What do you think? |
|||
Line 268: | Line 268: | ||
::{{tl|Refimprove}} is probably best. [[User:Kariteh|Kariteh]] ([[User talk:Kariteh|talk]]) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
::{{tl|Refimprove}} is probably best. [[User:Kariteh|Kariteh]] ([[User talk:Kariteh|talk]]) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
==What do you think?== |
|||
I don't think I asked you this, but would you consider making a request for comment on Le Grand? I haven't made it yet, but I'm strongly considering it, as his disruptive attitude is creeping into many aspects of Wikipedia (dispite many people telling him of policies, which he chooses to ignore). I was told to stay away from him, but frankly: I'm fed up with his attitude, and it's very clear others are as well. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:02, 27 May 2008
|
Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Role-playing games
I would like to help on the console/computer RPG articles, but I firmly believe, despite an unfortunately short-sighted resistance on the part of a few people, that this cannot be done until the articles are merged
They are not distinct. At all. There are tendencies of one or the other to lean toward certain sub-genres and styles, but these are not descriptive, nor can they be universally. Furthermore, any account of either's history and development that does not include all genres will be wrong. These articles will never meet anyone's standards of quality as long as we cater to a handful of people offering no definition, but stomping their foot all the same. Frogacuda (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I think a good strategy would be to merge the two history articles. If you establish the inextricable way that these supposedly separate genres developed, it would be difficult to argue that they should be distinct. For instance, you can talk about how RPGs were introduced to Japan by the Sharp X1 game The Black Onyx (created by a western programmer specifically for Japan) and this opened the way for console ports and localizations of Wizardry and Ultima, which became the foundation for Dragon Quest, and established the style of RPG that the current wiki calls "console RPG."
- When you discuss them separately you need to pretend that Dragon Quest came from nowhere and that eastern action RPGs never had any impact on the western RPGs and it all falls apart. So that would be my strategy. I will do what I can to help when I have the time. Frogacuda (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
New articles
Hey, I noticed you've been creating new articles, thanks for helping out with Wikipedia! You can announce your articles here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-12-17 22:51
Please respond to my post at Talk:First-person_adventure. And since you asked for reliable reference, where is yours?--Wormsie (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Changing references
Please don't change references other people have added to point to other places. If you need to add a reference, add your own. You've changed references without changing the access date, making it look like other people added these references. Also, please use Wikipedia:Citation templates when adding references. Simply adding the URL is not satisfactory, as, if a URL to an article changes, people will not be able to find it if the author and publisher are not listed as well. SharkD (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Removing sources
Please stop removing sourced material from articles. You've removed sources and applied sources to comments that are not covered in the articles from Artillery game. You've removed sourced material and applied sources to comments that are not covered in the articles from Artillery Duel. SharkD (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I wouldn't see that as a problem. However, no-one seems to be even starting in the discussion. I'm still waiting on opening statements. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 14:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've made a suggestion on the case page, I'd like to know your thoughts on it. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 14:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for joining in the discussion. It's good to have another level head in the mix. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've tried to be level. In fact, I came in agreeing with that other guy. But he's been so belligerent and the others have been pretty fair minded. I can't help but see the need for a compromise. It's silliness. Randomran (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: rail shooters and light gun shooters
You're right that it's deeper problem, essentially caused by people using their own opinions rather than checking for sources. Firstly, light gun games are indeed sometimes called 'rail shooters', but from the sources I've looked at (usual suspects, IGN, GameSpot etc), 'light gun shooter' is far more prevalent. Secondly, 'rail shooter' is more commonly used to describe games like space harrier, star fox, rez, sin and punishment etc. Obviously, these games and light gun games don't have much in common other than a (differing) form of 'on-rails' movement. It should be noted that using 'on-rails' to describe one particular aspect of the gameplay (movement) is not the same as saying 'this game is a rail shooter'; sources sometimes note the first person viewpoint of light gun games, but they don't consider them 'first person shooters'.
With regards to the main article on rail shooters, I believe originally it was about games such as space harrier, star fox etc. At some point, people began to add information about light gun games in. Cue much debate over what a 'rail shooter' is, on the talk page; at no point did anyone look at any secondary sources. Eventually, I rewrote the article to cover 'on-rails' movement in both light gun games and shoot 'em ups (Space Harrier etc), as well as covering 'rail shooter' as a genre category (again, more information on the talk page). 'Rail shooter' and 'light gun shooter' should really be separate articles, but I never got round to it.
As for the template/category rail shooter, again I believe it's mistaken and reflects an editor's personal opinion rather than critical consensus. When I was rewriting the rail shooter article, I looked at several articles covering light gun games categorised as 'rail shooters'. None of them cited any sources to show they were considered as such, indeed the sources I did find termed them 'light gun shooters'. I intended to do something about that, but again haven't got round to it. I don't dispute that 'rail shooter' is a genre, only it's applicability to light gun games (or at least the prevalence of the term). It should be grouped under shoot 'em ups (along with scrollers, run and gun etc), or have it's own article/category. Indeed I believe it was orignally mentioned in the shoot em up section of the genre article and I misguidedly removed it (at the the time it appreared to me to be synonymous with 'scrolling shooters'). Bridies (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- To sum up, it's the template that's the problem, not the genre article. Bridies (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure, but I think adding 'light gun shooter' to the template is probably the quickest fix. However, currently there's no article on light gun shooters, though there is a list of light gun games. The rail shooter article should be split, with the information on light gun games being used to create its own article. That would make two very short articles at the moment though. Going deeper, light gun games categorised as 'rail shooters' in their infoboxes should be changed. Bridies (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- 'Light gun game' does have an entry in the 'sub-genre' subsections of Shooter game. Bridies (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I created a light gun shooter article and moved the appropriate content from the rail shooter article to there. I also added light gun shooter to the template. There's probably quite a few light gun games marked as 'rail shooters' in their main articles/infoboxes; I'll check for that later. Bridies (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
4X.
I'd be glad to give it a review, but I'm a bit busy these days; mind reminding me around Thursday or so (I tend to forget this kind of thing...)? · AndonicO Hail! 23:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to contribute if you have specific ideas, althought the article already contains just about everything I can think of that would be acceptable in Wikipedia. Refs are particularly difficult - I trawled extensively during the "4X notability" debate (now vanished form the Talk page, there appears to be no archive) and inserted almost everything I found. Philcha (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hehe, right, I had already forgotten. :( I'll start copyediting the article tomorrow morning, and I'll probably have finished—and commented on—it by Saturday. · AndonicO Hail! 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, first impressions: needs a lot of copyediting (I'd be happy to help with that), and the definition is somewhat vaguely explained (though I'm guessing the reason is because there is no true definition; see the message I left on the talk page, though), the organization needs a bit of work, and too many mentions of "such and such game is a good example of this" (not really needed, at least, not too often). Finally, the "Examples of 4X games" section should be removed (the most notable ones are likely to get mentioned in the text, anyway). I'll post on the talk page when I've finished reading the article (only read a little so far). · AndonicO Engage. 16:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll make a better explained, more comprehensive review when I'm finished going through the article. · AndonicO Engage. 00:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Re "Examples of 4X games", it would be better to create a "list of" article. There's no sense in throwing away information some readers may find useful. Philcha (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
hi, instead of replacing one reference with another, equally informational, I believe it is better to give reader a choice like here. You may want to consider merging the two articles, by the way ;) Pundit|utter 17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, it is great that you're sorting these out. The only problem is that a "video rpg" is much narrower than "computer rpg". I'm one of these old guys who remember MUDs and other non-video computer rpgs. Therefore it is rather counter-intuitive for me to keep the video-rpg article as the main entry :) merging everything into "computer rpg", however, may be an option because of the big overlap. Pundit|utter 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- What I find confusing about the "video" in the name is the fact, that there is a whole genre of computer role-playing games that is ONLY textual, without any graphics. Thus, calling them "video RPG" does not make much sense. In my view, actually, "computer RPG" does justice to the idea :) Pundit|utter 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do understand that you have your own terminology within the project, and that is totally fine. It is just that it perhaps should not be reflected in the generally accessible articles :) On Wikiproject RPG we distinguish computer-assisted gaming from the traditional one. I think it is better to try to stick to names, which are not anti-intuitive or misleading (which would be the case of "video RPG", when you consider the fact that many known computer RPG systems were entirely text, and not video based - some didn't have ANY graphics at all). Pundit|utter 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- What I find confusing about the "video" in the name is the fact, that there is a whole genre of computer role-playing games that is ONLY textual, without any graphics. Thus, calling them "video RPG" does not make much sense. In my view, actually, "computer RPG" does justice to the idea :) Pundit|utter 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Music video game article
Hi, I noticed you added a "citation needed" tag to the top of the Music video game article in this edit. Could you please explain in Talk:Music video game what it was that you felt needed citation? It is unclear from the tag alone. Thanks! -Thibbs (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"4X" and "Tech tree"
Hi, how do you feel about the current state of 4X? Before you turned up I'd though I'd said all I had to say about that topic, but you got me thinking on new tracks.
