caring. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Surprise - people act that way when you show disrespect to them.

You didn't even DISCUSS. You came in, voted, and left. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't have anything to say but "I find these arguments so weak that they don't really justify overturning the status quo." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The status quo? How is this "the status quo"? The American version has been established to be less well-known in ALL regards. Sales, influence, advertising, usage, everything - Brain Age loses in every single regard. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And Hell, this is EXACTLY like Football - only two countries in the entire world use Brain Age, while dozens of countries use Brain Training. Even Japan uses DS Training and Train Your Brain, but never uses Brain Age in the title, making Brain Training a more accurate title (Hell, Brain Age 2 full-balls-to-the-walls adopted the term Brain Training). So yeah, it's no exaggeration to say that Brain Age fails in almost all regards compared to Brain Training (Hell, the title of the article was originally Brain Training for Adults, also true with the More Brain Training article - the only reason they are where they are is because of North American bias). There was stability before Brain Age and Brain Age 2, but only now is this a problem? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe a bit late, but I oppose this since both names are valid and the page was originally here. Voretus (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Also oppose this move. There's simply no need for it. Anyone who is looking for any version of this game will arrive at the correct article via redirect, and, right off the bat, learn about the naming scheme. Other than entertaining people's nitpicky regional obsessions, what would this move accomplish? Honestly, just move on. AMHR285 ^(talk) 04:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • So, you're one of the first people to discuss this move in over a month, and I have to "move on"? I'm pretty sure not participating in this discussion for a month is moving one pretty well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So...

Nothing's happening from this, I guess? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunno... To me (obviously I'm a tad biased), it looks like a consensus to move. I mean, only two people have objected and only one of them has engaged in the discussion. And IMO the arguments in favour of moving have not been effectively countered. But maybe further comment is needed. Could try WT:VG again? Miremare 00:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, though it's probably best if someone who's a member of the project posts there.. which doesn't include me. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be a member to contribute to it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ALTTP is free to try to convince more people that it's really that much more important in Europe really, but both here and on WT:VG he's spectacularly failed to do so as of yet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I take offense to have my efforts called a failure by AMiB. More ironic than insulting, though. My failures lie in American bias, hardly because I've "failed". I've dropped it, and haven't discussed Brain Age for an entire month, but for some reason, some ex-admin seems intent on reviving a discussion that, besides you, no one seems to care about. Need a hobby, maybe? You could participate in Wario Land Shake's move discussion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just curious, if I failed spectacularly, shouldn't that be indicated by even the most remote attempt at refuting any evidence provided to show it's more popular in PAL (a good sign that someone needs to widen their horizon - there IS more than Europe that this game is released in, although maybe South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand merged into Europe)? I'm pretty sure what I failed to establish is what is almost impossible to establish, that the PAL title is preferable, which the majority of WP:VG would throw themselves off of a building before they let it move). - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Accusing everyone who disagrees with you of plotting to keep WP Amerocentric is probably not the best plan. Just putting that out there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone's efforts a "spectacular failure" is trolling, especially considering if they were, the fact that you never refuted any single one, caring only to say "oh it's stable, no reason to move", and not even acknowledging any single argument.

Oh, and just to throw this out there, get a life 'kay? Trolling someone in a month-old discussion seems kind of pathetic, even for you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[You're] trolling

get a life

pathetic

even for you

k. Not thinking this is going anywhere productive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You replied to a month old message on a completed discussion. Yeah, what a shock - "not going anywhere productive!" Thanks, Sherlock. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)