|
User talk:Wikibenboy94Welcome, fellow video game enthusiast!
Suggested WikiProjects Hey Wikibenboy94—thanks for your recent contributions. I noticed your interest in Wikipedia's video game content and thought you might be interested in the video games WikiProject. We've done some great work (over 250 pieces of "Very" positivePlease try to avoid adding language like "Very positive reviews", or removing text like "generally favorable". This is generally seen as being peacocky and non-neutral point of view. Typically, the best course of action with video games is to quote Metacritic directly, as this is something we can source. Anything else could be viewed as original research on our part. WP:VG/POV has some more information on video game guidelines. Please keep up the good work. You've done a good job on the Call of Duty 4 Remastered section. -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC) February 2017
Image without licenseUnspecified source/license for File:Modern Warfare Remastered in-game screenshot.jpeg Thanks for uploading File:Modern Warfare Remastered in-game screenshot.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), For more information on using images, see the following pages: This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 22:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare RemasteredHi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Your GA nomination of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare RemasteredThe article Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Your GA nomination of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare RemasteredThe article Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered you nominated as a good article has passed DYK for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered On 20 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered was the first Call of Duty game to have accurate bullet casings ejected from every gun? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. Mifter (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC) ArbCom 2017 election voter message Hello, Wikibenboy94. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Usage of "universal acclaim"Here are a couple of discussions in regards to the usage of "universal acclaim", one of which I started when I was working on getting God of War III to become a Featured Article. [1] [2] --JDC808 ♫ 21:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC) July 2018
August 2018
Fastest-selling PS4 exclusiveWhich game is it now? --JDC808 ♫ 15:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Wikibenboy94. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Neutral languageHello, thanks for your recent edits to Fallout 76. Please remember to use neutral language wherever possible, so that statements like "given a crinkled bag made from cheap nylon" are avoided in favour of more neutral and less emotional language. Be sure to read WP:MOSWTW when you have some time, particularly the section on words that may introduce bias. Also, please note that not all information is relevant to the article, and sometimes it can work against neutrality. For example, the addition that the 500 Atom compensation is not enough to buy an in-game duffel bag is redundant information. --Michail (blah) 00:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC) God of War 2018 FAC nominationHey, so I'm wanting to nominate God of War for FAC. Since you've been helpful with the article, I was wondering if you could read over it to see if there's anything you see that you think may need changed or fixed. I read over it yesterday and I'm pretty confident with what's currently there. There are two things that I know need done, which are to replace the demo image in the Gameplay section with one of the final product (and possibly add another elsewhere in the article), and archive sources that haven't been archived yet. --JDC808 ♫ 03:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
RumThe reason it was removed from Bethesda's article due to being caused by another company is perhaps valid enough, if weak, for removing it there. However, it's connection to Fallout 76 and the marketing mistakes surrounding it is relevant and should stay on that article. -- ferret (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Unreliable huh.So the non mainstream source i used that points out the swastikas missing on the uniforms is trash? is this what we're doing now? TheGorg14 (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
SOMACan you take a look at current edits being made at "SOMA"? thanks. — Relevant page:
