User talk:WhiteMinority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Please stop. 2 Dispute 3 Wii 4 Libel 5 Libel (2) 6 List of best-selling computer and video games 7 Names 8 Apology

[edit] Please stop.

Please, STOP adding VGCharts. I don't want to have to repeat the fact that VGCharts does not use anything but the site owner's estimates anymore. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The numbers should not be added in the first place. The numbers are not real numbers, and linking to that site is only giving them popularity. Adding sources for bad numbers works against fixing the article. No one cares to know which random, nobody internet kid came up with these numbers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, really smart of you to vandalize an article. I'm sure you won't get blocked anytime soon. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Cause I'm the one vandalizing it... right? You're the one whose deleting all numbers. WhiteMinority 13:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You argued that VGCharts was necessary because the numbers were there and thusly, need sources. Estimates are literally not sales figures, and so, I deleted the numbers, so we wouldn't need VGCharts. You yourself argued it's the best thing we have - you never argued that they are accurate, or that the numbers should be there. The numbers should not be there, and including them is no better than having someone blank the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, not 100% accurate, you're not gonna get that? They are pretty damn close to right. I don't get you. Plus, you delete just the numbers, and put up those completely random Sega Master System, 32x, etc. games back up, whats up? WhiteMinority 22:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Pretty close? They are estimates - using no real sources such as NPD, Famitsu, Chart-Track or Media Create to determine numbers, but rather his own formula. Based on your edit history, it seems like your purpose on Wikipedia is to promote VGCharts. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Does he say that he doesn't use that? I've matched a lot of numbers and they are just about the same that Media Crate and Chart Track have. And I used to edit stuff without an account then I made one and forgot it, then I made this one not to long ago and haven't seen much to edit since. WhiteMinority 05:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And again, you didn't answer my question. Why do you keep putting those completely random Sega Master System, 32X, etc. numbers back up? I mean, you know, VG Charts isn't anywhere near accurate (which is a false accusation), but those now, those are very correct... get real. WhiteMinority 05:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What? Yeah, I'm sure you used Chart Track's numbers, and they were the same as ioi's. Oh, wait, Chart Track doesn't HAVE numbers. Now do you see what makes you a blatant vandal? You are adding VGCharts, and are trying to defend it with a lie that you know cannot be true.

And the fact that I reverted your good edits is irrelevant. Don't make the change in your bad edits and your good edits won't be reverted. I'm not gonna go out of my way to save your edits from being deleted because of your vandalism. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'M THE ONE VANDALIZING IT???? LMAO!!!! No, what you're doing is vandalizing. WhiteMinority 18:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so you're saying that numbers that aren't sales figures are appropriate for a list of games by sales numbers? Yes, that makes so much sense - what's next, it's vandalism to say that up isn't down? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it sure is a good thing the numbers on the list ARE sales figures then, huh? WhiteMinority 05:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

Please, stop reverting each other and discuss here whether Vgcharts are reliable enough, so that others can participate in the discussion. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 05:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WhiteMinority 03:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)== Revert. ==

Do not continue to add linkspam and cease your disruption. If you do not, you may be blocked from Wikipedia. Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you not read what I post in the talk page? It's okay, I'll be contacting Wikipedia editors tomorrow and they'll take care of your nonsense. WhiteMinority 06:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they won't block you - why block a user of your caliber as opposed to active members of the CVG community - many of whom oppose you? Yes, wonderful idea - admins, get to blocking the people who disagree with WhiteMinority. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You have absolutely no excuse to not know about the consensuses. You can't just pretend that they do not exist by not visiting the links. I told you that in two discussions at the very article AND WP:CVG, there had been nine people against VGCharts' usage. Tell me, why didn't you go and check? You are not helping your side by trying to pretend that I have no support. Now go check the places I told you to check! If you don't, you have no place to discuss this in the first place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask you again, where are these 7 people? Huh? They sure aren't voicing their opinion. WhiteMinority 21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'll answer for the third time. What don't you get by "the discussions where they voiced their opinions in are at this article and WP:CVG's discussion"? So are you telling me that it isn't good enough for me to tell you where they are? What more can be done? Oh, I know - instead of you actually bothering to listen to a single thing I tell you, I'll do your work for you.

