Talk:SOCOM II U.S. Navy SEALs

ONline Play section

I recently changed the "Online Play" section for wording and organization, and either added or expanded a few features mentioned in the original entry. What about formatting the weaponry? Will possibly add more sections such as SOCOM culture or etiquette -- Fimoc, 21 June 2005 12:20

Gameplay, culture

Just updated more information on the types of gameplay and plan to expand on non-standard types. I am to reformat the weapons information, and possibly add a section on the "culture" (or something similar) on SOCOM 2 -- Fimoc, 21 June 2005 16:23

Great work

Really great work. Great coverage and solid accurate information. You might want to mention that SOCOM II maintained an average of 30,000 simultaneous players per day (at peak time)... and often averaged 40,000+ in the first 3-4 months of its release. -BLykMik

Needs Reformatting

I don't think that the online styles of play section should include the headings on Rankup and the gender/age factors. Also the so-called "honour-based" gun bannings really aren't "honour" based at all, which I am sure that fellow Socomers can agree with. Maybe merge the rankup section and the gender/age section with the complaints section. Also Rankup and glitching should be seperated IMO, and since the dawn of Cora/Code 9 upon ALL of Socom II, we need a new section describing that. Dboyz-x.etown 08:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, Cora and Code 9 were both released WAY after the original cheat devices. I am getting pretty sick of seeing these mentioned as the first, or most important. They are COPIES, and not even compiled by source code they wrote. It was copy and paste source code they got off of a Playstation 2 Message-board. The ONLY Cheat device that was written from scratch was Code Majic. Code Majic's code was completely written by Idot, from scratch. Idot DESERVES the respect and acknowledgment of creating this software, as he is the first to do this, in HISTORY. As well as I built some of the hardware used for the device, that basically had premade plans for, with "Spit" creating fixes and Codes for the games. This includes the first and ONLY, on screen, menu driven, cheat codes for games like Socom and Grand Theft Auto. In GTA, if you wanted a certain car or weapon, you push the joker key that pops up the on screen menu(Using the GTA font I might add), and select the EXACT combination you wanted, and then bang, they popped up. This way, you didn't need a million joker combos for different things. You just needed one for the In-Game Menu. This was all done WAY before anything else came out, as the other things came out because of the source code that WE posted, or pointed out. As well as the main fact that the "Gameshark" was used to cheat online on Socom 1 and 2, until they made a patch for it on Socom 2. Gameshark version 2 and below all worked online on Socom 2 for a while, until the first patch was released and at that point "Code Majic" was the only thing working. I also agree about the rank up not being an online play style, but not glitching and "gun bannings", as these ARE types of online play styles. TheCyndicate 15:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.181.98 (talk)

Some changes...

I believe it looks exceedingly more professional to directly quote SOCOM's website for its features, rather than randomly listing them. You are doing an excellent job, btw, and I hope you keep up the good work.

~ I'd rather call it a really poor and aggravating work. The article more and more becomes a brainless accumulation of redundant information. Opinion is included and no sources are provided. Those readers who haven't played the game regularly are left in ignorance, facing instead its players, who I doubt will ever need the information provided. Check Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Importance and Wikipedia:Verifiability. NightBeAsT 12:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Concur. The Online Culture section is especially fucking retarded. Kade 05:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

As well, I concur. I believe that the entire Online Culture article needs to be deleted or revised. The entire "noob gun" controversy is simply outrageous, and if I knew how to create a poll, I would.Rjfleming84 15:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

IW-80 A2 Merge

I don't think we need an article on each weapon in Socom II (See IW-80 A2). Maybe more details about each weapon could be fleshed out here? --Vanguard 18:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to move the IW-80 A2 article, then also move the RA-14 article. [[1]]

We could have an article on every weapon on SOCOM. We should make a topic SOCOM and subtopics can be diffrent SOCOM weaponary, vehicles, etc. Good idea?

