Talk:Angry Video Game Nerd/Archive 5

AVGN vs. James Rolfe
This article is about the Angry Video Game Nerd. It is not about James D. Rolfe the person. We do not need to add in every single minute detail of James' life, because most of it has nothing to do with the character AVGN that he portrays. His movie reviews, film production, and other series or work (such as Bullshit and Board James) have NOTHING to do with the AVGN. If someone wants to create an article called James D. Rolfe, then please do so. Until then, stop adding nonsense to this article. WAT ( talk  •  contributions ) 21:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Youtube scandal
Is there no particular way to mention that he joined screw attack because youtube started banning his videos? It made quite a ruckus for some time, considering it was his cursing that got his videos banned, and as we all know there are video`s with much worse cursing, hate, racist material, violence, blood, light sexual videos... even people (sometime minors, probably not on their own account) trying to promote and justify pedophilia... I mean I too reacted... you remove his videos because he curses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.123.228 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic section
I wanted to bring up the Nostalgia Critic section of the page. Has this section become to large? (lulz @ talk page length) Does it need a rewrite? I just wanted to bring it up. -DevinCook (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think that there's WAY too much coverage of it dedicated in the article. It almost reads as a day by day recap, in which a MUCH shorter summary could very well be used instead. The section reads like a fansite. I personally believe that it really doesn't belong in the article at all, save for a paragraph, but to each his own. CarpetCrawler (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why I objected to having a section about the feud in the first place; the section is merely a plot summary of events between AVGN and NC. The section lacks third party sources, and should trimmed down and placed inside the "History" section. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  04:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There is honestly nothing that can be done about the section, it is an event that is still going on. CarpetCrawler, how does this section qualify as having "too much coverage" or a fansite? And StarScream1007, here is a third party source that should put your mind at ease. It specifically talks about the feud, feel free to incorporate it into the section. It is my understanding that there is another more in-depth interview on the way.--Brad M. (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The section is a long episode summary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

ALTTP, no the section in fact describes numerous episodes not just one. If you actually read the section, you would know that.--Brad M. (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I said it's a long episode summary. I'm not sure where you get it that having many episode summaries as one long summary is acceptable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And I am not sure of what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that the section should now be subdivided based on episodes?--Brad M. (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No? I want it cut down to a very brief summary of NC vs. AVGN, w/o its own section. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, your aggression is unwarranted. I assume your question mark was a typo and supposed to be an exclamation point. Otherwise it would not make gramatical sense. And like I said before, this event is still going on, therefore it would be awkward to cut it down right now. I would not object to the section being cut down after the feud is over. But for now, all we can do is keep covering it until after the event is over.--Brad M. (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "First off, your aggression is unwarranted." And neither is yours, Brad M. In fact, I think your comment where you said "If you actually read the section, you would know that." has been where most of the aggression in this argument has come from! Basically, let's all be civil, everyone, and assume good faith, Mmmkay? :) Anyway, to me, the section is 900+ words long, way too long for a small part of the Nerd's career. Cutting it down to only the important facts would not be too "awkward" at all, I think. Right now it's pretty much a blow by blow recap of the entire feud, when a one or two paragraph summary would definitely suffice. CarpetCrawler (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that now that the 'That Guy' has been interviewed in an internet show, he's got enough sources for his own page. Would that possibly mean that we could move some of the more critic-y things over to that page, (if it gets made), and keep the more 'Nerd' related stuff here? :3 Gerkuman (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, one internet show is still not notable enough to get an article on Wikipedia. The Critic would need to get more coverage from other places to get an article. Also, I'm not 100% positive that the interview is even a notable enough source, is it a reliable source? CarpetCrawler (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