https://kotaku.com/weeks-later-somas-haunting-ending-still-has-players-de-1741773285 — ThanksThanks for correcting my edit on the MGSV page, as it was my first one, so maybe it was even ridiculous. But the intentions were the best possible, in this case, to clarify some things that many people ignore. The fact that Nem Kojima himself says personally that the game is not finished, with all the letters, makes this remain a doubt and opens space to speculate the opposite. Finally, thanks for correcting the edit. Big Boss'Phantom (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC) UserG versus Primary SourceBe mindful that a Facebook post is still a valid Primary Source about an entity/topic/person. Still needs cautiously used, but it is not immediately inherently unreliable to source something with a primary source. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare RemasteredHello. Those punctuation changes are fine. I understand the Destructoid change, since reviewers are not mentioned anywhere else. Using this style the reader just has to mentally make the connection that a reviewer condemned the change not the magazine. Best of luck moving forward with it. Regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Outridershttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outriders_(video_game)&diff=next&oldid=1019605213 Dear Benboy, I may sound amateurish, but I strive to be precise. The reviewer writes: "One redeeming quality of the story is that it sends the player all over the planet of Enoch. Environments are vibrant and regularly shift from desert to snow, to caves to forests. This extends to the level design and combinations of areas offering cover or no cover at all." This can be summed up that he likes scenery. You deleted "scenery" from what I wrote. Can I bring scenery back? MichalZim (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Resident Evil Village Metacritic ScoreSorry, when I press the link to Metacritic, It showed 82/100 at the time for me. GameEnd (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
RE Village revertHello, you reverted an edit of mine on the Resident Evil Village article saying "Nothing about the original wording implied it might have been referring to Miranda as the founder." However, I never claimed that the wording did this, I claimed that it seemed to indicate that Miranda created the t-virus because it says "Miranda mentored Oswell E. Spencer, the founder of Umbrella Corporation, and used her knowledge to eventually develop the t-Virus." As far as I am aware, it was Oswell and the Umbrella Corporation that created the t-virus, not Miranda. I may be wrong there as I am not a buff of the series. Nonetheless, if it is incorrect as is, I don't want to change things in a way that may be reverted and so instead I am leaving this message here so that you can change the article (or not) in a way that you find to be the most appropriate. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Promotion of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered
Congratulations, Wikibenboy94! The article you nominated, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered scheduled for TFAThis is to let you know that the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 27, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 27, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. I'd already schedule that date, but since it's your first FA, I've given it an instant run out rather than make you wait another year. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
That's funny, you didnt even get any supports! Looks like its video game month, now that we have this, Plants vs Zombies and Paper Mario all lined up Panini!🥪 17:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Preciousvideo game remastered  Thank you for improving the quality of articles around video games, with a focus on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered, updating other articles including Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, for "Went ahead and did it anyway", - Ben, you are an awesome Wikipedian! You are recipient no. 2637 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Sniper Ghost Warrior Contracts 2Hi, WikiBenboy, It's me again. You improved my text about Outriders a bit, however this time you are not right. I wrote ">>GameStar<< reviewer Sascha Penzhorn wrote that the game is for you if you enjoy long-distance shots," In the German text it was written that the game is for you if for you "Spaß macht, den perfekten Distanzschuss zu planen". - "it's joyful to plan perfect distance shots". It's my interpretation they mean long-distance shots, but I knew the game introduces long-distance shots (above 1 km) to the franchise. So it's quite logical they mean the game is for you if you enjoy long-distance shots. You changed that into "the game would appeal to fans of sniping games". It's a completely different thing! Actually, they made quite a fuss about introducing long-distance shots to the branch. It's quite important they succeeded and the feature was praised. Also, I wrote: "there is a problem if the player is allergic to single-player games with microtransactions." You changed that into "criticized the story and its inclusion of microtransactions." You completely abandoned they are microtransactions in a single-player game. It's a completely different thing, paying to win against computer or paying to win against a human player. MichalZim (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@Wikibenboy94: Sorry, I added the "they" paragraph at the last moment, just glanced at it and thought it should be ok. It