User talk:Bill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bill is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

I will reply on this page to all messages left here unless requested otherwise.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Removal of weapons list from Terminator 3: The Redemption

Guess what pal, strategywiki does not have Terminator 3: The Redemption so Im asking nicely Please stop messing with my Info (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

StrategyWiki is like wikipedia in that you can create articles so you could still put that information there. Weapons list are not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:GAMECRUFT. Remember to be civil when discussing edits, you don't own the articles so you cannot just demand that information is included in them. Bill (talk|contribs) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Then how come Die Hard: Nakatomi Plaza has a Weapons list on it's page? Explain that? And im sure some other pages has weapon lists as well. Shadowhawk27 —Preceding comment was added at 01:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is a work in progress, citing precedent from an article is not a good way of deciding article content. What you need to look at is the guidelines that have been formed through consensus. It takes many people to form a consensus and produce a guideline, but it takes just one person to add inappropriate content to an article. I suggest you side with the group. The content you're suggesting is inappropriate for the article and I've suggested a good place for it to go.
Weapons lists in video game articles are specifically mentioned as unsuitable for an article. The WikiProject Video Games guideline states "The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game." Bill (talk|contribs) 02:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Addendum. You can however look at Featured Articles to see what content is appropriate for an article. Feature Articles have undergone rigorous peer review to ensure a high standard of quality. The WikiProject Video Games Feature Article list is a good page to look at for inspiration for content. You'll see that few, if any articles have weapons lists. Bill (talk|contribs) 02:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So what your saying is that Die Hard: Nakatomi Plaza Weapons list hasn't violated the rules and you guys decided to leave it alone for some time? O_o That's just wrong. If ya don't believe me, Go see for yourself. Shadowhawk27 —Preceding comment was added at 02:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's the opposite of what I am saying. The weapons list Die Hard: Nakatomi Plaza is violating the VG guideline. It has just not been fixed yet. I have now removed the weapons list from that article using the guidance of the VG Guidelines. Like I said, Wikipedia is a work in progress and the articles you should look to for inspiration are the Featured Articles, not an article that is rated stub class. If you believe that information on the weapons is worth including, then you should find an article that talks about how the weapons affect the gameplay or something like that, then write one or two paragraphs about it. Bill (talk|contribs) 02:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok what about Ratchet and Clank Series? that 2 has a lot of Weapon lists as well and Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowhawk27 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because another article has something, it doesn't mean it is the correct procedure. Not every article on Wikipedia is finished to a high quality state and may include things that aren't appropriate for the encyclopedia. The guidelines are where you should look to see if content is appropriate or not, and the Video Game Guidelines specifically say it's not necessary to list every weapon in a game. Also, if you type ~~~~ and the end of your message, your signature will automatically be put on the page and wont be added by SineBot. Bill (talk|contribs) 13:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but it Sounds to me you guys aren't doing your jobs in removing weapon lists in every article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowhawk27 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not really how Wikipedia works. Nobody has a specific job unless they choose one, and even if they did choose to clean up gamecruft they don't have an obligation to do it. Contributions to the project are voluntary. Bill (talk|contribs) 15:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning Up of Weapons List on Descent³

I've slimmed it up by a lot. Please view the new version as and when you wish. You may also want to view this. I'm not too sure if it violates WP:GAMECRUFT as well. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 01:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The new version looks much better, nice job. I'm not too familiar with the game so I didn't want to have a go at such a long list myself. I'm going to tag the section on the other page with the same cleanup tag as it does violate the guideline. Bill (talk|contribs) 11:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A.V.A article

My original message GTFO was removed by myself or did you not see that? Funny how you only notice certain revisions. Besides it was my talk page I can put whatever I want on it. About the A.V.A article, I spent a lot of time and work on that and you just delete half the article with no other contributions? You don't even seem to care about improving the overall quality and information of the article you just want to remove certain aspect's of it. You should just leave the article alone for a while and let me re-write it to fit the since your too lazy to do anything other then delete and move a few paragraphs. MastaGunZ (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to relax a bit and remain civil otherwise you could get blocked. I notice you've not really edited many articles since you've been signed up to Wikipedia so you may not have seen it, but you When you edit a page it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it".
Your time and effort is appreciated on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean somebody cannot come along and correct it in accordance with the WP:GAMEGUIDE policy and WP:GAMECRUFT guidelines. Articles that need cleanup to meet the standards desired by policy will all eventually be found and cleaned up, and a lot of the material you had written in the article wasn't suitable. I really advise you to just have a look at Strategy Wiki. There you can write much more in depth information about everything in the game. Remember to relax and have fun on Wikipedia. Bill (talk|contribs) 17:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classes and other information

You removed some of the features of the article that make it what it is. Without them it seems like just another article of some random FPS game. You shouldn't have removed the classes. If they don't belong, you need to go edit the Team Fortress and Team Fortress 2 articles and remove them. Otherwise, I will be re-adding these back to the article. It's not that I don't want it to be edited it's just that if your going to remove key descriptions that are necessary for the article's purpose to be seen, I might as well delete it. MastaGunZ (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Those can probably be inserted somewhere in the gameplay section. You should note that the Team Fortress classes section is tagged for cleanup because it is overly detailed. so when you re-add, I'd keep it to a small amount. Another thing to note is that the Team Fortress 2 classes are all very unique characters which makes such detail necessary. Ideally you'd add sources like the Team Fortress 2 page, otherwise nobody would know if the information was factual. (I'm not at all saying you made it up, just everything needs to be verifiable). What the article really needs is a reception section. I had a look around yesterday but I didn't find any reviews in the normal places, probably because it's Korean. Bill (talk|contribs) 17:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've tried adding sources before, but I have trouble with using that tag so I can get the links and have them translated but I won't be able to cite them until I figure them out. MastaGunZ (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. You could just leave the links on the talk page until they can be inserted as citations. If you want to learn how to use the cite web template, there's good instructions here Template:Cite web. Bill (talk|contribs) 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article with weapons and maps...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Orchestra:_Ostfront_41-45#Currently_modelled_small_arms

