User talk:Jappalang/Video games

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jappalang. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I added them because [[WP:AWW|weasel words}} that don't indicate that anyone in particular said something detract the extent to which the tone sounds reliable. I reviewed the {{who}}'s and the first one was probably not necessary because it indicated a very specific group of people and the article references just who those people were later. It was probably acceptable in keeping with summary style to not specify there. The second {{who}} was tagged on a sentence with passive voice and does not indicate who declared that to be the case. Feel free to remove it if you disagree, but "it has been compared" is dodging the fact that such a comparison is opinion and I would submit that it's as weasely as sentence structures get. i kan reed 02:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the subspace node map explains how things developed in the game. I would encourage you to discuss this before removing it again. -- Cat ^chi? 16:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, the average reader has no need to know how the node map of the game is structured and which link among that map was severed since it is going way beyond detail. That is going into the territory of gamecruft/gameguide. The player is only limited to a few systems in the game and has no freedom on travelling to the other systems as well, hence increasing the irrelevance of the map. Secondly, the map is fan-created, and is inappropriate in Wikipedia's policy of not allowing original research. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider it a COI only in its most conservative and vague sense. As a general rule, I don't like to be in contact or know the reviewer of the articles I consider passing. It feels slightly too personal, and I suppose can be considered personal preference more than COI.--CM (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you put an enormous effort in improving this article, and I really appreciate it. Actually, I was thinking about this game recently. I never played it, but I've seen it in the TV over DECADE ago, and I was really fond of what I saw. This game is however really difficult to obtain. If you don't mind, and if you use any of IM, like AIM or MSN, could you leave me your screen name? I'd like to talk with you about Space Hulk. Peace.

Broken soul (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I posted a question regarding lists to Village Pump. Unfortunately, I didn't receive a response. I'll check my local library for manuals of style (I'm kind of curious, actually) and get back to you. SharkD (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to say thatI haven't forgotten your request for the Tomonobu Itagaki interview from Edge. I will do it for you but I'm a little tight for time at the moment, but I will get around to it for you in the next week or two. Was their anything specific you were after in the review? - X201 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's bad news I'm afraid. I've read the whole interview and there is no mention of any personal information about him. Both the interviewer and Itagaki kept the interview on strictly business terms. It almost seemed like the interviewer had been told to only ask questions about DOAX and Ninja Gaiden because those were the only questions that would be answered by Itagaki. As for his work ethics there was very little information and nothing that isn't already in the article as it stands. The interview would be better described as an interview about DOAX & NG rather than an interview with Itagaki.

If you ever need any information about the development of the games then I'll send you some quotes from him but as far as finding out something about Itagaki himself the interview won't be of any use to you. Sorry. - X201 (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've scanned it and put it on Flickr If you could download them to your machine (click the "all sizes" icon at the top left of each image and it will let you download the large version of them) and let me know when you've done it so that I can remove them in case Flickr is funny with me over them being magazine scans. - X201 (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jappalang. Thanks for the comments. I think you said this, but I'm just making sure. Should I label the authorship of the IGN guide as "IGN staff", or name all three? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've fixed most of them, with the IGN news articles been labeled as "IGN staff". For things like Gamespot and Gamespy, shall I assume this, and put "Gamespot staff"? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been a while. I no longer edit as frequently as I used to. I think I've found something better and have made the necessary amendment. Feel free to revert if you think it's not as notable. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 09:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, thank you. You're the one who came into Wikipedia, sweeping the dust off these great games and bringing them from (I believe) Start- or B-class to GA-class. What you've done for the articles of these games well overshadows most of my contributions. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 09:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure. After all, the entire series is just called "Metroid", isn't it not? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; you read my mind. I was thinking that was a missing piece to the puzzle. But images aren't my strong suit, and wasn't sure what to write. Thank you again and please feel free to add on to or copy edit the rest of guide. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

I understand to an extent the reason for undoing my edit. Sorry about that. GPJCollins (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang. I'd be happy to give you a hand with the article, although I'm tied up with another copyedit at the moment. If you don't mind waiting a week or so, I can help out then. I'd also recommend checking out this page here, which is a new wikiproject some of us have set up specifically dedicated to helping editors get articles ready for FA. You can post your article to the "Proposed missions" section, the talk page, or (possibly more likely to get results at the moment) contact editors directly on their talk pages. Hope this helps! EyeSerene^talk 09:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I haven't forgotten - the copyedit I'm currently doing seems to have stalled, so I'll head in your direction next (probably tomorrow). Sorry for the delay ;) EyeSerene^talk 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I've done about all I can. I'd recommend a proofread from a fresh pair of eyes, and I think there may be a small issue with repetition of information re Sigma and Black that may get flagged at FAC, but hopefully we're in fairly good shape ;) In any case, if you want to let me know when you've nominated, I'll watchlist the FAC so I can try to help out dealing with reviewer comments if that would be useful. All the best, and it's been a pleasure working with you. EyeSerene^talk 16:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, and much appreciated! :D EyeSerene^talk 11:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, unfortunately I have a couple of requests to copyedit articles that are already at FAC, so it'll probably take me a few days. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to do it in a week; I've got to see how I mesh in the editing with "real life," though. · AndonicO ^Engage. 22:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

