User talk:John.n-irl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Xbox portable

you're probably right about the xbox portable page. ChaoticGhost 23:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ummmm can I borrow

Gee, mind of I borrow your Beauty and The Beast Picture for the Metal Gear Wiki?--Landabardy (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GTA

Stop being silly. GTA4 was developed for the xbox360 first, and DELAYED to be ported to the PS3, 99% of all screenshots and gameplay shown are from the 360. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovack (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC) There is nothing to debate. gta4 was almost going to be a 360 exclussive, and would have been released in october if not for ps3 and further developments. and what about Microsoft Xbox 360 and Sony Playstation 3... who ended up making you the authority of wikipedia anyways? i think you are wrong and so do many others, but i dont have the time you do to troll a video game article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovack (talk • contribs) 06:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you listen to nothing others say? It began as an exclusive as was announced at a gaming convention. Most people DO believe the 360 should go first because it was created on it first, and all videos of the game are on the 360. But you are a blatant sony fanboy and there is no denying that. Troll on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovack (talk • contribs) 08:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, i'd just like to see parity and use of wiki standards. The gaming convention your referring to was E3 2006, where Microsoft announced that GTA4 would launch on the 360 from day 1. No mention of exclusivity. GTA4 was never an exclusive to either console. If you can provide a link that staits otherwise I would love to read it, out of my own interest. And I dislike the name "fanboy", my interest are more concerned with the PlayStation, since thats the console I own.

However I would rather see an accurate wikipedia than satisfy my own interests. John.n-irl (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

i dont know what you edited but im sure it's for the better... and even still, it's just a video game so it's not life threatening hehe. cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovack (talk • contribs) 07:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Young Snake = Old Snake

I just rewatched the trailer, I don't really see any white hair sticking out the back.Strongsauce (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Gear Solid 4 Guns Of The Patriots

Why did you take my topic of there is going to be a demo they said so in the Podcast. A Candela (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cover Eur MGS4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover Eur MGS4.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks

Sure, no problem. It looked like GA material, it just needed some polishing, which you guys did. Good job on getting it to GA. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Re: spelling

oh? I didn't know that *blush* my bad. I thought that was the case.. >_> Thanks for the tip. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

Hello, the reason why your report has been removed from AIV is because the IP has not engaged enough recent vandalism (as in the last 48 hours) to justify a block. Re-report if they vandalize within the next few hours.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cover Eur MGS4.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover Eur MGS4.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cover US MGS4.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover US MGS4.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Your revert

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resistance_2&diff=prev&oldid=206810671

I'm guessing you reverted my edit by mistake so could you please edit it back? (I don't want to start a revert war)--Bloigen 14:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John.n-irl's view on Wageslave's edits(on sony/Microsoft articles)

Having looked at your edits over the past few days(and some from before), I cant help but notice that what you are doing on Wikipedia may be having a negative effect on some articles. At this point, several editors have commented on your edits and yet you continue to attempt to put as much negative content on any PS3 related article and remove all negative content from any Microsoft related article. Every time you are confronted over this you reply with WP:AGF, however I have mentioned before, this has its limits. I would like to discuss this with you here rather than constantly meet you in random discussion pages and bicker over many minor changes. John .n-IRL 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I wholly reject your characterization of my edits as "negative". Its quite clear that some articles are being maintained with POV problems. Some have Neg-POV and others have Positive-POV.

You've been essentially stalking me, and the arguments against my proposed edits have amounted to nothing more than ad hominum attacks, violations of WP:AGF and WP:PA.

I would argue that you're interest is to prevent any balance of opinion. The items I am proposing be included in the articles are not my own opinion, or OR but well verifiable, relevant. apropos and totally within the scope of the articles I am attempting to improve.

Instead of making baseless attacks on my purpose, please address try and work with other editors in good-faith.