actually wasn't quite clear. CI Games (the game's developer) made quite a fuss about introducing long-distance shots in the last game (i.e. SGW C2); it was going to be a novelty. You wrote: "long-distance shots (which to me means nothing and sounds like something that is expected in a sniping game)". Well, in Sniper Ghost Warrior 3 the player was eliminating enemies while hiding, like, over a hill near-by. So no, there were no long-distance shots. " My phrasing of >>the game would appeal to fans of sniping games<< is a summary of two of the review's positive opinions, which they list as being able to plan the perfect shot and feeling it was a sniper game that appealed to professional and beginner gamers." As I get it, your goal is referring what the reviewer wrote, not inferring what can be deduced from it. Especially while, as you partially admit, you actually do not know many sniping games. Besides, as you noted, the reviewer wrote that the game is also good for beginners at sniping games, so interpretation that the game is for fans of sniping games is inaccurate. "unless these statements are in the article they should not be referred to." It's quite clear by "distance shots" they mean "long-distance" shots". Even Google translated for you "long-range shot". Also, the article is behind pay-wall, they only gave free access to this summary. I'm going to subscribe them, but not today. And thank you for changing wording about microtransactions. However, you wrote to me "that they were in the single-player mode". I guess for now it's a game with single-player mode only. MichalZim (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Hi!Resident Evil Village has literally Romanian currency,names,Arhitecture and even traditional foods(Sarmale,Tochitura de pui,ciorba de legume,ciorba de porc,etc.) How the hell does Resident Evil Village doesn’t take place in Romania if the things that I stated are in the game?That means tha Capcom stole our traditions and other things and not credited? Arkley07 (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC) A pie for you! Comdrea
Infinite warfareHello, Benboy, I accepted most of your corrections in the Outriders article. I tried to write more elegantly since then, but you still correct me. "He also feels the characters' arcs are >>rushed to an uncomfortable degree<<. The reviewer gives example of a character who dislikes robots, but suddenly starts to like them without any explanation." - why did you cut it? It was interesting. I understand you feel that you just made it briefer, writing "criticizing the characterization". However, visible plot cuts, perhaps for sake of budget, is something actually different than bad characterization. "The Destructoid reviewer feels that some of the gadgets used in the game are more entertaining in multiplayer, however he observes that Mass Effect and sci-fans may be swayed by the solo campaign." - this was also nicely put. You wrote "thought only fans of Mass Effect and sci-fi fans would be swayed by it." but the reviewer actually writes he was also swayed a bit. So what you wrote is too strong. But congratulations for detecting Phipps's article never mentioned Black Ops III in terms of campaign quality. Seems you are good at revision. Maybe you should stick to revision and do less re-writes of other people's work? MichalZim (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ferret: About revision - yes, I was into translation revisions, I was unaware rewrite is also a revision. I checked and it is, you are right about this one. Sorry. About "they" - I wasn't taught about "they" at school, didn't know, still sounds strange to me. Sorry. Still, while rushed character arcs actually is bad characterization, this is not exactly the idea. The idea is rushed and cut plot. Writing that EGM is "criticizing the characterization" does not give the idea what the reviewer meant. You write: "drifts from what we're specifically denoting: Reception of single player". Actually, I was constantly writing about single player: - "while he appreciates floating through the void and hiding behind an asteroid field" - the reviewer wrote it about it just after writing about disappoinments of single player campaign; before he starts naming them he admits that space sequences are fine. It concerns single player game. - "He also feels the characters' arcs are >>rushed to an uncomfortable degree<<. The reviewer gives example of a character who dislikes robots, but suddenly starts to like them without any explanation." - this obviously concerns single player game. - "The Destructoid reviewer feels that some of the gadgets used in the game are more entertaining in multiplayer," - which means they are not entertaining in single player game, this also concerns single player game. You write "Too much text dedicated solely to EGM" - Well, EGM's review is quite long (even if IGN's review is even longer). Maybe it woud be better to give more text dedicated to IGN's review, not cut text dedicated to EGM's review. However, giving it a second thought, I start to like WikiBenboy's expression "enjoying the variety of gameplay in space". MichalZim (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC) @Wikibenboy94: Hi! You changed "Joab Gilroy of IGN gave the game (...)" to "IGN gave the game (...)". Therefore, when you write "Gilroy appreciated the dialogue and cast performances." we don't know who Gilroy is... For similar reasons we don't understand "both Carsillo and Gilroy highlighted an example when Omar expresses their dislike of Ethan," - we don't know who is Carsillo, who is Gilroy and who is Omar. Also "Omar expresses their dislike" - but we know whether Omar is he or she? Why do we have to write "their", then? MichalZim (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