CarpetCrawler, if you are trying to pick a fight with me I am letting you know right now that your efforts are futile. Based on ALTTP's previous comment, it was clear that he did not read the section therefore I simply brought that fact up. Now for your comment on awkwardness. Please explain how you believe that it is possible to cut down the section on the feud without having all the information? That is why I say wait until the feud is over (it will be over soon) and base the cuts on the entire framework as to not leave important facts out. Also consider your doubts at ease. Wikipedia apparantly thought it was notable enough to have separate articles on Martin Sargent, Internet Superstar and Revision3. Also, I believe Gerkuman makes a good point about a seperate article, perhaps it should be considered?--Brad M. (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I called it one long episode summary, you say I "didn't read it"? Boy, I wish I could magically defy the logics of reality and make gigantic leaps of reason. Fine, you win - it's not a long episode summary, it's the equally bad MANY EPISODE SUMMARIES. You win the debate of semantics, so how about we return to the debate of "does the section go?". - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Time to archive, Devin. Do your thing.
 * And I am supposed to be the aggressive one? Don't blame me for you not having a clear vocabulary. Now, do you have something constructive to contribute in this debate. Or are you going to continue making sloppy edits without discussing them first. My suggestion is you cool off that temper a bit, then we'll talk.--Brad M. (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you read the definition of "temper" (for example, I'm having trouble finding anything "aggressive" in my original post, could you point it out?). The most thing I have is annoyance from the majority of your comments in this discussion diverting the discussion from the topic at hand to a debate over me describing it as one "long episode summary (which it is), and continuing to assert that I didn't read it on the basis that I called it long episode summary, which I fail to understand asserts anything. That you haven't discussed the topic at hand for the majority of this discussion shows that me dropping my "temper" (which, if it is accurately described as being a temper, the vast majority of people must also have a pretty bad one as well) doesn't speak well for the idea that you have any interest in discussing this. And looking at this discussion, you've made no good points, no arguments that it should remain, no assertion that anything that is being cut needs to remain, and you're the only one opposing it, so I'm just curious why one person with zero arguments is enough opposition to keep this discussion going when three other people support trimming it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is any clear proof of how rude and aggressive you are, one just has to read this discussion. Better yet, read most of the past disccusions you had with other users []. Apparantly, your disgraceful conduct with me is nothing new. Again, once you've calmed down a bit, we'll talk.--Brad M. (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Proof that I'm being aggressive is responses to you inciting aggression? You've accused two different users of misconduct in this discussion alone, I'm curious why you think that everyone else is being aggressive, since you were the first person in this discussion to post aggressive messages to anyone. If you aren't going to respond because your attempts at inciting aggression are succeeding, then your opinion on this matter is fairly irrelevant, and I propose to the other participants that you be ignored in the consensus unless you will discuss this subject like an adult (which is not making improper statements to people and then getting upset about people responding accordingly and threatening to take your ball and go home).
 * Oh, and my original message with "No?" in it was proper grammar. I'm not sure of anyone who's not said or heard someone say No with a question mark sound at the end. Oh, and spell grammatical right before you try to correct someone's grammar. Here's my response to the one point you've made.
 * I assume your grammar (not gramar) is incorrect, and you meant to say "without losing important information" rather than "without having all information", because I can't imagine why anyone in support of something would be against not cutting it down, so I'll respond to that. We're not concerned with preserving as much as we can, we're concerned with removing as much as we can. It's completely unnecessary.
 * But regardless, The Critic's article status is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and whether he gets an article or not has no influence on whether the section is reduced. But in viewing your contributions, your issue seems to be with which content we're cutting, not that we're cutting content, since you seem to have interest in The Critic, adding his reviews to pages of movies that he has reviewed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Outnumbering my response on a 20:1 ratio (give or take). Yikes, that cannot be healthy. Am I really making you that mad?--Brad M. (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's because you aren't discussing the subject at hand - it usually adds to your comment if you were to do so. For example, instead of multiple attacks against several different users, you could respond to my post about your point. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I ask you to stop reverting if you are not going to discuss this issue. As it stands, the discussion is over whether or not this is an aggressive discussion, since you haven't discussed The Critic's section for several edits. I asked you to explain what is lost in the trimmed version, and to explain why it is important that it should remain. Care to do so? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I restored the article. I think the trimmed version, with the picture, is a good compromise between content and brevity.-DevinCook (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks very nice. Just as long as a small mention of the conclusio:n is posted when it occurs.--Brad M. (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nay, this 'tis be an un-ending epic war! In all seriousness, they will probably be working on projects for a long time. Both are unbelievable talents. I personally love the Ask that Guy with Glasses series. ... and I almost *did* die of laughter on the review of Saved by the Bell.-DevinCook (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No doubt about it, both of them are amazing. I personally think the Critic's Captain Planet review is comedic gold. Ahh, childhood...--Brad M. (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I WASN'T trying to start a fight in that message, which is proven when I ask everyone to be civil, and to assume good faith. Just want to clear my case. CarpetCrawler (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oooohh, and I like the new Nostalgia Critic section, great to know a compromise was met! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The new section looks outstanding. It seems like a great compromise that will keep all of pleased... for now. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  05:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So, where are the independent, reliable sources that felt the need to cover this event? Right now, it's a summary of a self-promotional "rivalry" sourced entirely to self-published claims of both. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Martin Sargent reference at the beginning of the section? Or perhaps you could check out the article: Douglas 'Darien' Walker, where even more independent sources referencing the feud are found. Are you sure you took the time to look before reaching a decision on the matter?--Brad M. (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An in-character interview on the self-published online show of someone who once worked on a barely-noteworthy television show is quite a long way from a reliable source. Alternately, yes, I can read Douglas 'Darien' Walker, but only because I'm an admin and can see pages that were deleted four months ago for being utterly self-promotional. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It really does not take an admin to realize the sources on the Darrien article are reliable. Therefore if you actually took the time to read the sources I mentioned, you would realize that you have no basis for your bickering.--Brad M. (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That article doesn't have any references, and it's deleted to boot. The one single reference that isn't their own sites or a forum is an internet show of no particular consequence where one of them goes on in-character. Efforts that are self-promotional are not good references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"That article doesn't have any references, and it's deleted to boot?" Here is the link to the article. You will find that it is very much in existance, with the reliable sources in it.[]--Brad M. (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reference in the section about their "rivalry" is the same Martin Sargent in-character interview. Please link directly to any relevant sources, instead of gesturing broadly at them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that you are dead set at deleting the section despite any evidence I can provide. First you claimed that the article I mentioned was deleted, which is false. You then claimed that article had no references, which is also proven to be false. As for direct links, you have the actual article link which is enough for you to find out for yourself. Until you can come up with a better argument, one without false information, this discussion is over. --Brad M. (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, it seems that you have had similar issues in the past. If one looks at your talkback page [] one sees how you have a tendency for constantly deleting things without even taking the time to check the sources yourself. If you want "direct links" I suggest you take the fraction of a minute necessary to find them on the article link I provided. I for one am not going to spend any more time trying to convince you of the obvious.--Brad M. (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

