User talk:RainBowAndArrow/Archive 3

Mirror's Edge

we will speak about it in real-time soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.157.69 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

read my user talk page and dusti's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.157.69 (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Rugby Flag

Hi, know youre a rugby fan so if you want to chip into a discussion on how the Irish teams should be represented flagwise on wikipedia then you can do so here GainLine ♠ _♥ 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

as usual

why did you removed car infos on the Ferrari Challenge article, there's nothing in WP:Gamecruft that says to remove such contents. moreover now it reads like there are only a single class of cars which is not the case, why are car contents allowed on Forza Motorsport 2? is it because its an xbox game? Cliché Online (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Production cars

Production cars include stock cars, as well as cars tuned by aftermarket tuning companies. Production cars can move between classes, but cannot enter the "R" classes.

Class D: Standard production cars including the Ford Focus SVT and the Volkswagen Golf GTI Class C: Sport production cars including the Audi S4 and the Nissan Fairlady Z Class B: Performance production cars including the Porsche Cayman S and the Aston Martin Vanquish Class A: Above average-performance production cars including the Chevrolet Corvette Z06 and the TVR Tuscan R Class S: High-performance production cars like the Enzo Ferrari and the Porsche Carrera GT Class U Supercars. Only two original U-Class cars are available in stock: the Chrysler ME Four-Twelve concept car, and the TVR Cerbera Speed 12. The Koenigsegg CCGT, Ferrari FXX, Ferrari F50 GT, Maserati MC12 Corsa and Ferrari F40 competizione become available after downloading extra-cost game content. [edit] Race cars Cars in these classes cannot be upgraded, and none of these cars can enter another class. Likewise, they cannot leave their respective class.

Class R4: Heavily modified production cars and low-end purpose-built race cars including the #77 Subaru Cusco Advan Impreza and the numerous Porsche 911 GT3 Cup cars. Class R3: High-end purpose-built race cars including the Dodge Viper GTS-R and most Super GT cars. Class R2: Ultrahigh-end purpose-built race cars including the Porsche 911 GT1 and the Chevrolet Corvette C6.R. Class R1: Prototype race cars including the Peugeot 905C

• what is that? reads like a car list in disguise.... Cliché Online (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

who do you think you are?!

just what are you doing, removing informations and sourced edits from the article i'm currently editing?! what are you trying to do, to leave it a blank article with the only infos being "ferrari challenge is a game." is that what you want? i don't this is a encyclopedia and such it should contain infos, your very own interpratation of WP:GAMECRUFT simply doesn't fit! who told you race and cars were like items? they aren't, race games are bout racers and racetracks, if you remove this what will remain? nothing. so would you stop your vandalism?! you're going nowhere anyway with that attitude. forza 2 contains datas about race and tracks and you are editing this very article leaving car name dropping. it seems you've a problem with the ps3 games. nobody cares about your agenda, this is a place to give infos and so i will give some, gamecruf doesn't say to don't speak a word about cars & stuffs in games about cars because it would be nonsense, and that's you are about. Cliché Online (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

OMG car names!!!

hey what is that "Forza Motorsport" article ?! car name dropping in an xbox game and you haven't removed them yet? go ahead, be quick!! Cliché Online (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

that's awful there's even circuit names!!! that's impossible! remove them all!! well, the truth is you are simply pushing an agenda. Cliché Online (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding?

the motorsport article has extended cars and tracks list. you have removed all the circuit infos on ferrari challenge while there were only a few tracks. you are clearly pushing an agenda, you can fool nobody. Cliché Online (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

now what about the "playstation 3 only" in the article? whats the problem, people with a nbintendo system or ps2 don't need to go to the supercar challenge article since its only a ps3 game while ferrari challenge is multiplat (except xbox....). now about resolution, there are two native resolution on ps3, its not like on your xbox360. xbox360's 1080 is 720 with tv scale. the ps3's 1080p mode is a render resolution not tv scale. ther fore there are two native mode according to which HD resolution is set. why do you edit these things you don't have a clue?! Cliché Online (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

RR3

you've passed your own so why talking about me? Cliché Online (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

anyway you are clearly pushing an agenda and this deserves to be reported. Cliché Online (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tracks

are you kidding you've removed all tracks except 3, now it reads like there are 3 circuits in the game. you don't have this kind of "issue" with forza games and their track names, how surprising is this?! answer is you are simply pushing an agenda. Cliché Online (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

updates

why do you care about updates? removing all infos which were only a sum up, it already lacks many aspects of the update which change a lot of stuff. like framerate, graphics, AI difficulty add-on a a ton, new features and a ton of fixes. Cliché Online (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Ferrari Challenge: Trofeo Pirelli

Regardless of how you spin it, both you and Cliché Online are edit-warring on this article. Rather than blocking outright, I'm giving you both a warning; you would be well-advised to cease editing the article for now and instead seek outside input to resolve your disagreement. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism

[1] Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Final Fantasy XIII, you will be blocked from editing. Cliché Online (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cliche, this was not vandalism. I have already cautioned you against leaving inappropriate warnings. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

ODST

I find it hilarious that by adding in resolution to the infobox you're being as irksome as Cliché. Guess what: I don't feel the need to go caterwauling to WT:VG every time you make a change. Claim that I'm owning the articles all you want, but I'm enforcing a consistent standard on all of them. Is the fact that it's sub-720p important? No. It's barely touched on in the article and there's no body of reliable sources that discuss it (if you think gameswire would stand scrutiny at FAC, you're badly mistaken). It's trivial and unimportant in the context of accessible summary. If you actually contributed meaningfully to articles instead of sticking your hands over as many as you can touch, I might be inclined to listen. As it stands, not so much. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack listings