Wageslave (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you have claimed I am stalking you, I will explain my actions. I have seen many editors question your intentions here, and so rather than look back and see edits which I could easily take out of context, I decided to look at ones you make over a short period of time. John .n-IRL 18:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of violating WP:AGF, why dont you address the material content of the edits instead. Thanks. Wageslave (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you refuse to discuss this I will leave it, apologies if this annoyed you or you felt this was a personal attack. All I ask is that you become more neutral in your edits. John .n-IRL 18:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary, I'm not offended - I'd just like to try and stay on-topic. I'm quite happy to discuss my edits, but reducing the discussion to an assumption of bad faith is a method of diverting away from the topic at hand. I really dont want to engage in a discussion of character, as I think it really doesnt serve the purpose of improving the content of Wikipedia articles, which is my sole goal. As I said, I'm happy to discuss the merit of the edits I propose. I'd also like to ask you to be more neutral in your edits. Thanks. Wageslave (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wageslave (talk · contribs)

Greetings. As you no doubt have noticed, a user by the name of Wageslave has recently been maliciously editing PlayStation, Nintendo, and Apple related articles on Wikipedia. I have almost had enough of this behaviour, and if it continues I will not hesitate to initiate an RFC about him. Here, I have compiled a short report on his POV edits since he joined. This report will be used as a basis for a future RFC, should he continue his behaviour - though I hope the very existence of this draft convinces him to stop. If you have anything to add to the draft, do not hesitate to add it. Thank you.

Regards, Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wageslave

Hello. I agree with you that I should first ask a few well known editors from the Video Game project to read over it first. Do you have any suggestions who? Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wageslave RFC

Hello. I have finally gotten around to starting the RFC on Wageslave's conduct. Your name is listed as one of the people who tried to resolve the dispute with him, so you need to sign this section within 48 hours (named Users certifying the basis for this dispute) for the RFC to proceed in earnest. Thanks. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R.E

See the thing is, I feel that what I originally wrote was being lost because of the way he responded after every sentence; so basically I did the same thing. Because of the way the responses are now written, I feel it's now impossible to change the format of the response/rebuttals without something being "lost in translation".

I see two ways of going forward from here:-

Myself, Wageslave, and all others involved could just ignore what's written on his user page. Then he could write up a new response that includes all his arguments and post it in the "response" section of the actual RFC (rather than his userpage - which was odd in the first place), then I could rewrite my rebuttals (and others could add new ones) underneath his response.
Or his response and the rebuttals could stay the way they are, but we bold his responses, and put a "key" at the top noting that the bold parts are his response, while the italics are rebuttals.

Personally, I prefer number 1. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer number one, however I cant see him agreeing. I get the feeling this RFC is going to get lost in the mess made by his method of response, both on his page and all broken up. John .n-IRL 05:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm in the process of typing up a resolution to this RFC, so hopefully he'll agree to it and the RFC can be closed. Basically my proposal is that Wageslave is not to edit Sony/Apple/Microsoft articles for a period of three months, while you, me and the complaining editors are to refrain from editing xbox/Microsoft articles for three months. And after that, edits on those articles must be discussed on the talk page before hand, and a consensus has to be gained before a change is made. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

While I can see where your coming from, I cant see it being popular, since the RFC concerns Wagslave, not us. John .n-IRL 05:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose. Anyway, it's up there now so we'll see what people think of it. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AWB

Approved. Enjoy! --Rodhull andemu 00:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page Guidelines

Regarding your comment on JAF1970's talk page — actually you are half-right: The comment was placed wrong, however it should not be unindented, as that can also disrupt conversations by preventing others from continuing the thread. The proper placement would have been:

Posted the DRM news. I know it's tempting, but don't post negative reaction til articles criticizing the DRM are published (which shouldn't be too long). JAF1970 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell people what to do. If people find a negative reaction from a reliable source whenever, they are free to post it. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

~~Erm, isn't that what I just said? JAF1970 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)~~

Would it be possible to include the fact that SecirRom has been heavily criticized in its other uses(BioShock, Mass Effect)? John .n-IRL 06:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly acceptable, as long as it's sourced. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, isn't that what I just said? JAF1970 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So far, the critical articles are directed at Mass Effect PC from having it, not Spore. ie, Spong JAF1970 (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

--Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The guideline is here. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ogame nomination for deletion

thanks for letting me know. with the cheat and occasional porn link that pops up it probably would be a good idea.Anubis1055 (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I've asked a question on WP:AN/I anyway, so hopefully someone with experience with RFC's will answer. But yeah, when/if he does come back, it's likely he will change his behaviour, or otherwise face another RFC. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:JAF1970

[edit] Exceptions to every rule

When an interview is done with someone in charge with a product, it doesn't matter if it's a major site, a blog, a leaflet on someone's car - it's official. Unless you consider Joystiq also against Wiki policy, too. JAF1970 (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Inside Mac is the first to pick up the story officially. JAF1970 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Solution - included the verification within the citation. Go see. JAF1970 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)