References. Do you have them. Personalizing things is a distraction from the fact that you have not produced any good references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking into the history, this is not the first time someone has called you on there being excessively undue weight on this particular self-promotional scheme, and that you were asked to produce references before and failed to do so. These are not "baseless complaints." On Wikipedia, we base factual claims on independent reliable sources, not self-promotional efforts or the subjects' say-so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"You were asked to produce references before and failed to do so?" One only has to look at the discussion pages of AVGN and ThatGuy articles to see the truth. You have enough to find the information for yourself, but I am not going to waste any more time trying to discuss this with you. The section stays, unless you get your facts straight.--Brad M. (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. There are no sources in the article, and you're too busy proclaiming that you're right to add them, so where does that leave us? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Examining the sources
[[:Image:AVGN battles Nostalgia Critic.PNG|250px|thumb|right|The Angry Video Game Nerd battles the Nostalgia Critic in The Final Battle]] The Angry Video Game Nerd was involved in a satirical battle against a fellow Internet personality known as the Nostalgia Critic (played by Douglas 'Darien' Walker). This fictional feud has been covered by Internet Superstar host Martin Sargent who interviewed Douglas Walker's character.

"The feud began when the Nostalgia Critic posted an online video where he satirically expressed his disgruntlement at the AVGN for failing to keep his fans 'under control'. He railed against comments, written by the Nerd's fans, which the Critic sees as 'unfair comparisons between the two of them.' This began a series of tongue-in-cheek video responses between The Nostalgia Critic and Angry Video Game Nerd. When Rolfe first left an advertisement to The Critic's website, it flooded the Critic's server with over two thousand new unique visitors within the first two hours - with over 18,000 videos viewed."

"Ultimately, James Rolfe and Darien Walker began to film videos together based on the satirical feud. The culmination of the rivalry, called the Final Battle, features a lengthy fight scene parodying popular films and cliches; in particular, The Matrix Reloaded and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. The video also borrows elements from the Nerd's review of Super Mario Bros 3 including his 'battle armor' and Super Mecha Death Christ. The entire 'fight' takes place in the Nerd's room."

