Jump to content

User talk:Mr T (Based)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


July 2008

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Disgaea: Hour of Darkness, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DeluxNate (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism. One section is 100% OR, the other is a level list, which is game guide material.Mr T (Based) (talk)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Disgaea: Hour of Darkness. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Redo your edit, except leave Line 79 intact. Don't mass delete. The information is relevant. DeluxNate (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with my edits is fine. Accusing me of vandalism to conceal your disagreemnt is cowardly. Please chekc my edit history. I am not in the habit of vandalising articles. The information is game guide material and original research. I have removed it and will continue to remove such from this encyclopaedia.Mr T (Based) (talk)
Nice burn, and I have no problem with your constructive editing. However if you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia, mass deletion is vandalism, and that is what you are doing to the Episode titles. Please tell me why you don't leave the Episode titles in the articles. Also, please try to spell better. If I'm cowardly, then you must be a world champion speller. DeluxNate (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

[edit]

Hello. While I feel some if not most of your edits to Fire Emblem articles are productive, some seem a little baseless. Remember that references to other games in the series does help to establish context for the reader, and are not merely a matter of redundancy. When written, I aimed to provide info relative to the rest of the series while also informing people who knew nothing about the series. It is simply not pragmatic to reiterate the fundamental gameplay of Fire Emblem for every game article when it can be linked to the series article. If you feel that people shouldn't have to read another article to have a full understanding then that really is just tough, as this forms the basis of wikilinking on Wikipedia. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow WP: Consensus. Discuss your views on Talk: Fire Emblem. Until then, your edits will be promptly reverted. I do conceed that references to other games are too frequent, but there shouldn't be a restriction against every reference or link. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a consensus. Neither of us does. So how can I follow it? The consensus is not your view, your view is your view, however much you wish it were otherwise. If you wish to discuss the series, do it on the series' article. Linking to a previous game's article to explain an important section like gameplay, is not good enough. It's lazy, and the constant "Oh, 2 didn't have this, but 3 does, and it was praised in 3 but criticised in 5" type interjections do not belong in the articles, though you could include them (again) on the series' page. Basically, you've decided to edit war because you disagree with my edits.Mr T (Based) (talk)

Consensus is whatever the current state of being is. If there is an edit, and it has not been challenged, then there is consensus to keep it. Your current edits are against consensus. I have conceded that the references to other games were too frequent, and I appreciate some of your edits to limit this. However, a senseless removal of every other game besides the article's is not productive. These are given to provide context to the reader, and usually do not require foreknowledge of the gameplay aspect as an explanation is given. Linking to other articles is not lazy—it is required to prevent a superfluous explanation of the fundamental gameplay aspects of Fire Emblem. It is senseless and redundant to litter each game with "rock-paper-scissors", and "when they die, they're gone for good". It is hypocritical that you accuse of me edit warring when I am retaining consensus and initiating discussion. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

[edit]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Valkyrie Profile 2: Silmeria, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shiren the Wanderer

[edit]

I've reverted your edits to Mystery Dungeon: Shiren the Wanderer because you removed noteworthy information from the article. You are welcome to restore your copyedits, but please do not delete information without a better understanding of the subject. Thanks! Luvcraft (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I have removed and will continue to remove it unless a source is provided.Mr T (Based) (talk)

A source has been provided, but should not be necessary; literally translating words from other languages is not by any means "original research". Luvcraft (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong.Mr T (Based) (talk)

Proposed deletion of "Solium Infernum"

[edit]

The deletion of an article you created, Solium Infernum, has been proposed for the following reason:

Non-notable yet to be released game. See WP:CRYSTAL.