Or we could have an article called Weapons featuring in SOCOM or something along that lines. Then again, we could keep the subsection 'weaponary' which is already in this article and just add a few minor deails about each, although the article may get a tad on the long side if we were to do that. Aren't the weapons in SOCOM real life weapons, or at least based on them? If that's the case then shouldn't the weapons already have their own articles, but a real life one, with possibly a note at the bottom saying it appears in this game? --Vanguard 17:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. The Article RA-14 mentions that it's real-life counterpart is the OC-14 Groza. Similary the article IW-80 A2 mentions that the weapon is known as the L85IW. In this case, shouldn't a re-direct to the respective weapons articles (after someone has created them of course) be put in place and a section in those articles noting it's name in the SOCOM game. That would make far more sense to me. If I get no word on this in the next few days then I'll write the articles myself and re-direct the SOCOM articles to the real-life weapons, I just want to see if people agree with me first. --Vanguard 17:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The category for the games and related info should be called "SOCOM-series Games". Entries should be made for each weapon in one article about the weapons about SOCOM II, and linked to the respective pages for their real-life counterparts. -- Asdquefty 23:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone should get rid of all the leetspeak. Leetspeak has no place in Wikipedia. -- Asdquefty 23:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm just going to redirect "IW 80 A2" to "SA80". I've changed the link in the article already, anyway... -albrozdude 06:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed

I added the gladiator game type, and changed the rank up section. It stated that r^ was fixed by a patch but this is infact false. (3-1-06)

Page needs work

Seriously, personal opinions are shown, and the point of neutrality is gone out the window it needs to be fixed. The tone of the article basically is all wrong, and needs to be fixed. I just had to edit this: "the OICW is the best gun in the game"(I understand your point, but Stat wise, the OICW IS the best gun in the game, if "best" denotes that it has superior characteristics.) as that is highly arguable and also "the OICW is only available using codebreaker" which is false as it can be unlocked in single player by passing it on difficulty "Admiral" but can only be used on single player.(I am sure that is what they meant, was thats the only way to use it online, but that is also false, as a glitch allowed it.) So, to summary, if you look at a book encyclopedia, you don't see a point of view or a tone, this is a encyclopedia, lets keep it that way. :) --Jumpguy 21:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Weapons page

I was wondering if there was any interest in creating a WikiEntry for just the weapons in the SOCOM games. My idea was to make tables giving the game-name of the weapon, the real-life equivelant, and what type of weapon in is (how specific TBA). I may do this myself, but I can be lazy sometimes and it seems like a lot of work, plus I'm not the best at working with tables on here (I'm a webmaster, but I depend on frontpage for page-making and don't want to worry about converting code from there). Post any comments here, I'll try to check back often. If you want to get in touch with me directly, write on the wall on my profile page.JW 10:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed A LOT of incorrect statments in the weapon section that are also incorrect.

For Example, this is what the section says...

"For legal reasons, several of the weapons representing real life counterparts have had letters of their real life name replaced with initials of the real life manufacturer. Such as the F90 representing the FN P90, and the HK5 representing the H&K MP5. Other weapons have been renamed in other ways, such as the Model 18 representing a Glock model 18 and the 9 mm Sub representing an UZI submachine gun. The OICW is a primary weapon not legitimately available for online play, but it is available for use in single player once the game has been beaten on the "Admiral" Difficulty level."

Ok, well saying that they changed the names for "Legal Reasons" is an assumption. It is an incorrect opinion. Where is the source that states this? If this is the case, then why would the HK MP5 be renamed to the HK5, but the H&K OICW is not renamed, it is simply an "OICW". If the name changes were for legal reasons, then everything H&K(Heckler & Koch) made would have their names changed, but the OICW's name was not changed. Makings the persons assumption and opinion incorrect. Cached Entity (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The "OICW" in this game is actually an FN F2000 with its FCS and 40mm grenade launcher. Spartan198 (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That is actually incorrect. The OICW was created by Keckler & Koch. You can read about it at the following links:

