Talk:America's Army/Archive 8

message: I just stumbled over this looking for info on the game and this has got to be one of the worst articles on the Wikipedia. I read about 20 lines down and had to give up... The total lack of grammar is making it unreadable. Why is it protected in such a terrible state? Please fix :) Preisler 01:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was protected because of an edit war. I made copyedits in the past but the article was protected before I could make a copyedit on the latest revisions. Kukuman 01:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrible

message: The article has been unprotected and I have made some changes to the article, mostly what we discussed here. Kukuman 23:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF are you talking about. No where in this discussion page was it ever decided to delete half the page of RELEVANT information about the game. Sorry. This page is about the game. I guess you don't get that. K1Bond007 19:42, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if you could read as well as you can curse ("WTF". Hope you're not getting into personal attacks again). Read through what Mediaright wrote and its replies. There are two ways, like I said. If you want the big-solution, do it. Until then the small version remains. There's no other way in this except for BIAS and I think that JUST what you want. Remember: the page is about the P-R stunt America's Army. The developers didn't spent any money for a computer game. The actual game is just a means to an end and 1/3 is rather too much than too little. You still couldn't point out BIAS in the basis version. What's your idea? Just express an allegation at the top of the page to make the article look biased? No, forget it. Prove or yield.NightBeAsT 20:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Because I want the page to have information on the game instead of what you call a "P-R stunt America's Army" that it's bias? This article is about the -game- plain and simple. Theres another article devoted specifically to the controversy of it. What was your reasoning for removing the versions section? No one agreed to that. What was your motive for replacing the history of the game with incorrect information... such as 2.3 being Q-Course. 2.3 is out and is called Firefight and has nothing to do with the planned Q-Course addition. You respond saying look at what Mediaright wrote and it's replies, but there is no real discussion there. It's just you and your opinion of the article. No discussion, no consensus. This page needs a complete rewrite and an overhaul and the changes you made were not for the better. K1Bond007 20:45, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've said two or three times already why the other parts are less relevant so please find the line and comment on that instead of beginning once again. This beginning reminds of the "new" versions of the article as well: always restarting. This is not progress, this is just inefficient, this is a progress to a move backward. Can it be called "new"?? Anyhow.
You said "no one agreed to that". Mediaright proposed it, I agreed, RememberMe agreed, and no one disagreed meaning they didn't mind-> they agreed. Of course they read it. 
To me, too, this step is a double-edged sword, because as you can see "Realism" and "Cheating" and also a bit of "accounts", "Versions" and "weapons" were written by me to a great extent. I do not mind if it is deleted because doesn't fit the article. I do not really mind if it is moved and thereby neglected because then the information isn't lost but fairly neglected. In fact I do not care whether possibility you all agree on, but the biased way is no way at all. It is biased, not because of the information, but because of the proportion of information. Since I don't think ONE computer game needs TWO articles and since it would take more work for all of us, I'm in favour of the shortcut-solution, and won't establish the long-solution. Anyone else would have to do that but then I'd have an eye on the other version too. Since I'm short of time this weak, I've established the shortcut-version already, so this is at least an unbiased solution. If you want to keep "Bias"sign or not, does not matter but after two weeks or so and no proven allegation I'll delete it so it can no longer mislead.
I'm sorry Qcourse 2.3 Dogfight 2.3 ..whatever.. mistake. Such a little incorrect line can be fixed within seconds. But I won't have time to check all the edits till next week.NightBeAsT 21:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: I give up on this article. I thought it was going the right direction with the removal of useless cruft but now the cruft has reappeared worse than ever. I'm giving up on video game/computer game articles completely since this happens over and over again with these. You guys have your fun. --Kukuman 01:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the sections that Kuko wanted removed (cheating, etc) were already left out and remained so.  Also, the extra info was added, but also condensed down- and another section trimmed out as well. The large sections on the controversy are not deleted, they have there entire page! Finally, your welcome to edit in your idea's to the page- something you have never done.  If you think things are missing from the page just add them! We'v already discussed the major issue's but I don't even now where you stand in terms of what you want added, becuase you'v only done large reverts. 18:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: leaving

message: Why was the section versions removed from the page -again-? I'm not going to argue much of the latest revision (I haven't read it, just skimmed), but the versions section was very notable to the page. K1Bond007 22:35, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Honestly, why should they be included? It is true information, sure, and you don't find that so easily on the net, but c'mon: who could need that?NightBeAsT 22:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Versions