hug! omg, thankyou for doing the archive link for the deleted newsarama article. I though I was going to loose all that information. Thanks again. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your message about Cliche Online's possible block evasion: Looks likely. I unfortunately don't have the time at the moment to research this - could you file a report over at WP:SSP about it? Thanks for letting me know about it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking over again at that article and I must say wow! You've really expanded it beyond what I was expecting. Good work (BTW I'm the user who created the article). Stabby Joe (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that this week. · AndonicO ^Engage. 10:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Better? · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably do another couple of sections today, and a few tomorrow. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure where you get the grammar rule that you mention in this edit summary, but it's simply not true. Your edit is grammatical; but so was the original (though it was awkward in delaying the verb). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I ended up reverting a few of the edits (gameplay currently the big one, I need a bit to look at the changes in full). A few bits of development ended up with a different tone as a result of the change, so I tried making a blend of the two. Didn't want you to think I was just tossing aside your work though, just need to go through it all slowly. Also, thank you for the book citation, it helped boost Reception quite a bit. ^.^--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Xander756 has apologized and retracted the statement of me being a vandal. Jappalang (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement of apology

Please do not attempt to blank a page and then cite one source as being unreliable for your reason why. This could be construed as vandalism and will be reverted. If you think this source is unreliable, please find only the information that it references and remove that, not the entire article. Thank you. --Xander756 (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to lie, at least give proper evidence. Show where exactly did I blank a page? This is blanking it?[1] Defending material that had no reliable sources is going against Wikipedia policies of verifiable information from reliable sources. Discussion over the issue had already taken place over the Wikiproject's talk page and the offender's talk page in question. Jappalang (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that would be considered blanking it. According to WP:Blanking Blanking refers to the deletion of large parts of text from an article. The action may involve the entire article, large sections of text, or apparently random selections. You deleted quite a large section of text from that article. --Xander756 (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking is an essay, not guideline nor policy. You are using a term not commonly used and creating more confusion than it is worth. Claiming it was I who deleted the text when I simply restored it to one by A Man In Black is simply incorrect.[2] Please get your facts straight. Jappalang (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You are being warned now, on your talk page. The information in the "Code Majic" section is sourced properly. You are harming the page and suppressing information in a manner that violates Wikipedia Rules. This place is no about who you think you are, or how long you have been here. It is about correct and reliable information. The information on Code Majic is correct, reliable and has ZERO information that says otherwise. Under WP:V and WP:RS Sources on information not that heavily covered can be any 3rd party source, as long as that information is not countered by another source of the same or higher quality.

I am therefore warning you that any further edits on your part, to this section, my result in action taken against you. Please leave the section alone. If you have information that counters the source, then please post it on the talk page and it will be dealt with. Cached Entity (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You both have continued edit warring, and have both made several reverts recently, so I am warning you both to stop.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on SOCOM II: U.S. Navy SEALs. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Rjd0060 (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got a unique issue with the Soulcalibur Ivy article I'm working on. There's still a great deal more sources I have yet to add to the article's reception section and tidy up a little, but there's enough discussion going on from citable sources to put a discussion about Ivy as a "sex object" and it's effect towards the games and reaction by others to the subject itself. There doesn't seem to be a precedent for this though (Lara Croft came to mind but the article is in worse shape than Ivy's). As it stands for now split off what I had discussing about it into a subsection of Cultural Impact called "Reaction to sexual objectification"...but this feels like a mouthful in itself.

Do you have any suggestions on what to call it?

One more thing: I'm sorry if I came across rude asking about uploading a video to the web archive neighbor site you linked to be able to cite it, it was actually a genuine question on my part as I'll need to do so when I finish fleshing out Charade's article. But anyway like I said, no offense was intended and the deepest respect meant in all of that.

Anyhow, thanks for your time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fulfilled your request for Master of Magic sources from Next Gen. Apologizes for the delay —Mitaphane _{Contribs | Talk}

I've replied to your assessment, I'd appreciate it if you could give it a look over and respond. -- Sabre (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)