User talk:Scumbag

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to like... post stuff here.

Post new stuff at the top, please. I know most people like it on the bottom, but I like it on the top.

Post it on the top.

Contents

[edit] Barnstar!

The Original Barnstar
For fighting the good fight. GeeCee

For your efforts with Tiberium and User:A Man In Black. GeeCee 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gathering evidence on MiB

Hello, I'm thinking of starting RfC on User:A Man In Black, and currently gathering evidence of his bad behavior. Can you help me with links, diffs and so on. The page is here: User:Grue/workshop.  Grue  21:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, at least on most of my events with him. Scumbag 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your advocacy request with AMA

Hello, I'm a relatively new AMA member considering taking your case. It sounds like your difficulties involve a number of other articles besides the Tiberium one. Could you identify a few other articles where you've experienced difficulties? Please reply on the case page and/or feel free to drop a note on my talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiberium Edits

Those idiots are reverting your edits which are significant even though you correctly sourced them too. So I am moving one of the version of your edits on the tiberium page to The Encyclopedia Gamia. When I checked in The C&C games I owned the information was CORRECT! So feel free to make an account and sign up. --Cs california 07:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, Mister Tough Guy

Here is a hypothetical situation for you. A movie about world without children closes with the first baby born in 20 years in a rowboat, waiting for rescue. The sounds of children's laughter and playing are heard in the background, and continue through the credits and soundtrack (but are not a part of the latter). Should it be included in the synopsis, as it is an observable part of the "movieworld," or should it be left out, as most reviewers consider it a part of the movie. Another question for you: why does the plot of a film not require citation? I know why, but cannot find a reference within WP to clarify it for me.Arcayne 03:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the way I figure it, you could put it in there as long as its got that spoiler tag on it. If someone reads past the 'warning, this spoils shit' thing, and discovers it, its their problem. As for the second question, I don't know. I would guess that because anyone could watch the movie to confirm it. But hell if I know. Scumbag 04:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for edit warring. User:Scumbag/Scumpolicies is just mindboggling. Editors here follow Wikipedia's policies, not their own made up ones. You are more than welcome to go elsewhere if you don't like the policies here. – Steel 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I had expected to be blocked for edit warring the previous night when AMiB and the other guy were. Hell, I suggested it. But I'll be cool from now on. Scumbag 22:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia policy

After looking at the issues with Tiberium and the magic card pages, I've decided that I need to step in and comment. Please view the policy of attribution, which states that content should be attributable to a reliable source. Although what is reliable is constantly under debate, it usually not good to simply cite the game as a source throughout an entire article; the game should only be cited itself in plot summary cases, and articles cannot be entirely plot summary unless they are a general subarticle (which Tiberium is not). Also, the "notable cards" section is POV; instead, it's best to cite cards as examples of card mechanisms; for example, explaining the storm ability would cite the card brainfreeze, and suspend can be cited with lotus bloom. If our policies are not followed by the bulk of a section of content, then editors may remove or consolidate that section unless it can be neutralized and attributed to a reliable source while avoid what Wikipedia is not. — Deckiller 20:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I know its not the best fix to simply cite the game, but AMiB asked for me to cite sources, and I did to the best of my ability. I suppose I could have cited specific videos in the game... As for the Notable Card section... I guess I just disagree. Scumbag 20:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I get what you're getting at with the MTG cards, and it's not strictly a bad idea (and is a very open-source way of looking at things). The problem...well, it's illustrated by your removal of the list at the Planeshift article. Someone, clearly, thought that those cards were notable enough to include. You didn't. How would we resolve that issue if there was a disagreement? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:Citing notable cards

Unfortunately WP:V needs the claims such as "notable" as it would be used in a card list to be cited. What you suggest boils down to Wiki acting as the arbiter of which cards are notable with the Project engaging in WP:OR. That's counter to Wiki's policies and guidelines, it's supposed to present the information, not create it. — J Greb 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Pfft. If doing as I propose is counter to Wikipedia's polices and guildlines, it shows the failures of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Remember, I see original research as inevitable and valueable, and this is a prime example of it. Nobody is creating the information that certain cards are notable. Nobody makes a research paper that proves that the Power Nine are notable. That happens naturally. I suppose this also tries into Understand The Topic Or Don't Edit, since only someone completely foreign to Magic would actually assume people are creating this information. Remember, many of the sections we're discussing are over 5 years old. If some of them weren't really Notable, wouldn't someone have already purged the Cards In Question from the Lists In Question? The answer is - of course - that they would have. Scumbag 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Children of Men

Okay, I am willing to give you the opportunity to prove your point about editing an article to make it better, in spite of Wikipedia's policies. The Children of Men (film) article has been essentially dominated by one editor (driving off two others). As you may recall, the end of the movie has the sound of children laughing and playing, and there are the words "shantih shantih shantih" (a Hindi prayer) at the very end, after the credits. Except for a short sentence about the shantih thing, these elements appear nowhere else in the article. Show me how you would include them via edits.Arcayne 07:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to abide by my Understand the Topic Or Don't Edit policy. I haven't seen the movie, and know little about Hindi prayers. I know it looks like a cop-out - and lord knows I'd love to do it to prove my point - but I really don't have the requisite background to edit that information - a background that the one editor obviously has. If I had to, I'd just slap it at the bottom of the plot synopsis, link shantih to inner peace, and give the editing reason as "its at the end of the film, and it's interesting.". I suspect that doing so wouldn't be against Wikipedia's policies tho. I know, it's pretty much a cop-out. Scumbag 07:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's already on the article - it's in the Themes section. Scumbag 07:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Scumbag/Scumpolicies

Have you considered Everything2? What you're describing is a more personal, more establish-your-credibility-based-on-the-quality-of-your-writing style, and that's E2's thing far more than it is WP's. E2 doesn't have NPOV, doesn't require references, and doesn't mandate writing style (other than "interesting").

Coming to Wikipedia, flouting its basic principles, and having your work replaced with work that meets Wikipedia's goals isn't going to be very rewarding. E2, on the other hand, is exactly what you're describing there, and, while it's never quite as informative, it's a damn sight more entertaining - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would I need to use E2, when much of what I do never gets modified to fit Wikipedia policy? The answer is, of course, because I know that the people who request the things you wish don't have the requistite knowledge to do whatever pointless fix they would like to see done. Scumbag 05:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, betting that things won't ever get cleaned up is generally a losing bet. It was just an idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicely said

I jumped to your user page from some edits you made on some Warhammer articles, and I must say, I quite like your My beliefs about Wikipedia and editing section. Nicely said.

See you around! --Falcorian (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars episodes

Excuse me? That was not vandalism. I reverted your edits because the cross-links are not needed. The titles have little in common other than the episode distictions. The only case where you would use cross-links is, for example, when have articles for the film called Serenity and an episode called Serenity. See what I mean? The actual titles aren't similar at all in your case. The Wookieepedian 21:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, the titles have little in common. One is a Half-Life product called Episode One/Two/Three, and one's a movie called Episode One/Two/Three. Since I already changed it so a user isn't immediately spat into the Star Wars movies when they punch in Episode One/Two/Three, I went the extra mile to ensure that someone who did wander into the Star Wars movie articles can find their way into something they could have been looking for - the other thing named Episode One/Two/Three. If there's no point in removing it, as you did, it's vandalism. Scumbag 21:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, as WP:VANDALISM states it, stubbornness is not vandalism. However, Wookieepedian is not being stubborn, I find it highly unlikely that a user would somehow wander into a Star Wars article when they are attempting to find the article for the game spin-offs to Half-Life 2. Especially in the case of the titles, which are not specifically Episode One/Two/Three, but use roman numerals as opposed to words. In addition, the titles are specifically known by their Episode number; in fact among fan members they are more known by their subtitles, i.e. The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith. Therefore, these cross-links are unneccesary, and should be removed/left off. If you still disagree you can always put it to a vote on the talk page. The Filmaker 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Your point fails; until I started editing redirecting pages, the only way to get to the Episode X articles were to type the entire "Half Life 2: Episode One/Two/Three" bit into the search engine - everything else redirected to the movies - an unacceptable situation. I'm just making the accessability of the HL episodes as available as possible. Fortunately, I've made it so that Episode X searches go to a disambiguation page instead of simply going to the Star Wars movie links, so there's no need to revert Wookie's vandalism again. Scumbag 00:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Again I'll state the Wookiepedian's edit were not vandalism. Please do not simply edit articles before a consensus in discussion is reached, keep talking; otherwise as you will be violating the three revert rule and starting an edit war. I agree with your changing the redirects for Episode 1 and Episode 2 to allow users to choose between the films and the games. However you are making too wide of an assumption by putting a cross-link in the film articles just case a user should some how "wander in". I don't disagree with your wanting to making the HL games more accessible, but the cross-links in the SW articles are simply unneccesary. The Filmaker 01:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate username

I happened across your name in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. My first take is that your choice of username is inappropriate, and I think it would be best for you to change it voluntarily. You say on your user page that it is your nickname outside Wikipedia, but I think it nonetheless gives the wrong impression. Specifically, in scanning through the thread, I did a double take in thinking someone was writing an insult rather than simply mentioning your username. LotLE×talk 19:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

An understandable misconception... one that I've grown too fond of witnessing in my life, on the net and in real life. Scumbag 20:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SS2 Citations

I would like to point out that regardless of our difference of opinion on certain points, the first peer review that this article gets will most likely see all those so-called "facts" removed simply because thay are not properly sourced. The goal of sourcing things in articles is to provide a reader who may be completely unfamiliar with the subject with some reference points and knowledge that the article wasn't just made up. Unless sources are found for those "facts" eventualy they will have to get removed. Look at any featured videogame article and the number of sources in it and things being sourced. Most of the time even things definitevly encountered in the game need to be sourced, let alone simple speculation such as tha name being based on certain something. I assure you, I am not trying to undermine your contributions, but this article has a lot of cruft which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Tani unit 12:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me understand your argument - you want proof that a rocket-powered starship by the name of Von Braun was named after something other than a rocket scientist, and other facts that were never flat-out stated because, unlike Wikipedians, the developers knew the player could put two and two together? Please provide an argument that actually convinces me that what I'm doing is wrong. Scumbag 02:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, in case you don't understand the wikipedia guidelines and rules of common sence let me break it down for you. You claim that Von Braun is named after something. It is up to you to substantiate your claims, and not up to me to refute them. And yeah, unlike players, wikipedians do need proof and citations, that's what we have guidelines for. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan-site.

edit: In case you haven't done so yet, please take a look at featured articles, such as Shadow of the Colossus or Half-Life 2. Look at how many things are being sourced and what kinds of things are being sourced. I suppose you do know that Featured Article status implies that the article was heavily reviewed and selected as such by experienced editors? In an encyclopedia you don't take facts for granted, you source them. Tani unit 03:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See, this is the fundamental flaw in your argument. I'm not claiming that the Von Braun is named for something. I've played System Shock 2. It's a space ship. The developers named it Von Braun. I can punch 'Von Braun' into Wikipedia, and discover that until you changed it to go to a disambiguation page, the word Von Braun either was a spaceship in System Shock 2, or Wernher von Braun. Rocket ship named Von Braun, a guy who worked in rockets. I suspect I stumbled onto a fact that the developers didn't put down in a "This Game For Morons and Wikipedians" FAQ, allowing me to do what I've done to discover that the Von Braun was named after Von Braun!. Give me a break.

As for your examples - don't use articles you've worked on (which I will dismiss) or articles that haven't actually gotten manhandled by ignorant editors. Do you actually think everything on those HL2 articles is cited? Obviously, since you're trying to argue that the article is well-cited, you obviously don't. Of course, I'm not going to add the citing requests in the relevent sections, because the concept of using an un-cited article as if it's cited properly is just too damnably funny. Scumbag 04:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I am also the one who named the lunar crater Von Braun. Oh wait, that's an actual crater. You're saying because wikipedia had only two articles for the name Von Braun it follows that the two are directly related? The logic astounds. Oh, and guess what.

I added the starship link to the already existing disambig page, which listed the crater as well, so there goes your argument. As far as featured articles - let me get this straight. You're saying that featured articles are written and rewied by ignorant editors, and sourcing/citing things is completely unnecessasry because they seem obvious to you? Who exaclty made you the authority on the matter? Tani unit 14:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The lack of authority from diehard Wikipedians gives anyone with a serious and proper knowledge of the subject the relevent authority. When a Wikipedian comes in and adds a bunch of "cite this" crap onto a page, it's a clear sign of not having a modicum of understanding about the topic at hand. If you think something is wrong, edit it or remove it. Someone who knows what he or she is doing will eventually come around and fix the mess.

And no, you didn't name the Lunar Crater. However, given that nobody wrote in the article says that the VB was named after the Lunar Crater, that's your clue to leave it to the ones who know what the VB was named for. Wikipedia is a fan site, because all the articles are written (and should be maintained) only by those who actually know what they are talking about - the fans. Scumbag 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Being a fan of the game does not empower you with the ability to read minds of the game developers the last time I checked. So your assumptions about things being named after something or other are groundless speculation and nothing but. If you're so certain about being right and such a big fan as you claim then contact the former devs and ask them what the name is really based on.

As far as citations you seem to miss the whole point. I and others could care less for your claims about being knowledgable on the matter at hand if you're unable to substantiate said claims other with chest-thumping. I could claim that Von Braun is named after a lunar crater and there is not a signle thing in the game that would point one way or another. The articles of any encyclopedia are written with the assumption that the reader does not know anything about the subject, hence why things need to be cited as to not appear as original research. I do know tha game and myself am a fan of it, but most people never played it and don't know anything about it, that's why we wrote the article. That's why any such claims in it need to be substantiated. Tani unit 17:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not missing the point. The point you're missing is that the name is not groundless speculation, nor am I reading the minds of the developers - I'm using critical thinking skills to understand connections and references that people either know, or people would be reading the article to learn. If you know the game as well as you claim, we would not be having this discussion. It's ok, I'll have a random TTLGer make the claim, and use it to cite the obvious for you. Scumbag 18:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What you're calling "critical thinking skills" wikipedia considers to be original research. You simply have to accept the fact that this isn't gameFAQs or gamewikis, this particular sites strives to be encyclopedic hence the guidelines along those of a real-world encyclopedia. In game, as far as I am aware, the origins of the name for Von Braun are never mentioned. Bearing in mind that these are game-developers we are talking about here, not actual rocket scientists, I somehow doubt that they would base any of the names used on rocket-ship pioneers. It's not impossible, but doesn't seem terribly likely either. It could have been inspired by one of their mother's maiden names for all we know. Again, you're not citing this for me, you're citing this for other editors who for the most part strictly abide by wiki policies. If the article was ever to be peer-reviewed they would remove most anything from trivia that doesn't cite it's sources. And they have full authority to do so because this policy is established by the wikipedia's founder. While in Rome be Roman, as simple as that. No hard feelings. Tani unit 18:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Given that Wikipedia is nothing more than a gameFAQs or Gamewiki - high-end idealistic statements being as worthless as citing the origins of the VB's name - anything that would be removed under a peer-review session would be inevitably added back into the article fairly quickly. Wikipedians, as much as they don't want to admit it, will discover that the fans of the series are the ones who did the original research in the first place. We're not the ones who need to cite... we're the ones who wrote the things that some need cited. And the source you can use is Wikipedia. You're right - when in Rome do as the Romans do, and when it comes to a System Shock article, or a Doom 3 article, or an Afterlife article, or a Half-Life article... we're the Romans. Obsequor, plebs plebis. j/k Scumbag 20:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understood (or bothered to read for that matter) what the original research means. I also don't think you're familair enough with wikipedia to know that users sometimes get banned and articles can be protected from editing. You are not the Roman, people who wrote the policy are. If you so strongly believe in your editing prowness then why not try to get this article peer-reviewed or better yet to get it to a higher class? Tani unit 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Why would I want to get this article peer-reviewed? I have a fairly strict no-vandallism rule for myself, and getting this article 'peer-reviewed' would be such a thing - you said it yourself, a lot of information would be deleted if such a thing would happen. Aside from the garish "cite this" bits, the article is of a sufficient class for a game overshadowed by Half-Life[This fact is not cited because the writer knows more than your average Wikipedian.]. Scumbag 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
See, the thing is, if you won't, others will. Because generally people strive to improve the articles according to given standards. Just a matter of time. Good luck fighting that. Tani unit 20:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Btw, in case I haven't made it clear yet (judging by your last post) request for citing does not question your knowledge or intelligence, it's a way for others less familair with the subject to verify facts stated in the article. Would you want to read an article on subject you aren't familiar with and that does not back up any of its claims? Would you be inclined to believe anything wirtten in it? Just food for thought. Tani unit 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I would believe a Wikipedia article, because 'anything that isn't correct would be removed quickly by those with the appropriate knowledge'. That's the glory of Wikipedia. Regardless, time is on my side. No matter how many times an ignorant Wikipedian will vandalize an article requesting pointless citations, fans of (whatever topic) will inevitably set the record - and the article - on the correct path. I don't know if anyone'll cite the Von Braun thing, but I know it'll remain there in the end. After all, the facts are only in dispute by those who don't know what they are editing. I think we can leave it at that, no? Scumbag 20:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If that's the way you see it then so be it. Although I have trouble reconciling your trust into articles on wikipedia with your earlier statements about the Featured Articles being written by a bunch of ignorants. After all, those articles make it to the front page, and they have plenty of things cited, despite your belief about citing being a form of vandalizm. Reminds me of myself when I was 15, but hey, I could be wrong. Tani unit 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It's easy to reconsile: People who originally wrote the relevent bits? Trustworthy. Those that've later messed it up later under the assumption that the people who originally wrote it didn't know what they were talking about? Vandalism, at best. If you want Wikipedia to be encyclopedic, the articles should be written by those who would be the ones who would write an encyclopedia on that subject. And I'm dissapointed with the insult; I would have gone with a "hopeless loser and or nerd" insult. Scumbag 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I see, so citing sources = messing things up? Yeah, I guess one way to look at it is that it really does mess things up for people who don't like substantiating their claims. Not that I care about them. Oh, and you think I was being insulting? I was merely pointing out a fact[citation needed]. Wait till you re-read your posts in this discussion a couple years down the road (assming you are still editing), now that going to be a real insult. (Tansie didn't sign this -s)
Given that you seem to have nothing to say other than disrespect, I think we're done here. Scumbag 21:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not remove unsourced statement warnings

