User talk:Ele9699

=People With Dynamic IPs are Forbidden From Posting on My Talk Page=
 * Any posts will not be responded to, and moved to the IP's talk page however temporary it is

Wikipedia!
"All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Project:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it."

Welcome!
Hi Ele9699, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

""

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

""

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 18:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk : AA
You may want to see Talk:America%27s_Army. - Mailer Diablo 18:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User with dynamic IP
You're nothing but trying to destroy the article and making it as biased as possible. Your edits are the worst I've ever seen so far. Discuss them if you can! Go to the talk page.149.225.40.78 20:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) What was the edit war good for??? Now it's protected! Did you want that? Just discuss next time and try to be constructive. Never forget: every edit is saved to the database of wikipedia and that base shouldn't be spammed by such a pointless affair. Wikipedia needs everything but that.149.225.40.78 20:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree. I have gone on the talk page. You just keep reverting to some old version, which looses mine and other people edits for things like spelling as well as the content. If you want to make reasonble edits to incorporate your idea's like everbody else, fine but stop going back to some old version. Ele9699 20:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary! You just commented ONCE on the talk page, then stopped. The version isn't old at all! What would "new" mean in your opinion then? An AA-chat or what??? The version used to have objectiveness and THAT'S what it should keep, if you know what I mean. I did NOT neglect other people's contributions. I checked them all and included someone's fix of a spelling mistake, which is more than you've managed. It's not about ideas or opinions this wikipedia! An edit war is just counter-productive, it's not about who can click on "save page" fastest.149.225.36.199 21:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * On the contray, you are liar. I not only commented MORE the once but you did NOT check for spelling and other people's edits. The rest is on the AA talk page. Ele9699 23:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR
You've been blocked for 12 hours for violating the 3RR. Please reflect on this and don't violate it again. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

-

=People With Dynamic IPs are Forbidden From Posting on My Talk Page=
 * Any posts will not be responded to, and moved to the IP's talk page however temporary it is

mediaright
From MediaRight on Q-Course: I updated the page again, sorry. But your kinda wrong. Here's the link to the page. Q-course came up as well in a very recent interview with the project leader for AA. Here is a link to the version databank and interview:
 * Yea, thats a great and all but you didn't need post all this here. I specifically didn't take you up on your offer for links about this because I took your word it. Also, even if I had, a link to the info is enough. I agree though that is a good link. Ele9699 08:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Databank: http://forum.americasarmy.com/viewtopic.php?t=79389 (updated 3/11/05 Here's the article in full. You can delete it after you read it. sry. "America's Army Updated Impressions - The Q Course

America's Army, the US Army's official first-person shooter, will mark its third anniversary in July. But prior to that, the game, developed as a recruiting tool given to prospective recruits and available for free on the Internet, will receive a significant update in the form of the Q Course, which is what Philip Bossant, the project's lead art director, bills as a "gamer upgrade." We got the details at the Game Developers Conference on what to expect in this upcoming update, as well as what future plans are in store for the Army's game project.

In Army jargon, the Q Course is the name for the Special Forces Qualification Course, the test that all applicants must pass in order to qualify for the Army's elite units. In America's Army, the Q Course will be a package of five big new maps, as well as a host of new gameplay enhancements that will attempt to mix up the gameplay. One of the goals of the new levels is to get away from the current Middle Eastern theme of most America's Army levels. As such, the new maps will feature a mix of urban, rural, industrial, and mountainous terrain. The Q Course will also introduce two new weapons. The first is the bunker-defeating munition, a powerful, one-shot rocket launcher capable of punching holes in walls. This will be especially useful, as the new maps will feature destructible objects, such as walls and doors. This means that you can actually blow open your own entranceways into guarded compounds. The second new weapon is actually a door breacher, a small explosive charge useful in blasting open locked doors. It's important because the new levels will feature randomly locking doors. That means that every time you start a match, doors that were previously locked may be unlocked, and vice versa. This sense of unpredictability will play a big role in the update.

According to Bossant, the Q Course will enhance the replayability of America's Army, thanks to random events. One of the problems inherent in the current version of America's Army, as well as other online first-person shooters, is that since each match starts with essentially the same parameters, it's possible for the gameplay to boil down to patterns, because players already know from experience where the other team starts and what direction they will come from. The new maps in the Q Course will support features such as random spawn locations so teams will start in different positions; random objectives, so that the goal and location in each mission will change; random extraction points, so players won't know where to go until they locate and seize an objective, such as a hard drive with special information on it; and random non-player characters , which is another term for civilians. In addition to having random events on these new levels, the team is looking to see whether it can retrofit existing levels with random events to change the way they play.