Let's look at these sources.


 * 1) This episode of Martin Sargent's personal online show is probably the closest thing to a reliable source here. There are two problems. First, this is crap for an independent, reliable source, as it's a different show self-produced by someone who used to work on a show that was borderline as a source on its own. The second problem is that it's not commentary; it's Walker going on in-character and prosecuting this rivalry, not commenting on it. There's no detatchment. It's part of the rivalry, not a source commenting on it.
 * 2) This is an episode of That Guy's show, failing the independent part of "independent, reliable source" completely.
 * 3) This is a dead link on a forum. Not a reliable source even if it worked.
 * 4) This is That Guy's personal website. Same problem as #2.

So where are the reliable sources here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Get the rest of the sources from the article. You're almost there.--Brad M. (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What sources? Just repeating "They're there, you'll see 'em" is infuriating and useless. Link directly to the sources to which you are referring. - A Man In Bl♟ck  (conspire - past ops) 04:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, off the top of my head, I distinctly remember there being an interview from Columbia University that you did not add. I am telling you right now, I am not going to spoonfeed you. You brought up the issue, it is your problem.--Brad M. (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WHERE? You want to keep this content, you're responsible for sourcing it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave you the page despite you arguing that: 1. it did not exist, 2. there were no sources on it, 3. and afterwards saying that the Columbia source does not exist even though you yourself claim to have copied and pasted all the sources of the article. It is clear you have a personal POV that you want to enforce, and I do not wish to indulge you. You have the article link, find the Columbia interview yourself.--Brad M. (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It prevails on you to add the sources that support the content you want to keep to the article. WP:BURDEN. I have no clue what source you're talking about, and I've asked you and asked you and asked you to link it. So, again, link or cite the damned source either here or in the article because I have no clue what you are talking about and it isn't my responsibility to piece together your vague clues. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to this, it's a dead link on Walker's own site, cited to support a fact completely unrelated to this article. How is it going to affect anything? What is it? Who published it? What facts if any does it support in this article?- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that it's working, it's a raw recording of Walker promoting his own show (out of character for once) at Columbia University, published on Walker's own site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a recording of a public Q&A event sponsored by Columbia University. He specifically mentions the feud. Also, what do you mean by "out of character for once?" The Revision3 interview had Doug wear the AskThatGuy costume, but he was nowhere near character.--Brad M. (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did anyone besides Walker himself publish this Q&A anywhere?
 * The Martin Sargent interview is 10 seconds of him telling jokes about the "rivalry". I don't think we'll be adding any comments about one or the other being born first to the article, and it doesn't back any claims made in this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would hate to call you a liar, but if the shoe fits. The Sargent interview is not simply "ten seconds" as you put it, anyone can see for themselves. And yes, some jokes are exchanged during the interview. Should I thus proceed to erase every article section I can find, since the source used to back it up may contain a joke?--Brad M. (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't more than 10 seconds about their rivalry. Some quick offhand jokes and it's off to another topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So, did anyone yet have any appropriate sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The section about show-related video games
These games are just fan projects and don't meet have notability to be added. Besides it's just advertisement.--Megaman en m (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, being a fan project is not a negative, it just needs adequate sources showing it to be notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The YouTube is a valid, third party source. The images is obviously the only possible source... which some work can be done. The Opie and Anthony interview is stored on his site, but it is just a recording. I'm sure it can be found archived somewhere else on the Internet. I have reverted the changes. The information is valid, but I agree that a couple of the references need improvement.-DevinCook (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The AVGN Video games should not be listed here. They are fan works. If you are going to allow the AVGN Games to be listed here, then why not pieces of fan art? It would be the same thing. The Games based on AVGN should be removed. Unless a real company releases one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdartist (talk • contribs) 00:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The YouTube page is Rolfe's own YouTube account. The images are primary sources; lots of things have lots of fanart, so who felt the need to comment on it? If the answer is "nobody," then we should not comment either.