Other than references, does this violate the [GAMECRUFT? MastaGunZ (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that list appears to violate the guideline. A good section on weapons would be one that includes some non-original commentary, such as details about development or reception of the weapons. In my opinion a mention of some of the types of weapons in the gameplay section is the ideal thing to do. Bill (talk|contribs) 12:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
So since it violates the guideline, why hasn't anyone removed it? MastaGunZ (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought you were going to do it when you came to ask if it violated the guideline. I've removed it now. As it wasn't tagged for that sort of cleanup, it's wasn't in a list of articles with fancruft or a list like that so it wasn't immediately easy to find. Like I've said before, Wikipedia is a constant work in progress and different things may be handled at different times. Bill (talk|contribs) 12:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of the file

Please see Talk:List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, because I strongly oppose the idea about its deletion. Thank you. --Visconsus (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buttroll in Rickroll

The fact that there are variations is noteworthy (especially since the rickroll phenomenon is itself a variation)-- seems like there should be a "variations" section, or at least a list of variations within the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatner1 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 20 April 2008

Personally I'd prefer a section or paragraph commenting on the fact there are variations rather than a list of variations. That sort of thing could be worked into a "reaction" section or something. As far as the "Buttroll" goes, as anyone can make their own version it would be best to only include variations that are discussed/mentioned in reliable sources. Bill (talk|contribs) 11:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Springfield's state

An article that you have been involved in editing, Springfield's state, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springfield's state. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Terraxos (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] gta iv

its not my poiny of view, its a fact, did u see how many copies they sold and how many preorders came in, its not my htought,its an obvious observational fact. so please do not remove it again, thanx. USEDfan (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you seriously believe putting "overrated" into the first sentence of an article with no source doesn't violate a series of guidelines then you need to do some reading. Looking at your recent contribs it looks like you should. Firstly, without a source it violates WP:NPOV. If, as you say, you got the information by observing the situation then it violates WP:NOR. It doesn't have a source so it fails WP:V. It doesn't belong in the first sentence of the article per WP:LEAD. I'm probably taking you far too seriously because you edited the PlayStation 3 page to say it "owns" the Xbox 360, but just in case you really did think that's a legitimate thing to write in an encyclopedia, then reading these guidelines should help you. Bill (talk|contribs) 01:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] kerrang

theres 3 websites that say it and u cant put a magazine online as linked source so u just have to use whatever one on lastfm or bebo or just keep it like this with the citation sign cause it is true, it appears u just been following me around everywhere i go on here, and idk if it was u or not but i saw sum1 talk bad about me on another users page but my main point is ur stalking my edits so i think im gona report u about stalking me cause thats prob against rules, thanks. USEDfan (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you. I've edited 2 pages that you've edited (that I've know of), one of which I've been editing regularly for over a year. Anyway, you need to relax a bit when people change what you've edited. As it says when you make an edit "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." (my emphasis). Don't take it so personally. I was merely suggesting you need to be more specific than saying what magazine it's from. I wasn't suggesting it was a lie or anything. {{cite journal}} is a good template to use as you can put in the issue, author, publisher, etc. Remember, everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and as Kerrang magazine started in 1981 it must have over 1,000 issues by now, so it's not very easy to verify if somebody wanted to look it up. As I pointed out on the talk page previously, the Last.fm link goes to a Wiki which means it's not a reliable source. But really, just remember to stay calm, people aren't personally attacking you when they alter something you've edited, so there's no need to make it personal, ok? Bill (talk|contribs) 00:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
i never seen u edit the used page until u saw me edit gta iv, ive been following this page for a long time even if i wasnt editing at the time, i dont do personal attacks unless its defense, also the thing is im kinda like the biggest used fan and id never vandalize the page, nething i put on the page is cause i read it in a interview or was told in from a band member, i only put 110 percent tru stuff so id it is an edit done by me or if i aprove of something then im the source and its more reliable then anything on the internet, there isnt a thing i dont no about the used. thanks, USEDfan (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say it was untrue. I explicitly said that I don't believe it to be false. It still needs a proper citation though. This isn't a personal vendetta against your edits, this is Wikipedia policy. This sort of thing happens thousands of times a day on Wikipedia, why not just find out the issue of the magazine and cite it correctly, instead of making such a big deal out of it? I'm afraid you are not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia standards go. This is not a personal attack and your edits are likely 110% true as you say. So are many, many other editors on Wikipedia. But there's a policy of what counts as a reliable source.
Also, you need to stop thinking about "defense" and things like that. Wikipedia is not a battleground. It helps if you assume every comment and edit made on Wikipedia is one where the editor is trying to improve the encyclopedia. The editor may be wrong, or you may disagree with how the information is presented, but always assume that they are trying to do something positive for the project unless it's obvious vandalism. This way it is less stressful for everybody involved. Bill (talk|contribs) 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] HTF episode lists

I classed the Happy Tree Friends episodes lists by seasons just like you recommended. You can explore the list if you want, what do you think ?

--Mr Alex (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PS : Can you answer in my talk page please ?