You are welcome to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and remove the deletion notice from the article. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion, though in such cases, further discussion may take place at Articles for deletion, and the article may still be deleted if there is a consensus to do so.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy. You may wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Solium Infernum

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Solium Infernum, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solium Infernum. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild ARMs

[edit]

Please stop messing around with the Wild ARMs articles. I'm sure you mean no harm, but that's exactly what a lot of your edits are causing. Removing things solely because you yourself don't understand or agree with them is wrong, as is undoing the corrections to the games' title.Fragments of Jade (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 'messing around' with the articles. That you disagree with my edits is fine. More to the point, your wholesale reversion has reinstalled OR, POV, poor grammar and English, massive amounts of redundant plot info, overuse of bold and italics, and random capitalisations (quite apart from the ARMs issue you are so impassioned about).Mr T (Based) (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you are "messing around". Fixing spelling errors is one thing, but altering the spelling of the title, removing a reference to a game you've never played, and incorrectly altering things could be considered vandalism.Fragments of Jade (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I sincerely hope you do try reporting me for vandalism. Please feel free to do so. And you're wrong about me having not played the games. You shouldn't assume things about a person you know nothing about.Mr T (Based) (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read more carefully. You removed references in the articles to games you had never played. And what you are doing is considered vandalism. Please stop.Fragments of Jade (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rmeoved a pointless comparison, not a reference. Assuming knowledge on the part of the reader about something totally unrelated to the article is stupid, andl azy. If it's considered vandalism, report me, go on. I know you haven't, and you know why you haven't. Because it's not vandalism. Your wholesale reversion is vandalism, if anything. You just disagree with my edits, but don't have a counter-argument, so accuse me of vandalism. Brave!Mr T (Based) (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have reported you just now, because your edits ARE vandalism. You have no right to remove a reference solely because you have not played the game that is being referenced. You're changing and removing a large quantity of plot, and also altering the official title of the games. This information took dedicated fans a long time to input, and it is rude and disrespectful, what you are doing.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits ae not vandalism. I have corrected OR, POV, tone, spelling, grammar, overuse of bold and italics, removed huge chunks of plot which goes into trivial detail and is in the wrong section to boot, corrected a capitalisation issue, sorted out links and all sorts of other problems. I have improved the articles. You have reverted my improvements, because they do not suit you.Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed valuable plot information, undone the correct capitalization, and put in things that do not belong. You have received numerous warnings from other people, not just me. You're messing up the articles, so just stop already.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say, massive failure on your part to assume good faith. Why in such a rush, worried the decision won't go your way?Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. –xeno (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So my edits aren't vandalism, then?Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism is in the eye of the beholder. You should've discussed the controversial changes when they were challenged - see WP:BRD. –xeno (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting spelling, grammar, overuse of bold etc is controversial?Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*shrug*. You knew your changes were being challenged. You'll note the other user has been blocked also. Hopefully when these blocks expire, you can both discuss the changes on the talk page of the articles in question and come to some kind of mutual agreement. –xeno (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair 'nuff. Thank you.Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good luck with that. You've hit the same logic brick wall that they had over at Silent Hill with the same user, unfortunately. I have tried extensively to help and educate the user, to unfortunately no avail. BMW(drive) 13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your wishes, it's good to know all the mud FoJ is throwing is not sticking.Mr T (Based) (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, they have done far more harm than good to their own reputation. For example, the continued blanking of their own talk page doesn't help, as it shows they flagrantly flaunt the rules. In fact, I have carefully explained many of the rules they seem confused about, and they prefer to attack me instead. I see that they continue to misunderstand those same rules after all this time. Someone who could have valuable input into some of these articles now has about the same value of a 1981 Subaru. Very unfortunate. BMW(drive) 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FoJ quite obviously cares about the articles, but just seems to be unable to stop short of attempting ownership. And if you're disagreeing with FoJ, then obviously you don't have the article's best interests in mind. I have literally no idea what to do with an editor like this, not really come across such difficulties before. Had disagreements with other editors, obviously (who hasn't!) but this is a new extreme.Mr T (Based) (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see 88 and her duplicate accounts have stopped by-everything they have said is a lie, and they are prejudiced against Americans. They've never even played Wild ARMs, and are only getting involved because of their issues with me.