@Wikibenboy94: Hi again! - Still reviewer's name - you left "The game's multiplayer was criticized by Phipps". I think Phipps has not been introduced before in the current version of the article. - "thanks to there being almost no loading screens" - I think it's better to write "thanks to almost complete lack of loading screens". - You changed "The Game Informer reviewer writes the campaign in Infinite Warfare contains some elements typical for Call of Duty, but is still affecting." into "Game Informer was pleased from a perception that the "frenetic" movement of gameplay in recent Call of Duty installments had been toned down for Infinite Warfare". If you wanted to paraphrase me, I actually meant the following passage from the article: "Campaigns in the Call of Duty series can often be distilled down to a series of setpieces, clichéd villains, telegraphed twists, and ridiculous monologues punctuated with excessive explosions. In Infinite Warfare, you still get some of all that, but if you’re not careful you might also find yourself shedding a solitary tear for the brave soldiers and their sacrifices in the brutal war against the Settlement Defense Front." That's what it means, doesn't it? That Infinite Warfare has bad elements of typical Call of Duty, but is still affecting... Was the word affecting unclear? I admit I actually looked it up in the dictionary, maybe it is not the best. Best regards, MichalZim (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Section on post credits scene in Resident Evil and Ethan WintersHello In the article on [Ethan Winters] I added the fact that Ethan could be seen in a post credits scene, which was however reverted with the motivation that "it was open to interpretation". This, however, is not so (a matter of interpretation), as can be clearly seen when the character - Ethan - is zoomed in close-up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNFSzCKSaAk It is a bit odd that this is not mentioned considering that it is widely talked about on sites dedicated to the game.
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Triple Crown
Congrats on the Triple Crown! You might be interested in a userbox I made,
I notice you also mention not being too versed in Wikitext on your userpage, so feel free to ask me if you want any help laying out your userpage in a particular way. — Bilorv (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Encyclopedia's editorial standards (past tense and [...])All right, while expanding my relations from reviews I will slowly change them to past tense. However for now I am going to make an exception for Sniper Ghost Warrior Contracts 2. It is a very fresh game and present tense seems valid for now. Also, I wrote there that the reviewer "has an impression that". I feel in this case changing it to past tense just a few months after release would somehow suggest his opinion has changed. Thanks for all the work put into verifying the articles, I also have an impression it is important. Using [...] rather than (...) is rather new to me, but if that's the encyclopedia's editorial standard, that's ok with me. Thank you for informing me. MichalZim (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC) In academic writing you can use present tense for reporting articlesHowever, here's how you can refer to articles in academic writing: https://www.eapfoundation.com/writing/references/reporting/ "Sharpling (2012) points out that reporting verbs have subtle differences in meaning." "Smith (2016) states that using According to and state in the same sentence is a common student error." This means that one can use present tense for articles as much as 4 years old. This is also how you can use it in my language; you actually can write "he writes" meaning that he wrote. Furthermore, the link you gave to the correct tense on wikipedia doesn't really show examples of reporting articles; it has examples like "Battleborn was an online hero shooter that was released in 2016. Its servers were shutdown in 2021." I really have a lot to do this year. Also I am slowly translating German review of Phantom Doctrine using Babelfish to use it in the wikipedia article as GameStar is considered a good source on wikipedia and is mostly unused because nobody wants to report reviews written in German. Babelfish is a very good translator, but allows to translate 4 sentences a day. Perhaps I will have to translate some of the German text using a dictionary to make it faster. Then I am