This article is bloated with lots of badly sourced superlatives and promotional content and weasel-wordy accolades, and it's time to fix that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The YouTube post is just another backup of the Interview. It does not appear to be part of Rolfe's accounts. EDIT: Sorry, I didn't notice what you meant. The numbers displayed on his YouTube account are created by YouTube's system. He has no control over them. It is basically a YouTube reference rather than an AVGN one. Sorry out that. -DevinCook (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's still not much of a source. Additionally, you replaced all of the promotional faff, claiming that the Opie and Anthony Show is a sufficient source on the Opie and Anthony Show.
 * Its a radio interview. This show is national in the United States. It is a major show - not as big as Howard Stern, I admit, but still a major program.-DevinCook (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If Rolfe owns or appears in a source, it is not a secondary source, and is not a reasonable source for making evaluative claims about his own work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Give me a couple minutes, and I will link to the non-Rolfe main pages on YouTube. I see your point.-DevinCook (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally, YouTube videos aren't very good sources for anything. Self-published commentary rarely meets WP:RS. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloat
I have tried to de-bloat it. Most recently we made some changes to the Nostalgia Critic information. -DevinCook (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning Message
Sadly, we need to keep the full warning message in the article - no one sees it anyway unless they are going to edit. This page is constantly changed by other on-line reviewers who want to publicity. There are some good ones, and some online criminals.-DevinCook (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need to speculate as to reasoning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Normally, I wouldn't put such a warning in an article. Mainly, the warning is designed to prevent the "controversial" reviewers - in particular those who plagiarized this show. Sadly, the Internet is full of amoral, anti-academic, people. Thanks for your help. -DevinCook (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of YouTube and Opie & Anthony sections
Why does someone keep removing these? I thought it was an accident at first, but the user has removed them multiple times. This looks like a deliberate attempt at hiding Rolfe's notability in an effort to renominate this article for deletion. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also noticed that this administrator responsible for the removal used a deceptive edit summary, claiming to only remove parts of a warning and the fan-following section. He fails to mention the important YouTube and O&A sections. I expect more out of this site's administrators. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? Because there are a bunch of Tools on wikipedia that act like they are charged personally for each article that exists. They need to get the stick out of their ass and stop deleting everything. 99.183.170.107 (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

E.T.
Should we note that he, for some reason, doesn't review the E.T. game? That's, like, the number 1 bad game of all time, man. 85.228.189.67 (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh sure! Let's start a whole list of games he didn't review! Just no. And that's your opinion.--Megaman en m (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's enough articles around and ratings that really could prove ET to be one of (if not the) worst video game ever created. For some laughs, just do a bit of reading on the Atari 2600 ET game. Wardrich (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read the F.A.Q. on his site, he says that that is one of the most common questions he gets asked. He often says that he is saving it for something speacial--Wise dude321 (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you also read an interview he did with some Korean site (link on his website) he says there are games far worse than E.T. 75.134.4.55 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

New Userbox
Hello everyone. I just created a new userbox for fans of the Angry Video Game Nerd. To add it to your own user page, just type  in your user page. Enjoy! -AVGN Fan (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks, I'll be adding this! CarpetCrawler (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Free image
Can someone upload a free image from Flickr or own work for other wikis article about The Angry Video Game Nerd? Egon Eagle (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit
"You know what's Bullshit?" segment nine has been created, but a Youtube video hasn't been added yet. I filled out the info, but if anyone can link to the video on Youtube when it comes out, that'd be great.

Also, it won't let me rename it from "You Know What's Bullshit? (2007-2008 ?)" to #You Know What's Bullshit? (2007-2009)". Could somebody help with this?

Voxamimae (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Article up on wikia
I'm not sure if it's allowed to add the link onto the main article, but there's a page up on wikia about him here that needs contributers. Angry Video Game Nerd article on Ebeeto Videos wiki --86.18.165.200 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that the lack of a reply denotes a lack of interest. I'll add the link and i suppose it'll stay there until someone has a problem with it. --86.18.165.200 (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Interview recycling
The "popularity" header had a ton of links to interviews, without actually using any of the information from those interviews save that they exist. Indeed, conclusions were drawn (international popularity, respected part of the internet gaming community) that were not made anywhere in those interviews. As such, we need to recycle these interviews to back claims they actually make, instead of drawing inferences from the fact that they exist.

