User talk:Poiuytre

Welcome to StrategyWiki!

Hello Poiuytre! Welcome to StrategyWiki. Thank you for your contributions. If you have any questions, just contact a sysop through their talk page or post on the staff lounge, and they'd be happy to help. If you need help editing, check the editing article or the StrategyWiki Guide. If you have a question about the content on this wiki, you can check out our staff lounge page. If you want to ask questions or hang out in IRC, we're usually around. On the other hand, if you have ideas for StrategyWiki, bring them up on the community portal talk page. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field as this helps to document all of your hard work. Feel free to delete this message from your talk page if you like, or keep it for reference. Happy editing! -- Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 10:30, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Sonic Advance

Hi Poiuytre! Just a few comments on the Sonic Advance guide that you've started writing:

• Please add the {{Header Nav}} at the top of each page (it goes in automatically when you click the "new game guide" button, so maybe use that)
• Please add links to other pages on the table of contents instead of in the walkthrough page (they can go there, but the walkthrough is usually sequential).
  

Other than that, you are doing a great job on the guide and I hope you continue to do so! --Ryan Schmidt^{Talk - Contribs} 15:32, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Okay thanks! I usually remember the nav bar but must of forgotten it today! Poiuytre 15:41, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Guide of the Month

You might want to put a note on his talk page because he contributed two days ago and whenever he logs in, he'll see the message bar. I'd wait for a few days with the message on his talk then start finishing the walkthrough. To put it up, for promising guide, click here and follow the instructions. Hope this helps.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 08:47, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Comments in Promising Guide

Hi Poiuytre. I noticed the comments that you left in Promising Guide, and I'm a little concerned. As a sysop, Ryan is more than entitled to his opinion about the content of a page, and he has been contributing to SW long enough to be considered an accurate judge of such content. Chastising him for expressing his opinion, or challenging him to do a better job is not going to reflect well upon you. We are a collaborative community here, and as such, we value a cooperative spirit over an opinionated spirit. I only mention this to you for your own personal consideration. You can choose to abide by it or ignore it, but the choice you make will have a strong effect on how you are perceived by other members of the community. Take care. Procyon (Talk) 14:29, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes but he didn't seem to explain himself as too which parts of the guide he didn't like and it made me annoyed that he seemed to express his dislike for the parts of the guide that I did. Sure they don't have pictures but alot of work has been put into those pages so that people can complete the game at the highest difficulty - veteran, which is why they might seem a little longer than the other parts of the guide. And for a moderator to describe it as drival, or "crap" as an American friend later told me what that meant (I'm english and had never heard it before), well it's not very nice and doesn't make you want to write the rest of the walkthrough. Poiuytre 14:43, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

I understand how you feel, and I hope that you are not complete discouraged. I think drivel is better described as disorganized, regardless of quality. It is true that we tend to hold editors up to very high standards. I've personally examined the pages that Ryan commented on, and after a cursory glance at the content, there are definitely issues that need to be addressed, primarily NPOV and organization. At SW, we enforce a NPOV or Neutral Point of View policy. That means no use of the words "I" or "me" in any of the content that you write, and you use "I" fairly frequently, so that needs attention. Secondly, very long blocks of text are extraordinarily difficult for readers to wade through and find the content that they are looking for. Big blocks of text like that tend to have a "heavy eyelid" effect, in that readers get discouraged from picking out the bits of information their interested in. In other words, if I get stuck at some mid-point of your guide, and I want to find out what to do next, I am forced to examine nearly the entire thing from the beginning until I start finding out about the section of the game I'm actually curious about. So organizing your guide better with headers to break up the content and identify what part of the walkthrough each section is concerned with would be a step in the right direction towards making it promising. I hope you understand that this is just constructive criticism. Above and beyond that, you are going to encounter a lot of people's opinions about your work, some good and some bad. The point is not to take it personally. Some people are going to find your work objectionable, just as you are going to find other's work objectionable. There's no reason to lash back at a person who expresses a point of view that you disagree with. All you have to say is, you disagree. Anyway, don't give up on the guides. If you put a lot more polish into them, they truly will become promising guides. Good luck. Procyon (Talk) 15:30, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Just to let you know Poiuytre, I don't check a guide's history to see who did what before I comment, I just comment on it as a whole. As to "drivel," Procyon hit it on the head. For me, "drivel" is the excessive (actually, any) use of first person, sigs on mainspace pages, credits, or anything of that sort. Also, I wasn't talking about the pages in the British campaign that actually had stuff in them, but the pages that had nothing but headers (The Battle For Caen and Rommel's Last Stand before Baejung92 expanded it today), as well as the American campaign pages Hill 400 and Crossing the Rhine (before you expanded it today). I generally would not oppose a guide from being promising simply because it lacks pictures (my main contribution to SW, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess has the same problem). In fact, I wasn't really critiquing the content of the walkthrough at all, just how it was presented (in first person). Also, the collab of the month page wasn't in my watchlist (it is now, due to this), but I generally respond more quickly if you ask me to explain something on my talk page. If the guide shows more improvement by July, I may change my vote to support. --Skizzerz^{Talk - Contribs} 17:50, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, we try to space ourselves apart from GameFAQs as much as possible (out with the old, in with the new would be a good cliché to sum it up). As for the apology, consider it accepted. Everyone blows up at one point in time (I've done it a few times myself). Just don't worry about it and work on getting that guide up to promising status (or work on something else, entirely up to you)! Personally, I'll probably get a lot more messages worse than yours as time goes on because of my opinions (I'm not one to use flowery words and dance around the point), so again, don't worry about it. Everybody has bad days. --Skizzerz^{Talk - Contribs} 15:08, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Battle of Pointe Du Hoc mission

