Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 1

message: Frpm WP:RfD:
* Grand Theft Auto IV → Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.  The latter is not GTA4, despite being the fourth in the series; it's GTA 3 1/3, so to speak.  See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Grand Theft Auto 4. —Cryptic (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: One of the sections mention that previous GTA voice artists have signed on, well wheres the link or info about this?
* The voice artists were originally announced on IMDB and have been reported in numerous news articles. They have since been removed from the IMDB listings, probably at the insistence of Rockstar, but not, I imagine, without good reason. I think the paragraph should be retained until we see good reason for its removal. Yeanold Viskersenn 00:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voice artists confimred

message: I moved this to the top because this is stupid and is seriously annoying me. The gta4live webmaster keeps readding the screenshot link to gta4live AND a link in external links to gta4live. I know its not that big a deal but its simply unfair against the many other (and probably better) gta fansites that this one fansite is getting quite a big and unfair advantage. Can the page just be locked again> azzytyb
:If this is done by the webmaster of that site, it may be considered as advertising one's own site. Maybe you should report him for that. - Redmess 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: gta4live stupidty

message: Someone has edited the date, taking the European and American release dates as being the same when they're NOT. I'm reverting it back.
--Jiei 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you add a source for that? The official site only mentions the 16th. Rafert 14:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DATE

message: Yay or nay? The amount of rumors for this game over the course of the next 17 months will probably be huge. I can think of a few right now off the top of my head, specifically the fact that Rockstar registered the trademarks of "GTA: Bogota" (Bogota, Columbia?) and "GTA: Tokyo" (obviously Tokyo, Japan). This could very well be pointing to the location of GTA IV, which has yet to be announced. What do you all think? If so, I'll go ahead and add it. --JOK3R 15:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say yes. A lot of the rumors may be fluff, but until the game comes out, they at least give a possible idea for fans to look forward to. DemonWeb 15:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. :) Feel free to add new rumors and speculation as they come. :) --JOK3R 15:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, ok. Don't respond to this then...  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit me  §  Contributions ♣ 01:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to disagree, this guy seems to have ginger hair and isn't dressed the same. In GTA 2 claude wore a vest and in GTA 3 a long sleeved leather jacket, wearing black or dark green trousers ... in fact I can't note any similarities apart from the fact that it's a caucasian male with an item of black clothing! Yeanold Viskersenn 08:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, was more focusing on him looking like Claude Speed rather than GTA 3 Claude. Also, his hair and pants are somewhat similar to Claude Speed's in the GTA 2 short movie (the only real picture we see of him). I feel they look too similar for a coincidence.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit me  §  Contributions ♣ 14:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is the same guy. The clothes look different to both GTA2 and 3 Claude and the hair looks wrong. I decompiled the .swf file on the page and found no use of the word "Claude" which would be a good indication that Rockstar are reusing the same character. There was no other indication either. So I don't think this should go in the article unless there was something specific said by Rockstar about it. It's too speculative with no proof. BillPP (Talk) 15:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not even what I was talking about. I was talking about  this man in the Rockstar North official page, but it should probably be ignored now; that was more of my opinion rather than a fact.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if GTA IV does end up in Carcer City, no official sources at this moment make such claims. I'd also like to ask you to please cease making unsourcable claims; you've gotten in trouble over this before and you actually do need to stop.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Like I said, please stop making unsourced claims; "clues" from video games are not sources. 1. I never heard BJ Smith say anything about San Andreas, so I'm confident you're, or whoever told you that, are lying, 2. the background of that page is just purple blocks and whatnot (unless it's been changed), so there's no way in Hell, Hades, or Bob Saget's basement that you could determine that that looks like Carcer City, 3. there is no evidence you could bring up that proves that the Rockstar North page guy walks like Claude, and 4. I haven't threatened you or used racial slurs, and I'd really like you to stop accusing me of doing such; I don't want whatever reputation I have to be tarnished by claims from someone with an irrational, and unjustified, I might add, feud with me.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 05:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I won't dignify this mindless rant with a response.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 19:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of rumors section 