Do you have something against the soundtrack lists on the Tony Hawk Pro skater 4 article, or is there a deeper reason you feel they should be removed? I want to ask you that before i debate why it should be there. I agree that a soundtrack lists wouldn't fit in many Wiki articles, But the Tony hawk games are the exception..so what say you? please be honest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicianbink (talk • contribs) 06:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read what i have left in the discussion page before moving forward with anymore edits. Thank you Magicianbink (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This page documents an English Wikipedia guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss your idea on the talk page. Magicianbink (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"I believe Jasca Ducato described it best in the summary when re-adding the soundtrack to the page: "this article is here to describe the game and its different aspects, including the soundtrack". The soundtrack is information regarding the game; it's not some random list of songs about a random topic that has and will continue to have an indefinite length. The soundtrack is set in stone and has been officially stated, and will most likely remain that way." Magicianbink (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

AVault/Cyberathlete/CPL

You make your edits sound innocuous when they are not. It's interesting that you work for Sony and are taking this kind of time to eliminate what has been on Wikipedia for months. I'm not employed by CPL or CAL but noticed that you made a number of changes all directed at minimizing the information available to the public about CPL / CAL and other unrelated properties. We have notified CPL which will be contacting you shortly, will contact Jack Tretton via email and have contacted Wikipedia. My edits are in line of providing MORE information to the public not less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trustwiki (talk • contribs) 15:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No threats just statement of facts. You seem determined to minimize the CPL articles and delete any mention of its founder from Wikipedia. This is not the spirit of Wikipedia and you do poor service to the community by deleting important information because of dubious aesthetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trustwiki (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a Party to the Dispute

I've responded to your comment as it was quite interesting to read. Just in case, however, I'd like to point out that I'm not a party to your dispute with Magicianbink. He asked about my personal opinion on this matter and I gave it to him. It's not my business what he does with it now. I'm only interested in a limited number of small articles that I edit sometimes for my own pleasure and the good of this encyclopedia. I'm not concerned with practically anything else that happens here. Thanks. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 11:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

GameZone

Hi Falcon9x5, sorry I didn't respond to your previous warnings, I actually haven't noticed at all that you can get messages on here, until a co worker showed me. I just wanted to dispute you deleting all of the gamezone review posts, since it's a creditable site and I've noticed that they don't have any reviews posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkBlade4658 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The following is an email I received to my personal email account (not through wikipedia) in relation to this edit

Hi there -

First off, I am not going to disagree with your decision to delete content submitted by a GameZone intern from wikipedia. As an editor, that is your right, and you have only to justify it to those that put you in that position. And yes, on a fundamental level, I think that because he worked for GameZone and was promoting material on the site, there is a conflict of interest. Just as if you were promoting SCEE titles by contributing reams of information to the site would also be a conflict of interest.

What I wish to discuss, though, is your inference that GameZone.com is not a credible site.

To quote your response to Mr. Splechta: "The issue isn't that GameZone isn't reliable (though I might question that myself) ..."

What do you know about GameZone.com? That it was founded in 1994? That it has 3.8 million unique users per month, that it is around #5000 (depending on the day) on the Alexa rankings worldwide? Probably not. Like any review site, we publish opinions. We also publish news and a host of other PR that comes from companies, like Sony. We are credible enough to be invited to Sony (SCEA) events, and we have a large readership abroad.

Of course, I don't expect to change your opinion of our site. Opinions are personal perceptions. I would, though, suggest that you refrain from spouting those in e-mails to users. Keep it to the facts and if someone asks for your opinion, submit it. Little tags like the one in your quote above do not serve you, or Wikipedia, well.

Sincerely,
Michael Lafferty
Editor-in-Chief

GameZone.com

and my followup

Hello there,

My response was actually posted on a wikipedia talk page, not an email - User_talk:DarkBlade4658#March_2010. In case you're unfamiliar with talk pages, people can effectively say whatever they want on them (within reason obviously), they're not governed by the policies applying to normal wikipedia articles - they're also publicly viewable.

As a result, I expressed my opinion about GameZone, and was totally within my rights to do so.

I've posted your email, and will soon post this response, on my own talk page at User_talk:Falcon9x5#GameZone

Thanks!

Fin

7outof10

Hi there. I just wanted to address your concerns with regards to 7outof10.co.uk

I can verify it is a reliable source, as I own/edit the site myself. I will update the contact page shortly to show individual names if that addresses any problems.

Also, many apologies if the references I added were deemed to be spam. I use wiki a whole lot in my day-to-day life, and so recently as I have been editing press releases and screens etc, I thought I could add them on here if things were missing. I haven't added anything I thought was unnecessary, but if that is deemed the case then I'll retract whatever is highlighted.  (Unsigned comment added by General garcia (talk • contribs) 15:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

Donut

You refer to Recreation episode four in your message, but the sentence in the Donut article is about his return in episode four of the Relocated miniseries, which takes place between Reconstruction and Recreation.--Drat (Talk) 13:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Iran

Please see the talk page for a discussion on the inlcusion of Persia in the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Forza 3

What was wooly about the source? It was direct from the developers and it describes the definition of a semi-racing game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holygamer (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Alan Wake. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 76.22.48.223 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I know you will just delete this and ignore the warning, but please refrain from edit warring. 76.22.48.223 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Alan Wake. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 76.22.48.223 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I know you will just delete this and ignore the warning, but please refrain from edit warring. 76.22.48.223 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)