User talk:Arkhandar/Archive 2

Yes/No templates in 8th Console Generation
Please stop adding these. They have been reverted 3 times now. Consensus was reached some time ago to not use the templates as the green and red coloration introduces bias. -- ferret (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's funny how you ("you" as in "you all") simply don't care about giving any contribution to this page but make an entire subject about what might be bias or not. Seriously, here in my country yes = affirmative (associated to "green") and no = negative (associated to "red"). I just don't understand what's bothering you, really. Arkhandar (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No isn't necessarily negative or red. To use an extreme example: "Does the console kill people?", the answer is "No.", which is a positive. In the case of 3D and Regional Lockout, the presence or absence of these features are not clearly defined as negative/positive, and in the eyes of some readers, a console with 3D is bad, or a console with region locking is good. It depends on the reader to add this context. -- ferret (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're absolutely right and I understand what you're trying to say. But that only applies to the "region lock" feature since that can minimize the experience for some. Unlike region locking, 3D is an optional feature that the other consoles don't have. So even if the user doesn't like the said feature it's optional so he/she can turn it off, but it's still there an it's an added bonus that the other consoles doesn't have. What I'm trying to say is: let's leave "Region Lockout" the way it is and revert the "3D enabled" feature like the way it was. -- Arkhandar (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Take it to the main talk page of the article. My main objective was to let you know you were going against an established consensus. If you wish to change the consensus, it needs to be discussed at the article's talk page. -- ferret (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Unconstructive hidden commentary in article
So, from what I've gathered, Trut-h-urts added a hidden note regarding the current consensus here stating:

''CONSENSUS REACHED ON TALK PAGE WAS TO NOT USE THE GOOD/BAD "YES" AND GOOD/BAD "NO". DO NOT ADD''.

Then, in your next edit, you changed it to say:

''CONSENSUS REACHED ON TALK PAGE WAS TO NOT USE THE GOOD/BAD "YES" AND GOOD/BAD "NO". DO NOT ADD.''-SO LET'S REVERT ALL THE OTHER TAGS ON WIKIPEDIA BECAUSE I FEEL OFFENDED IF EVERYTHING ISN'T NEUTRAL