message: This, perhaps, might be too "fan-like" or "fanatic," but I find  this man in the Rockstar North official page to look just a little too much like Claude Speed from GTA 2, if not Claude from GTA 3; I bring this up because I feel that it is, at least, somewhat noteworthy. I do stress to you that this is speculation and one of the main reasons why I've noted this is to find out how many feel the same way and if this would be valid enough for posting into the article.  BishopTutu 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok. Don't respond to this then...  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit me  §  Contributions ♣ 01:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to disagree, this guy seems to have ginger hair and isn't dressed the same. In GTA 2 claude wore a vest and in GTA 3 a long sleeved leather jacket, wearing black or dark green trousers ... in fact I can't note any similarities apart from the fact that it's a caucasian male with an item of black clothing! Yeanold Viskersenn 08:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, was more focusing on him looking like Claude Speed rather than GTA 3 Claude. Also, his hair and pants are somewhat similar to Claude Speed's in the GTA 2 short movie (the only real picture we see of him). I feel they look too similar for a coincidence.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit me  §  Contributions ♣ 14:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is the same guy. The clothes look different to both GTA2 and 3 Claude and the hair looks wrong. I decompiled the .swf file on the page and found no use of the word "Claude" which would be a good indication that Rockstar are reusing the same character. There was no other indication either. So I don't think this should go in the article unless there was something specific said by Rockstar about it. It's too speculative with no proof. BillPP (Talk) 15:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not even what I was talking about. I was talking about  this man in the Rockstar North official page, but it should probably be ignored now; that was more of my opinion rather than a fact.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if GTA IV does end up in Carcer City, no official sources at this moment make such claims. I'd also like to ask you to please cease making unsourcable claims; you've gotten in trouble over this before and you actually do need to stop.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Like I said, please stop making unsourced claims; "clues" from video games are not sources. 1. I never heard BJ Smith say anything about San Andreas, so I'm confident you're, or whoever told you that, are lying, 2. the background of that page is just purple blocks and whatnot (unless it's been changed), so there's no way in Hell, Hades, or Bob Saget's basement that you could determine that that looks like Carcer City, 3. there is no evidence you could bring up that proves that the Rockstar North page guy walks like Claude, and 4. I haven't threatened you or used racial slurs, and I'd really like you to stop accusing me of doing such; I don't want whatever reputation I have to be tarnished by claims from someone with an irrational, and unjustified, I might add, feud with me.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 05:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I won't dignify this mindless rant with a response.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 19:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Interesting'' Information 

message: The 1st two bullets in the Known Information section are now obsolete. The official website for GTA IV has since been launched, and the 2nd PSP GTA game was already announced: Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories; to be released in October 2006. The 3rd bullet is a rumor. I'm going to look around for a source of the rumor or speculation, and move it down to the Rumors and Speculation section.
Does anyone have an idea on content for Known Information? I'd rather not delete what's in there until something else could be put in, but the information in there now needs to be changed a.s.a.p. --JOK3R 17:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK good job to whom ever made the change :) --JOK3R 19:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known Information 

message: I'm 100% positive that it will be released on the PC, albeit more or less later. I am asking your opinion here. I know original research isn't allowed, but isn't it obvious since every and each GTA game has come out on PC (except for handheld systems, but I'm 100% sure they will come out for PC, too, the only exception being GTA: Advance, which has its obvious reasons)? San Andreas wasn't announced on PC when the first release dates were announced either. --nlitement [talk] 20:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the PC release is officially announced then I don't think it should be added. Perhaps put something in the rumours section if necessary. Yeanold Viskersenn 20:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's wait official announcement PC version will come probably only in 2008. --Ragnarok Addict 13:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "PC" to "platforms"? 

message: Why does everyone keep re-adding the fan sites, they are a shameless plug, and offer nothing more then what you can find on Gamespot and IGN. Wikipedia is not a link repository. Havok (T/C/c) 20:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if I come across them, they will be trimmed down. It was a good idea, but why mention them when they add nothing to the article? They are only there because the people adding them own the site and want more trafic, meaning they are advertisments for the site. If one day the site actually has some content that would deem it unique, it may be re-added. Havok (T/C/c) 00:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why exactly is the IMDb site up there? It serves no purpose until information about casts/characters are released, correct? Like fansites, I think it should be removed as well.
Article has now be s-protected because of link spammers.--Andeh 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: someone please s/new fake GTA IV screenshot/ new allegedly fake GTA IV screenshot
*It's not allegedly fake, it's been officially renounced by Rockstar. Yeanold Viskersenn 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the screenshot was fake, then the speculation is not based on any evidence as far as we know. Unless there is other evidence than the fake screenshot present, this speculation should not be mentioned, I think. - Redmess 16:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Change 