* https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/XM29_OICW

* http://www.hkpro.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30:the-oicw&catid=11:rare-prototypes&Itemid=5

So the OICW system is absolutely an H&K firearm. Cached Entity (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say the real OICW wasn't made by H&K, just that the rifle that appears in the game under that name isn't it. It's an F2000 with its FCS and an underslung GL1 grenade launcher. Goes by pretty fast even in slow motion, but pause at 2:24[2] That is not an actual OICW. Spartan198 (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article is horribly organized and written. We need to organize it better, just look at the general gameplay as an example. Also, if someone would help me source the article, I would greatly appreciate it. Dboyz-x.etown 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Socom2game.jpg

Image:Socom2game.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Would glitcherscorner.com be an ok source for the player rating mod leaked? I didn't know if it would be or not cause you have to register to view anything on the forums. Kawichan 12:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Kawichan

I would assume that it would be ok. It IS a source. It seems that recently, even if information followed the rules, people will find a way to remove it if they don't like it. It seems that "Neutrality" is now more important than "FACTS". Not ALL facts are in "3rd Person". Not ALL facts are "Source-able". Please show me where in the "Education" system it says that "All facts are source-able."

Either way, I don't see any reason why you couldn't qoute anything from ANY source, as long as you give the source, and the information posted is a fact and NOT an opinion. 01:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC) The Cyndicate

Cheat Device Information is incorrect.

Code 9 and/or Cora was not made before "Code Majic". "Idot" Also is not the only maker of the device. "Code Majic" was a device/software made by 3 people. "Idot"(Main/Lead Programmer, Code Making), "The Cyndicate" (Hardware Interface Development(Code Finding/Code-Injection), Code Making, Minor Programming) "Spit" (Programming, Main/Lead Cheat-Code Creator). The "Code Majic" team was a professional business enterprise, intended to be brought to mass market. It included large investments and sacrifice. It was not just some fly by wire hobby like the other devices mentioned.

I also want to point out, how the other devices did not exist until after "Code Majic" was given out. Including the source code for the basic functions posted on the Playstation 2 Development Forum. These functions were made in a way so that they could be identified if used in any other software. All of the PS2 "Homebrew" Cheat Devices made after this, used these functions.

It is fair to say that before "Code Majic", no online cheating was taking place. After Code Majic, an explosion of cheat devices came onto the scene. Not to mention, these people had to use the codes made by the Code Majic team, as none of the codes existed until they were made by the team. The codes were found by using complicated, proprietary Hardware made by "The Cyndicate" and inspired by "Mr. Brown's" hardware research and projects on the Playstation 2 platform. Until these codes were given out, the only Cheat Codes available for Socom 2, were codes ported from the Socom 1 game and only worked for OFFLINE use.

All in all, the "Code Majic" project was a very serious business venture. It took lots of money, time and sacrifices to create the product. The entire console online cheating scene was created by "Code Majic". As much as the Authors of the other "software" want to take credit for starting it, they simply cannot.

"Code Majic" and the people behind it deserve their rightful place in gaming history for the invention. There were no online cheat devices before it and none with hardware/code searching after it. Sadly, it will probably be the last due to the D.M.C.A. Law(Digital Millennium Copyright Act)making it against the law for devices to edit ANY source code, on the disc itself or when being used/loaded in ram, it is still protected.

If any information is needed,or if anything at all is needed, Please feel free to contact me at "Information@TheCyndicate.com" I would ask the the moderators to honor the hard work that went into Code Majic and put it and its creators in their rightful place.

Thank You. --TheCyndicate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.181.98 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I for one, agree that they deserve their recognition but at the same time I don't think the SOCOM 2 page is a place to do it. Maybe if a CodeMajic page was created (if it isn't already) then that would work you could just link to it when discussing CodeMajic. I would like to keep the debate down over who hacked what. That's why I added the time and date to the rating mod leaked thing since it was only released by one person on that date, but the site requires you to register to verify anything so I didn't want to make it look like an advertisement since this should be information regarding SOCOM 2 and not who did what(the other site it was released on, the following day, is shut down). Many people who view the page probably have not yet played it, and that's why it's there they want to know about the game and the state of the online community before they find out the hard way.

