Talk:God of War: Betrayal

message: That's not free to use!  Surely not!  No!  Arghh!  It even as the IGN watermark! --91.105.13.49 17:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IMAGE!

message: Ok, what if we beat the game? Should we edit the page because I know what happens.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RatchetGOD (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beat the game, then edit? 

message: You (Bluerim) came back from a 5 day break and made an edit to the page and that's okay. I reverted that edit and told you the reasonings for the wordings on the page because I assumed you didn't know. You reverted me and claimed "I've read it and that's still fine as it is an active statement and reads better. Other effort a tad clumsy. May need to be corrected across all articles." "Reads better" is debatable, and it actually didn't read better because you had to fix it after reverting me again. As for "a tad clumsy," I stated the reasonings in my Edit Summary (which was that the reviewers would have addressed it and some was their wording), which by the way, how was it "a tad clumsy?" 
You reverted me again and then claimed "Not about "siding". They admit they are not overly attached to what was a gentle suggestion. If you can come up with a third option, fine. That said, no more outright reverts please." I don't see why you said "Not about 'siding'." I said it because I trust the reviewers comments/suggestions more as they have much more experience than either of us. Also, don't put words in their mouth. The active language issue was brought up by Bridies. He/she did not "admit they are not overly attached to what was a gentle suggestion." I'm not quite sure where you got that from, unless you're referring to when he/she later stated "active would be something like" which was referring to a sentence not on this page.What Bridies said for this issue was "this is another where I wouldn't argue strongly against the passive" meaning, it should be active (which he/she stated "should say"), but passive isn't necessarily bad, though active is preferred. 
As for "outright reverts," this was not the case as I explained my reasonings WITH backup. You reverted based on your own preference with no backup beyond a possible misinterpretation of what was said. You should have brought this to the Talk page instead of doing just that, "outright reverts." 
On a somewhat side note, "powering-up Kratos?" This isn't Mario. 
P.S. We are still waiting for responses at the Characters talk page. I stated it in my ES and you haven't done anything except revert this page. -JDC808 (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As you've been told, there's no need for discussion on every point. I'd also advise against automatically jumping on every edit that you haven't made. Whether you can see it or not, it does smack of ownership and is a tad obsessive (just note the length of your response here, or a random look at an Edit History such as this ). Take a break. These are only articles - we're not saving the world. That said, yes, I will discuss on the appropriate page when I get there, as I'm working through the pages at present. As to this page, I am going to tweak it again as per your suggestion. Bluerim (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, who told me "there's no need for discussion on every point"? If there are disagreements, then discussions are to commence to resolve the matter. I haven't automatically jumped on every edit that I haven't made. Niemti can back me up on that as the two of us worked together on Kratos with discussion and made that article an A-Class article. You've claimed several times against me for "ownership" and it's come to the point of name-calling which is uncivil. Please stop. It is false. I don't quite get why you pointed out the Revision History of Ghost of Sparta. It has nothing to do with this issue. I've never stated that we're trying to save the world. That is a very wild statement to make. As per my suggestion, what suggestion? Also, you failed to answer my question about it being "a tad clumsy"? There's been many times that you have claimed this (or something similar) and I've asked for you to explain and you never have. Your last edit summary was not a "Slight correction so clearer" because you're stating "chests are colored green...". The whole chests are not colored those colors, they have a marking on them (the omega symbol) which that is colored the corresponding color which is why "Corresponding colors mark each chests" is more clearer. That sentence correlates that without micro-detail like how I just explained. Also, you should not have made that edit as there was no consensus. SGCM at the Characters page specifically stated to you "a compromise does require concessions." As for length, I was explaining the situation thoroughly. I was trying to avoid another edit war which is why it was lengthy. --JDC808 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording issues 

message: Requesting assessment for A-Class. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class assessment