[1] - ReyBrujo, myself, Oscarthecat, The Kinslayer all are against VGCharts' usage.

[2] - NedScott.

[3] - Jacoplane.

[4] - Toriner.

And while AMIB never voiced his opinion on Wikipedia, I recall him concuring with me on Freenode over the issue.

And while there are only seven confirmable oppositions to VGCharts, the fact of the matter is that Toriner has proven that shipments are not considered to be sold. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, only 2 of them have voiced an opinion since there was an argument created against theirs. Therefore 5 of them are VOIDED. WhiteMinority 22:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, haha, you counted yourself? You can't even count right. You only named 6 people, and 4 are Voided.WhiteMinority 22:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There are much more than two people are opposed against VGChart (ReyBrujo is, I am, Ned Scott is, Oscarthecat is, Kinslayer is, Toriner is). Jacoplane did not say "I am opposed to VGCharts", but what if he was for it, he wouldn't be looking for a source to use instead of it.

...And what? Are you claiming that I can't contribute to this discussion? Fine, so it's six against one.

And let's say it was reversed. Let's say seven people were for it, and two people were against it. One of those two people would have proven that shipments are not considred as being sold, as Toriner has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. So why do you not reply to what he said in his outside view? If you don't aren't you more or less admitting he is correct and that VGCharts is not appropriate no matter how many people think so? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed his reply, read the article and then commented on it within ten minutes. No why don't you respond to Dionyseus and myself? WhiteMinority 03:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you said that you had 7 people backing you, and I don't know how you can count yourself as one of those 7. And second 4 of those peoples opinions have no place at this moment. The comments they posted were posted well before there was every an opposing argument and since there has been they haven't said a word and therefore are voided. WhiteMinority 03:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was mistaken in saying there were seven people backing me, there were only six people backing me. My apologies. And I must inform you that there is no policy indicating that the opinions of a user expire after a certain period of time. The fact that they opposed VGCharts one month ago means that they likely oppose it still. You cannot invalidate it just by creating a discussion on a small article. Three of these discussions took place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games, not Talk:List of best-selling computer and video games. These users do not necessarily visit this talk page, so it is not valid to disregard their opinions because they are not participating in a discussion of which you did not make them aware of. If you value a perfect consensus in one way or the other, you are suggested to make them aware by either messaging them or leaving a message on the discussion page of WP:CVG. If not, I will ensure that they are aware. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but opinions often change when you hear an opposing viewpoint. And are you gonna respond to those? WhiteMinority 04:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring the current discussion to their attention. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm refering to the most recent questions asked to you in the talk page. Are you not responding for the same reason you claimed I didn't respond the outside view comment? (Which I did once I noticed it and you've been on many times since they have been asked.) Oh, and I'm just talking about the most recent questions, not all the ones you've been trying to dodge. WhiteMinority 14:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So now you are also gonna ignore that ALONG with the questions asked on the talk page? Oh, ok. Silence is just another way to prove you are wrong. WhiteMinority 16:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll answer these:

Is the owner of VGCharts a professional in the weakest definition of the word? No.

Is VGCharts verifiable? No.

Can it be shown that a significant amount of each shipment of every game has been sold? No.

Is VGCharts even up-to-date? According to the fact that Brain Age 2's sales haven't changed in two months, no.

Is there any policy or guidelines supporting the idea that we should use an inadequate source out of convenience? No.

So explain to me why VGCharts is a good source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's statistically correct, that's all there is to it. BTW, do you have "more reliable and accurtate" information on your hands? Now go answer the questions in the talk page that you keep trying to ignore. WhiteMinority 00:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And you can prove it's statistically correct? You haven't proven that his theories of sales are correct.

And need I remind you of this policy that you MUST follow Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. No matter how true what he says MAY be, YOU must verify that it is true. Do you have anything to verify the truthfulness or accuracy of VGCharts?

And it is not my job to find a new source. It's yours. Nowhere does it state that without better information, we should use unverifiable information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, how about the FACT his numbers are basically the same as numbers you find elsewhere. Maybe instead of asking me that, you should verify how they are wrong. WhiteMinority 04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess when policy gets in the way, you can always lie.

