User talk:Cached Entity

In Fact...
I went through your contributions. Here is the one link you provided: http://www.thecyndicate.com/CYN-Nuke/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=list_content&eid=2

"Sorry, this Module isn't active!"

All you need to do is give a link that actually backs up what you say. That is all, man. Just do that. Until then, it is unsourced. Even after the Magic stuff is in and sourced, much of the other content that was taken out will stay out.

- Shane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.221.143 (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I, as well as other people should not be made to pay for your ineptitude on the computer. Maybe, oh, I don't know, MAYBE you have to sign up to see the pages? Just a freaking NON-LAZY guess.

But for Lazy, computer illiterate, people such as yourself, I will post a copy of what is on that page, and ask the admins to make it public. So that Information Nazi's that don't know how to operate a computer, and really have no qualifications to moderate ANYTHING on an encyclopedic website, can have instant access to information that everyone already knows about, but wants to somehow turn into a "source", when really there are no "legitimate" sources or real definitions for "legitimate" sources(so that THEY ALONE get to chose what is legitimate or not) can see it with "one click" access, so that it easy on their poor little fingers.

So here you go, a copy of what is on the page,

"Code Majic

Code Majic

In 2003, Work on the first "Next Gen" Cheat Device made for Online Play had already begun. "Code Majic" was undoubtedly the first online cheat device on the scene. It was absolutely the best cheat device out and to this day it remains the best console cheat device ever created. Code Majic is the only cheat device built from the ground up, with completely original source code and original hardware to support the creation of codes for the device. "Idot" was the name of the software programmer and the main inventor of the device itself. Idot spent a lot of his time working very hard on creating his own concept and execution for this device. Time and money were spent on investigating everything people wanted out of a cheat device that they did not have. "Spit" was the name of the main cheat code creator/programmer. Spit spent most of his time tracking down and creating codes for as many games as possible. To this day he is one of, if not THE best code makers out there. "The Cyndicate" was the name of the main Hardware designer. The hardware used allowed staff to tap directly into the PS2 IOP chip and read live memory information from any game, as well as inject any value in real time. No other device in history had this ability on these consoles. This is the first real time code creation on these platforms as well. This allowed the creators to include things in online games that are only normally available in Single Player modes (Glowsticks/H&K OICW in Socom 2), and in some cases, not in the game at all!(PKM, Socom 2). The PKM Heavy Machine Gun is an interesting story. It was originally going to be included in the game, on the single player missions by the computer "terrorists", but the weapon was deemed unfair by game-makers and pulled from the missions at the last second. However, the information about the gun and the 3d model were kept on the disc. This allowed The Code Majic team to create a code to allow players to use this hidden weapon on both the single player missions and online play. People were really very excited about this discovery. Code Majic allowed for ANY value in the game to be edited and the Code Majic team was the sole source for all new codes made for the game. The only other codes were ported from the first Socom. The device went on to make ground breaking cheat menus for "Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas" as well as many other great PS2 games and ALL of the other Socom Games. It is the only device that still currently works on ALL versions of the game. Code Majic was publicly released by team member "The Cyndicate" and shortly thereafter followed by a complete public release by team member and software creator "Idot".

-TheCyndicate.com -1st January 2007"

That information will continue to be deleted because I doubt forcing people to sign up to read the source goes by Wiki standards, and plus I think they need a more credible website than the one you listed. By the way, the information "nazis" at the Video Game Project don't seem to give two shits about this cheat device. They just care about the article. So before you and your buddies CachedEntity and that IP address start throwing conspiracy theories around, attempt to use one percent of your brainpower to maybe say, "Geez, maybe we're doing something wrong."

Hell, read your information. Tell me it does NOT read just like an advertisement. Do I really care about the device? No, I never played SOCOM online and I find people who cheat in any way to be losers. But what I do care about is how absolutely cruddy that article was. Much of that is opinionated, original research, without unbiased and notable links, and without much in the way of explanation.