going to translate other reviews in order to sum them up in the wikipedia. It's hardly a good idea to waste time on rewriting properly written text for the sake of editorial standards only, especially when you actually gave me no proof of such a standard existing. MichalZim (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Removing reviewsHi Wikibenboy94. In future instead of removing correctly cited reviews that were added and cited by other editors into the video game reviews table section, taking them time and effort, it would be much appreciated if you could be more constructive. In this sense it would be much more constructive to add information from the reviews to the reception section if that is what is needed for them to be listed in the reviews table, rather than undoing the time and effort put in by other editors to include these reviews. It would be much appreciated if you could do this in future and if you could restore reviews that you previously removed that were correctly cited and simply add information from them into the reception section. Cheers, Helper201 (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC) RE VillageHey, please don't revert war with me over that one paragraph info. That discovery in the game's post-credits scene is a crucial finding that's been picked up by multiple reliable sources. It had nothing to do with speculation. Don't remove it just because you feel like it. Neo-corelight (Talk) 05:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC) VGAGGHey! I noticed in your edit summary of removing stuff, you said it was based on WP:VGAGG, however VGAGG says nothing about what you just did, in fact, you removed Game Informer when it should've been kept. Explain why you made that edit please. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 9An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Canon and EGM. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Your c/eMany thanks for copyediting Ethan Winters. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 22An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ethan Winters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Character development. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC) Call of Duty: WWIIHi, Benboy. You changed the long quote "A first-person shooter set during the journey from Normandy to The Rhine isn't unique, but you haven't quite experienced anything like the tour" into shorter "writing that the campaign was "moving" and "salutes the brotherhood that grows and strengthens on the battlefield". Good. However, you cut "praising "A supporting cast of well-crafted personalities"" because, as you argued "EGM also praises the characterization". I don't think it's a good reason, if both sited praised characterization, it's good to write about it. Summary of Gamespot's review is still shorter, than GI's. Also, GiantBomb's review. You cut both that the antagonists in the game are "faceless Nazis" and that "the game doesn't really feel like it's doing anything cool to take advantage of its setting and time period". I think one of these should be restored, or even both. In the comment you wrote that "the game doesn't really feel like it's doing anything cool to take advantage of its setting and time period" is unnecessary, as it's based on the further quote "the setting change didn't bring any new and exciting inspiration with it". No, the editor wrote "the game doesn't really feel like it's doing anything cool to take advantage of its setting and time period" and "the setting change didn't bring any new and exciting inspiration with it". If you want to cut something, cut "was more critical of the game as a whole". It is very mildly put. He "was more critical", not "more critical of the game as a whole". Games sometimes have one very critical review, which would be good to show on the wikipedia. Consider this: https://www.destructoid.com/reviews/review-ghost-recon-wildlands/ MichalZim (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter messageHello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
Fallout 76 edit reversionI strongly disagree with your decision to revert my edit on Fallout 76 to remove the phrase "chiefly with regard to the quality of physical content" referring to the controversies surrounding the game. If you look at the section of List of video games notable for negative reception concerning Fallout 76, the controversies regarding merchandise and the deluxe editions of the game are one of many issues with the game including bugs, poorly received microtransactions, hacking, criticism of the subscription service and developer crunch. The physical content's issues can be detailed in two sentences whereas the issues with the game itself require a whole paragraph. It is a misrepresentation of the issues with, and reception to, this game to say that the controversies was principally focused on the physical content. I am reapplying my edit for these reasons; if you revert it again please justify this decision on my talk page. Hivedrops (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
December 2022
A barnstar for you!