Civilians are especially important in the Q Course, because the presence of innocents on the battlefield will have a huge effect on the way the game is played. In current versions of America's Army, since players know that there are only combatants on the battlefield, they tend to act aggressively. Ironically, they're a bit too aggressive for the Army's tastes. For example, while players of America's Army may lob grenades indiscriminately in the hopes of killing an opponent, in real life, US soldiers operate under rules of engagement that require them to identify their targets before engaging them. This means that they can't randomly toss grenades, because the chances of hitting a civilian are too high. So the Q Course will introduce civilians to America's Army, and shooting or wounding a civilian, even accidentally, will be treated like a case of friendly fire. If the incident is minor, such as the civilian was wounded by a stray grenade fragment, then your score will be penalized. But if you purposely harm or kill a civilian, you'll be kicked out of the game and sent to a virtual cell in Leavenworth, just like you would for shooting a friendly. This should slow down the game and make players behave more like real soldiers and less like Rambo.

Civilians will also have a useful purpose on the battlefield, assuming that you can speak the language. That's where advanced Special Forces training will come into play. With the Q Course upgrade, your soldiers will be able to go undergo optional training to learn new skills, much like going to medic school in the current version of the game lets your character play as a medic on the battlefield. So, in the Q Course, if you undergo the 18D training, you'll learn about being a Special Forces medic by watching a movie of a real Army Special Forces medic discussing what he does and some of his real-world experiences. Afterward, your character will be able to carry more bandages into battle, heal comrades faster, and even be able to do a limited amount of self-healing. And in the case of encountering civilians on the battlefield, if your character has taken the appropriate language training, you can ask the civilian questions and gather valuable intelligence on the location of your target, making your job a lot easier. Little bonuses such as these will give you the incentive to undergo as much training as possible, and it will let the game educate you about the many different specialties in the Army.

America's Army was originally devised as a recruiting aid to attract new soldiers. However, Bossant told us that the Army is rapidly finding other uses for the game for soldiers already in its ranks. There are already modified versions of America's Army that help teach weapons familiarization and language training. There is also a version of the game to teach convoy protection. That's a particularly important issue, as the Army was caught unprepared by the frequent insurgent attacks on US convoys in Iraq. How to protect convoys was something soldiers had barely received training in prior to the war, but with the modified version of America's Army, the Army now trains soldiers in convoy tactics using a simulator.

With its role as a recruiting tool established and its role as a training tool growing, the future of America's Army looks bright. After the Q Course, which is due in May, the next major update for the game should be Overmatch, which will finally introduce vehicles into the gameplay. After that, it sounds like there will be a second Overmatch update, at which point the current version of America's Army will come to an end. That doesn't mean that the project is going away, though. The current version of America's Army is based on the aging Unreal Engine 2.5. The Army has already signed up for Unreal Engine 3, and America's Army will eventually transition to it. However, that transition won't happen for a while, as the current version of America's Army still looks like it has plenty of life in it.

By Jason Ocampo, GameSpot POSTED: 03/10/05 02:47 PM"

America's Army
Irrefutably, you're intensively involved in changing this article. I have to admit that I do not agree with most of your changes. That does not mean, that you're wrong and I'm right, but this means that I will not accept changes I don't agree with at all. It appears to me that you spend a lot of time with your editings so it's clear that you don't want to have them done it in vain. Hence, you'll insist on your versions for you have put so much work into them. I can really understand that. But there are others that have different point of views about the game and you're ignoring them with your rapid modifications. No one can win in such fights - everyone just wastes time with it and the article will end up in a mess. That's why I'd like you to to follow the middle course, then we'll all be happy. Also, don't make so much changes so fast, I prefer quality instead of quantity. Please don't see this as a personal attack. RememberMe 20:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well your only edits were large reverts and on the talk page, so if you want your idea's added you (aka user:Nightbeast) need to carfully edit your idea's in like everybody else. Id be more then happy to see your idea's added, just not by disregarding everything else. Ele9699 20:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) An article in wikipedia is not about adding ideas. The information you add are liable to account by the one who adds them, which you ignore. If you want to add something others do not agree, you HAVE to discuss the matter on the discussion page. If you read the discussion page, you'll find out that there were huge discussions about one sentence. Do you really believe you can change everything without disputes???