Giving credit where credit is due would also be very difficult for an online community like SOCOM has due to the fact that names are easily changeable and with so many thousands of names on SOCOM 2 (or was) there's many names very similar to one another. Good examples are, Spit, Sp!t, Sp1t, $pit, _Spit_, and the color names like #C!~ Spit and goes on and on and on so, I believe listing names would probably be pointless, and I'm sure you know about imposter names, Cyn.--Kawichan (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well the credit can be given, considering the names of the CodeMajic team members are documented on the legit site. Majic Team Site. Also if this is not the place to do it, then the others should NOT be mentioned. This site is about FACT. The FACT is that Code Majic is the ONLY device that had its source code completely written from scratch. It was created and working online FIRST, YEARS ahead of any other device. This is documented by Videos and the large amount of people that knew about it, and were there during the testing of the device. It was YEARS ahead of any other. So if this is not the place for it, then the others should not be mentioned.

However, this IS the place for it. This game IS the Catalyst for ALL modern cheating and device creation. This game is the reason that Code Majic was made, and Code Majic is the FIRST Next Gen Console cheat device made for ONLINE cheating. This is a very important historic fact in Video Game History. TheCyndicate 15:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

I would like to thank the members of the Video Game Project and others who helped clean this article up.

- Shane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.221.143 (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Problems with online play" section

I have just removed this entire section again, as nobody has yet provided a reasonable reason (i.e something other than personal attacks and quasi-legal threats) why it should be included. It is evidently written from the personal perspective of the author. The claims included can be returned if and when they can be verified against reliable, third-party sources. For now, the section fails WP:OR and WP:POV and is unsuitable for inclusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This section has been here for months. If you wish to remove it please discuss BEFORE removing, not after. Otherwise we could assume bad faith. I removed the unreliable source and the information it cited. Not every sentence must be referenced on an article so removing entire sections based off no citations does not seem like a good reason. I am making an objective decision here, I just think that it should be discussed why it should be removed before actually removing all of this information which has been standing on the article for quite some time already. Why not try to find references instead of blanking the article? --Xander756 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Criticism. WP:Original research. WP:Reliable sources. The material is egrecious personal commentary and belongs on someone's blog. "It's been like that for ages" might be a reasonable argument if this were a Featured Article, but not here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Every contentious information must be verifiable per WP:VERIFY. Specifically read Jimbo's quote there,

