User talk:JAF1970/Archive 2

re:Hiqh IQ
Are you mocking me? Skele (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. JAF1970 (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why do you question my IQ? Skele (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's light jesting. Don't be so defensive. JAF1970 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Sillygostly (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is a better way of responding. I've told you three times to MYOB. JAF1970 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to with me. In fact, nothing on Wikipedia should be dealt with personally. Please refer to Wikipedia's talk page guidelines for more info. It is not within your jurisdiction to remove talk page discussions as even your talk page doesn't belong to you, per se. Sillygostly (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not harrassing you. If you have something to say, please contain your remarks within the talk page. Sillygostly (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When I say STOP, and you don't STOP, that's harrassment. This is not your business - you are not an admin. You continue to assume rights you do not have. JAF1970 (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What rights? Sillygostly (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is his business, if you keep questioning people personally, then it should be everyones business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skele (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Question
Would you be happy if nobody else contributed to the Spore aticle? D a n si m a n ( talk | Contribs ) 22:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Other people have contributed. This isn't about contribution. JAF1970 (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, but a lot of your posts on the talk page go something like this:
 * Editor #1: I think the article should say this.
 * You: No.
 * Editor #2: I think the article should say that.
 * You: NO NO NO! [refer to something that supports your view on what the article should say] Period. End of discussion.
 * Editor #2: But...
 * You: I don't want to hear it. You're WRONG.
 * Now granted, not all of your posts are like that, but there are so many that have that kind of tone that I think it's likely to scare away a lot of would-be contributors. D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 22:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It may seem that way now. JAF1970 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It has seemed like that for a while. You disagree with a majority of people, and it's getting a bit disruptive in my view. Don't claim ownership on the article JAF, others are free to edit it. Your opinion doesn't control it. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you check the other articles I created - I don't interfere that much. Spore is just an article that people want to add wrong information to. And it isn't my opinion. I've already backed up what I've said with tons and tons of facts and citations. Things will change when the game comes out, because a lot of the article will disappear (ie. the phases will be clearer instead of what was just based on what was told to us.) JAF1970 (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Head Coach 09
Do you know if it actually is going to be on PC? All I've seen is 360 and PS3 so far.  Pats 1  T / C  21:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it states so on the official site. Looks like there's no announced Windows version. JAF1970 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which would suck, because I'm a PC-only gamer. However, the picture of the case on IGN certainly looks like a PC-style case, and somebody else was saying EA forgot to announce a PC version of a game before. So I'll hold out hope, because it looks to be a good game.  Pats 1  T / C  23:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's always Front Office Football, but I like a graphic coat of paint sometimes. Fortunately, I own a 360. JAF1970 (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The removal was intentional, and a comment was left. Thank you. (Commando303 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 05:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Series finale
I actually happen not to dislike most of the shows I removed (I very much like several of them). If the "Fresh Prince" one is, indeed, somehow "notable," the "Friends" one is certainly not: it's just the end of a popular show -- as run-of-the-mill as finales get. There's nothing very noteworthy about "Xena": the finale's events might be large in the world of the program, but they're not in any way important in the realm of television or media. "Frasier"'s last episode was great, but, again, why does it deserve any sort of mention? These are just relatively new, popular shows, who're mentioned because they have a fan base; their last episodes really aren't very "notable" (unlike, say, those of "Newhart" or the show where it turns out the autistic kid dreamt everything [I can't recall the program's title]).
 * Friends had a highly anticipated finale that got massive coverage, so it qualifies. JAF1970 (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(Commando303 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 05:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case

 * Hi, I see you are a party in the MedCab case regarding the Spore (video game) article. I have offered myself as a mediator for this case, and am asking whether you accept me as a mediator. Just drop a message on my talk page. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I will be travelling to Los Angeles tomorrow, so I won't be available, really, til Wednesday. JAF1970 (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I will have to wait for a response from all parties though. You're the first. Steve Crossin (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem - I've done everything I can - I've proven the facts via articles, press releases, etc, and even made small concessions. They keep arguing the same stuff, and even when I prove it according to THEIR standards (ie. Danisman who told me what his/her definition of a spinoff was - and I supplied evidence towards THEIR definition.
 * It's tiring. They simply won't listen to what I say - they basically dismiss it out of hand. JAF1970 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, please note, as a mediator, i cannot make binding decisions, however, verifiable claims will be taken into consideration more than unverifiable claims. Thats not bias, thats just policy Steve Crossin (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. It's just annoying. JAF1970 (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note, I've accepted the case, and am waiting for opening "statements" by each party. Just in case you were unaware. Steve   Crossin  14:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop laughing at everyone! It's rude!  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 01:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

RP
I've replied on the project discussion page. Sorry for my initial statement about it not being an official rating. I didn't mean it to come across like that. What I meant was not official in the sense that the ESRB don't list RP in their database along with the other ratings. - X201 (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't, but companies DO. JAF1970 (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah? Prove it. Besides, why would a company pay to use a symbol that's not even an official rating (or even particularly useful)? Sillygostly (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Go to the ESRB website, for one. Jerry Bonner is a writer at my website (GameStooge.com), for another. JAF1970 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not answering my question... as usual. Sillygostly (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They have to pay to get their game rated, and are not allowed to put the RP badge until they do. Use some common sense. JAF1970 (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Prove it. Yes, I know game companies pay to get their games rated, but why the hell would they pay to use a non-functional symbol? Sillygostly (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ESRB themselves, 1Up Retronauts Podcast, 3/13/08, etc. Furthermore, the RP badge is copyrighted. Companies can NOt, repeat, can NOT post the badge without paying first. JAF1970 (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? You seem to be forgetting the concept of fair use. Do gaming websites or television companies have to pay to use ratings logos? The RP symbol is just that. A symbol, not an actual rating. What's wrong with just waiting for the finalized rating (e.g. E, T etc.?) If there aren't any ratings displayed in the infobox, I'm sure that readers can draw that the game in question hasn't been rated yet. Sillygostly (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What does one have to do with another? Companies can not include it in their ads without permission. JAF1970 (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again... prove it. If gaming websites don't have to pay to use rating symbols, then why should gaming companies pay to use a non-functional symbol? The RP symbol serves no purpose on Wikipedia as it's akin to symbols such as "TBC" (which are discouraged). Sillygostly (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I proved it. As I predicted, you listened to nothing I said. Speaking to you is a waste of time. JAF1970 (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself. And you've proven nothing. Sillygostly (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've proven enough, thank you. You've proven to be a typical 15 year old who thinks he knows it all. Guess what? You don't. I've already told you about my dealing with Jerry Bonner, who's actually worked at the ESRB and writes for my site, GameStooge.com. Kid, I'm through with talking to you. JAF1970 (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't proven whether or not gaming sites/companies need to pay to use RP symbols (which I don't see why they should; plus it cannot be proven as to whether a not a game has been submitted to the ESRB until the finalized rating is announced). And secondly, you don't know the first thing about me, so lay off the personal attacks. Age is no wisdom. ;) And no, I'm not the one who acts like he "knows it all". If you disagree with somebody, you must reach a compromise or some sort of mutual agreement. Forcing your views upon the majority isn't constructive. Sillygostly (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

3R?
How is one revert "close to 3R"?  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 20:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Case

 * I am still awaiting your response on the Mediation cabal case. Please do so promptly Steve Crossin   (talk to me)  22:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding your comment on the case page, are you saying you are unwilling to compromise? Steve Crossin   (talk to me)  04:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did compromise. I added strategy and life simulation for Gameplay section as gameplay genre elements. JAF1970 (talk)