User talk:EpicWikipedian/Archive

'''PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE UNLESS IF YOU ARE OR HAVE PERMISSION FROM EPICWIKIPEDIAN. VIOLATING USERS WILL BE REPORTED FOR VANDALISM.'''

This is a list of some archived discussions that have not had a reply in at least 5 days. This does not include discussions which are currently active (i.e. had their last reply in less than 5 days ago, in which you should look in the main talk page), vandalism, or automated messages. The reason why it does not include automated messages is because there is a very low chance of it being useful to anyone.

There are currently 2 ways to find archived discussions:


 * Find it in order of which posted
 * Find it in alphabetical order

Click the respective link to transport yourself there.

Black Screen of Death
The content I removed was unsourced. As the refimprove template says: "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." - so that's what I did. Letting bad content stay is just as bad as deleting well-sourced content. Also, it is Wikipedia policy that claims should be sourced. When no sources can be found, the content gets removed. It's that simple. What have you got to refute that? As for the globalize template, I removed it because I think it just adds clutter and it is not the article's biggest problem; if you really want it back, go ahead. Ian (212.87.13.73 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC))


 * Some content doesn't neccessarily need to be sourced if it is generic content which is easily verified by just a few clicks on Google or Bing. It's only when its not very easily found on search engines (usually when it is upcoming material) where it is mandatorily needed to have a source. EpicWikipedian (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Article size
Before make what amount to considerable changes to the article I suggest that you do what it says in the header and discuss your proposals on the talk page before implementing them. NtheP (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to your suggestion I would like to note that it was only typo fixes, a few content corrections and that was pretty much it. Correct me if I'm wrong but the header said you can be "bold" in minor edits like typo fixes. Thank you for listening. EpicWikipedian (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing the criteria about when consideration should be given to splitting articles doesn't seem minor to me. NtheP (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC).

Pathetic fallacy page
On the pathetic fallacy page, there is a 'new message' sign which says something about Professor Green. I believe this is a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.67.237 (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Could you make what you said a little bit clearer so I can understand? EpicWikipedian (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
--5 albert square (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

PEGI
Hello, I saw you reverted a few of the corrections I made on the page about PEGI. I can see why you'd change the status of PEGI in the UK, since there's no definitive date for the moment when the law will come into effect, but deleting the ESRB comparison seems a bit unreasonable: it's the English page but it shouldn't be UK-only. Basically every game gets both an ESRB and a PEGI rating, so it is relevant to mention them all. The descriptions per age rating contain a few factual mistakes: drugs cannot appear in a 12-rated game, real gambling is never allowed in any game (not because of PEGI but due to legislation in most countries) and the amount or level of blood in a game does not determine a 16 rating (12 rated games can have blood too). In fact, the granularity of violence across the age ratings is much more detailed, it's difficult to capture it in one phrase. So I'm going to undo your last edit - but I'm open to discuss if you disagree. (Volapükian (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Put it this way. I don't want to get into an edit war with you, but sometimes information is not always relevant to the subject. About the ESRB comparison, my specific reason for deleting it is because firstly there is already a BBFC comparison and I don't really think there's a need for a second comparison, and secondly because the system is very different and a comparison isn't really applicable on those terms. I have seen drug tags on a 12+ rated game, and blood can affect the rating that a game has if it is in the context of violence. Also, you've given no reference at all when telling me that drug tags can't appear on a 12+ rated game. So therefore, until you can give me a good reason on why to keep the ESRB comparison and to say that drug tags are only capable of appearing on 16+ and 18+ rated games, please give me a first party or at least second party reference on where the ratings appear. Thank you for listening. EpicWikipedian (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes please, no edit war :-) There is a first party reference to support my claims: http://www.pegi.info/en/index/id/1184/media/pdf/235.pdf. That is the entire questionnaire a publisher must go through in order to get a rating. You'll see that there's no drugs descriptor in the 12 category. And have a look at question 26, related to violence in the 16 category: "It is not necessary for there to be any blood or gore." It can be, but it's certainly not the ultimate argument to appoint a certain age category (contrary to the German system USK, which does use (red) blood as a determining factor). I'll add that web page as a reference in the article.
 * With regards to the ESRB: as a comparison it's as relevant as the one with BBFC - especially since the English Wikipedia page also targets American readers (who have edited that section as well). ESRB and PEGI rate all video games, BBFC is mostly (but not exclusively) restricted to 15 and 18 these days and by next year, it won't rate games anymore. These are three different systems, and it makes as much sense (or nonsense) to compare with ESRB as it does with BBFC (which is also very different from PEGI in its procedures). (Volapükian (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC))

User talk comments
Per WP:BLANKING, please do not restore comments that User:82.24.224.236 deleted on his/her own talk page. Users have the right to delete any comments from their own talk page, with or without any reason. Also, try not to let vandalism fighting stress you out too much. --Davejohnsan (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine. I won't restore his or her comments again, but the reason why I did that in the first place is because many months ago I deleted comments from my talk page and then another editor told me "Warnings are not to be removed by yourself" and reverted my edit (and that was not a "whois" tag or a block notice). Thanks for listening. EpicWikipedian (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Date
24 October 2011: 29 October 2011: 3 November 2011: 6 November 2011: 13 November 2011:
 * Black Screen of Death
 * Wikipedia:Article size
 * Pathetic fallacy page
 * Talkback
 * PEGI
 * User talk comments

Index
Entries starting with B: Entries starting with P: Entries starting with T: Entries starting with U: Entries starting with W:
 * Black Screen of Death
 * Pathetic fallacy page
 * PEGI
 * Talkback
 * User talk comments
 * Wikipedia:Article size