User talk:Krator/Archive/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hee

Wat cool, een mede-Nederlander (zelfs een Amsterdammer!) die werkt aan WP:CVG... Volgens mij ben je de eerste die ik daar gezien heb. Groetjes :) JACOPLANE 2007-02-17 21:50

Ancient Greek Wikisource

I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

the standard procedure for reporting a vandal after his/her final warning is to edit their information into the admin intervention page. for an ip vandal (like our friend User:207.235.180.19) it would come in the following format:

* {{IPvandal|207.235.180.19}} never any constructive edits, vandalism past final warning. ~~~~

under the alerts and then user reported section. the admins all make cycles of the page, and any user posted on that page for vandalism is likely to be blocked from editing within the hour.

however, you never report someone who has not vandalized past the final warning, and try to avoid reporting anyone whose vandalism comes long after the final warning (within 2 weeks of the final warning is usually safe to report).

ill let you make this report, since you were the one who reverted his edit past the final warning. just copy-paste that code into the intervention page.—damnreds (☠|☠) 19:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Lamer

Hi there. I noticed your latest edit and posted something regarding it on the article's talk page. Personally, I haven't seen the term used in rts, but my experience in that genre is admittedly sporadic. I'm mostly concerned about the fact that "rushing," even when massing with a single type of unit, is considered a perfectly acceptable tactic in many RTS games. I'd welcome your thoughts on the article's talk page. Cheers! -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

I responded to your query that you placed on my talk page. My response can be found here. If the message isn't on my talk page, please see the archives for the time period of your original message. Feel free to post any further comments on my talk page, and I'll respond to you as soon as possible. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the sockpuppetry on the AfD. It is the mark of an honest person to remove irregularities which favor his side.

I do have a question, though. You identified Wizardbrad as the sockpuppeteer, although it was not the first account registered. Furthermore, I went through the history to ensure that all sock edits had been dealt with, and I found this: [1]. This is a blatant bad faith edit, and seems to suggest that perhaps Topazg might be the one operating the sockpuppets, given that a confirmed sockpuppet attempted to whitewash the fact that his first and only edit was in the AfD. Did you check to see if Topazg is operating any additional accounts? I notice he didn't come up as the sockpuppeteer or even a known sock in the RFCU for Wizardbrad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetOracle (talk • contribs)

I identified User:Wizardbrad as the 'master' sockpuppeteer account because it was

a) the first account to 'vote' on The noob, and

b) the account that edited the userpages of the other sockpuppets. This is what originally made me file the sockpuppet suspect report.

I have no reason to believe that Topazg is one of them too, because his writing style is quite different from the others, and the Admin who did CheckUser didn't get him. I originally reported just two of sockpuppets, namely those whose userpage was edited by Wizardbrad. Two more were caught by CheckUser. If Topazg was a sockpuppet as well, he'd been caught already.

I try to WP:ASG in these cases, and only file a report on those usernames I have evidence beyond the AfD for (i.e: the userpage edits).

Also, I feel the need to note WP:SNOW again. We've got some more puppets in the AfD now, probably meatpuppets this time, and those are less easy to catch and block. There isn't going to be a consensus soon, and more meatpuppets will only increase the time that both of us spend editing the AfD instead of the article. Just prod the article with {{Notability}}, and I'll try to solve it, together with the other regular editors of the article.

--User:Krator (t c) 10:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm going to file another sockpuppet check after the recent activity on the page. The accounts are probably meatpuppets, given the fact that word has gotten around in the webcomic community, and followed a similar course to what happened on the Ugly Hill AfD. There were sockpuppets on this AfD, though, so we should try to strike any ones we can.

I thought about closing it under WP:SNOW, but I am not going to allow a valid and good faith position held by myself and many other Wikipedians to be degraded by sockpuppeteers and solicitors of meatpuppets. Besides, the discussion of the issue exists between the specific comic in question, and we really do need to build some sort of consensus regarding webcomics on Wikipedia. There are many notable ones already, but I believe we can both agree that some of the entries are non-notable fancruft. NetOracle 21:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to help make a good guideline for helping to rid Wikipedia of truly non-notable webcomics and fancruft then I must say; starting up as many AfDs as you did was entirely counter-productive to your goals. Stirring the hornet's nest further when many in the webcomic community are already sick of the frivulous AfDs that have occurred oft. of late is a sure-fire way to encourage canvassing.