 * 2) "you (aka user:Nightbeast)" What is this supposed to mean? I know who I am and I don't think you do. If you want to conclude that I'm someone else in order to reduce the number of opponents, I have to disappoint you. I'm not this user and as long as you can't prove it, it's slander which is a dihonourable crime where I come from. Actually, this is a good example for my criticism: the information you add is not verified. You added a lot of speculatons into the article just like this accusation.


 * 3) "People With Dynamic IPs are Forbidden From Posting on My Talk Page" Neither this talk page nor the article is in your possession. It's under the terms of the GNU Free Documenation License RememberMe 20:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "An article in wikipedia is not about adding ideas". Wow, that is really why out there. I guess a rational converstion is not really possible with "you". Why dont "you" stop make larger reverts to old versions, and just edit your idea's in like your supposed to. Ele9699 21:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not quiet sure if we have another definition of "idea", but this article is not a forum. If you state that "the game was well received by the gaming community", that CANNOT be accepted (not even as "your" idea). You have to prove what you claim on the discussion page which you neglect. You should be more careful of what you state! Why the hell are "rational converstation" not possible with me??? Can you explain it? Can you justify it?
 * For I believe I am, and as said before, I know much better who I am. RememberMe 21:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nighbeast/Remember me comments
Your edits contained misinformation although it was explained to you on the talk page and although you read through it. (For example the number of accounts). That's sneaky vandalism. Your edits are almost all objectionable. If you revert the version again ignoring what I pointed out on the talk page, I'll request temporarily page protection on grounds of vandalism.NightBeAsT 20:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok User:Rememberme / User:Nightbeast, that not only does not make sense, but isn't even true. The only "vandalism" on that page, is when "you" revert it that old version and disregard all the updates inlcuding spelling and corrects. Again, just edit your idea's in rather being so distruptive. Ele9699 21:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) When the hell will you understand that I'm not User:Nightbeast??? Can you prove it, NO! And you will never be able to for it is false, a lie, slander, whatever...
 * 2) "old version" The word "old" is POV, if you can follow me. You added speculations and false statements. I,too, consider your edits vandalism as long as you don't discuss them properly and make compromises.
 * 3) The article had a lot more spelling mistakes after your changes. There is no need to correct them, since the contents of the sentences is not acceptable. Just do yourself a favour and discuss changes before you do them - if you discuss properly, what is there for you to fear? RememberMe 21:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ha again your not right, you even reverted spelling corrections of things YOU wrote. Which, btw feel free to edit back in- just not by reverting the whole page. Ele9699 21:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1)I don't know that. If I reverted spelling corrections, you can apply them again.
 * 2)"again your not right" ??? I can't recall that you ever were. RememberMe 21:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So I can apply them again? Well tell you what, why dont you just edit your idea's back in like rather then reverting the entire article. Ele9699 21:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You know quiet well that it's more work to change your editings rather then reverting them all, for there's hardly anything that can be used and most needs to be removed anyway. As I said before, discuss the changes you're going to make before changing everything completely from its roots. Then it's a matter of reasoning instead of making hundreds of changes lacking quality. RememberMe 21:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ele9699 - If this dispute with Nightbeast is likely to continue, and you feel that he is using sock puppets, there are many options open to you. I suggest you refer the matter to the Association of Members' Advocates; as a last resort, you can request arbitration from the Arbitration Committee. I have also posted these suggestions to Nightbeast's talk page. Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 21:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ele9699, I've contacted user:Alex756 to engage a third impartial party to end the dispute, just to let you know. I've tried to offer an objective description of the dispute. We should both explain our attitudes to him, and give reasons for them as well so he can understand what's going on and how to settle our differences in a fair way.NightBeAsT 19:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you could stop your editing spread for a second and prove you're in favour of settling our differences by talking rather than by pressing on "save page". Ignoring people deliberately just makes one look arrogant and self-centered. If you're actually trying to achieve a dispute resolution, you should take advantage of the opportunity you now have.NightBeAsT 20:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * We'v already had extensive discussion, both you and your puppet account/"friend" Rememberme. I responded to you several dozen points and most other comments as well. Iv already said dozens of time's know that you should feel free to edit the idea's you want back in, and stop reverting the page and disrearding dozens of spelling, details, and corrections by me and other users. Ele9699 20:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

conclusion
Your conclusion ROCKS!!! Let's recall it:

"A large part of its success can not only be atributed to it being a US_Army game, but by simply being a free first person shooter. Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory is another free FPS has done even better during the same time period, much better then its nearly identical predeccesor Return to Castle Wolfenstein, a game which must be purchased."

Thanks for making me laugh! Thank you, Ele!!! RememberMe

Non-free use disputed for Image:Boxart sfas.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Boxart sfas.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)