User talk:Bladestorm: Difference between revisions

Welcome!

Hello, Bladestorm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - Adolphus79 16:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link regarding Bruce Campbell's hatred of the Duke Nukem plagiarism? I'm not contesting it, I'm just interested in reading about it.--Drat (Talk) 13:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the links. Unfortunately, the link provided within the forum post no longer works (that part of ign.com has been restructured, it seems), but I was able to dig the interview up from the Wayback Machine [1]. By the way, you can sign you messages with four tildes, which shows your signature (configurable from your preferences).--Drat (Talk) 17:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... so one of the article I've been monitoring has been so horribly butchered and twisted by extreme POV disputes, that I'd like to just redo the whole thing. However, I don't want to rewrite the original article, in case people don't like the rewrite... I know there's some way to do this in a sandbox-y style... but still don't know how. Any suggestions?

That is, any suggestions on how I can write... I guess you'd call it a temporary article that I could let other people read?

(and, if they go for it, is there a really easy way to just transpose my rewrite overtop the original article?)

Ok. best place for a rewrite is in [[User: Bladestorm/Sandbox/<ArticleName>]].

When and if they agree to put your version up, just copy, paste the contents from your userpage to the article, and request deletation of your user sub-page. Eagle talk 05:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... so I'm sure this is the right answer, but... what exactly is the link, or method of setting that up? :)

No problem... User: Bladestorm/Sandbox/PUT THE ARTICLES NAME HEREEagle talk 05:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Bladestorm 05:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am getting sick of this.

Under what circumstances are you going to accept that Slingshot Paintball and Just Plain Crazy do not belong in the article? There is no proper source substantiating their inclusion. Even if there was, their association with the actual sport of paintball is dubious at best, and their prevolence is certainly so minor as to not merit inclusion on the same level as things like Capture the Flag, Centerflag, and Pump markers.

Furthermore, you are blanket reverting other edits by myself and others. You need to take a step back and look at what you are reverting and explain why you are revertying it, because I honestly can't see any actual reason for it other than you won't accept any changes until you agree there is consensus.

If you don't want an edit war, actually read up on and follow Wikipedia policy instead of trying to vehemently protect things that don't belong in the article in the first place.

I would like to know under what circumstances you would actually accept removing SLingshot paintball and Just Plain Crazy from the article - because I can't see any, and if there arn't any, one has to ask who is really causing the problem here.

I think that "just plain crazy" needs to be included because it's tradition. You want citations? There used to be a picture of it in the article. If you want, I'll find more listings for it, no problem. But it's hard to do proper research when you keep reverting.
As for why I want to keep slingshot paintball, well, it's because I want to change it into paintball slingshot. But first removing it entirely is a step backwards. I want to modify it to include other devices for marking. However, some of those devices are directly related to topics that are part of the main article. So I simply want to approach it from the right perspective.

As for wikipedia policies:
Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset
When in doubt, take it into the talk page. And, uh, mutual respect? Try showing some by addressing my issues directly instead of picking one or two to clumsily bash, and ignoring the rest.

Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
You've attributed some inappropriate behaviour and viewpoints to me, just because it makes it easier to argue. Including references to 'pet subjects'? My interest is in consistency and accuracy, not 'pet subjects'.

Wikipedia:Editing_policy
See the "policy in a nutshell"? Avoid deleting information wherever possible.


So... let's see... you didn't want to take it up on the talk page like you're supposed to... you didn't assume good faith... you didn't show mutual respect... And you deleted information in dispute over and over again.

Personally, I'd rather address each point individually, rather than making it just a matter of policy. But you're the one who brought it up.
So, feel like working on something that'll actually stay?

You're assuming doubt. :)

I know you're new to the paintball article, but people frequently come in and fill the article up with very specific, uncommon 'house rules' that they assume are notable because they happen to be the way that particular person plays paintball at their particular field, not realizing that their variation is one of THOUSANDS of similarly obscure ways to play paintball. It has been standard practice for quite some time to keep the 'basic formats' section exactly that - the basic formats that are fairly universally common, which are capture the flag, centerflag, and elimination. When people put in their house rules, they get (appropriately) deleted. Remember that information in the article should have it's significance in article reflect it's significance in the world, and the two specific items we're fighting about here are jsut plain not significant. Something played by a few hundred or thousand people just just not significant in comparison to something played by 10 million.