I know you guys love your device. I assume you worked pretty hard on it. Fact of the matter is however that I couldn't care less. It has to be properly sourced and formatted, which it didn't have either. It has to be done with as little in-universe discussion as possible, which it doesn't do a great job of doing.It has to be written with essential information only- it fails there as well. It is just a cruddy piece. If you work on it and PROPERLY source it, then no one would have a problem. Just because you want to advertise it does not mean it goes by Wiki standards, and just because you can't read the rules of Wikipedia nor have the brain capacity to attempt to follow them doesn't make you right.

You want to play the game of insulting people because, quite frankly, you have no idea what is going on? Go ahead.

- Shane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.221.143 (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also...
Reading more, I see you think I'm a member of an opposing game device company or project. Pray tell, who am I then? Do you find the fact that someone ventured onto thearticle of a game he played a while ago, saw it was written poorly, got into an edit war, and asked the Video Game Project for help to be so unbelivable? If so, tell me when the aliens abduct you, because your conspiracy theories are at least fun to read.

- Shane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.221.143 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are freaking hilarious. Let me help you out. It is even WORSE if you are NOT involved with the device. It means you come on this site, to make up for your lack of control and social/economic power in real life. You get off on controlling people in this place, because in real life, you get eviscerated. However, you will not succeed. My information is sourced, you were too much of an idiot to figure out how to read the source, now I have been in talks with Wiki in Florida, and I am getting my information added back, and locked. So enjoy losing your power here as well, you sad little man. Cached Entity (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you still aren't getting your way you pathetic shell of a man/woman/thing. The SOCOM II article is vastly improved now so I don't care, though much of the Code Majic paragraph in the article itself is seriously POV and needs to be rewritten. So sad of a creature are you that once you do what I TOLD you to do you still need to insult? Ahh, so sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.214.171 (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I sited the fucking source. I hear anymore shit from people like you, and I am calling the home office in Florida in accordance with the violation of the ADA Law of 1993(see below).

[http://www.ada.gov/publicat.htm#Anchor-ADA-35882 ADA Regulation for Title III, as printed in the Code of Federal Regulations (7/1/94). The Department of Justice's regulation implementing title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in "places of public accommodation" (businesses and non-profit agencies that serve the public) and "commercial facilities" (other businesses). The regulation includes Appendix A to Part 36 - Standards for Accessible Design establishing minimum standards for ensuring accessibility when designing and constructing a new facility or altering an existing facility.]
 * Read No legal threats. You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours. If you return after your block and continue edit warring and making threats of a personal or legal nature, you will be indefinitely blocked. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

lol, these are not legal threats, but declarations of clarifications on the rules in this place, that is governed by US LAW and FLORIDA LAW. I must announce the law to ensure that it is understood. Maybe you are not intellectually capable of understanding the "legal threats" rule. I did NOT threaten to "Sue" anyone. I told YOU that I would call the home office of WikiPEDIA and inform THEM of YOU not following the rules AND LAWS.

Good God, you people must have zero education. Cached Entity (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're afraid having a Bad Temper isn't covered by the ADA? "I am afraid" that it IS. BiPolar Disorder IS covered under the ADA. As well as Tourette's Syndrome and other behavioral / emotional disorders. You idiots think you know what you are talking about and you don't know a damn thing. Straight up morons, period.


 * I'm afraid that is in fact a legal threat, as far as common practice in this community defines the term; it's clear that your comment was intended to force desired behavior via a chilling effect. Furthermore, your threat doesn't seem to make sense -- I don't see any particular evidence you're being discriminated against on the basis of any disability you may or may not have (emphasis on the fact we have no way of knowing). – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "Community" doesn't get to DEFINE what a "Legal Threat" is. The words have a FIXED definition and are SOURCED in several Academic Dictionary's. YOU do not get to dictate what the English Language is, or what its words mean. SOCIETY in general and SCHOLARS get to, you are neither. Pack it up, you got dealt with.


 * The desired behaviour was to have him obey the law.

I have indeed called the office. She gave me the address of info-en-q@wikimedia.org, and told me what to write. She agreed with my assessment, it will be dealt with. I would assume anyone involoved will not be happy at the result. Cached Entity (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On top of that, the EXACT RULE is NOT open to YOUR interpretation of your "desired behaviour theory". The exact Rule is listed as below,..