Do not remove {{fact}} notices from articles without providing sources. All content on Wikipedia must be verified by reliable sources. If you have reliable sources for the statements I am challenging, please provide a link or a page number in a book that supports the claims; otherwise, the tags should stay until such time as the statements are sourced or are deleted. Captainktainer * Talk 20:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A link, or page number, for something the developers never cited because they knew their player base was intelligent enough to need not have everything spelled out for them? Hah! Tycho was right about Wikipedia. Scumbag 02:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You specifically removed the fact tags here. None of the statements in that sectino have reliable sources provided, which is especially important when discussing opinions. As for the Von Braun/System Shock 2 flap, I truly don't care, although adding obviously renders the tone of the article unencyclpedic. Captainktainer * Talk 02:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You're exactly right, I removed un-needed cite tags. The game's developers never sat down and wrote "yeah, we named our rocket ship after one of the father's of rocketry" on a "System Shock for Dummies and Wikipedians who'll read an article about it long after the game was forgotten by the gaming public" FAQ. Given that you freely admit to not caring about the VB/SS2 situation - and are obviously ill-equipped to know about the situation, why are you so quick to argue a topic you have absolutely no experience with? Feel free to remove the 'offending' facts if you're so offended, I'm sure someone who actually knows about System Shock 2'll stick it right back in. After all, that user knows System Shock 2 enough to properly deal with the piece.Scumbag 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about the Doom3 article. Follow the first link. For that matter, while I haven't edited the System Shock 2 article, I am very familiar with the subject. But that's not the topic I was commenting on. Captainktainer * Talk 02:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I apologize for thinking you were mentioning the SS2 one. Regardless, it's not like anyone reading the Doom 3 article didn't know about all the "D3 sucks because it doesn't have the Gravity Gun" nonsense post-release. If someone actually needs someone to 'cite' that crap to believe it, then they shouldn't be editing the article in the first place. Oh well, that's what you get when fools can mess with things they shouldn't. Scumbag 02:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Wardell

Hi there, Scumbag! I edited your version of this article and thought I would explain why in a little more depth than the edit box allows.