Since when did a 200k difference between Media Create and VGCharts entail "basically the same"? It is physically impossible for them to be "basically the same as numbers you find elsewhere", by the simple fact that VGCharts' formula is completely different from the formulas of all major tracking places - namely, he uses shipments to stores, and they use the sales figures from stores plus estimations of what the untracked stores sold. The idea that they could be basically the same is a matter of coincidence, not accuracy.

And, I believe I should pwn you hard (pardon the noob speak). According to Media Create, New Super Mario Bros. has sold 3.36 million. According to VGCharts' estimation, it's sold 3.26 million. Because of his formula, it would be higher than 3.36 million, because his numbers are closest to the shipments.

If that's not good enough for you, want my trump card? He doesn't acknowledge that Pokémon Diamond/Pearl has sold a single copy. [5] - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon sales are in the main page. Brain Age 2 is barelly 100K off and yes, that is basically the same when you're taking about numbers in the millons. WhiteMinority 04:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's 100k off because it didn't change. If shipments and copies sold are so like-minded, then logically, 200k WOULD be a big difference. It would indicate that 200,000 copies of Brain Age 2 were sitting on the shelves, unsold. The theory, therefore, is broken. If 200,000 copies can be sitting on shelves for one game, why not 1 million? 2 million? Additionally, when ioi was asked for evidence of shipments reflecting how many copies a game has sold, he presented the DS Lite's shipments and sales, which were astoundingly close. He didn't respond to anyone that pointed out that the DS Lite is one of the most notoriously sold out consoles ever, and the only Nintendo console to have ever sold out in Japan. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Because that many copies of a game don't just sit on a shelf. WhiteMinority 21:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wii

The name of the system is "Wii", not "Nintendo Wii". This has already been discussed in detail on the talkpage. TJ Spyke 23:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the full name of what's in the picture is the Nintendo Wii. Just like it is the Sony Playstation, Magnavox Odyssey, Microsoft Xbox, Sega Genesis, etc. WhiteMinority 23:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the full name is "Wii". Just Wii, not Nintendo Wii. Just like it's just "Game Boy Advance" and not "Nintendo Game Boy Advance". TJ Spyke 00:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

But it is the Nintendo Game Boy Advance... WhiteMinority 02:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libel

WP:Libel is against policy. If you continue to add it to Wikipedia, you may be blocked. Thank you.

Additionally, if you can quote my statement from beginning to the period at the end of the sentence where I supposedly said I do not have access to it and it turns out the quote is exactly the same as what you said, I will remove the warning and apologize. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

These were you're to statements that I gathered those quotes from. I didn't skip any words nor add any: "Apologies - I should have taken a note from you and done damage to the article, I suppose. And, see, one who does damage to an article cannot say "hey, you who fought against my damaging the article, go away!" The fact that you defended VGCharts blindly ruins your right to suggest that someone who simply leave for the act of "removing bad sources but not giving the good ones". Are the chart tracking services better than VGCharts? Yes. That eliminates VGCharts' superiority to quality sources. Are the chart tracking services accessible? Yes. That eliminates any need to use VGCharts. Will I source this article with them? No. My having removed VGCharts is more tan you've done for this article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)" That is your entire post and I took this quote from it, "Are the chart tracking services accessible? Yes. That eliminates any need to use VGCharts." Then this is your other post where I got the second quote: "Fact: I was the one who removed a link which was little more than linkspam from this article. Therefore, the idea that I did any damage to this article is false. And from you, laughable. Fact: You inserted VGCharts and prevented its removal. This prevents real sources from being gathered. Fact: Yes, I do not have access to them at this very second. I would have to work on getting the web sites. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)" That is your other entire post and I got this from it, word for word, "Fact: Yes, I do not have access to them" WhiteMinority 05:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So you mean to say that if I do not have access to something this second, I cannot have access to it ever. I don't have access to my DS, so tell me: Do I no longer have the ability to access it? If you say yes, then you're insane, and if you say no, you admit that you have libelled me. Tell me - why did you decide to only include that part of the sentence? I would thoroughly enjoy seeing you explain why you gave an incomplete statement. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You're comparison is crap. Getting access to the numbers is nowhere near as simple as gaining access to a DS. And if you can get them in any second then why haven't you yet? You've been claiming you have access to them for over a month. WhiteMinority 05:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So not getting access to them is the same thing as not being able to access them. Media Create numbers are posted every week at GoNintendo. I do not have access to GoNintendo at this very second. To imply that not having access to them and not having access to them at one instant in time are the same is absurd. And I see you have failed to explain why you removed a part of my statement that makes a very different statement. If you fail to remove your libelous statement, I will not hesitate to report you for personal attacks, civility, and libel. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please go into detail on why my statement should be removed and this "personal attack" I apparently made. Also, those numbers are released, but they are just for that week/month. That has nothing to do with the article. WhiteMinority 05:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And I guess the fact that policy says your statement should be removed isn't good enough, huh? And my DS comparison is no different from this situation. The relevance of a statement is irrelevant. If not having access to something at this second is the same as not being able to have access to it in the case of sales figures, it's true for my DS as well.