IIRC you also expressed interest in "Tech tree". I'd be interested to know what your ideas on that are. Philcha (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What aspects of "Tech tree" in 4X do you have reservations about?
- That 4X tech trees are usually big, and sometimes complex?
- That tech advancement is generally vital in 4X games, and often optional in other games?
- That costs of going up the tech tree are often higher in 4X than in non-4X games?
- That research mechanisms / resourcing are different in 4X and non-4X games?
- The structural diversity of 4X tech trees? Philcha (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll have ago at making the "Tech tree" section in 4X more concise. I actually realised while typing my last message to you that the bullet points summarized the subject well and needed little more than the addition of refs. Philcha (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that all screenshots of non open-source games are dodgy? If so, can you supply a pic that shows a many-to many tech tree from a suitable source and is clearer at thumbnail size than the Free Orion pic?
- I don't how the Civ 3 tech tree pic's being from a mod affects 4X - it's not a game tutorial, the pic illustrates the structure and any mod has to follow the structure expected by the game code. Philcha (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think using FreeCiv as a "prototypical 4X game" is not a great idea: I doubt if it's that well-known, and the image is poor. I'm reinstating the Civ II image. I've checked Wikipedia:Non-free content and I think using the screen shot in 4X counts as "for critical commentary" since: the article comments on the whole genre; it presents Civ II and the other Civ games as the prototypical 4X games. Philcha (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for drawing my attention to C-evo - I'd given up playing Civ games because of the amount of micromanagement (towns and units), but I'll give C-evo a try.
- The problem with using open-source games as examples is that it might be hard to find good refs for their status as 4X games (assuming their own web sites are not allowable evidence). In any case most of the developers will not complain as they're getting free publicity. The only exception might be MOO III, criticisms of which are cited in 4X; but that image is really just eye-candy and its removal would not cause serious pain provided the caption is integrated into the text first. Philcha (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think using FreeCiv as a "prototypical 4X game" is not a great idea: I doubt if it's that well-known, and the image is poor. I'm reinstating the Civ II image. I've checked Wikipedia:Non-free content and I think using the screen shot in 4X counts as "for critical commentary" since: the article comments on the whole genre; it presents Civ II and the other Civ games as the prototypical 4X games. Philcha (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: 4X PR
Sorry about that-I've been working on my Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project, I should have more free time this week to review. Thanks for the reminder, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
4X (again)
I think we need to discuss your recent edit to "Depth of gameplay". I like some aspects, but in other areas you've changed the meaning. For example "even if the player's ultimate goal is total conquest" was intended both to make the point that would-be Alexander the Greats have to consider these factors and more specifically to raise the point that diplomacy etc. are important in SoeSE although the only victory condition there is total conquest. I'm turning in now, so I'll leave more detailed comments at Talk: 4X tomorrow. Please don't make any other major changes in the meantime. Philcha (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've posted a suggestion at Talk:4X#Depth_of_gameplay. Philcha (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Is there anything else you want to achieve with 4X? IMO the main thing outstanding is to make the lead summarise the content, but we should stabilise the content first. Philcha (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: WP:SPAM
Sure no problem. Anytime. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
VG Newsletter
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games Newsletter |
---|
I've started this discussion on him. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
New Message
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
prodding
when you place a prod on an article you must give a reason. It should says something like "non-notable game, no sources" or something of the sort. Please go back and replace the tags on the ones you placed recently. To avoid confusing our reporting system, please delete the old one first, save the article, and then place the new tag. DGG (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The WPVG Newsletter (May 2008)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games Newsletter |
---|
Mahjong
Hi Randomran, nice list; could you put Aki and any other solitaire games on Mahjong solitaire instead? Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hattrick AfD