As to your accusations of sockpuppetry from Topazg, they are illogical. Why would he use a proxy to make the Wizardbrad account and not make use of proxies for the rest? –Xoid 23:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction: it appears you didn't start the other AfDs. Still doesn't mean that you should join in just because someone else started the inquisitorial purge. –Xoid 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: The noob vote - overridden comment

Your edit removed the ambiguity that was introduced by Kizor's quick action (a good move to try and nip that mess in the bud before the situation deteriorated further, but the ambiguity sucked :-/) and made both comments you left out redundant. So no problems whatsoever. That sockpuppetry was a bloody good catch as well, by the way. –Xoid 23:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Double Assessment

Ah, that makes sense then. I thought that you had just archived it since it had been rated by "someone" the day before, without seeing that it was the same person that requested it. I always try to leave a comment on the talk page, generally to give tips on improving the article, but also to spread awareness of the assessment page, as it's rather new. I can see how you think it's B class- it is close to the line, in my opinion, and technically is, according to the overall B-class guidelines. There's actually somewhat of a debate going on, which you can see in the last few sections of the CVG assessment talk page and the linked discussions, about B-class articles. Basically, while it's not written out, most CVG assessors actually impose more stringent requirements for B-class articles than Wikipedia 0.5 does, as do various other groups in WP, as they feel that B-class is too close to Start class whle being too far away from GA. The Military History project, for example, has their own, higher standards for B-class (and A-class) articles, while the Mathematics project invented a B+ rating to do the same thing. There was somewhat of a proposal to make rules specific to CVG assessment for this, but they got derailed by a proposal to change the rules for the entire assessment project. Anyways, it's all relatively subjective, so feel free to change the article's rating back to B if you want. Now that I know, I'll check to make sure I'm not overriding your assessments when I do something like that. And Hello back to you! --PresN 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Krator, thank you for improving the article on ZOG. I think it was indeed an improvement. A minor thing: please note that your edits are not WP:MINOR. If you have that as your default setting n preferences, you might want to uncheck it. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Only one edit was marked minor, which was the last one to replace 'these' with 'the', which was indeed minor. I mark my edits minor by default, because I otherwise forget to write up an edit summary. Nice to get a good response to my first edit in this topic, but I fear our ways of agreement will soon part: the much discussed 'canard' category should go IMHO, because the use of the word 'canard' has negative connotations and therefore does not adhere to WP:NPOV. --User:Krator (t c) 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review of Serious Sam II

Thanks for your feedback in the Peer review of Serious Sam II. I've made some changes and posted follow-ups on the peer review page, and would appreciate your feedback. Thanks. --Rodzilla (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Commander articles under attack... again.

Just thought you'd like to know, AMiB is again reverting Cybran Nation, your United Earth Federation, and prolly soon the Aeon Illuminate articles back to Supreme Commander. Merged per talk, he says. Just figured you'd want to know. Scumbag 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Airline Routes

... uhm, when I remove my own (admittedly bad) answer four minutes after I posted it, without anyone else's posts following in the thread, and add the edit summary "rm my own guess (should have read q properly)", I don't quite understand your need to restore this (admittedly bad) answer ten minutes later and point out that you had specifically asked for something else, thus making sure that my (admittedly bad) answer looks bad. ;-) Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, didn't notice that you removed it yourself. While I was answering, there were some edit conflicts, and when I saved the page, I noticed your line was gone, leading me to believe that I had mistakenly deleted it during the edit conflict. I deleted it again, and apologies --User:Krator (t c) 09:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No biggy, it all makes sense. Anyway, I shouldn't have hit the return button so prematurely. Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Australian GamePro

I'm sorry, but it really seems like a bunch of crap to me that just about every single videogame ever made will usually have at least one review like they yet you don't see them mentioned on the pages of other games.

I don't know if the bribe allegations are true, but even if they are I'm sure they are next to impossible to prove, however it is well known that GameProAus is in serious danger of being shut down and it is also known the both MetaCritic And GameRankings pulled the GameProAus review from their sites.

I really can't view this of anything short of the actions for someone who just has a deep hate for this game to insist this be in the Supreme Commander section when almost every single other review for Supreme Commander is extremely positive, if you want people to get a clear view of reality I suggest you either post quotes and the scores from all the other gaming sites or at least mention and link to metacritic/gamerankings which I tried to add showing that other then the GameProAus review the game has CLEARLY received overwhelmingly great reviews.

I find it funny you say you want to give people the whole picture yet with the GameProAus review you are doing the opposite, if someone came here and only here to view the opinion of the press on Supreme Commander you would be led to believe the games press is split half and half, half the people love it half, the people hate the game which is not the case.