And I like how you act as if calling me a liar using knowingly false evidence of me lying is not a personal attack. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You're the one that called me the liar, I just asked if you were lying. And, then why do you STILL have yet to get access to them? WhiteMinority 05:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"So you're saying you're lying" is not "are you lying?". It is to imply that someone is lying. To show that I was lying, you use a modified statement to claim that I had an opinion that isn't shown by anything I actually did say. I once again ask, explain why you did not include "at this second".

And I am not working to access it because I do not feel like it. Can you show me a policy that says that I not only have to give you the name of the source (which I did), but also look for it? My not working to find the sources can never possibly be used to show I am unable to do so. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You're just saying that, if you had access to them, you would have showed me it by now and the fact you haven't shows that you don't have access to them.

I said "So you lied?" because what you said before seemed like a lie compared to what you had most recently said because they contradicted each other. I was giving you a chance to defend yourself before calling you a liar by asking you. You, on the other hand, directly called me a liar. And having "at this second" in there or not, makes no difference, but I changed it anyways because you were upset with it for some reason, did I not?WhiteMinority 06:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"So you lied? And since they aren't accessible then that means we do have a need to use VGCharts?" Maybe if you said I do not have access to them, you'd be able to defend yourself. You said that they are inaccessible because of a statement of mine. The way you presented the statement could show the statement to be true, but saying that I do not have access to the info at this second does not equal "no one can access the info". So of course, your reasoning for the removal of part of my statement was because the complete statement could not be shown to cooberate your claim, but modified, it can. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would you just leave out a part of my statement like that? WhiteMinority 06:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining how I am taking an exact, unmodified statement and "twisting it"? Your entire post is not one statement. Using "it's spectacular" from "it's spectacularly bad" is leaving out part of a statement. Not copying and pasting your entire message is not leaving out your statement. This is an entire statement. Would it have shown that you did not mean to say it was unaccessible if I included your entire message?

And I really hope you are actually going to respond to the statement instead of dodging it. Did you say that it is unaccessible, and then modify my statement so that it would appear as if I cooberated that idea? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What did I modify? WhiteMinority 06:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My statement. It is only my statement when the entire statement is present, and you referred to it as my statement. You may even have an argument that they technically mean the same thing if you didn't claim that it was unaccessible. The version of my statement you had could back you up, but with the "at this second", there is no possible way to do so. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

BUT IT CLEARLY IS UNACCESSIBLE TO YOU. GET REAL. WhiteMinority 06:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly? So clear that you have failed to prove it and don't appear interested in as such, choosing only to say "well, it's obvious, you must be lying". If you accuse me of lying without proof one more time, you will be blocked. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you've called me a liar numerous times and not backed it up with anything. And look below. WhiteMinority 07:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libel (2)

"But it clearly is unaccessible to you or you would have it by now." Unless you have proof to show the statement to be true, it is libel. Two libels in one day is the exact opposite of "working to avoid getting blocked". - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you had access to them you would have proven it by now. WhiteMinority 06:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And wait, wait, wait. Me implying you lied is a libel? So how many of these libels have you done? A lot. WhiteMinority 06:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Libel is libel with the purpose of making a false statement against someone. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so must have a lot of these against you, right? I mean if I were to go back through the article I'd find quite a lot. Cool, then go ahead, report it, they'll just read through the whole discussion and see the times you've done that to me. WhiteMinority 07:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And, what I've done is not libel. You've undeniably claimed the information is unaccessible, using a knowingly incomplete statement to back it up. You then later accused me of lying, that I was not actually NOT sourcing it because of lack of time, but lack of sources. Of course, you are physically unable to even show that is the case at all, and thusly - a lie.

