User talk:RagingR2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, RagingR2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 22:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Cultural impact of video games

My apologies if my edit offended you. I had originally justified that the article is intended to reflect the computer gaming. While I had only realized that the similar console game article had included a Criticism section reflecting video game controversies in general (and thus justifying your edits), my original thought was that it wasn't entirely explaining the problems of PC gaming alone, explaining general topics instead.

I have to admit that I have a somewhat aggressive stance in editing, but I do provide an explanation or justification when performing significant edits. I can also understand your sentiment upon realizing your edits were removed; I had similar experiences in Wikipedia previously. I typically assume that editors (me included) can take edits like some of mine with a pinch and salt and move on, or defend their edits constructively. In this case, you could revert my edits using the history page and provide a responding explanation on why the previous edits should stay (in either the edit summary or talk page) if you have any objections.

Thanks for understanding, and I'll be sure to better myself with this experience. Happy editing! :) ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 13:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC) ╫

Response to reply in ZS's talk page
It seems like a rather reasonable proposition. Go ahead and do so. Thanks again for the prompt response. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 13:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC) ╫

[edit] Stormtrooper Effect and WP:NOR

It read like Original Research. (Note: Currently, there's an edit war over the policy page. Here's a link to a version from yesterday that shouldn't have those problems, I hope.) I apologize if I seemed slightly trigger happy. Original research includes new theories, speculation, conclusions, etc. If you were to include an outside reputable source which stated that the Matrix contained the Stormtrooper Effect, it would be fine.

Though there is still no particular need to include every single example of the Stormtrooper Effect ever filmed, as it detracts from the quality of the article by making it excessively huge. Finally, several articles on similar "effects" or "phenomena" in TV and film have recently been deleted as screencruft, non-notable, or original research, so the reduction of "cruftish" elements in the remaining articles is probably a wise precaution. --tjstrf 18:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, using things that people agree on would be perfectly all right. Kill Bill definitely displayed what you were talking about, nearly to a comedic point.
On a total sidepoint, in real life and depending on the situation, soldiers "waiting their turn" to attack might not be incompetancy, but rather caution to avoid hitting their comrades or self-preservation (let the enemy get tired by fighting other people first, then I'll attack). The only Stormtrooper-esque thing about it is that the main character survives. If he were to be beaten at the end of the scene, it should instead be considered cannon fodder actually displaying intelligence. --tjstrf 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

RagingR2 09:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knife408 (talk • contribs)