T, I did assume good faith with you the first time I posted here. I made it clear that you were making edits people had problems with and that were causing trouble, but also stated that I believed your intentions were good. However, after your responded by mocking me and continuing to edit the pages instead of discussing the matter, I could only conclude you were nothing more than a troll. The fact that you are now flaming me with this loser only enhances that belief, as does the fact that, instead of joining in the discussion on the WA series talk page, the minute you were unblocked, you went right back to editting. I'm not the one claiming ownership here. Those articles were worked on by more than just me, and they were wored on hard for a long period of time. When you so nonchalantly remove and change important things and do so incorrectly without even bothering to discuss it, you're pretty much insulting everyone who has worked their butts off.Fragments of Jade (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Believe it or not, like it or not, I can edit any page, and I don't have to clear it with you first. You did not, and have not since, assumed good faith. Treat me politely, I treat you politely. Call me a vandal, see what happens? Moreover, you are now reintroducing spelling errors, original research, bias, and all that good stuff, plus incorrect word usage and not to mention breaking links in your renaming rush. Is that how much you care about the articles, that you are quite happy to reintroduce errors and break links? Really, really, inappropriate, and very disappointing. Why not try reporting me for vandalism again? Got you nothing but a good laugh all round last time.Mr T (Based) (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I mean. The first time I posted here, I was more than polite with you, and I did in fact assume good faith. I made it clear that I did not think you were a vandal, but that you were-and still are-making harmful edits. I politely asked you to stop doing this, as someone who has worked hard to fix these pages. And around here, it is common courteousy to respect other editors enough to discuss problems they have, instead of just going around making changes for the heck of it. That doesn't mean you have to "clear it with me", but the rules state discussion should be used to avoid edit warring. And your rude, mocking tone does nothing to help matters.Fragments of Jade (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • To FoJ: Look Kid, enough with your stupidity about me being a sockpuppet - look at my edit history, you'll know that I have no relation to anyone else. I have done nothing but try to help you, and you're being an arrogant child. If you want to open a sockpuppet case against me, do it ... if not, then shut the fyuk up, I have had ENOUGH of your damn childishness when it comes to Wikipedia and your OWN version of the rules. You KNOW you have been 100% unable to prove any of your childish claims, and I'm sick and damned tired of defending you and fighting for your rights to edit on Wikpedia. As far as I'm concerned, you should get off your daddy's computer and never come back to Wikipedia anymore until you learn that YOU are NOT the most important person on any subject. Two months of witnessing your total disregard for others (and reality, and rules) is more than enough for any human being. File your sockpuppet case now, or quit Wikipedia - you have stopped being at all helpful. Oh, and remember .. the person who banned you told you to discuss this on the ARTICLE TALK PAGE and NOT on someone's personal talk page. BMW(drive) 21:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see 88 and her duplicate accounts have stopped by
For the nth time, I'm a man, and I'm not Bwilkins, Thatcher or anybody else, really. My only account name here is "Erigu." That's it.
Either file a sock puppetry report or stop throwing around baseless accusations already.
I politely asked you to stop doing this, as someone who has worked hard to fix these pages.
Again, I have to wonder: when was that? I only see two very minor edits by you prior to your edit war with Mr. T. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MrT ... I'm sorry to have cluttered your talk page with this, but I'll stop. Please, be firm with FoJ, and do what you can to help them understand Wikipedia's policies. Discuss pages on THAT page, and not on your own talk page. Don't let them get you down. I do truly wish you good luck in dealing with them. Wikipedia needs good editors, and I'm sure everyone somewhere has that potential. BMW(drive) 23:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You two trolls need to stop-you're giving all of Wiki a bad name.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings...

[edit]

Hello, Mr T (Based), and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the link that says "welcome".
I (and the rest of us here, too!) hope you like it here and decide to stay!
Happy editing! BMW(drive) 23:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sir, for a most courteous welcome. I hope to continue my editing and discourse with such politeness.Mr T (Based) (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Degeneration

[edit]

Actualy, it is not original research. All G-creatures have that trademark tumor-like eye. And so it IS similar to that of William Birkin, who became a carrier of the g-Virus in Biohazard 2.OsirisV (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wiki's no original research page: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.

All G-creatures have that trademark tumor-like eye. - Original research, unless you have sources to support that statement.

so it IS similar to that of William Birkin - Original research, unless you have sources to support that statement.