message: Here we go again. Someone keeps trying to weasel in a GTA4Live link. I thought we'd agreed that it had no place in this article. I distinctly remember this article being protected because of shameless spamming, and not a week later someone is at it again. There's a screenshot there that has been proved fake. However, there's already speculation surrounding another screenshot under the rumors section. I know of at least 5 other fake GTA 4 screenshots, why not link to them too? I've reverted the edit numerous times, as it advertises the fansite. The person adding the link back in claims that the image has a lot more speculation around it than the original one posted. This may be true, but I thought speculation was frowned upon. One image is enough. If you really want that image in the article, why not link to the site that had it first? Besides having a substantially larger following on the internet, it's even endorsed by Rockstar themselves (see the San Andreas instruction manual). Or you could host it on ImageShack. Either way GTA4Live isn't going to get any hits from this article anymore.--DethFromAbove 01:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GTA4Live fake screenshot speculation

message: I'd like to clear some things up about all the fansite spamming that is going on. First of all, Rockstar do NOT 'endorse' any fansites as mentioned in this talk page.
Rockstar have a webring, in which are the most popular and reputable fansites which have been around for years, they are in email contact with Rockstar and receive unwatermarked screenshots after IGN and gamesport write their name all over them. The fansites also have priveledges such as being told by Rockstar when there will be official website updates, this is before the general public and general gaming websites such as IGN and gamespot.
AFTER GTAIV has been released I think it would be benficial to WikiPedia readers that a few fansites are added, for the simple reason that they are run by dedicated individuals who have a passion for the series, and do their utmost to keep up to date, and have all the information anyone could ever want, moreso than IGN and Gamespot, who simply add FAQs and guides for missions etc.
Fansites (English ones) currently in Rockstar's webring are: gtanet.com, planetgta.com, gtagaming.com, thegtaplace.com, gtawh.com, gta-sanandreas.com and gtacentral.com. (gtapsp.com and gtaportable.com are also there but they obviously don't cover GTAIV as it's not for the PSP)
OK so that's seven decent fansites, if any others are added, then yes, we should remove them, but these seven are the biggest and most reputable.
Please remember that I have stated that these could be added AFTER the game's release, not now, as yes, this is spamming since nobody really knows anything about the game.
Finally, a note about GTA4live.com, they are a very new GTA fansite, starting up less than a month ago, if one would perform a whois lookup they would see the domain as being registered on the 22nd June.
So having said this, I think it's obvious they have been link spamming, seeing as they are so new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.210.138 (talk • contribs) 
:As stated above, wp is not a link repository. If the websites add more info to the article then is available trough sites such as gamespot and ign, they should not be added. Why? Because it will seem like an invite to add more fansites. And adding 7 websites as you say will only clutter up the external links section, and there is absolutly no reason to do so, not even after the game is released. Havok (T/C/c) 22:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note about the GTA fansites

message: I thought GTA was exclusive to 360? They signed a deal. me > you 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction, the 360 has a deal with Rockstar that states that the 360 will receive Exclusive, Episodic Content. Although, the PS3 has not been ruled out of this Episodic Content. Seeing as Rockstar's previous contracts only lasted for a few months (e.g. after releasing GTAVC -- the releases of GTAIII + VC for the XBox came soon after) -- I'd expect the content on the PS3 BUT THAT'S JUST ME.
Xbox 360?  GTA was originlly just with Sony.
no you see R* might make it exculsive seeing as Sony is being rude nowadays well they might switch deals and avode Sony--Butterrum 16:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusive? 