Please see here: [1]. Thanks, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Side-Scrolling "Genre"
Thanks, friend! You've been helpful in many ways in my recent sporadic plunges into the whole Video Game arena. I have updated the Side-scrolling video game article, removing references it to being a "genre". I've also stripped the "Side-Scrolling" sub-genre from the Video game genres page. (Meanwhile, work progresses on my List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo games by genre page.) Dawynn (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Refs
Convince me why there's 8 refs needed when 2 suffice and the facts aren't being changed. JAF1970 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- A Serious Sam blog constitutes a valid source? JAF1970 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
Good morning. I have a small request for aid and an admonishment. Giving the request first might seem disingenuous, but giving the admonishment first could sour further dealings. Which one should I lead with? --Kizor 02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm generally good with assuming good faith so don't be ashamed to lay all your cards out. I'll assess your request on its own merits, and help in whatever way I can. Randomran (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. First: this edit felt wrong - my use of English seemed off. I'd be obliged if you reviewed it.
Second: You tampon, you voted for the deletion of an article about TV show characters while calling it an article about video game characters and citing WP:GAMETRIVIA. I waived my right to complain in tearing you a new one in that discussion, but you hopefully agree that this sort of thing shouldn't happen. --Kizor 18:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. First: this edit felt wrong - my use of English seemed off. I'd be obliged if you reviewed it.
My bad. I was confused about that when I looked at the AFD as well. I saw the article because it was listed within the gaming AFDs. When I looked at the article, I saw issues of non notable information on a fictional topic. Gametrivia does a good job of summarizing the problems with these kinds of articles, and I usually rely upon that. On the other hand, I saw mentions of a TV show. I probably should have stuck to WP:N and WP:FICT and WP:PLOT rather than taking the easy way out with WP:GAMETRIVIA. But I still stand by my recommendation for deletion. This was lazy on my part, but not because I didn't review the article or attempt to seek sources. It was lazy because I got sloppy with my reasoning.
I also looked at the government simulation article and tried to improve it. The paragraph about hearts of iron still needs work, but I don't have enough experience with those games to clarify. I hope I've been helpful. Randomran (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Aye, if I was seeking to change your opinion then my timing would be as badly off as possible. I'm only concerned with due diligence in AfDs - !votes that get the topic wrong get ugly in most of all possible ways. (A personal favorite comes from last January: Six people called for speedy delete without denying or in any way acknowledging the explanation about the ineligibility of speedy deletion on the second line of the nomination.) For the record, Avatar is a TV show and has spawned a few cash-in games that have negligible impact on the main franchise.
Thank you kindly for your work on the government simulator article, you certainly have been helpful in aiding its legibility and that of later revisions. I do intend to make another pass later on because (a) I wish to put some more focus on the differences between government simulators and other genres, as similarities are common but usually very superficial - Civ IV, for instance, is about empire management but only marginally about government management. It doesn't have domestic politics. Half the time the player doesn't know what kind of state he's running until something uses his title. (b) I'm a greedy bastard. --Kizor 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for an amiable conclusion. I'll pay more care to the governmental thingy article and point the changes out on the talk page when I'm done. While we're talking, I saw a couple of things that took my interest in my watchlist and in bouncing here through your contributions and decided to bug you directly. Regarding a giant fish that I'm quite fond of, from my fairly anarchistic viewpoint WP:N, being a guideline rather than a policy or core policy, is a tool (not "the") for estimating grounds for inclusion. This doesn't keep it from being a good idea, just leaves room for other metrics. This was expressed and appreciated in my RfA (which was otherwise embarassing as it was during that time that I was making a hard left at Looneywood junction, but I digress). Featuring in several dozen video games over fifteen years (as well as some very unlikely places (the Far Side cartoon is a real stretch, but that image is fairly inarguable)) is a good argument for inclusion, is it not?