Injecting your own observations and opinion into wiki articles is a very big no-no. Even I know that, and I'm only a recent editor.Mr T (Based) (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But all G-creatures DO have the extra eyes. My sources include, the File #1 scenario, "Below Freezing Point" which easily shows the boss growing the extra in the cutscene. Biohazard 2 shows William Birkin growing an eye after killing someone, then hiding it back. The other adult G in Biohazard 2 also showed other eyes. So, accordingly ALL adult G-creatures grow the tumor-like eyeballs.OsirisV (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. If you have a reliable source that states something like "All G-creatures can be identified by their extra eyes/heads/whatever." then fine, but you don't. What you're doing is synthesis of published material which advances a position, which is original research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_which_advances_a_positionMr T (Based) (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Arms 3

[edit]

The "Demons" of this game are actually an alien race, similar to the ones from Wild ARMs.

Given your edit of the search function, this edit is not consistent. This statement is not useful to a reader who hasn't played previous Wild Arms games. Either the game stands alone and no references to other series games, or similar play is recognized as part of the series. There are plenty of examples where individual series game pages reference other games in their series in this manner, like Final Fantasy XII in terms of game mechanics. I'm just pointing this out so that you are consistent. Another option would be to expand the Wild Arms Series page with the common/contrasting elements from game to game.--WPaulB (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. Expansion of the series page with an exploration of the themes/elements common to each/several of the games seems like a good idea.Mr T (Based) (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Watchlist Issue

[edit]

Hi Mr T, I'm glad you're willing to ask me for assistance! You watchlist issue is certainly strange...usually when you click "watch" not only does it show future edits, but past ones as well.

My suggestion (at least to start) would be these steps:

  • remove that specific page from your watchlist
  • save the newly-changed list
  • exit Internet Explorer/Firefox (whichever browser you use) completely
  • open your browser, and sign back into Wikipedia
  • go to the page you want to watch and click the WATCH tab once again
  • look carefully in your watchlist to see if the recent page edits for that article now appear.

Let me know if this helps, and happy editing! BMW(drive) 11:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, odd. Which article page are you having issues with? I'll add it to my own watchlist and see BMW(drive) 12:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, click at the top right of the page on "My Preferences", the click on the tab marked "Watchlist". I personally only have the first one checked off, and the one that says "add pages I create to my watchlist". See what your own settings say there. BMW(drive) 12:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(PS: I made a minor change to your archiving parameters...my own had the same error :) ) BMW(drive) 13:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial edits appreciated

[edit]

Thanks for your small edits at Russo-Japanese War‎. One of the small pleasures of Wikipedia comes when someone edits my words to make them obviously better. In these small steps, I learn to improve my writing. --Tenmei (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to see the article being improved.Mr T (Based) (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil 4

[edit]

Regarding your recent edits to the article, please keep in mind that sentence fragments do not require periods in image captions. Please see WP:MOS for various other guidelines. Feel free to contact me if you have any concerns. Just64helpin (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (September 2008)

[edit]

RE: Armed Response Vehicle

[edit]

Hello Mr T (Based), instead of us probably edit warring, please can we talk it out here? Here goes:

I understand exactly why you think we should call them "sub-machine guns" and all the rest of it, as that is the correct classification. But the thing is Mr T, British police arms despite them starting life as sub-machine guns, or assault rifles, they are all altered to fire semi-automatic only, and obviously because semi-automatic sub-machine gun does not make sense, they decided to classify them as "semi-automatic carbines", because they dont fire fully auto, obviously it defeats the object of "machine" gun. I understand where you are coming from, but the thing is Mr T, because the page is British police concerned, I really think we should stick with what they call them. And if I can make a suggestion? I would prefer it if you replied to me, rather than keep reverting. Thanks & regards, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that, if you look at this picture ([1]) as you can see, the fire selector only features two options one being safety and the other "single-shot". Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is wikipedia. We use wikipedia's terms for weaponry, not the British police terms. If this was the British police website, fair enough. But it isn't.Mr T (Based) (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But its simply wrong. I will continue to change it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is Wikipedia, have you got a problem that makes you think I do not understand this? Wikipedia is made up of factual content, this page is about British police and its weaponry, so we will use British police terms. Its like saying just because its Wikipedia, we should get things wrong. Its just stupid. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, because you're saying "This is British police usage, let's get things wrong." You know 'carbine' is not the right term for those weapons (and if you don't, you need to go away and educate yourself about firearms) but nevertheless, you insist upon using it. By that rationale, if I take an assault rifle and fix the firing selector so it only fires on fully automatic, voila, now I have a machine gun. Bollocks. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. You want to use the wrong terms, go right ahead. I won't edit war over it, I have better edits to make. Best of luck.Mr T (Based) (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont you swear at me, I suggest you go away and grow up. But in response to "Bollocks", I say right back at you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Assume Good Faith, it was not about the right classification. The British police classify the weapon as a semi-automatic carbine, because obviously a sem-automatic submachine gun, sounds silly. I think you should be more mature, pfft. Also, considering I did not swear or get nasty to you, I do not expect you to emphasise what you are saying by swearing. Your being told that by a teenager, how embarrasing for you, if anything it should be the other way around. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you say...

[edit]

But ask anyone else and they will say you are wrong! I only scream because you are a rude urchin without any manners. Simply asking me to prove it, where you could easily look at Neya-san's Wikipedia page and see that she voices ToA's NATALIA and look for Japanese footage of Natalia speaking on YouTube and compare her voice with Brute's. THEN you would see that your baseless assumptions (which, by the way, are unsourced as well) are unfounded and faulty! As for blanking, would you say I have scars. Beloved celebrities such as Pam Anderson hide their ugly sides as well, so why am I unable to?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.133.47 (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the resident evil articles

[edit]

Hi there. I came across the RE articles as they were listed for copy edit and gave them a clean up as such (I know nothing about the games themselves).

The article about the second game in its current format is a bit of an appendage to that of the first. It really, really needs expansion into a stand-alone. A few IPers have (well over) expanded it a few times but you keep reverting them.

Wouldnt it be better to try and contact one of these IPers (fans, I presume) and have them expand it to a suitable length?

Figured id best talk with you about it as it would be poor form to encourage someone to expand an article only to have it reverted anyway :)

Jaimaster (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the article does need a lot of work. However, the plot section, I feel, is fairly adequate in that it describes what happens concisely. It certainly doesn't need to be like this but it could be expanded to go into a little more detail. I can't find anything on video game plot sections in the style guide, but for most other media (books, films, etc) plot sections are supposed to be a synopsis, not a step-by-step reiteration of what happens (think the film guidleines say it's meant to be about 600-700 words unless theplot is very complicated).

Apart from that, I can't really see anything I've reverted that shouldn't have been. This is trivia/guide info, this isn't really an expansion, it just adds colourful prose, this is the same, this is vandalism, this and this are unsourced rumours, and this is vandalism or a mistaken fan. If anyone were to make some actual additions to the article that improved it I would keel over from the shock. TBH, it really is something I've been putting off doing myself.Mr T (Based) (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that all of the recent edits have been far too large in scale and not nearly enough to the point. I just think instead of reverting we aught to try and nudge the editors in the right direction :) Jaimaster (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...Fair point. Sorry, the more articles I watch, the more vandalism there is to revert and I find myself in a particular mindset.Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway 2

[edit]

I'd like to know why you removed the refernces section. You never even tried to debate it, just putting in OR. Can I ask you if you have even played the game in question? There are MANY pages in Wikipedia covering different media that have similiar ideas, for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Star_(video_game)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_Initiative#In_popular_culture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_Airlines#Occurrences_of_Oceanic_Airlines