Please do not leave unconstructive, personal commentary in articles, even if it's in hidden notes. Discuss it out directly on the talk page, not passively with backhanded comments in the article. Thanks. Sergecross73  msg me   15:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm truly sorry about that. I just felt that the text editor would be a better listener than the editors here on Wikipedia. --Arkhandar (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''You appear to be getting into numerous arguments across a wide range of Nintendo-related articles. Please edit constructively and collaboratively.''  McDoob AU  93  18:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please adhere to BRD
Please take a look at WP:BRD. In general, in Wikipedia, if you make an edit, and it's challenged, then you, as the person who wanted to make the change, starts up a discussion. So, you don't have to be seemingly offended, or aggressive, if someone suggests you do that. It's common practice. Thanks. Sergecross73  msg me   18:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Backward Compatibility
Since you failed to start a discussion, and it spanned several articles, I started up a discussion over at Wikiproject Video Games. Feel free to participate. It is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Backwards_compatibility -- Thanks. Sergecross73  msg me   18:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, please, thank you! --Arkhandar (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at PlayStation Vita shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GSK ● talk ● evidence 23:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to PlayStation Vita, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. GSK ● talk ● evidence 20:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as PlayStation Vita. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. GSK ● talk ● evidence 21:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't took ownership of anything. That's your take on it. I simply reverted your edits due to nonconstructive logical reasoning. You're the one who's taking ownership, not me.--Arkhandar (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So improving the article is taking ownership? This I did not know! So I guess that means every single editor on Wikipedia takes ownership, then, including yourself. Thank you for informing me of this change in policy! Smiles! --GSK ● talk ● evidence 21:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Since both of us were trying improve the article, then neither of us were taking ownership. Please think twice before making this type accusations. I hope this clears things up. --Arkhandar (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really. In any case, since one doesn't seem to exist, I've asked for a clear answer either way. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 21:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am well within my right to remove content from my talk page. Please do not re-add your warning. I have read it, and subsequently removed it twice. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 23:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User_talk:GSK, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Calling me fat is not an appropriate comment. GSK ● talk ● evidence 23:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * O: I can't believe you thought that I would call you such a thing. I just wanted to give a cookie so you could get bigger and stronger. Obviously it wasn't because you're a fat pig. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. --Arkhandar (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm following up on a report made at WP:AIV. Please don't post any further personal attacks. I've asked GSK to also take a more civil approach. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Arkhandar, please tone it down a bit. Your comments and edit summaries are coming off as a little aggressive.  Sergecross73   msg me   01:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Nintendo 3DS
Trying to get a discussion started about the CPU, and was hoping you'd comment when you get a chance. Thanks. — GoneIn60 (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What would be the purpose of the discussion? --Arkhandar (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just hoping you'd reply to the comments I put out there. It doesn't appear that 1048 0H is referring to the model of the CPU. Then there's the problem of verifying it's a single-core, dual-core, triple-core, etc. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, ok. I see now :D--Arkhandar (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi.
Regarding your edit summary here, I know how to use Wikipedia. I've been here for several years. Please don't talk down to me. Since you referenced BRD, you should also take a look at WP:BRD-NOT. Specifically, BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes, and ''BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing.'' --GSK ● talk ● evidence 21:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'm truly sorry for reverting your "good-faith" edits because I do appreciate the fact that there still people in here who don't concentrate on vandalism and/or starting up useless "wars", but the thing is, and I want you to understand it, it's not that I don't like the changes, it's more because a consensus regarding the matter in question hasn't been reached yet. I advise you to take a look at this ongoing discussion and contribute to it with your thoughts before making any more of this "good-faith" edits. Thank you!--Arkhandar (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, consensus has been reached regarding limited backwards compatibility with PSone classics and PSP games. Unless this is incorrect? And just so you're aware, there is a policy on good-faith editing. See WP:AGF. Adding references to an article counts as good faith as the sole goal is to improve the article, not create endless drama caused by continous adding and removing. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 21:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I know how to use Wikipedia. Please don't talk down to me. I'm sorry to inform you, but the only consensus that has been reached to date regarding the matter in questions is that the PlayStation Vita has limited backwards compatibility with PlayStation Portable download only games. Regarding other systems, there is no consensus yet.--Arkhandar (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at PlayStation Vita shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GSK ● talk ● evidence 21:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure, in both of yours cases, that it's considered to be in bad taste to leave template warnings about edit warring when you're one of the two people involved in the edit warring. Sergecross73   msg me   22:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it was necessary, at least from my part. I'm pretty sure that using an edit for this sole purpose, "(Removing the commented "DON'T CHANGE THIS!")", pretty much shows GSK's personality. I think we all should learn from each other and act mature since Wikipedia editing is not a joke, it's something serious. PS: Add to that the fact that he just deleted his warning. I think it already speaks for itself.--Arkhandar (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? You know nothing of my personality, so don't make assumptions. Maybe the reason I act the way I do is because I don't appreciate being called a fat pig and end up holding grudges against those who treat me in such a way? In any case, I removed your comment because it wasn't needed, and I deleted the warning from my talk page because I can. I read it, I don't need it on there anymore. Deal with it. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 22:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I already said I was sorry and I've paid the price for that too. No need to be stuck to the past, I've learned with my mistakes. This should have nothing to do with what happened back then. And I appreciate the fact that you can say that I can't make assumptions about you when you yourself make a whole argument on an edit summary saying that I'm taking ownership of an article when I'm purely acting in good-faith. I really advise you to calm down and think before you act.--Arkhandar (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I wasn't making an assumption about your personality and how you act in general off of Wikipedia. You yourself said "pretty much shows GSK's personality," which encompasses my personality as a whole, to which I replied that you don't know anything about my personality and should not make assumptions about it. It's amazing how much of a war zone Wikipedia has turned into in the last few years. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 22:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither one of you need to be giving out warnings to each other, it's unnecessary for both of you. Additionally, you're both getting too worked up. Stop instructing each other on what to do and focus on discussing the topic at hand. Discuss things at WP:VG or the Vita talk page, because people are less likely to see, and join in on, discussions on talk pages, and what you guys really need is other's opinions, because you're just talking circles as the two of you... Sergecross73   msg me   22:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm done wasting my time with this. You are free to step aside if you wish too.--Arkhandar (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Lego City Undercover
How do you now it's not the offical UK boxart A Candela (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The source that it comes from, and of course the Nintendo Network logo. Also, that shopper, totally photoshoped from a Lego City product boxart. Only the publisher's website should be accepted as a reliable source. Thank you.--Arkhandar (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Hello, I'm GSK. I noticed that you recently removed some content from IPad Mini without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Instead of blanking the entire section, it would have been far more appropriate to rewrite it for the iPad Mini article. GSK ● talk ● contribs 16:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did explain why and I'm doing what I can. Thank you!--Arkhandar (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

7th gen - Thanks
Thank you for reverting User:InternetMeme's changes to the 7th gen of video games article. While not exactly "vandalism", because I do think it was in good faith, he definitely made the move without WP:CONSENSUS, and was wrong to do so. Thank you for catching it, and I hope you'll keep helping me in keeping an eye on it in the future. Sergecross73  msg me   18:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your welcome Sergecross73 ;) While knowing it was an edit maid with good faith, I only reported it as vandalism because it isn't the first time that User:InternetMeme has done this without a proper WP:CONSENSUS. I mean, he didn't even propose anything... While his edits make a certain sense, I still don't understand why he hasn't said a think in the respective talk pages. Strange.--Arkhandar (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A week or two back we had a discussion on my talk page about him wanting to rearrange the articles. I told him he should consult WP:VG about it, because they were organized the way they were for a reason. After a few days of discussing with just me, I set up a discussion at WP:VG for him on his behalf, only for him to decide he didn't want to pursue it anymore. So, I was rather irritated he tried this again without any further discussion. (I mean, he did say something on the talk page, but it was just an announcement of intentions, he didn't wait for anyone to participate.) Once I noticed his comments there, I've since responded there, saying at least I don't support the move until there's more input/discussion. Sergecross73   msg me   20:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)