The Angry Video Game Nerd has developed a worldwide following resulting in interviews from magazines, television shows, and video game related websites outside the United States. Examples include interviews and articles conducted in Germany, Sweden , South Korea , Australia, the Philippines , Mexico and Brazil.

The show has become a respected part of the online gaming community. This resulted with a number of related websites and online articles and interviews. These include interviews with 1UP, Play It Review It , 4 Color Rebellion , This Week in Geek , World of Warcraft Radio. , and Game Radio (German)

There are also articles in IGN, FLAREGamer , Pop17 , and the L.A. Game Culture Examiner.

Hopefully, we can find a good use for these. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Friday the 13th review featured in DVD movie, "His Name Was Jason"

 * - Oklahoma Gazette 75.64.247.79 (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-English third-party sources
There's a request for third-party sources on top of the article. That's perfectly reasonable: readers aren't expected to take the wiki at its word. We need more reliable proof for our facts or they won't be facts, just conjecture. Fortunately the problem's solvable (and therefore not grounds for deletion) via this handy list of publicity. Several items are only passing mentions, others would never fly as references, but we seem to have at least these options:
 * Track down the article in Herald News from the scan
 * Translate this Swedish article
 * Track down and then translate this Polish article
 * Translate this German article if and only if it's a credible source; I can't tell

We don't need English translations of the non-English sources, but naturally someone who speaks the languages has to check what we're using as sources before we do so. If you speak Swedish, Polish or German, please have at it. Drop me a note if you need a hand with referencing.

Having to use non-English references is one of the breaks of running a worldwide knowledge base on worldwide subjects. A few people tend to question it, so allow me to finish defensively by copypasting in a section of an argument I had about this last summer:

There's nothing that I could find in our barrel-o-rules about excluding non-English references. WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV (the core principles - the ends rather than the means) have one section about non-English, WP:N (which is not a core principle but #¤%& well tends to be used like one by its fans) is silent. V's said section specifies that non-English sources should be replaced by English ones when there's no drop in quality, and that direct quotes should be accompanied by the original text, both "for the convenience of our readers." There's no mention of non-English sources being limited, supplemental, inferior or in any way not equal to English ones other than being inconvencient. This seems to reflect our practices, too. As for why this is, rejecting non-English sources altogether would be disastrous to our coverage of history, archeology, customs, geography, food, festivals, et cetera et cetera. Rejecting them for notability... well, WP:N is a yardstick for being significant enough to include. Wouldn't restricting it to English media create an enormous bias in favor of Western media - and Western art and science? (They do things with robots in Japan that'd make our eyes fall out.) The recent Finnish campaign funding scandal caused a massive furor and calls for the Prime Minister's resignation, but it has next to no international news value. A development in, I don't know, Tonga, might be a significant yardstick in the country's history but pass unnoticed by CNN and pals.

--Kiz o r  10:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is not a credible source. "Pamaxx.de versteht sich selbst als ein kleines Portal für Hobbyautoren, Tutorialschreiber, Computer-Interessierte und jene, die auch gerne Texte von anderen User lesen. Dabei steht das freie Wort, die freie Meinung und die freie Information ganz oben auf der Prioritätsliste." Roughly translated (and anyone whose German is better than mine can correct me), it's "Pamaxx.de is a portal for hobby authors, tutorial writers, computer enthusiasts, and anyone who would like more people to see their writing. Freedom of speed, freedom of expression, and freedom of information are at the top of the priorities list."

It's German-language Everything2 with more of an emphasis on computer tutorials than random prose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What a pity that I can't read it! Thanks. Two out of the three things remaining should still be plenty. --Kiz o r  12:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The CW
When did the Nerd appear on the CW? I'm sure that would be an interesting thing to fully detail. Was it a full episode, or just a clip of the show? Carpet Crawler message me  23:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Mike Matei has his own article, but he doesn't seem to have any notability outside of this article's subject. James D. Rolfe redirects here, and Rolfe is certainly more notable than Matei. Therefore, I would like to propose that Matei's article be merged here (or possibly just redirected, since I think all of its information might be here already). Any objections?--Unscented (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree fully, redirect here. Rror (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since there are no objections, I'll redirect it now.--Unscented (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Attention Deficit Disorder
In the "McKids" review, Rolfe mentions specifically that he has ADD. Should we add this to the article? 70.51.233.115 (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He was probably joking, numbnuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.127.229 (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks please (WP:NPA)... It is mentioned, but you never know what can be taken seriously, or if he is talking 'in character'. 86.22.72.154 (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that I can be used as a source or anything, but he did attend Y.A.L.E. in Cherry Hill, NJ (Which happens to be a school for people with some form of "disability") with my brother. That of course doesn't verify what disorder. Again, I know I'm not a wiki acceptable source, but I really wouldn't know how to go about verifying that. 24.127.148.85 (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP definitely applies here, even if Rolfe said it himself.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Fansite
There is way too much intricate detail about the show and the man. We don't need to know how many versions there are of his theme song, what brand of beer he drinks, etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