At least some of these are direct cultural references? I will admit that some of the ones that I didn't put in could be shaky, but I was only responsible for some of them. Douglasnicol (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. Removal of original research does not need to be debated, nor does whether I have played the game have any bearing on the subject. For instance, if we assume for the sake of argument that I have played the game, and have noticed those things, they are still original research. In order for them to be retained, a reliable source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) would have to be cited, saying "X is a reference to Y."Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, For instance the line about Space:1999 cards for instance, that is naming the source in game so to speak. How would you tackle that. Granted there are others where a mere similarity can be construed as dodgy, but if a source is named in game, how does it stand? Douglasnicol (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The game can be the source there, I think. Someone might make an argument to remove it as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trivia_sections but trivia can also make a decent addition if done right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Handling_trivia).Mr T (Based) (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See I know that self-reference might be okay, I do contest the part that said it was basically a copy of the Broken Sword games, there have been numerous adventure game series like the Larry games, Monkey Island etc, Broken Sword was far from the first and not the only one to use cartoon style graphics. Apologies If I seemed a bit harsh earlier, but I've seen people who make edits based on whether they have an interest in the subject matter, so I might have come across as a bit cranky. Douglasnicol (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite alright, no harm done. Calling it a copy of Broken Sword does seem just a little bit over the top, think that would need a good supporting source!Mr T (Based) (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, Belief and Betrayal is closer to Broken Sword in terms of storyline as it involves Templars and various related mysteries, but this has been a common conspiracy theory storyline that isn't just confined to videogames ever since the book Holy Blood:Holy Grail was written. The storyline in the Runaway games doesn't even bear much resemblance to Broken Sword. I'll have a look at the references and see what could be salvaged. The Indiana Jones one is kinda obvious, but I don't know how to capture a screen shot of it. Douglasnicol (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World. 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. ffm 00:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. An anon IP provided a fake ref for a statement and I got a little revert-happy.Mr T (Based) (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mr. T ... me again, long time no see! Another user has filed a Wikiquette complaint against you here [2]. I've never had an issue with your editing (you got the bad end of a bad user in the past), but wanted to let you know to be careful about "ownership" of articles, and to be very careful with reverts. I'm happy to talk more about it, but take a look at the WQA and you'll get the gist. I would recommend being careful around that article and that user for a bit. BMW(drive) 13:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, thanks for notifying me. The issue of ownership/3RR violation was brought up on the article's talk page and I've left a message on Wikiproject Video Games' talk page asking other editors to help keep an eye on it. I certainly don't own the article and have no personal investment in it, AFAI can remember, I've been there solely on anti-vandalism and copy editing stuff. Mucked up a bit automatically reverting that anon IP but the history of vandalism and initial fake ref threw me off. Thanks again, and thank you for chipping on on my behalf on that WQA.Mr T (Based) (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you got ganged-up on. There's always WP:AIV for vandalism, and WP:ANI for admin-required incidents. I gave 3 IP's an anon-vandal welcome. Remember, you can always fix it when the kiddies have gone to bed. BMW(drive) 10:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, did you REALLY revert on someone else's Talk page? Not a good idea...leave them alone, and correct their errors cautiously. BMW(drive) 11:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Righto.Mr T (Based) (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent revision to Syphon Filter

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Syphon Filter. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Nat682 (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the histories of the Syphon Filter game articles. Anon IP keeps reverting to massive plot sections. I did specify a reason in my edit summary.Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (October 2008)

[edit]

November 2008

[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipediaas you did to Syphon Filter 2, as you did to Syphon Filter 3, as you did to Syphon Filter: The Omega Strain, as you did to Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror, and as you did to Syphon Filter: Logan's Shadow. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dibol (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, my edits weren't vandalism. Reversion of a fancrufty game guide plot section which is far too long and not even a summary is not vandalism. However, you can always try reporting me for it.Mr T (Based) (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, from what I've seen, other video game articles have had a similar length (Metal Gear Solid 1, 2, and 4, Call of Duty 4, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas series, and the recent Ghost Recon series being glaring examples), and I do not see a "step by step" walkthrough on the Syphon Filter summaries. From what I have observed, you appear to have a strong bias against the Syphon Filter games for some reason, and have a twisted version of "upholding Wikipedia." I have no choice but to report you on the matter. Dibol (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do so. Who will you be reporting me to, can I ask? The length of other articles, or what they include, has nothing to do with the articles currently under discussion. If that were the case, one could use such an argument to include original research, vandalism, etc, as these are in other articles too. My "strong bias" against Syphon Filter is merely a strong bias for Wikipedia's rules. Can't wait to have input from plenty of other editors.Mr T (Based) (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at as you did to Syphon Filter 2, as you did to Syphon Filter 3, as you did to Syphon Filter: The Omega Strain, as you did to Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror, and as you did to Syphon Filter: Logan's Shadow, you will be blocked from editing.