While I do not disagree with the general thrust of your edit, I think that Brad's intent was not to demean the people making the suggestions. Realistically, it is likely that some people will not be satisfied with a game that is not exactly as they want it. It is true that he does not take the view of those who call things "broken" seriously. I suspect this view is actually shared by most game designers, but I know Brad tends to be more vocal about it than others.

I saw the word "fixes" as relating to this viewpoint - a game mechanic is an opinion, not something that is subject to "fixing", as it is not broken unless coded incorrectly in relation to the original design. It can, however, be changed, which is the word I used instead.

I also moved the links to the references section, as I felt they broke up the text a little as inline links. Thanks for taking the time to research them! GreenReaper 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the obsfuscation - Brad asked me to setup the GalCiv Wiki specifically for the purpose of helping people with game mechanics (as well as "other things", but that was the main objective). I don't think he would have done that if he didn't want people to know about them. GreenReaper 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] manus celer dei

Hi S... (do you really want to be called that??? ;-)), if you say it's from the Marathon game, I have to believe you; I don't know anything about such things, I'm afraid. The phrase is, however, poor Latin: manus is feminine (tribus, manus, porticus...), and the adjective then, should be celeris; however, that would make the phrase ambiguous, because celeris could go with dei as well. Any idea how "they" came up with the name? Greetings T.a.k. 21:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Putting Bungie Mythos into own article

Sounds like trivia to me from your description, but maybe you could make a /Triva link or something? Seems like it could be interesting.

[edit] Fallout Community

Your recent edits are clear POV pushing, like claiming that turn-based combat and isometric view are obsolete, while there are still many turn-based and isometric games around and in production. I also don't see how Roshambo's posts about Bethesda make him deserve a mention in Wikipedia - not to mention calling him "infamous" is yet another example of POV pushing. I also don't recall anyone seriously trying to force Bethesda into using 2D. As for me being an owner of Duck and Cover, you are simply wrong. I'd also like to see some proof of the alleged isolation of Fallout community, and it being to blame for the stuff you claim it is. Ausir 20:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The trick is actually not to confirm what you're arguing against

I never said turn based combat and isometric views are obsolete - I stated that these concepts have fallen into disuse among successful games. Looking back on it, I should have been clearer with that line, for those reasons you state: they do exist, but they have not been quite as well received by users.

But to deny that these concepts have fallen from grace so deeply to the point of removing it entirely is simply uncalled for. Edit it to admit that these concepts have faltered in the face of differing ideas, fine, but removing it entirely?

Calling Rosh infamous is hardly POV. He's a salient example of the topic you attempted to remove.

Forgive me if I called you the owner of Duck N Cover - I took the mention of Duck N Cover on your user page as one of "your websites" leaded me to believe you were the owner. I apologize if pointing this out offended you or was misleading, but Wiki readers should be informed when it appears that someone is deleting content specifically to protect their own interests.

If you'd like to see some alleged isolation of the Fallout community, I'd be happy to add that to the content that I've revived. I'll most likely link to examples of person(s) being treated poorly by those who disagree with the Fallout community, and I will likely be posting cashes of when the Fallout community overran Bethesda's forums.

Thanks for the feedback; I'm sure we can come to a mutually acceptable situation. If we don't, thats fine too - nothing on wikipedia can be deleted for long. Scumbag 01:51, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unhinged

Nice work on Unhinged. It's the first Magic set article on wikipedia, and because you did such a fine job on it, it appears poised to survive Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in spite of mild prejudice against such topics as "fancruft." Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 11:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now, that you did Unglued too you may be interested to look here, where we're trying to make articles for every expansion set. Grue 07:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Editing my post and stuff

No problem on you editing my posts a little. My grammar and formating isn't perfect so I don't mind any changes as long as they don't alter the meaning of my post. Good on fixing some anonymous cowards vandalism.--Lord Yaar 14:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/u/User_talk%7EScumbag_5681.html"