User talk:Dr.Awesomeness

Resistance as a Killer game

Hi. Can you provide some reasoning behind your assertion that Resistance is a killer game? I don't know of anyone rushing out to buy a PS3 just to play it (as happened with GTA etc). Indeed, its page on gamerankings is just 87.4%, below Forza 2, which isn't considered a "killer game" for 360. Please don't add it back again without some sort of proof or something. Thanks. Fin ©™ 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, just because you think Resistance is an "awesome" game isn't criteria for inclusion. I think Pro Evolution Soccer 4 is excellent, as do all the people I know, but it's not a "killer" game. Likewise Eternal Darkness, Burnout 3 etc. Gears of War was definitely seen as a benchmark in the quality and graphics of Xbox 360 games. Resistance is only a launch game, and while great, it didn't cause shortages of the PS3, and the attachment rate isn't as high as something like the PS2 and GTA, or Xbox and Halo, or whatever. While I admit the killer game section is subjective, I think a good rule of thumb is if the game caused people to take a far greater interest in the console - usually it's a genre defining game (Halo, GTA, Goldeneye), or has better graphics than anything else (Metal Gear 2, Gears of War, Mario 64). I know many people who bought consoles for Goldeneye, Halo and GTA, myself included. Resistance, while good, did not excel, and I don't know of anyone who bought a PS3 simply to play it, and nothing else (as was the case in the other games). In time, there will be "killer" PS3 games, but at the moment, there aren't any. Fin ©™ 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think the fact that you dislike Pro Evolution Soccer validates my argument, that the Killer game article is subjective. Yes, the IGN.com article was positive, but I would trust the Gamespot, Eurogamer and Edge articles before IGN. They all classed Resistance as "good", but not brilliant. You can't say a game is "killer" simply because one website says so. If you look at something like Halo or GTA, they got almost unanimous good reviews, from all websites and publications. You also say that the people you know didn't buy the PS3 solely to play Resistance, which again validates my argument. People bought an N64 and Goldeneye on its own, or a PS2 and GTA3, or an Xbox and Halo. Also, your assertion that Gears of War "sucks" is again subjective and POV, and the majority of websites disagree with your statement, which is why Gears of War is included as a "killer game". Fin ©™ 07:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point about LCS, I'll remove it later on (indeed, I was thinking of removing it a while ago). I didn't say I'd trust Gamespot above all other reviews, I said I'd trust Gamespot before IGN. Also, I didn't say that a killer game should "drastically improve" console sales, I said it usually causes people to "take a far greater interest" in said console, which I don't think Resistance (nor PES, hence my point) has done. If you're judging a killer games based on sales, you only have to look at Cars. Fin ©™ 15:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Killer game. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Fin ©™ 07:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC) (this is in relation to the removal of Gears of War, and the comment about the Xbox 360)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Falcon9x5, you will be blocked from editing. Fin ©™ 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Falcon9x5. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Fin ©™ 07:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Killer game. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Fin ©™ 07:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage Vandalism

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Falcon9x5 may be offensive or unwelcome. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Fin ©™ 07:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for personal attacks, vandalism, and violating the three-revert rule at Killer application for a period of fifty-six hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dr.Awesomeness (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

cleaning up page

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason you were blocked. — Yamla 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Little context in Sacred Heart School (Bethlehem)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sacred Heart School (Bethlehem), by Smokizzy (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sacred Heart School (Bethlehem) is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sacred Heart School (Bethlehem), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Sacred Heart School (Bethlehem) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]