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimbo Wales.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a game guide, providing indiscriminate information about a game per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:VG/GL. Please read up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that you cannot even let the information stand while there is a discussion about it only only proves that you have some sort of twisted agenda here. It was a very reasonable request asked for by an objective third person. People such as you who cry and whine whenever they do not get their way (and falsely begin spouting policies they twist fit their ideals) do not deserve to be on wikipedia. --Xander756 (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Now where is your good faith in that? Remember that no baseless personal attacks are allowed, especially on article talk pages. You are not an "objective" third party either, having edited the article three times before to make it a version you preferred.[3][4][5] Jappalang (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Those edits have what bearing on this discussion? --Xander756 (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Those edits showing that you have a vested interest in how this article looks (especially where you added information and sort to keep it in the article) before this discussion even started, thus calling yourself a third-party and an objective one at that would be patently false. Jappalang (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. I am a third party in this dispute as I fall on neither side of this debate. I do not know either of you nor was I requested by either of you to help. I simply saw the page was blanked and reverted this as I thought it was vandalism. I was then informed by a participant in this discussion that it was indeed vandalism and so I resigned myself to further prevent it. I now see that this is a legitimate argument and I will have to agree, as I did below, that if this information cannot be referenced properly, it should be removed. I still do not agree that it should not have been removed without a general consensus here on this discussion page, however. I hope that you still harbor no ill feelings toward me and can see things from my perspective here. --Xander756 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are, however, requested by Cached Entity to help, and are in agreement with his sentiments.[6][7] As the matter was largely sparked off by his actions, you are "involved" in the matter so as to speak. My mistake, Xander756 stepped in before Cached Entity posted at his talk page. Jappalang (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That message came after I reverted the edit and I agreed with his sentiments on the basis that I was told it was vandalism. Why can't you read what I have been writing for the past hour where I am agreeing with you and your cohorts? Never heard of someone arguing against someone who now agrees with them. --Xander756 (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. It was my mistake. I humbly apologize and strike off that mistake. Jappalang (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:V. This has had months. It's time for it to go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to say that unless this information can be sourced then it should be taken off. --Xander756 (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If it can be verified by reliable sources, then those interested in having the information on the article should find those sources, and edit them in properly. Jappalang (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So are we in agreement that this version is preferable? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems that way. --Xander756 (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The article has been unprotected. Thanks folks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NO, it does NOT seem that way. My information IS sourced, it is VERIFIED. Just because the people that do not like it, delete the source, does not make it not exist. The information on Code Majic is sourced in two ways. The site that has the information posted, and the available videos on "youtube". On top of that, the image I uploaded onto Wikipedia has verifiable content about when it was created and what it was created on via the embedded image information. The images are 100% legitimate and the information is 100% verified and compliant with Wikipedia's WP:V. I will repost the information on Code Majic, but I will leave everything else out. I however will do this in protest, as I think everyone else has a right to have valid information up as well. Cached Entity (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out several times, Wikipedia relies on verifable information from reliable sources per WP:RS. Information from unreliable sources can be removed. Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WHOOOMP, sorry, Wrong. The information IS verified, and has been deemed acceptable under the WP:V.

Sourced information:

File:Code-Majic-Info-Sourced.png

CodeMajic Info Source @ TheCyndicate.com

See original source here,..
Code Majic Info Source 1
and then here,...
Code-Majic Information Source 2

ChemLights & OICW Online w/Code Majic

Click the picture, scroll down and look at the meta data of the image. It PROVES the time frame.
The Code Majic information is verified, the end. I will not post the others, even though I wish they could be posted as well.
Have a nice day ;) Cached Entity (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter. The information is from an unreliable source and does not qualify under WP:SOURCE and WP:RS for entry in Wikipedia. Jappalang (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets also clear up the "Reliable Sources" argument. The sources I am posting come directly from information posted by parties involoved and knowledgeable on the subject. When you claim they are not reliable, you are questioning their personal judgment and stature. Under Wikipedia rules, there are to be NO personal attacks, or claims made on a living person that can result in a lawsuit. Claiming that a source on the subject is NOT reliable, is insulting and questioning their integrity and could result in legal issues. The only time you question is a source is reliable is when someone has something for sale, or the data does not match reliable information known elsewhere.

"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made;" -Wikipedia.
This is directly from the rule you claim. This rule shows that the information SHOULD be posted.
Do you have any information or sources that show the information is wrong, or stands in contrast to other reliable information?
Do you have any proof or evidence that a source is not reliable?
Lastly, what is you reason for claiming it is not reliable, considering that this could be a breach of a Wiki:Rule itself?

I have provided the source, I will provide more and more as time goes by.
I am requesting that everyone involoved STOP defacing and vandalizing the Valid information posted, and STOP deleting sources our of anger of being wrong on the subject. Grow up and move on. Cached Entity (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The onus is on you to prove thecyndicate.com is a reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Jappalang (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The source IS reliable and quoted. You vandalize the page again, and this goes to the admin. Cached Entity (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please prove it is reliable. Does it even fulfill any of the characteristics of a reliable site as mentioned in this dispatch? What I did (removing unreliably sourced content) was certainly not vandalism. Jappalang (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time for this. I will file an injunction with the administration to stop you and possibly ban you tomorrow. Some of us have a life, has a job, contributes to society, and don't shutter in fear when threatened on the street. You obviously have to get your "power" and confidence on this site, because your real self is a waste and a joke. Once I get the time today, you will be removed for your continuous assault on Wiki-Members and information. Cached Entity (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm an administrator. You might want to read this to get an idea the general reaction such grandstanding will get. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fresh start