Nope. I never modified your statements or intentionally made any lies against you with the knowledge that it is not true. You, however, have nothing to show what you say about me is true. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you know you're lying. You're saying that you don't have time to get the numbers. You've said you've had access to them for months and you can't show me them, ever. And again, there is a lack of time but you've spent hours arguing with me on here? If you had access to them you should be able to get them for me in the matter of a minute. WhiteMinority 07:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, funny, my reality tells me that I am not doing so because I lack time. I said the numbers are accessible. At no point did I say "I have them on hand". They are accessible in the sense that if I wanted to, I could look them up on a site such as GoNintendo and source the article. Try again (but without the absurd conjecture). - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So why don't you, it would end this whole argument. Go ahead, give me the link to GoNintendo that tells me how many total copies Metroid Prime sold worldwide. WhiteMinority 07:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh? Did I not just explain that I was not interested in sourcing this article? WP:AGF. By assuming I am lying and do not have access to the various sites, you are violating a strong policy that all must follow. And before you claim that I have to assume that you weren't modifying what I said, AGF does not enforce blindly assuming good faith. You cannot show that my not sourcing the article means that I am unable to do so. So if you continue to do this, you'll be reported. Choose to revert your claims, and I will choose to let it slide.

And I said "such as GoNintendo". GoNintendo does not have every number. VGCharts does not, either. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not want you to feel like you have to source the whole article. I didn't even want to add Metroid Prime to the article. I just wanted you to tell me what it was, which you fail to do. Just makes me wonder whether or not you could just be lying about having the numbers... which is a perfectly acceptable reason to think such a thing (You know, you failing to give me, personally, one number for one game). And VGCharts has more than any other site you'll find. WhiteMinority 07:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so when you declared that I was lying as fact, you were just "wondering" if I was lying? You have given me the ultimatum to look up a number or I will be a liar because I didn't do so. You assume that I am not looking it up because I lack access. I choose not to do so. I am not obligated by any policy, guideline, or law to do so. So I am not to be accused of anything because of my refusal to do so. It is not illegal to plead the fifth - and if you plead the fifth, that means that they have done something that may get them in legal trouble. By that fact, the attorneys and police know the person is hiding something that they can legally hide (whether what they are hiding is illegal or not). However, they cannot accuse someone of anything because of that. And in this situation, you cannot show that my refusal to source this article is based on my lack of access to the article because you lack any evidence of it. And by that fact, you would be assuming I was lying, ie, assuming bad faith. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but myself, and anyone reading any of this, knows the truth. And what you have said is not. You wouldn't be going through all this trouble if you were telling the truth, I and everyone knows it. You can go on with all of this stuff, but I won't listen becasue I know the real story (which is not what you're saying) and that's all that matters to me.WhiteMinority 07:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that you have refused to follow a policy that must be followed, a block on you would be preventive, not punitive. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So where is your proof that I'm lying? WhiteMinority 15:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you modified a statement of mine, for one, to make it seem as if I am lying. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that I'm lying about you lying. Where is your proof? WhiteMinority 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You modified a statement of mine - a statement which only backs your accusation up when modified. Are you implying that not having access to it at this second proves it to be inaccessible? You lack evidence that I was lying. I have proof that you modified my statement. I have reason to not assume good faith, and you have nothing to show that I am lying. I have never said that the content is inaccessible, and you have tried to claim that your theory that my not looking up a source proves me to be lying. But your theory is structually unsound, because you lack the ability to prove that I am not working on reviews. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can prove that you can gain access to the numbers (which you can't) you have no prove that I'm lying about you lying. You can't even prove that you aren't lying. WhiteMinority 19:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not obligated to. The burden of proof is upon you. You are saying that if I do not choose to look up numbers, that I am lying about having access to them. You have absolutely no evidence to show that what I am doing is lying. I am not obligated to show that I am not lying. I may have to if you provided evidence that I am, but you lack the ability to do so. You have tried to present conjecture as proof, but you cannot prove your conjecture either.