Further more the review from GameProAus is factually incorrect and anyone who owns Supreme Commander knows this, They blatantly stated the game is a slide show on even super computers! Now while Supreme Commander has some high requirements what GameProAus said was a flat out lie and that is unarguable. If my crappy computer can run the game on low settings and run it silk smooth surely any super computer should, surely if what GameProAus said was the case you would have seen the game score extremely low across the board, the games online would further more be a ghost town if this is true! Perhaps they had a bug in there computer or something, but if that was the case that is even more reason why this blatant lie of a review should not be cited. -- 68.230.100.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Lmfao official statement? Your joking right? Those sites both add dozens upon dozens of reviews a day, do you really think they are going to make a quote "Official Statement" about the removal of 1 measly review?

You can contact Gamerankings via this email

[email protected]

And you can contact MetaCritic via filling in the contact info on there contact page below

http://www.metacritic.com/about/contact.shtml

Both sites will confirm that the review WAS on there site and now it has been pulled from both of there sites.

If there word isn't good enough for you how about you at least leave that review off till you have time to post all the much more positive reviews along with it :)

Furthermore I really find the idea that the page will be viewed as the work of a fanboy if you merely leave out one review that has been stripped from the serious review collecting sites and has been widely accused as being complete bs! If you want a review that points out the game has high requirements you don't need to use the one that completely lies about them as just about every review for the game mentions the requirements! 68.230.100.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Victorious Boxers Assessment

Just wanted to say thank you for the prompt assessment. I have made some edits to the article in response to the assessment you gave and I wanted to know if you had any other specific comments that could be useful. I know that because of the lack of information on the game it will never make it to Featured status, but I would like to try and get it at least to B-class. Any suggestions? (Guyinblack25 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Re: WP:VG Assessment

Sorry for wasting your time, and thank you for the advice. --PostScript 20:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep this under the same heading, not wasting space and all. Thanks for the quick response to the requests for assessment and it's been a good help. Sorry about the fourth DW4 request, I completely missed it, it was meant to be DW3. Crimsonfox 11:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Devil May Cry 2 FAC

Hello, I've currently placed the Devil May Cry 2 article as a Featured Article Candidate. I'd appreciate it if you took the time to review the article and commented on the nomination. Please be as brutal as possible. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A-class

How are articles going to be elevated to A-class then? The groudnwork and guidelines seem to be laid out on the page. Each review only needs three endorses, which is not a lot; if it takes longer at first, at least the process will be available. Moreover, it appeared to be inactive because there were no requests, not because it was being held back. Plus, I already see a handful of articles in the A-class category. — Deckiller 21:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it copyright?

Regarding your Third party review and edit to Savannah State University: The source does not indicate a copyright, and is a statement of facts produced by a State/Governement agency (may not be eligible for copyright). Also this information may meet Wikipedia's "Fair Use" test.

Other items you identified should be rewritten and given appropriate reference vice removed (You cannot copyright facts). Also, per Wikipedia guidance (If you find a copyright infringement) all issues of copyright should be discussed on the article talk page or the copyright portions removed...not the entire article.

Absolon S. Kent 16:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

knock this crap out

I can't believe CnC fanboys such as yourself have obtained control of the Supreme Commander section of Wiki, just ridiculous, you don't see any mention of some of the horrendous scores hundreds of other games have received in their wiki section, no you just choose to display that 50 with all your might despite the fact it was pulled from both gameranking and metacritic, I don't see any other explanation other then your a blatant CnC fanboy who's trying to spread false information about Supreme Commander as if you own the game you literally know what they state is a damn lie.

If your were to listen to their review you would be left with the impression that if you put the game all on the lowest settings at 1024 by 768 you wouldn't have a playable frame rate on a Dual core AMD 4800x2 + X1900XTX + 2 GBs of ram which is a flat out lie, if you would even try to argue that point then, well to hell with you, your clearly are trying to spread false information about this game as that is exactly what their dam review suggests.

Why don't you post all of these review quotes you CnC fanboy? I bet your going to post 1 or 2 and say you don't have room for more :/

AtomicGamer 94

Once you kick in the mass numbers of units, a great soundtrack by Jeremy Soule, and plenty of challenge from the Skirmish AI, you'll find that Supreme Commander is a great full package.

GamingTrend 93

With the fantastic Mod community already churning out quality mods, this game will have the staying power that "Command and Conquer 3" might not have.

Strategy Informer 93

Supreme Commander is not without a few hitches, mainly AI orientated, but it is plainly a fantastic ride and has had a lot of passion poured into it from Chris Taylor and Gas Powered Games. Honestly this is one of the big A-list titles for the RTS genre, any self respecting gamer who’s into the real-time strategic scene must, MUST, have this war behemoth among their collection.

Pelit (Finland) 92

Supreme Commander is Total Annihilation 2007 and that is enough to make me happy. The user interface should be the role model for the whole genre. The only slight letdown are the blandish robotic units. [Mar 2007]

Game Revolution 91

While heavy on the system requirements, Supreme Commander is simply a terrific, well designed game.