message: i erased 'europeans are saturated of gta being set in usa',this is  not neutral and Gta is a parody of Usa BY THE WAY
* Do you know the definition of the word "saturated"? It says many countries are saturated with American culture and media, meaning that you can buy a Coke or a Pepsi pretty much anywhere in the world and a lot of countries' TV stations have programmes syndicated from the USA. I think you somehow misread that as "Europeans do not want GTA in the USA" :S Yeanold Viskersenn 16:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: erasing some stuff

message: I was reading the Rumours and Speculation section and came across the following information
:Rockstar have announced that they have "no plans" to release a port of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories on the PS2. This is most likely due to the fact that the majority of Rockstar's development resources are now being focused on the development of GTA IV [12] and the poor response to Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories being ported to the PS2. 
I was wondering why this is important to this page, as it is dealing with another branch of the Grand Theft Auto.  Unless there is a reason presented, I recommend that it be discarded soon.
Manofthespoon 01:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this piece of trivia thinking it added a little more insight into the development of the game, but yes, in hindsight it's not that useful at all. Feel free to get rid of it. Yeanold Viskersenn 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumours and Speculation Section 

message: i read on the article that the game was being release on HD-DVD for xbox 360. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falcon866 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely as 360 uses the DVD format, but also likely as GTASA was rumored to take much of a DVD on the PS2 and Xbox, and this would need much more.  Let us research this, and if that is the case, cite it.--WhereAmI 22:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah thats for the best.  User:Chegis changed it, I believe they were just trying to help.  But I still  believe it is a possibility.--WhereAmI 22:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Is any of this based on sources?  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 23:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe you, and possibly others, should acquaint yourselves with what Wikipedia is not, and you'll discover that this is not a place to "think freely," but a place to discuss the article and its condition.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 15:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HD-DVD format 

message: When this info was added by Frakistan it seemed very unencyclopedic as the editor claimed it was their own research (see the edit here), So I added a  tag. At some point somebody cited an article backing up the 150 developer figure for SA, but nothing backing up the 130 figure for VC. I re-added the  tag as the only source of this was still Frakistan. As the verify source tag was removed again, I've put a tag because the wording is much better but there's still no source for the 130 developers. --BillPP (Talk) 16:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for the info on the source, I've changed the wording accordingly. --BillPP (Talk) 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 130 Vice City Developers

message: This banner was added a while ago. What information is it referring to that hasn't been included yet? The only thing I could find is this article about some analyst. I don't think that warrants the update tag. Should the template be removed from the page? --BillPP (talk|contribs) 09:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The <nowiki>{{update}}</nowiki> banner template

message: I cant see how this guy showing arms can be encyclopedic. The text is sufficient: put yourself in the reader POV is really informative show a guy with a tatoo anouncing a game? --Abbalibaba 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: its not needed, no. The 360 version is not out yet and will not be released first either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.7.253 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and the photo is still not encyclopedic either. Wikipedia is not a gaming magazine. --Abbalibaba 01:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but this is a gaming article and the image is relevant to the article in question. Perhaps when some more directly useful images become available it can be replaced, but at the moment it is the best GTAIV-related image available, there is nothing unencyclopedic about it - it is accurately sourced, of a good quality and exactly depicts the subject matter of the section it is included in. Neither is it biased towards the XBox 360 release. The facts are related to the XBox 360 so this is inevitable. There is absolutely no harm in the image being there. I have replaced it for these reasons. Yeanold Viskersenn 01:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Peter Moore image needed? 

message: The article states in its introduction that RAGE will be used as game engine, citing PlanetGTA as its source, which itself cites MTV. However, MTV is neither a reliable source, nor is it clear on that part. PlanetGTA's editor was just speculating, what makes it a rumor, not a confirmed fact. Same with the euphoria Motion Synthesis Engine (which isn't mentioned by the article yet, but might be soon). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.74.92.114 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine NOT confirmed! 

message: not true R* did not conform this it was a sorse that conformed this but not R* or R* North so its not a fact also R* and Peter Moore both stated that it was EXCLUSIVE for the XBOX 360 and is avalible after a month on Xbox Live market so the info about the PS3 is false untill R* SAYS SO not some magizine--Butterrum 15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PS3 with episode?? 