eRolf
What the fuck is eRolf? Why did some backwoods retard change the name of this page. Please fix 76.217.59.26 (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
speedy move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC) ERolf → The Angry Video Game Nerd &mdash; This page was originally called "The Angry Video Game Nerd" A vandal has moved the page to "eRolfe" The page needs to be moved back, but only an admin can perform the move in this situation.  StarScream1007  ►Talk  04:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support — This should be an uncontroversial move. — V = I * R  (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the names meaningless Sir Fritz (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

480i Picture Format?
Shouldn't the picture format be listed as 480p, not 480i? As far as I know, interlacing is only used for TVs; all video made for computers is in progressive scan. —C. Raleigh (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusion?
When being redirected from another article in order to find an article about James D. Rolfe, the link said "James D. Rolfe", but the article seems to be almost exclusively about the AVGN show, with a little mention of other regular shows ("YKWBS" and "Board James"), but no mention whatsoever of his other work. I suggest either rewriting the article to mention all of James Rolfe's work, or create another article about his other work.
 * This article's subject is the angry video game nerd character that Jame's portrays. It is not a biography of James himself, although real-world information is present.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that there should be a separate article created about the person James Rolfe and that this AVGN article should be cleaned up entirely. There is so much in the AVGN article that has nothing to do with the show at all.

Free art
I made this art: if someone on other languages articles about the Nerd could use. Egon Eagle (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, it's very nice and everything, but we won't be able to use it anywhere I'm afraid.--Megaman en m (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, but all photos of James Rolfe on Flickr does not have right licence to accept to use on Wikipedia. Only CC-BY or CC-BY-SA is the only choise, there was an user who has copyvio suspected pictures I'm afraid on Flickr as a CC-BY-SA license. Egon Eagle (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like Superman --78.8.40.191 (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

James Duncan Rolfe's (and our beloved AVGN's) Age
I'm in favor of (re-adding) James Duncan Rolfe's (thank-you middle name finder/adder) age, as, regardless of what one anal-ass(← a noun, not an adjective!) (who is) trigger-happy-on-the-undo-button-trying-to-make-this-page-HIS-OWN thinks, this page belongs to everybody, and is a hub of encyclopedic information.

Also, James Duncan Rolfe IS the Angry (Nintendo) Video Game Nerd, the AVGN IS James Duncan Rolfe.

An (IMPORTANT) point of information is the genre, inception, origin, and system(s) of games James chooses to base an AVGN video on; his previous and past experiences with it, his memorable experiences with it, his source of the game, his knowledge of the game, his affinity for the game (eg. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; Castlevania ][: Simon's Quest, etc.). THIS is HEAVILY intrinsically congruent with his age innately, as with The Wizard (movie) as James recollected, was his first introduction to Super Mario Bros. 3, as well as games among the NES and coin-op machines visible and amiably collective throughout the movie itself as he was able to see, hear, name, dissect, notice flaws, faults, remember memories and game mechanics faulted by the movie's producers in dialogue (eg. Double Dragon point collection on the arcade machine), and SO MUCH MORE.

So James Duncan Rolfe's age is a HUGE factor to the genre and generation of games he reviews, particularly amongst the systems he chooses to review games on, including games particularly played by him himself at a young age, near their release dates, as well as providing a basis for the informed viewer, but FAR from the average viewer, about what games are likely to be reviewed, what games James is familiar with, which games he has likely been exposed to, and what his age tells us and applies to about his influences on the AVGN character, its source, gaming influences (particularly the Castlevania and Zelda franchises, and later Atari 2600 games and his stories and history about his early consoles and first games and introductions), and so much more.