Hey Poiuytre. Thanks for the new layout and walkthrough. I agree with you that there's a lot of information that helps people complete the mission on the walkthrough, and wanted to say by all means keep it up (with just a tad bit of attention to NPOV). But there're some other issues I wanted to talk about. I assume that you play on 360, and I've found some parts of the Pointe du Hoc mission that doesn't go along with the PC version of the game (which I play on). For example, you have to actually destroy the guns after passing the village, and you can't crawl to the cliffs--the boat blows up immediately, and you're dragged by another soldier onto the beach. I'm not sure if I missed these parts or the two versions really are different, but in the latter case, do you mind if I add a subsection and add the parts from the PC version? (Also, I will be adding screenshots shortly for these missions: feel free to keep what you like and delete what you don't). Baejung92 17:17, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes I am using the 360 version and have only completed it on Veteran before so all my pages are based on that. By the way D-Day & Crossing The Rhine are finished now so all thats left is Hill 400, Battle For Caen and the rest of Rommels Last Stand. Poiuytre 16:16, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Sounds good! (By the way, I really admire your skills if you beat the Hill 400 mission on Veteran without playing it before) Baejung92 18:55, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I would suggest you guys check out the guide for one way of including the "differing" information. -- Prod (Talk) 19:25, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks Prod. Oh and yeah, the Hill 400 was a struggle. But if you know where to go, you can defend of the hill easily!! I'll mention it in the guide. Poiuytre 05:02, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Achievement

I took the freedom of changing our achievement template a little. I changed the four boxes to 5, 20, 67, 8 so I could fit the Image:Gamerscore icon.png in the right box, and I gave the numbers a right format to make it look better. Foppe 06:29, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Thats alright - it looks better now, it's just that now we'll have to change the others over!! Also I've done the Oblivion achievements. It's lookin good! Poiuytre 06:43, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

I´m almost done changing the others, it´s pretty fast with copypasta. Foppe 06:50, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Big Brain Academy

Hi Poiuytre. I took a look at your work on Big Brain Academy, and it looks very well organized and detailed. Unfortunately, I am not tremendously familiar with the game as you are, so I can't vouch for it's thoroughness. But the truth is, at SW, you don't need a sysop to sign-off or validate the completeness of a guide. I realize that you may have already known that and merely wanted to get a second opinion, which I can understand, I feel that way all of the time myself. At SW, being a sysop is more about general fix ups and keeping the formatting of each guide consistent. My long-winded point is that I would defer to you, as the expert of Big Brain Academy, to decide the completeness of the guide. If you feel that it is truly complete, then you are free to give it a 4 whenever you like. To help you make that decision, here are a couple of things you might like to consider:

• Is every aspect of the game explained thoroughly? Even the things that you thought were so obvious that they didn't need explaining, but someone else might not fully understand? (Pretend that were trying to explain this game to your parents. Would they be able to figure everything out based on nothing more than the contents of the guide?)
• Are there secrets in the game, and did you detail how to find them (and use the appropriate spoiler template so that you don't ruin the secret for people who didn't wish to know)?
• (I know that this would not necessarily apply to a game like Big Brain Academy but for sake of argument) Is every pathway through the game detailed? Even the ones that you didn't take/don't like to take/lead nowhere?

If you feel that the answer to most of these questions is yes, then you're pretty much set to change the number to 4. And just because it's at a 4, doesn't mean that people won't come along and add missing pieces or make corrections. At SW, no guide is ever truly complete, you know what I mean? But it looks like you've done a good job making the guide rather thorough, so congratulations :) Procyon (Talk) 13:35, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

COD2 Multiplayer

Hey, I was wondering... is there a mode called "Search and Destroy" on the 360 version (or is it the same as "Seek and Destroy")? I was adding the said section to the "Modes" page and wanted to know so I know whether or not to say "PC only". Thanks. Baejung92 19:44, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Does the Pocket PC version of the game follow the same walkthrough as the other versions? If not, it should get it's own main page. -- Prod (Talk) 19:51, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

At Baejung: Sorry, that is a mistake. Having not played CoD2 for along time on multiplayer I thought it was "Seek and Destroy" (probably after the song!). I've just revisited playing it and it's actually called "Search and Destroy", sorry.

At Prod: All I know is that there are 12 missions. I'm pretty sure that both versions are identical as possible but I think certain parts of each mission are cut out due to technical limitations on the Pocket PC compared to the Xbox 360. I'll ask around though, see if anyone knows anymore info. Poiuytre 10:38, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Prod, I have managed to find this, it's taken from a review of the PPC version of CoD2:

"While the missions in the game have some resemblance with those in the desktop version (for example, the contents of pre-mission diary excerpts are the same and, therefore, the missions have similar aims), in general, the maps are completely different and the missions are MUCH duller, easier and shorter and more boring than in the desktop version. In the desktop version, you constantly get a LOT of new sub-missions in a mission. The case is different in here, unfortunately."

So the versions are different and so I think it will need a walkthrough too. I'll try and see if I can write one. Poiuytre 10:42, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Heh, would have been cool if you could follow the same walkthrough. Just move the pages to the new name and add an infobox (and num=1 to the HN). -- Prod (Talk) 20:39, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

onepage usage

The onepage variable in the HN is only if the full guide is contained on only the front page. If there are any subpages, it is not to be classified as onepage. Another way of saying it is, the onepage attribute should only be used on the main page. -- Prod (Talk) 20:33, 15 June 2007 (CDT)