Understand this. Assume good faith is not a guideline, it is a policy that must be followed. I hardly have a need to assume good faith in this case, as I know for a fact that you are lying when you say something in which my word is inifinitely more reliable than yours. In a case where someone is looking over who is lying, I doubt that they'll be concerned with me. They will look at your conjecture, at your highly limited contributions, and agree that you are lying when you claim I am lying. You lack any evidence that I am lying. And evidence is everything on Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then I'm not obligated to either. If you can't prove that I'm lying, then why should I have to prove it about you? You, I and everyone know you're lying, it's so obvious, it's as much proof as I need.WhiteMinority 19:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You cannot declare something that has never been proof in a court of law or on Wikipedia proof. "Knowing" (without any evidence that you know anything about me) that I am lying is worthless if you don't have anything to show how or why you know. I know you are lying about me lying because I know whether or not I am lying. I declare I am not lying. Without any proof (and no, your opinion on the matter is not even evidence), my word is the best thing here. Until further evidence is gathered, I am not lying. By extension, the fact that I am not lying also shows that you lied when you made the claim that I lied. Voila. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, dude, it's okay, I declare I'm not lying. Just because you declare you aren't lying doesn't mean you really aren't lying. I could say I ran a mile in less than 1 minute and tell you "I did it, I'm not lying" That wouldn't make it true. You have no proof that I'm lying...because there is none. My proof that you are lying is that you would have showed me at least one game by now to end this, but you haven't and have continued to argue. If you were telling the truth you would have done it and ended this. Now I'm not going to reply to you anymore. Liars like yourself frustrate me. WhiteMinority 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha. I expected you to do this. You cannot declare it. The fact that I declare I am not lying makes your statement a lie. If you had evidence that I was lying, you would have shown it by now. Courts rely on evidence. If you made this claim in court, you'd be laughed out of it in seconds. I suppose you simply aren't mature enough to comprehend that I can deny I am lying, you are unable to. You can attempt it, but it is undeniable fact that you are by the simple fact that I deny I am lying. And if you declare yourself to not be lying, that would conflict with what I say. You are making a claim that I am lying. You have a burden of proof. You have shown to be unable to prove it. I have met my burden of proof by the fact that I denied a baseless accusation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You have no proof to show that you aren't lying...

..*sigh* now I'm going to have to report you. WhiteMinority 20:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not required to prove it. Again, Nazi sympathizer example - the burden of proof lies in the person calling somebody a Nazi sympathizer, not the accused. If you could prove that I am lying, you would have. With your lack of proof and my denying it, you have nothing but you saying I must be lying. Read up on burden of proof some more. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you cannot report me for doing something that is not violating any policy, guideline, or law. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of best-selling computer and video games

Please don't add values. If a game sold 1m in US and 2m in Japan, write that it sold "1m<reference for US>, 2m.<reference for Japan> approximately 3m", because we don't have reference for the 3m, but we have reference for the individual amounts. We must not mislead the users, thanks. -- ReyBrujo 01:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why I put both sources next to each other. They are both from magic-box. I think it makes perfect sense to combine them because if we just write 1m in US and 2m in Japan then it's the same as writing 3m in US and Japan. WhiteMinority 01:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, nevermind. I see what you're doing. WhiteMinority 01:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names

Think like a casual user, not as a game fan (a mistake many new users do). A new user does not know the game is out in Japan only, thus it is necessary to clarify in the page, otherwise we would as well remove all the references to US/Japan only as well. As for the English Training, again you are thinking like a gamer instead of a casual user. We don't write Dragon Quest VII, we write Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King. We don't say Halo, we say Halo: Combat Evolved. We don't say Brain Age, we say Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day. We use full official names when possible, and English Training is just a rough translation lazy journalist use. We could use English Training: Have Fun Improving Your Skills which is the official European name, though, just like we used the official English name for Brain Age instead of the Japanese one. -- ReyBrujo 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The numbers supplied for Brain Age 2 are its total copies sold ever and everywhere, so why need the Japan Only? And I'm gonna change English Training to the Europe title, since this article is written in English, not Japanese. WhiteMinority 15:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

In the best-selling games article, I constantly edit warred, insulted, was rude, and was sarcastic towards you and others, and should have conducted myself much better, so I apologize. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)