This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sciurinæ (talk | contribs) at 16:38, 6 June 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:38, 6 June 2005 by Sciurinæ (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.
Serious game
Nightbeast, I've had cordial relationships with most Wikipedians I've come in contact with. Occasionally I've bumped heads with someone else, but almost always those conflicts have been resolved, peacefully. You are the one exception. When trying to resolve the issue of serious games and America's Army, we have gotten absolutely nowhere. When you respond to me, you often launch into incoherant rants that I nor almost anyone else can follow.
I gave up on America's Army figuring you weren't going to budge, depsite the fact that every serious game expert states that America's Army is the world's most successful serious game. It doesn't really matter if you like the idea of serious games or America's Army or not. But you've objected to even a NPOV statement such as "Serious games experts credit AA as the world's most successful serious game." I've listed sources, but you continued your stonewalling and so I gave up (I'm not getting paid to do this, after all).
But now you've reverted my mention of it on the serious games article. Please, I'd like to get this issue resolved. Can you, in a single sentence, state your objection to mentioning AA as a serious game? If you launch again into a rambling rant, we won't get anywhere. Can you state your objection in a single sentence? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:59, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Hallo Nightbeast, darf ich dich fragen für wen oder wieso du den Song auf deine Benutzerseite gestellt hattest, du würdest mit eine großen Gefallen tun mir unbekannterweise das zu sagen.
Germany
"This is not to be summarized if you want a fair proportion of the history section" Can you explain what this edit summary means, please? We have a history of Germany article, the main article shouldn't be cluttered up. --Golbez 18:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- The existing version didn't mention why the revolution happened either; just that other revolutions were occurring. However, the way you put it, is better than the way the article did it. I deleted him because the article is about Germany, not him. What a single politician does - unless massively shaping the state, as Bismarck and Hitler did - is not needed for a SUMMARY of German history, and based on the short mention, he doesn't seem nearly as central as Bismarck or Hitler. I'll look at the changes again and take your comments into consideration. And wonder all you want about my treatment of the Third Reich section, I wonder why you said it that way, why not just say what you're wondering outright, hm? --Golbez 18:49, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, based on your assessment that Metternich is major, I'll put him back in. As for the rest, I'm not quite sure what you're saying; a quotation from a book is not a copyright violation if properly sourced. However, I don't see room in that section for any quotes. --Golbez 20:27, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't really see the point; personally, I don't care what some book says the proportion should be. I'll trust your description of it and take that into consideration, as I have all of your other edits. However, in my opinion, proportion is irrelevant; all that matters is content. So it's probably better if you don't upload it. --Golbez 21:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Accusations
Your assumption of my alleged nationalist bias are completely missed. And it's not me who is pedantic here, I'm only enforcing the rule and adopting the interpretation used by other esteemed contributors (for instance User:Chris 73). If you want to question the interpretation, you should contact him. If you question the vote itself, please leave your protest at the Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion. Halibutt 17:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, your accusations are completely missed. I'm not obsessed with Poland, I simply know the most on its history and that's why most of my contributions are related to the history of Poland. On the other hand I barely ever contribute to topics I have no idea on. If that's nationalism, then the article on nationalism must be changed. Also, for me (that's what my user page says) Warsaw is the best place under the sun, just like my girlfriend is the most beautiful woman ever born. Please read my remarks for what they are and not for what you think they might be. By saying that I love my city (which, accidentially, seems to be in Poland), I'm not stating that Poland is better than other countries. I'm merely stating that for me that place is the best under a sun. User pages are for personal oppinions, do not confuse that with contribution to various articles. Also, if saying that my GF is the best is chauvinism, then the respective article should be changed as well..
- As to Chris- no, I'm not kidding. Numerous people saw the danger of such a vote before it was even started, yet they were ignored. Then Chris started adding German names (Germanic language names to be exact) to all articles linking to Gdansk, Szczecin and so on. We asked him to reconsider, we asked him several times to propose some more reasonable interpretation of the voting - yet to no effect. Please read the Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion and Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice for details. However, to no effect. And since both User:Chris 73 and User:John Kenney are admins, they were able to enforce their views on the voting. If that is how wikipedia works, then why should we adopt double standards? If the results of that voting apply to the page on Amber or Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, then why not to Phidias?