You do realise you're attempting to warn me after edit warring, personally insulting me, assuming bad faith and trying to get people to believe my edits are vandalism, right?Mr T (Based) (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Resident Evil 2. 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. Cirt (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried talking to the anon IP, no response.Mr T (Based) (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Resident Evil 2, you will be blocked from editing. Please stop the edit war at Resident Evil 2 at once. Please discuss with the other editor. sinneed (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the edit is not worth the effort to fix, then perhaps simply let it go. Someone else will come along and kill the edit. It seems mostly to be badly written rather than misleading. It is also simply TERRIBLY long. sinneed (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I attacked the ***HUUUUUGGGGGEEEE*** addition with my editorial pruning shears, leaving, I hope, the important items. It might be worth a look, to check for introduced error, grammar, etc. Either way, all the best, and happy editing.  :)sinneed (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, cleaned it up a bit after your edits, it's basically sorted now.Mr T (Based) (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding. sinneed (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I should leave the flags in, or kill them?sinneed (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can get rid of them if you like, although it could use a bit of improvement here and there, it's nothing major and will get worked out as other editors come along and tweak it.Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World

[edit]

For info : the article Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World is now protected from edits by anonymous users, as a user appeared to be repeatedly adding unsourced material. Regards, --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me!Mr T (Based) (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hey I know you!

[edit]

Yes, I have seen you around as I have seen you on Timesplitters 4 and Res 5, so you appear to like the samethings I do which is cool; I am also cool with you reverting some my Timesplitters edits as they were abit stupid really, do you go on the Free Radical webpage? (Feel free to get rid of this as soon as you want to, and visit my userpage; pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease) --Nikolai Angel Patreilyiov/(formally Ninjalemming) 16:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been known to drop by FR's site, yes. The letters page is quite amusing and they seem to be one of the few companies with a genuine sense of humour. :-) Mr T (Based) (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool User Page User Page User Page User Page User Page User Page User Page User Page User Page User Page, any way if you didn't know they have finally updated their letters. --Nikolai Angel Patreilyiov 17:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (November 2008)

[edit]

Syphon Filter: The Omega Strain and Syphon Filter 3

[edit]

I have semi-protected those pages for one month as it seems that disruption by a number of sockpuppets has been going on for weeks. However, you are not exempt of 3rr, even though my semi-protection makes a block unnecessary now. You should work to find a compromise on the articles' talk pages: a plot summary of reasonable size as per WP:PLOT. It is possible that the other editor(s) will go to the talk page, being unable to edit the articles. Cenarium (Talk) 17:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, already managed to get this done for Syphon Filter and Syphon Filter 2, hopefully the rest will be sorted out in no time.Mr T (Based) (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil: Degeneration

[edit]

Do you think that something should be done to the way Resident Evil: Degeneration's plot is being written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.61.69 (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

66.19.61.69. keeps adding false information. http://watch-movies.net/movies/resident_evil_degeneration/# watch the film (#3) you will see that the information I keep adding is correct. The information 66 keeps re-adding is false. His reason's are about how he dislikes how it is wrote. It would make more sence to alter how many sentences are in the paragraphs than replacing it with false information.OsirisV (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this on the article's talk page, shall we.Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resi 5=18

[edit]

Oh yeah. Well I hope they rerate it so it is a fifteen anyway, thanks for the link; I just checked the Res page again and saw the link. Cheers anyway though. --The Ninjalemming 20:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn I hope Britain (or just my part of England if they have to) uses the PEGI rating so I can buy it. Make them use it!--'The Ninjalemming' 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MR T WTF! R U DOIN U R INTERFERRING WITH MY EDITING RE ROOKIE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by XMORPHEUSX (talk • contribs) 01:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Resident Evil 5. 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. — neuro(talk) 09:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an edit war, it's reverting vandalism. Check one of the IP's edits, like this one. Or any of the others. The only thing that IP has done is vandalise pages. I also note that, for some crazy reason, I have been warned for edit warring whereas the anon IP hasn't been warned for anything. So I have, effectively, been warned for something I haven't done, whereas the IP hasn't been warned for something they have done.Mr T (Based) (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean here, try adding a ({subst:test1|ArticleName}) template on their talk page if they revert it even once this may help as evidence and it would show they have been warned but not stopped. --'The Ninjalemming' 19:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (December 2008)

[edit]

The WPVG Newsletter (January 2009)

[edit]

Raccoon destruction in Outbreak

[edit]