ActionTrip 91

If the 20-30 hours of fun doesn't quench your thirst for conquering and massive battles, you can look forward to 40 maps in skirmish mode as well as an extremely entertaining multiplayer - with matches playable in LAN and Internet variants (you'll have fun in online matches to be sure... at least we did). Without even the slightest doubt, GPG and good old Christ Taylor made a spectacular RTS that should keep you occupied for weeks.

PC Gamer 91

This is all-out war on a scale we've never seen before, and it is glorious. [Mar 2007, p.23]

Games Master UK 91

It has some of the best artificial intelligence we've ever seen in a strategy game...It's only January, but we've probably got the real-time strategy game of the year here. [Mar 2007, p.75]

Total Video Games 90

A stunning game in its breadth and scope, and one that (if your PC can run it) shouldn't be missed.

Jolt Online Gaming UK 90

An RTS that’ll be remembered for years to come. It’s ambitious and challenging, yet rewarding...The depth and involvement required to play mean it’s just as demanding on your ability to manage, and indeed micro-manage, as it is on your PC’s ability to cope with all the action.

Computer And Video Games 90

Sup Com is very much a PC gamer's beast, and the supernova-sized war games may prove a little too demanding for anyone other than accomplished RTS players (our heads still hurt from the last LAN skirmish). If only for its sheer scale and battle mechanics, this should be sampled by every RTS fan with a graphics card - and indeed, mental powers - that are up to the task.

GamePro 90

Without a doubt, Supreme Commander is a game of epic proportions that will offer an outstanding RTS experience for the far foreseeable future, and for that it deserves an equally massive amount of praise.

Pro-G 90

Its main innovation, the superb camera, while not without its flaws, offers you many strategic possibilities that simply aren't possible in any other RTS games, and the ability to zoom the camera out as far as possible is indeed revolutionary and one that will be sorely missed in other real-time strategies in the near future.

Game Informer 90

The overall high level of polish and deep macro-level scheming are enough to cement its place in the upper echelons of strategy gaming, regardless of personal taste.

GameSpy 90

Let's not mince words. Supreme Commander is "Total Annihilation" on steroids...An incredibly fun RTS. The massive tactical scale, the zoom function, the mega units and even the nostalgic resemblance to "Total Annihilation" make this game a must-have for RTS fans.

GameDaily 90

Supreme Commander makes everything as big as possible, from base-ending nuclear weapons, to larger-than-life experimental units destroying everything in their path.

PC Gameworld 90

This is the game we've been waiting for since Total Annihilation! All things considered, Supreme Commander is a challenging game with enough depth and content to keep anyone busy for months.

PC Gamer UK 90

A remarkable piece of work, and a worthy successor to "Total Annihilation." Strategy games don't come this big, and this ambitious, and they never demand this much from you. Take command - if you think you can handle it. [Feb 2007, p.62]

Computer Games Online RO 90

The waypoint / ferry system and the strategic view of the battlefield are three features from Supreme Commander that I will sorely miss in any RTS, including "Company of Heroes."

GameTrailers 90

If you’re a strategy gamer who’s grown jaded, it’s the exact shot in the arm you need.

I'll get the rest of the links...

http://www.gameslave.co.uk/content/supreme-commander-review/ 90

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/02/16/supreme_commander/1.html 100%

http://www.realvg.org/display.php?type=reviews&id=63 90%

http://www.atomicgamer.com/article.php?id=382

http://gamingtrend.com/Reviews/review/review.php?ReviewID=809

http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/supremecommander/review.html

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?page=1&p=3255&page=2 90%

http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/software/2183785/review-supreme-commander 100% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.230.100.197 (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't know how anyone could actually say that the GamePro Aus review balances things with a straight face, what you guys are doing here is perhaps the most deceptive way possible to show just what the the presses thoughts on Supreme Commander are.

There are over 100 reviews out there for Supreme Commander and none of the other reviews say what the GamePro Aus one says, if you guys were really interested in presenting the OVERWHELMING opinion of the majority of reviewers out there you would list many more review, but because, at least to me you are trying to deceive everyone who reads the Supreme Commander section you opt to forget the other 100+ reviews that for the most part say nothing, but great things about the game. If this isn't biased then biased quite simply doesn't exist!

Joji Obara third opinion

Thank you for providing your opinion on the article. I've written a reply to your comments on the talk page, hope you will take a look at it. Mackan 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Military_occupation

Thanks for spending time giving your opinion on Talk:Military_occupation#Iraq. To help minimise the revert war please could follow up your opinion with an edit. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)