Talk:Extreme Warfare

message: How is this article still here when the article on Mat Dickie (MDickie Software)was removed, citing relevance/notability over a year ago. Adam Ryland has produced all of two actual games, and the installed base for his commercial versions through Grey Dog Software number in the hundreds at best, while MDickie published an array of distinct commercial titles, as well as the updated versions of his wrestling franchise, during the same period. It seems like there's a snob aboard Wikipediawho thinks Ryland's games are relevant while Dickie's aren't, even though they both produced PC wrestling simulators and sell them through the internet (save that Dickie's first commercial game was published physically by a third party, and that Dickie's games have a much larger install base, on par with many more polished commercial games).
As someone who put hours into that one article that covered all of Mat Dickie's games only to see it deleted (it was certainly no "vanity" article, and it's deletion marked the end of my contributing time to this site), I ask you: is THIS article on just one of Adam Ryland's games (which probably hasn't been purchased by a hundred people) any more "relevant?" 75.105.128.37 (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I just want to know one thing

message: This reads like an advert to me. (unsigned)
Agreed. That said, the information is sound and well-researched, though I might be inclined to bring up questions of notability. I'll take a look at revising it somewhat in the next few days, but other people's thoughts would be interesting. --Lawlore 00:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, that comment was refering to this version before I expanded and cleaned up the article. Either way, any way of improving the article sounds good to me. --Oakster 10:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old, unsectioned comments

message: The tags at the beginning of the article state that the information is disputed, and uses excessive cliches and jargon. Their is no discussion on this matter on the talkpage, and I disagree with theses statements, and will remove them in roughly a week, if no reason is given for this here. Discuss. - JohnstonDJ 14:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags at beginning of article

message: - The importance tag is warranted as the article doesn't in my opinion address the importance of Extreme Warfare and why it warrants a Wikipedia entry.
- As far as Notability, I don't think it meets WP:WEB.
- There is a lot of stuff which I don't think is relevent that's included in the article. Just one example is "After release of EW 9000, Extreme Warfare met its main rival. A game called Promotion Wars was released by fellow British programmer Adam Jennings, taking some inspiration from both Extreme Warfare 9000 and Championship Manager. After the game's release, some of Extreme Warfare's fan base shifted their interest over to this game when released in October 2000." Why does this matter?
- Advertisement: I think this article is not much more than an advertisement for Extreme Warfare.
- Cliche/jargon: Just look at the first paragraph. "card based role-playing game based on wrestling." That means...what exactly? "extremely low-tech 2-player promoter game" huh? And the same reaction is sparked on my part by the many other similar cliches/jargon that run throughout the article.JB196 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant WP:SOFRWARE.JB196 20:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My concerns about this article 

message: This is a dispute about whether the tags that have been put up on top of the page should be there, and what should be done with the page if they are needed. 02:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the point is moot since the only person who wanted to have the tags didn't reply to the discussion and has been blocked indefinitely for unrelated issues . - Bobet 09:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability question stands (See JB196's 8/20, 20:04 edit). Relevence of particular info WAS removed. This cannot be denied.64.12.116.9 21:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're just rehashing the same bullet points that you used in your edit summaries weeks ago. Please reply to the comments above. It has become painfully obvious that you don't even read what you're reverting to, since you keep adding duplicate templates every single time. - Bobet 21:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree. This needs to be resolved, and that's not happening. It seems that now the reverts are just being done for the hell of it. I've been considering Mediation for quite some time, but I'm not sure it will help. I'm thinking it might really need a decision by Arbitration, but I don't know. Suggestions? Akkifokkusu 21:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The RFC might get someone to look it over later, so we should probably wait for a while. The one user who did edit it was indefinitely blocked, and while he's blocked and using obvious sockpuppets you can revert him on sight, especially when he's just being disruptive. I sprotected the article since I haven't seen a single other editor besides AOL sockpuppets of the same user editing it. Helpful opinions from anyone are appreciated. - Bobet 21:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now he's resorting to editing the Talk page. Is there really no end to this? Akkifokkusu 04:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Should Tag Be There?

message: The following images, used in this article, have been nominated for deletion:
* File:Tew2005.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 25 May 2012 
* :File:Tew2004.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 25 May 2012
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tew2005.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Tew2005.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion