User talk:Arkhandar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

August 2011

Resolved

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from History of video game consoles (eighth generation) with this edit. When removing content, 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 content 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. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 01:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. With regard to your recent edits to History of video game consoles (eighth generation), please do not remove the launch prices, as they are permanently relevant. Additionally, if you wish to add "current" prices, please add an "as of" date; otherwise, it is prone to being inaccurate when/if the prices change. Thank you. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 01:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

PlayStation Move

Resolved

Hi. With regard to your edit to PlayStation Move, I don't disagree that a comparison with the Wii remote belongs in the article. It does not however belong in the first sentence, which is intended to be "a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject". The current 1st sentence ("PlayStation Move is a motion-sensing game controller platform for the PlayStation 3 (PS3) video game console by Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE).") is more than adequate for this purpose (although I don't think it really needs the abbreviations). Also, adding such a comparison in the first sentence (especially the way it is worded) implies a far greater connection (both design-wise and technologically) between the two than actually exists. I can see a comparison between the two controllers being appropriate (if properly sourced, which shouldn't be hard) elsewhere in the article, possibly in the reception section (where I believe such a comparison is already made) or in the technology section. It may also be appropriate elsewhere in the lead (the first paragraph(s)), but I'm not quite sure how. If you wish to discuss it, feel free to contact me on my talk page or post something on the article's talk page. Also, in future it is good practice if someone reverts you to then discuss it (also known as a "bold, revert, discuss" cycle) rather than simply reverting it back as this can lead to edit wars. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - everybody is/was new at some point. Wikipedia takes a bit of getting used to but as long as you try to follow the rules (motive matters a lot more than actions for the most part, as long as you aren't in blatant violation of Wikipedia's core rules/guidelines) you should be OK. You certainly seem to be doing your best to improve the encyclopædia, and that's all most of us really ask. I'm more than willing to give you a few pointers if you want.

I have reverted your addition to PlayStation Move for now, since as it stands it is misleading (technologically it is actually quite different to the Wii remote; I can explain both in detail if need be). You said "The PlayStation Move is very similar to Nintendo's Wii Remote (Plus), both in technical and design variants". Before you re-add a similar sentence to the article, I'd recommend a discussion of some sort, so that we (i.e. the community, not just you and me) can agree on things. If nothing else it can be a learning experience about how Wikipedia works and what can and cannot be included. Also, there are a few issues with the wording that, while rather minor, could prove rather informative.

First, and most simply, [[Nintendo|Nintendo's]] can be replaced with [[Nintendo]]'s. Adding "s" or "'s" to the end of any linked name automatically makes the "s"/"'s" part of the linkable text (doesn't break the link though). Bear in mind though that if the word is italicised (using double-apostrophes) then you need to replace "'s" with either "{{'}}s" or "{{'s}}" to prevent it from becoming bold (triple-apostrophes bold the text).

Second, the word "variants" refers to "different versions of the same thing". For example, the WaveBird could be considered a variant of the Nintendo GameCube controller. I think what you meant to say was something along the lines of "both in respect to technical capabilities and design".

Hope this was helpful and I look forward to future conversations, Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 02:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

8th Gen

Resolved

Sorry, but one person can't just "decide that there's consensus", whether you find it silly or not. Feel free to join in on the discussion, but you can't just come to your own conclusions like that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't came with my own conclusions, I just wanted to open the editors eyes. And second, what's the point in continue this debate? The way things are going, we're never going to reach a consensus. Just open your eyes. This generation is already accepted by everyone except Wikipedia's editors. --Arkhandar (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on PlayStation Vita. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —C.Fred (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you're tempted to use IAR as a justification to make another similar edit, please consider this passage from the WP:IAR? essay: "'Ignore all rules' does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus." Since there is a conflict of whether your edit is improving the article, I strongly suggest you heed that guidance and wait for consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see what you're trying to say. Please note that I did what I did in good faith. I want to improve Wikipedia, especially in the video games area, since it's me area of specialty. In regards of the subject I am very sad to say this but, once aging, I did what I did because this "consensus" thing as been going for a long time now. No one seems to care about the facts, and in consequence, Wikipedia itself. I don't see a consensus between Wikipedia's editors in the near future. Something must be done. And it hurts me more to say that Wikipedia is the only place you can easily find doubts of the existence of generations in video game consoles. Since in every area in the electronics industry has "generations " to divide and organize its products, why would the video games industry be any different? Something really needs to be done. If common people and the media already use the term "generation" to divide and organize video game consoles, why would Wikipedia be any different? We are talking about Wikipedia for God's sake. This site is supposed to be based on facts not on wannabe editors (no offence intended). This is an encyclopedia. --Arkhandar (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that you cross the line from good faith to disruptive. Taking matters into your own hands will solve nothing. And on Wikipedia, we care very much about facts. If you had actually read the discussion page on generations, you would see that. You did not. WP:IAR is only one policy. Another policy on here is no edit warring. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 23:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You sir are talking like you have something against me, and I don't really think that is necessary. I'm only here to help. So then i'll will say to you this once more. :::::If you are so sure of what you are saying just answer one simple question. If you are so sur of what you are saying then answer this: Was it reasonable arguments that created culture, or just what everyone else thinks? --Arkhandar (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing he said was anything close to "having something against you". The fact of the matter is, you're "editing first, and discsussing later". You're supposed to discuss and come to consensus first, especially on touchy subjects like this. Sergecross73 msg me 23:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. I just wanted to get this over with given the fact that this consensus thing has been going for awhile now. But I admit, what I did was wrong and dind't solve nothing.--Arkhandar (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Your User Page description...

Resolved

...is strikingly similar to mine. I assume you based it off mine? I don't mind or anything, I was just surprised when I read it, especially considering we don't seem to see eye to eye on things so far... Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not English, so I dind't really know what to write. I should have ask first though. Sorry :s --Arkhandar (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind, I was just initially confused, because it's not like I used a template or anything... Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5