The warring user is back onto another block. Let's remain calm and discuss the merits of the deleted section without resorting to threats. Are there any parts which are:

1. Uncontroversial; and
2. Properly sourced to something other than a screenshot or personal experience?

We should still avoid adding this all to a "problems" section, as recommended by the Manual of Style. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The information was controversial in nature with its claim of being the "first" in several things, being "historic", and of people being "really excited" for the device. The tone was written more as an advertisement to glorify the makers of the device. The basic neutral gist of the whole section, stripping away biased points of view and overly-detailed information not compliant with policy and guideline, is simply "There was a cheat device that can let players modify data in the game; these alterations allow the players to use weapons that are not officially available for multiplayer games." Now that (or a similar message) would be uncontroversial and true, provided a reliable source is found for it. Jappalang (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That'll be good. I wasn't sure whether or not to take his threats seriously, so I remember editing out certain phrases and rewording others in the CM section last night. I was really just waiting for someone to hammer it, though. - Shane

There's no reason to take the threats seriously. Don't worry about it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, but it's so annoying! If he could find a good source, the CM might be interesting. If he was civil, we'd be fine. If he would try to work with us instead of against us, this would be fine. So puzzling. -Shane

It might be controversial to you, but it is proven FACT! You don't even bother clicking the image or checking. However you call it controversial?

Sorry, there are people that claim the Moon Landing is FAKE, Wikipedia has it as FACT. There are a thousand things like this. Just because YOU are not educated on something, doesn't make it controversial.

I am SICK of the power struggle that goes on on this site. I swear to freaking God, if it continues I will just quit using the site, and do EVERYTHING in my power to discredit the site and removed from search engines. If you are not going to allow people to post FACTS, that are backup up by source-able information, that follows the rules of the site, then it's just a power struggle, so that these kids can see how much "E-Popularity" they can get. That or they have an agenda, oh, I dunno, like another user famous to this site, "SlimVirgin". Listen, I have just as much right to be here, and post my information as everyone else.

What it comes down to is this, That piece of software was out and worked. I saw it work. People wanted it, but they would not give it away to people. So now you have people mad about it, that want to destroy all information about it. Then the source code was given out to people, BY the makers of the thing. Then someone made "Code 9" from the source code. People love Code9, because it was given away to everyone.

However, Code Majic WAS historic. It was the first Cheat Device to have a Sony team created just for the purpose of making it not work(That failed), and it did all kinds of things, some I have never heard of. Like I said, I am going to talk to the Admin over this, but if this doesn't end, then I am done here and this place will be known for the internet chalkboard where only the teachers pet can write on it, that it is.Cached Entity (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources to back any of your claims? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they have been posted. I cannot post content from places like G4 and other game magazines, because the content is copyrighted. The only information I can post is from the creators, and other gaming sites. Under Wikipedia's rules, this is allowable if there are no opposing sources of the same level that are claiming otherwise WHILE trying to post on this topic. I am WELL within the bounds of the rule. I am getting really sick of this man. I am a freaking normal person. I don't have ten years to sit here and watch that the right thing is done. Please do the right thing, and allow the content I posted. I have cleared it with the office in San Fransisco, I have reviewed the rules, I have done everything. You can't enforce anything on this site, when every kid with a power complex is an "Admin". Cached Entity (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You can cite them. Which issues of what magazines? What episodes of what shows? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Need a Plot ?

Wondering whether we need to have a section for the storyline.. I mean ,yeah, everything's a mission but still, it's worth putting a storyline. Any one agree ? --Roaring Siren (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)