As for deleting information, Wikipedia has change control, so information is never completely deleted. Regardless, one should avoid deleting pertinent, accurate information. Deleting things that are not paintball from a paintball article just makes sense.

I don't disagree that some people play 'just plain crazy' or some variation of it. HOWEVER, it's prevolence is so minute that it is properly OMITTED from the article, especially when it doesn't, as a format, really meet the definition of paintball in the first place. Paintball is a game/sport where players try to mark each other with paint. "Just Plain Crazy" is a game where people try to inflict pain on each other, and HAPPEN to be using paintballs to do so. Putting it in a paintball article is like putting 'Chicken' in an article about auto racing.

You also accused me of gutting the woodsball article, but I Actually just removed fctually incorrect information. One paintball marker is just as accurate as another, save velocity fluctuation. The two paragraphs about how 'woosballers strive to be more accurate' is just a reptition of an over decade-old bias-driven fight between woods and tournament paintball players, where each side claims the other is unskilled, blah, blah. Truth is EVERYBODY wants accurate, reliable, and fast-firing paintball markers (with the exception of some people who place a higher priority on the appearance of their equipment than its function.) But a paragraph that says one side likes accuracy while the other side does not is just straight bias and shouldn't be there. And it's bias that frequently creeps into the article (there is sections in the discussion page about this) and it has been, and should continue to be, standard practice to delete that bias when it emerges.

I agree that a lot of this deserves a better rewrite, but I just dont have the time right now to do a full rewrite and it is, unfortunately, much easier to delete things that are false than write new things that are true. I've none-the-less chosen to delete things that are false, as no information is better than wrong information.

--Raehl 06:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You previously posted concerns on User_talk:Rebecca. You may want to comment at User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns.-- Jreferee 22:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your particular beef is, or why you're dragging yourself into this dispute on an article you've never edited, on a topic you've never edited. If you've got issues with personally (though seeing as I don't remember ever dealing with you, I'm not sure why), then please have the good grace to take them up with me personally, rather than jumping into a dispute which you know nothing about. Rebecca 01:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to refrain from commenting further on the issue on your talk page, then I'll oblige. I wanted to mention that I was also concerned, so you wouldn't think it was just a single person. If you look in your archive (page 20, I believe), then you'll see the last specific issue I had with your conduct. It just so happens that it was so agregious and troubling, that I've been trying to keep a vague eye out for similar behaviour. (when a person creates an "aspergers" list to describe problem users, that kinda stands out. and when an admin declares that she'll vandalize pages if it means interfering with an editor, then that definitely stands out as well) That said, I really don't have anything more to contribute to the subject. Listen or ignore, I've nothing else to say. Either way, assuming nothing terrible happens, you won't have to deal with me ever again. Bladestorm 04:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandiziŋ! --Randfan please talk talk to me!

Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :) —Randfan!!

Cheers! :) —Randfan!! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks for the compliment! Ah, that was a crazy night, the launch of the Wii. On that Saturday I happened to be at Target, and they were selling controllers early! I immediately bought one and, surprised at how small it was (especially compared to my DS lite), I thought I could take a nice picture for Wikipedia. Once again, thanks! -- Chris is me 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most recent edit I made is a fair compromise. I know Nintendo stated they aren't competing, but you and I both know that they are the only ones saying or thinking that. They may say they aren't competing, the Wii is in competion with the Xbox 360 and PS3 whether Nintendo wants that or not. TJ Spyke 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know they are in competition, but I changed it to say that it unofficialy competes with them (which is true). TJ Spyke 22:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al'right. I didn't see the discussion page. I'll leave the Wii intro alone sans my participation in the discussion, which I don't have time for, but the current one is really misleading. Just think about it. D prime 18:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to make it seem as if you are logged in to User:Bladestorm is to do what you have been doing. However, this is misleading because it would be impossible to tell if the IP address was you, me, or anyone else. You need to give your identity, so people don't think you are logged in as Bladestorm, which is not true. It's fine if you give Bladestorm, but we need to know that you are on an IP address. Scepia 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vandalize. I put true info in. Tome711 03:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are relevant to the reception the PS3's gotten by the public, as well as Sony's bragging. I have made the other suggestions you made, fixing the html to be wikipedia code instead and thank you for reminding me of that as I had completely forgotten.

Wikipedia strives to be accurate, the fact that Sony's executives have made asses of themselves is just that, a fact. As a duly sourced fact in this instance, please do not remove it again. You're welcome to take it to the talk page. RunedChozo 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]