User talk:IceWelder

Archives

Archive 1 — 2015 Archive 2 — 2016 Archive 3 — 2017 Archive 4 — 2018 Archive 5 — 2019 Archive 6 — 2020 Archive 7 — 2021 Archive 8 — 2022 Archive 9 — 2023 Archive 10 — 2024

Source I removed was basically a journalist making a claim that game was developed by supposedly St. Petersburg department of the Saber Interactive. However there are two arguments to consider:

1. There is no adequate proof neither of existense of such department as separate entity nor of whether development of the game per-se can be attributet specifically to it.

2. Even if there was some source for existence of department and it's activity - "developer" is defined legal term in the industry and developer of Space Marine 2 in every media and legal source is marked as "Saber interactive" including the website of company itself.

Thus I consider it unreasonable and confusing for people to mark "Saber St. Peterburg" as developer. Now - the information added by SpaceRefugee is better redirected to the develoment process category on the page of the game itself.

Sounds agreeable? Chugheister (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legal aspect here, no. If the studio is formally known by a separate name, it is appropriate to list it, and the article already does so several times. It is pretty much guaranteed to be a separate legal entity as well, since it operates in a different country from the parent.

As for the source, while I'm not sure whether the site is reliable, i states, quite clearly, that said studio was the lead developer of the game.

If you believe the naming is an error, you should discuss this on the article's talk page and with the user who added these names to have a better forum. IceWelder [✉] 18:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your excellent work on Crystal Dynamics! You may not remember me, but two years ago I went down a bit of a rabbit hole trying to figure out who "Judy Lang" was, only to discover it was a typo and correct it. You took my correction and ran with it, doubling the article in a day and more than tripling it since, turning it into one of the most comprehensive developer articles on Wikipedia and earning it the much coveted GA mark. I wouldn't be surprised if it's up for FA nomination one day. I thanked you at the time, but the editing you've put in since then deserves to be awarded. And you're still at it! Madly driven. 93.107.221.86 (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I'll have you know that you're responsible for me even picking up this work. All I wanted to do was check whether your edit was correct, but those newspaper clippings simply had too much good info that I didn't want to let go to waste. One thing led to another and the article somehow grew fourfold. Also, can you believe this was already two years ago? Times flies! IceWelder [✉] 18:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bggfghhgvhu 86.126.184.169 (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hututyg 86.126.184.169 (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Grand Theft Auto VI shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Seasider53 (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism should not be considered an edit war. IceWelder [✉] 17:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do you which NCAA Basketball: Road to the Final Four game is this talking about? [1] Timur9008 (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also how much is €4 billion is in dollars since the Assassin’s Creed Franchise generated that amount in the last decade per [2]. I'm gonna add that to the Assassin’s Creed main article. Timur9008 (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:MCV-Develop 951 cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]