His age is pretty important, and is also attributable to the AVGN character's age (of legal drinking age at the very least), and the history, generation, characterization, and characteristics of the Angry Video Game Nerd character and his Creator's source and influences/era of influence (Age 29, soon gaming his way to 30 in a few weeks =) ). Thanks for Reading and for our collective AVGN-fanbase Awesomeness!-TAz69x (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He's that old? I believe you, but when I first saw him, I thought he was roughly my age (21)... 78.151.165.24 (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Cursers!
I didn't know that Wikipedia were going to curse at us (In the animated characters section, it says s**t pickle and nerdy t**d.) You need to censor this. Cursing like this belongs on Encyclopedia dramatica. 82.13.79.52 (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED C T J F 8 3  chat 00:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't aware of that. So here's an idea: There should be a mode select for articles with cussing, sex references, gore, e.t.c., that censores and uncensores all this stuff. On what page do I mention ideas like this to help improve Wikipedia? 82.13.79.52 (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It won't change, as the above link is a core part of Wikipedia...but Village pump (proposals) would be the place. C T J F 8 3  chat 21:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

James Rolfe =/= AVGN
Searching for James Rolfe comes up with a different JR and the suggestion that if you're looking for the director, to go to the AVGN page. However, while AVGN is James' most popular character, James is not AVGN, he merely plays him. As a director who has created a lot of content, much more than just AVGN, shouldn't he get an article for himself to cover him and his career? 144.136.189.125 (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we determine whether a subject is worthy of its own article based on its notability (WP:Notability). your point is correct, James Rolfe and AVGN are two separate subjects, much like Nancy Cartwright and Bart Simpson. In order for Rolfe to have his own article, he will need to earn the same critical commentary and reception that AVGN received. This means the article would need to have information about Rolfe's life, work, and accomplishments from reliable 3rd party sources. We can make an article for Rolfe once there are more reliable sources that discuss his life outside of AVGN. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  15:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

His personal life
What about his personal life, his religion, college? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.121.129 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There is already a Wiki page on James Rolfe himself these days, so there is no need to include these information here. This page regards The Angry Video Game Nerd, a fictional character impersonated by James Rolfe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.229.160.24 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Notability, AKA who the **** is James Rolfe
I've never heard of any of this, and if you're reading this, you probably haven't either. I smell a shameless plug and feel this article does not meet the notability guidelines. Can I get a wutwut? Shiggity (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So to get this straight, you're advocating its deletion based on nothing more than the fact that you don't know who the subject of this article is? Do I have that right? 67.164.140.165 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that he's too hot about there being a post on Wiki about him either. Then again, he should have known, once you get interviewed on TV for something you've done, it's over.75.142.234.137 (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

From videos he hasn't seemed to mind being on the Wiki. Plus I gotta agree- just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it's not notable. What Shiggity smells is probably something else. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Teaser trailer/ Avengers
In the film part of the article, it says the teaser trailer is rumored to be attached to the Avengers. This sounds fishy to me. I highly doubt any such rumors actually exist, and if they do I doubt they are from a reliable source. My guess is this a fan's wishful thinking, and not notable enough to be part of the article. Can anyone help confirm my suspicions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.12.201 (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It’s an independent film from an unknown filmmaker, which is still in the pre-production phase, and which currently doesn’t have anything even remotely approaching a solid release-date. Moreover, Rolfe has said that it’s his intention to take the film on the festival circuit before ultimately releasing it on DVD. So no, there's no chance that a teaser-trailer is going to be attached to The Avengers. Though that having been said, it looks like that was removed from the article already, so it's all good. 167.106.255.101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC).

Split
This page really needs to be split into three separate articles because there is too much non-AVGN information involved. There is enough about Cinemassacre to warrant its own page, and James Rolfe should have his own page. This would greatly cut down on the non-AVGN related information cluttering this page and keep the information at quick reference for those who wanted to view it.


 * Split as per reasoning above. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Split I agree. --PhilipB (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, Is anyone going to do the split? Op47 (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Produced by Will Ferrell and Adam McKay
There are no sources for this. I think it's vandalism and nothing more. I will remove if there are no objections. TwoBitSpecialist (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)