message: --24.236.89.23 01:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updateted the article about this. ---User:Chegis 17:09 11 March 2007 (utc)
so kind of you to mention me well R* have annosed (sorry for my spelling) the RAGE engine they also said they were working with a whole new compney a compeny thats good at making PEDs i hear like make them all look differnt and if they are the same one of them whould have differnt clothing or somthing but me myself is eexitted to see the loction of the GTAIV--Butterrum 14:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  RAGE is a physical engine, whereas Euphoria is an engine of rendering live movements and behaviors of characters. These are two completely separate types of engines. 74.116.92.202 17:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  game engine 

message: who is the asshole who is deliting my coments and updates? and why do do you do this???? why? are you from R* and you dont want for everyone to know the plot ideas i know? ---Chegis 15:27 march 14, 2007 (utc)
who? i cam a huge R* fan and is studying to work with them i dont deatle ideas so it must be that London guy who dealted my ideas --Butterrum 15:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  no i never delete anything some one is deletiting my ideas about Monaco and in-car sat radio --Chegis 12:24, 15 march 2007 (utc)
i said London guy not England guy but yeah i know its not you its just SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN A PEST not yelling you get the point that guy who deated everything got my friend delated he thinks hes so smart--Butterrum 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: First off, I didn't get anyone "deleted"; he got himself blocked by constant personal attacks. Don't bring petty feuds to talk pages either or this discussion will be closed as well.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY?????? 

message: I'd like to start off by apologizing about my removal of discussions, for those that are mad, but at the same time, if all you're going to talk about is speculation and OR, then there is no place for these discussions they will be removed; the main reason why I removed them is some of them were becoming increasingly hostile and, like I previously stated, some were filled with nothing but OR, and, if your "plot ideas" are true and sourcable, then please provide a source so we can get this information into the article as quick as possible.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 15:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. So a conversation that is, in no way, benefitting the article can continue?  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I've just answered my own question: talk page guidelines also say that "irrelevant conversations are subject to removal," which is exactly what I did; all of the conversations i removed, outside of the hostile ones, were purely speculation and all of it was simply people's opinions and interpretation of "clues" from games and other media.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add to that, the Talk page guidelines says sources discussed should be secondary sources, not primary ones like clues in a game. The specific line in the policy is: Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. So Any discussion like what's taken place (and has been removed) should not be here. I support the removal of these types of conversations. --BillPP (talk|contribs) 21:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation... Anyway, it looks to me like an inconsistency or contradiction in the guidelines, so I can't really argue with it. It just never seemed like standard practice on Wikipedia to remove others' harmless comments on talk pages, even if they didn't benefit the article. --64.149.40.132 08:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no reason even have discussions about the subjects because there would be nothing to investigate anyway; most of it was along the lines of "I think it's gonna be in Carcer City" and other stuff like that, which, like I just said, can't be investigated. I feel that guideline you posted means something along the lines of an educated extrapolation of information, that is, an educated, somewhat supportable, guess, such as "is it possible that 'so-and-so' is gonna be the hero of the next game because of the ending in the first game?" or something similar.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Can any of this be put in the article? No it cannot. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not your theories or speculation of what the storyline/characters/location will be. The reason it cannot go into the article is because of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines requiring verifiable information. So if it cannot go in the article it should not really be discussed here. I understand you want to chat about whatever may happen in GTA4, I recommend you go to this site: gtaforums.com. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing such things. To emphasise, the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Anything that's redundant or irrelevant could be removed by someone. --BillPP (talk|contribs) 04:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd just like to add I will continue to remove unconstructive discussions, if they, in no way, will benefit the article. And I'd also like to add that I, in fact, would jump off a bridge if Wikipedia told me to, regardless of Wikipedia being an inanimate, untangible website that is totally and utterly incapable of speech.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 04:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you mean; and I'm not trying to spark a conflict. I'm really asking.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What?? I don't understand what you're talking about.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 05:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd just like to add that "Butterrum" might have a better chance of getting positive responses to his comments if he bothered to type in something resembling comprehensible English. How the hell do you get "sqdule" from "schedule"? (if that's even what you meant) --70.128.115.70 10:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: He brought it up partly due to the fact that he probably couldn't understand it, and how can that be weird???  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 19:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the removal of discussions... 

message: http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/13027/Take-Two-Strikes-Back-Sues-Jack-Thompson/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.92.202 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take 2 sues jack thopson