I have an image showing the photograph in the File #1 Epilogue that shows clearly how Raccoon City was destroyed. Do you think it would benefit Raccoon City? I mean...this image would -hopefully-stop any future arguments over how it as destroyed and will also make the games more likely to be canon. Please respond ASAP. OsirisV (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think it would clinch it once and for all, but I'm not sure anything would. I think it would definitely benefit the article, certainly.Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lean to read

[edit]

Take your own advice and read what I said again. I have the Xbox World 360 magazine referenced in the 1up.com article. Sherry Birkin is not mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.151.100 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we see pictures of this fabled magazine? Otherwise, 1Up is a reliable source and you are not.Mr T (Based) (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up

[edit]

Just want to say that if you are going to make any major edits to an article, can you please leave a short edit summary so that it doesn't look like vandalism? I can understand why you are condensing articles, but some may feel that to are deleting things unnecessarily. CardinalDan (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ronhjones (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Dark Mirror. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ronhjones (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalising Wikipedia. For fuck's sake.Mr T (Based) (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You put nothing in the edit summary and blank large portions of text - that makes you stand out from the crowd. Whereas your "foe" always comments that he is reverting vandalism Ronhjones (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well! Now I know! Silly fucking me! God forbid you dozy buggers should look at the fucking edits. That anon IP is laughing his fucking arse off at you lot, cos you took one look at the edit summaries and jumped right in. I was the only bastard stupid enough to try and do something about this. Won't fucking happen again.Mr T (Based) (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

An anon IP keeps restoring massively over-long plot summaries to articles without discussion, going back weeks, if not months, and you're fucking warning me. What a fucking joke Wikipedia is. I'm trying to keep plot summaries what they're supposed to be, a summary, and I get nothing but shit from other editors. Genius.Mr T (Based) (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give your heads a shake, FFS. Look at the article histories.Mr T (Based) (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the anon IP the same person as the one who made this edit, reverting the page in Dec 2008, despite the fact that Wikipedia has rules about plot summaries. Does any fucker punish him? Nope. Anyone warn him? Nope. Anyone help me? Nope. This anon IP, and other editors, do this sort of thing and no-one does fuck all.Mr T (Based) (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (February 2009)

[edit]

Crytek UK wikiproject

[edit]

Yom you definatly seem to like Crytek/Free Radical related stuff so why don't you consider joining this. Cheers -)'The Ninjalemming' 14:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (March 2009)

[edit]

A note regarding the WPVG Newsletter

[edit]

Due to an apparent lack of interest, the WPVG Newsletter will be switching from a monthly publication schedule to a quarterly one. The next issue be delivered on July 1, 2009, and will pertain to the second quarter of the calendar year. If you have any comments regarding this, or suggestions to improve the newsletter, please post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter.

—VG Newsletter Contributors

The WPVG Newsletter (Q2 2009)

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 4 — 2nd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2009, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

The WPVG Newsletter (Q3 2009)

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 5 — 3rd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2009, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

The WPVG Newsletter (Q4 2009)

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 6 — 4th Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2009, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

The WPVG Newsletter (Q1 2010)

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2010, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2010

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 2 — 3rd Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2010, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2010

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 3 — 4th Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2010, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2011

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2011, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 02:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2011

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2011, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

–MuZemike 14:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2011

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2011, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 07:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2011

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2011, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 06:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2012

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2011, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 19:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2012

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2012, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2012

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2012, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 15:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter (4th Quarter 2012)

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2012, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2013

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2013, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2013

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 05:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2014

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2014, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2014

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2014, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2014

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2014, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2015

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2015, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2015

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2015, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2015

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 3 — 3nd Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2015, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2015

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2015, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2016

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2016, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2016

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2016, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2016

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2016, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2016

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2016, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2017

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 10, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2017
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2017, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2017

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 10, No. 1 — 2nd Quarter, 2017
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2017, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered 14:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC))

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2017

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 10, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2017
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2017, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2019

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 11, No. 1 — 2nd Quarter, 2019
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2019, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q2 2020

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2020
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2020, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

03:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q3 2020

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2020
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2020, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2020

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2020
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2020, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC))

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2021

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 13, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2021
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2021, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered 13:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC))

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latest (and most likely final) issue of the WP:VG newsletter

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 14, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2023
Previous issue | Index

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2022, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr_T_(Based)/Archive_1&oldid=1144894666"