Talk:Silent Threat: Reborn
Ahem, G5K. My edits weren't "random". In fact, I now see you've reverted back to erroneous capitalization in the various lists in the article. But, seeing as this is your baby, I will not mind. I simply thought it'd be both a) better for the article to have it correctly capitalized, and 2) a fun and friendly poke at your (at times perhaps a bit self-indulgent) "grammar nazi" custom. ;) I mean this w/out any vitriol and that, in any shape or form. Oi, btw; "tba" is an acronym for "to be announced". I just thought you'd like to know. --Selectah 00:26, 13 December 2006 (CST)
- Oh, btw 2; I also see that you've re-inserted the "superior to" thingie. I thought judgement calls had no place in an encyclopedia. Doesn't that kinda stuff really belong on a project website? Like "this is the best campaign in the known universe" and that? According to whom? With what authority? How can these people know what others will think of it? Using what technique? How? And that. --Selectah 00:33, 13 December 2006 (CST)
- I see the article still sports erroneous capitalization, weasel words and unprofessional language. I know it's bollox'd, but if I correct it, I have a nagging suspicion G5K is going to storm in with his Hammer of Unreciprocity (+2 damage) and revert everything back to what he thinks is correct. So I guess I won't mind, then. Whaddya say, fellow HLP'ians? Should I just drop it? --Selectah 10:16, 20 December 2006 (CST)
I'm kinda curious as to what the hell you're on about Selectah, since I find none of what you state. And frankly, the "superior to" is the guiding concept of the campaign: rebuild Silent Threat, make it better. It is not judgement of the campaign's actual superiority but rather what it seeks to achieve. And also frankly for your protestations of needed impartiality, you're not showing much, so I have to question your fitness to judge the requirement. --ngtm1r 12:00 December 21 2006 (PST)
- Why the vitriol? As to "what the hell I'm on about", it's really a question of quite basic things. Whether a product is superior or not cannot really be assessed without actually experiencing the product, I trust you agree. As to what the campaign in progress is trying to achieve, I have absolutely no issues neither pro or con that. The issue I have is one of wording. As it stands, it can be percieved as arrogance, believe it or not. Further, as to any percieved partiality, wouldn't it be of service to actually point out any percieved bias on my part regarding the article, no? If not, I will only see your allegation of bias as an ad hominem, and thus pay it no nevermind. As to your statement regarding my fitness to judge partiality, I will leave any such verdict to the discernment of the community. Thank you in advance for your anticipated co-operation. I stated my opinion previously, and still do so. Before you think that I'm full of it, the initial edits I did to the article removed all biased statements. The page history is readily available. The response I recieved was a blurb about "random edits", without any explanation. At all. Further, bulleted points -- or other point lists -- following a colon are written without end fullstops and initial capital letters, unless the first word requires capitalization, such as a name (disregarding name particles, such as "von" or "de") or the nominative form of the singular first-person pronoun. Headings, however, are written with initial capitalization and no final fullstop. You don't need to trust me on this, you can look it up yourself. I also know that the initial ST site (preserved here) did not mention anything about "clouding a spotless record", but spotless records are usually tainted, not clouded. Sorry about that. The rest, though, I stand by. ;) --Selectah 05:21, 22 December 2006 (CST)