First sentencesRegarding Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, a lot of film articles are not meeting WP:LEAD in prominently placing less noteworthy elements upfront. I've broken down how WP:LEAD can be applied here: User:Erik/Best practices § First sentences about films. In the case of the Shrek films, it looks like the book is placed too prominently in all the sequel articles. Sequels are made because of the success of the preceding films, and reliable sources will reflect that. For the Puss in Boots film, reliable sources will universally write about them as spinoffs of the Shrek films with Puss in Boots having been a supporting character who becomes the starring character. These details are more pertinent than the crew and company credits. Celebrity voice actors are likely pertinent too because reliable sources will headline such actors more often than other names. In essence, the traditional way first sentences have been done have not considered WP:LEAD and have been based on editors' gut feelings (e.g., worshipping the director in the first sentence every time). I think there's a better way to introduce the topic, and it will depend on the film. Let me know your thoughts. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC) March 2023
May 2023
Good article reassessment for Nathan Drake (Uncharted)Nathan Drake (Uncharted) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC) BBC Responds to “The Timeless Children” Canon Complaints articleWell done on the editing of the Timeless child page, it definitely needs a clean up. Just to let you know though, since the Andrew Cartmel response is linked to the Doctor Who TV site, the BBC response to complaints is this article. https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/bbc-responds-to-the-timeless-children-canon-complaints-93292.htm It seems it couldn't know how to make two seperate links, so it could go in with this link, if it's feasible to accept how the BBC responded to the complaints from fans. 2.97.29.51 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC) Just Saying HiHello! I was looking through my archives and found old discussions over Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered (congrats again on the FA!) and wanted to hear what else you've been up to on-wiki these days. Panini! • 🥪 20:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
September 2023
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Far Cry New DawnHello, You wrote that "PC Gamer's reviewer points out similarities with other Far Cry games ("Combat is the same frantic and fun gunplay as in the past few Far Cry games"), especially Far Cry 5 ("This is Far Cry 5 again, just on a smaller scale and with more pink flowers")" does not add anything. On the contrary, the reviewer notices and informs: - that it is mostly the same game again, as other Far Cry games, still some may like it, as it's crazy and fun, - that it is especially similar to Far Cry 5, only smaller and with different aesthetics. Also, it's an example that the reviewers have an impression much of the game has been taken from Far Cry 5. Definitely you can't tell the sentence I wrote does not change anything. Also, you strongly paraphrased "VG247 reviewer also notes reusage of Far Cry 5 material, but claims that the game "introduces enough new ideas and winning missions to make its apocalyptic mark just about worth it"". What you add to the text is that the reviewer thinks that the game is "too derivative of Far Cry 5". Actually, Dave Meikleham did not write that copying is too big. He just notices it cuts costs of the game. Also, you add that the game "had enough original ideas to be worthwhile". Well, it's not only about time. Games cost money and reviews generally inform, whether it's good to buy a game. By "introduces enough new ideas and winning missions to make its apocalyptic mark just about worth it" the reviewer means perhaps, that the game is worth our time and money. MichalZim (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for November 11An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III (2023 video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC) ArbCom 2023 Elections voter messageHello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add December 2023
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. SanAnMan (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Introduction to contentious topics You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Note: This notification was triggered due to your recent edits to Sweet Baby Inc. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 07:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC) DW articlesThanks for going though my various edits on DW articles. I didn’t know what sources could be kept or how they could rephrased. I don’t want to take sides but I feel generally it's best to integrate criticism directly into the relevant articles so that all major views on Doctor Who's episodes (criticism/praise/more nuanced arguments etc.) are included roughly in proportion to how widely they are held. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 92.17.198.220 (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Here is the source from the book The Doctors Are In (you have to go up a bit to find it), in which co-author Stacey Smith describes "the girl in the fireplace". I don't know if it's so much a criticism as if just feeling awkward on the romance in the episode but feels that Rose is "completely side-lined" in the episode. The paragraph in the article needs rewriting if it is to stay. 92.17.198.220 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that you did some rewrites to the Savile drama "The Reckoning", particularly regarding the depicting of an incident clearly inspired by the tragic story of Claire McAlpine. I have tried to turn some paragraphs around, as some moments came after broadcast, like for example, the video footage showing Coogan had once met Savile, and in particular how Louis Theroux, felt as to whether he thought the series was in "bad taste". If you think my edits could use any minor corrections e.g. to grammar and spelling, or matters of factual accuracy, one at a time, you could perhaps then move to making some of your own substantive/ strictly changes, one paragraph at a time? That should allow ample opportunity for discussion and agreement, with the need for major reverts. Hope this looks sensible to you. Many thanks.92.17.198.220 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Why?Why did you had undo my edit? Like, really "positive reviews from critics"? JiunoLujo (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC) ArbCom 2024 Elections voter messageHello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the article's prose. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Dragon Age: The Veilguard".The discussion is about the topic Dragon Age: The Veilguard. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