Regarding that Emrich article, is there a chance that I could get a copy, in private correspondence or otherwise, for my nefarious GA purposes?
Regarding my writing style, do I use the first person singular too much? It might be an artefact from my native language - where the equivalent is a fairly inconspicuous suffix - and I worry that it might make me look self-centered. --Kizor 08:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You have no idea how right you are...
"Repeat what the sources say, and leave it up to the reader to interpret what's happening. ... and then who knows what could happen in a few months? The funny thing about wikipedia is that journalists read it. Just by virtue of saying "there's an emerging subgenre here", journalists will pick that up, and run with it, and then you can put that back in as research." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarranon (talk • contribs) 08:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop reverting - source verified
Source has been verified. JAF1970 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Maxis keeps changing the name of that one phase
Now it's the Cell phase. JAF1970 (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
"Business"
You changed a number of articles, including Clonk, from "economic simulation" to "business simulation". I'm not a native English speaker, but what is the rationale behind this? Clonk has a lot of resource managment (You can chop wood, mine ore, melt metal and build vehicles and weapons from it; similar to the more well-known The Settlers), but you aren't managing a "business" as in e.g. Sim City. I have heard the term economic simulation a lot for these games, but business simulation seems rather unfitting. Sven Eberhardt (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that there were some fixed game categories in Wikipedia. In any case, reading the articles of the game categories, it does fit into real-time strategy much better than business (or economic) simulation. I changed the introduction text. Sven Eberhardt (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ace Combat
Do you think it would be possible to combine the information in Organizations of Ace Combat, Militaries of Ace Combat, Earth (Ace Combat) and Superweapons of Ace Combat into an Universe of Ace Combat article? This was done with Kingdom Hearts (see Universe of Kingdom Hearts). Thanks! RCX (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
re: video game genre articles
Hi there, sorry for the late reply. At one point I was trying to go through them all and take care of all the respective issues they are tagged for (mostly 'no sources'). I'm thinking of looking at the ones that are reasonably well developed and laid out (e.g. shoot 'em up and fighting game) and trying to get everything sourced (and any or removed). It's mostly the various action genres on my watchlist, all the variations on stragegy and RPGs I don't know much about. Bridies (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
AfD notification etiquette
Please be sure to follow this aspect of the AfD instructions regarding the nominating process: "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Also consider notifying WikiProjects listed on the discussion page. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} ~~~~ (for contributors or established users). You can determine the main contributors of the articles by entering the page name at Wikipedia Page History Statistics." I do not believe you did so for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superweapons of Ace Combat. In the first case, you should notify any user of IP with more than one edit and the same for here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your change to Europa Barbarorum
I see that you put a template on the Europa Barbarorum article warning that it might be deleted due to lack of notability - precisely what changes do you want made to it in order to make it notable? Please note that it would be strange if the article were deleted now as it has been around for several years as far as I know. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
List of locations in the StarCraft series
I've noticed that you've tagged the List of locations in StarCraft article for cleanup. Just incase this is a potential prelude to possible AfD, I just want to ask you to refrain from nominating for deletion. It is an utter mess, and its on my (fairly extensive) to-do list, but I'm currently taking a break from StarCraft related things after rewriting the FA StarCraft, dealing with Species of StarCraft and bringing StarCraft: Ghost to GA. However, I will get around to sorting it out in due course. -- Sabre (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Aki Ross gamecleanup
I'd like to know what you think needs to be game-cleaned up about this article. The other articles you tagged are obvious, but this one not that much IMO (especially as it's not even about a game to begin with). Thanks. Kariteh (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I tagged it for cleanup because there's a few parts that are unreferenced. Probably not the most suitable tag. It just needs more editors on it, hence why I tagged it. If you can think of a more suitable tag, feel free to change it. Randomran (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- {{Refimprove}} is probably best. Kariteh (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you think?
I don't think I asked you this, but would you consider making a request for comment on Le Grand? I haven't made it yet, but I'm strongly considering it, as his disruptive attitude is creeping into many aspects of Wikipedia (dispite many people telling him of policies, which he chooses to ignore). I was told to stay away from him, but frankly: I'm fed up with his attitude, and it's very clear others are as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)