"If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding."

The definition of a legal threat, is to threaten legal action. I did NOT threaten legal action. I asked that the law be followed, and if it wasn't that I would report it to the Admin at the home office as per THE RULE ITSELF! Cached Entity (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the rule encourages you to contact the foundation without issuing your threats on the wiki. It remains unclear to me how you've been discriminated against on any unsavory basis; please elaborate. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is EXACTLY what I did. I did NOT threaten, but I contacted them. If I describe to you how my rights have been violated, you will take it as a threat under your interpretation of the rule. Cached Entity (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite "exactly," given the key distinction between "instead of" and "in addition to." But that aside, if you're unable to describe some way in which you've been discriminated against unfairly, how exactly do you expect me to respond to your concerns? The description needn't necessarily be couched in threatening legal terms. If you're unable or unwilling to continue this conversation, I'll be happy to wait a reasonable period for any response from the office. – Luna Santin  (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is your choice. I am a grown man, so my pride does not allow me to beg for anything(as foolish as that my be). I am just saying, that under your revision of how the rule should be viewed, if I told you what you asked me to tell you, I would be breaking that rule. As a man I am, I also recognize authority. So I respect your revision, as much as I might not agree. I am not going to violate your rule, nor do I want to convey any disrespect to you. Yes I was mouthy to him, because I am frustrated with the inane vandal style edits. However, I swear to God to you, I was not making a legal threat. He simply used that as a way to get back at me, for out smarting him, and he is aware of this. No matter how upset I might get, I am not going to directly threaten anyone with legal action. Only people not serious about legal action do that. If I were going to do that, Wiki, the company would be hearing from an attorney, not a person unskilled in law such as myself. I believe this is the basis for the rule in the first place, to weed out jerks. Cached Entity (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Socom II
Thanks for the heads up. I had that page on my watch list as I used to play it competitively back in the day and I just happened to see a removal of a large amount of information. I will watch the page with more vigilance from now on. --Xander756 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Well, he succeed in getting me banned for 2 days, its up today. I will be back. The source they are talking about DOES work. I have posted it in many places, they keep deleting it. It comes from the CodeMajic information page. They are in Denial.
 * =MMA=

Does this guy think he knows something about MMA? I live in Las Vegas, MMA is my JOB here. Wikipedia articles on MMA is one of the only things laughed at more, then Sherdogs' forums. The fight you mention WAS viewed as controversial, as even we billed his next fight, including footage saying that his previous win was "controversial". His own freaking fighting org claimed this, and this place, "the place of correct information" doesn't even know this, or have the ability to source it? Idiots.

Prove your source is reliable
"Sources on information not that heavily covered can be any 3rd party source, as long as that information is not countered by another source of the same or higher quality." Prove this statement on WP:V and WP:RS, when specifically WP:V states Claiming that any third party source can be used is a total lie. You keep claiming thecyndicate.com is reliable, but have yet to show any proof that a site that allows anyone to sign up and post articles without fact-checking is reliable.(This is not true. I can NOT add anything to the encyclopedia. That is a fact based section, and I can not even add info to it. Also, once again you are attacking and making baseless claims against a living person or company, this is against Wiki-rules.)  Jappalang (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.",
 * "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.", and
 * "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."

Your demand is OPINIONATED and therefore flawed under the rules.

You can NOT PROVE Reliability, as it is inherently an opinion itself.

Prove that it is NOT reliable.

Show me information that claims it is not true.

Not only that, but the damn image hasa METATAG! LOL!

This is your last warning, stop stalking me, stop editing and vandalizing my posts, as the sources used are NOT up to you to choose if you "like them" or not. They are NOT entities, they are sources. ENOUGH. Cached Entity (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Rjd0060 (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, but I'd strongly suggest you quit edit warring or else you'll end up blocked again. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC) I am not, and have not been edit warring. I posted the content FIRST, and people erase it, claiming something is wrong, just to get their way, when NOTHING is wrong with it. Cached Entity (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)