User talk:Imrlybord7/Archive 1

What inaccuracies? Darkman 4 01:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the information you have about the guns (mostly in World at War) is dead wrong, particularly the Bolt Action Rifles. I was most likely this wiki's biggest anonymous contributor, as I had corrected information and provided tactics on just about every weapon in CoD4. I was in the process of doing the same for World at War, but someone reset a page to the way it was before I corrected it. I was angered and performed a tiny bit of vandalism, calling the person who re-edited the page an idiot in parentheses next to my re-correction. Then my IP was tracked by CreepyDude and he saw that I had a ton of edits. For some reason he assumed that all of them were vandalism, even though my vandalism was just the aforementioned incident. He then told Rs4life07 that my IP needed to be banned, and it was without a second thought. Now all of my corrections for World at War are gone, but at least most of the ones I did for CoD4 are still there. And just so you know I get all of my information from Den Kirson's weapon chart, which is all taken straight from the disk. Imrlybord7 13:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you, it was more than a "bit" of vandalism. You were putting stuff like "the springfield has crappy iron sights and they are way off.  Things like that.  THEN there was the issue with "ALL BOLT-ACTION DAMAGE IS THE SAME!"  Which, by the way, is not true.  And Rs4life went through and fixed all your edits that were vandalisms.  He checked each one.  What on earth are you talking about, all bolt-action damage is the same?  Then why so many different types?  And also, Vonderhaar said in an interview that the later-unlocked guns would have more power.  Sorry for any injust treatment.    M/Sgt. Creepydude  Sniper   Say Some'at Here!  15:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Springfield and Nambu are both glitched so that the bullet does not go exactly where the iron sight is, meaning that they are the only weapons in the game that are not perfectly accurate when sighted (note that there is NO glitch with the Springfield scoped). Check the link I provided above. Also, all bolt actions do 40-50 damage (PC) or 50 damage (consoles) with no scope, or 70 damage with a scope (PC and consoles). They all have 1.5x multipliers to the head, neck, and chest and 1.1x multiplier to the stomach (scoped), or 2.0x to the head and 1.5x to the neck and chest when unscoped. Once again check the link, which was all taken straight from the disk (the console difference for the unscoped bolt actions was confirmed through testing). The only differences between bolt actions are iron sights (obviously based on this information the unscoped Springfield is the worst when used unscoped), reload time, and some very slight differences in rate of fire (the Springfield is the best bolt action with a scope, ironically). Note that I am not including the PTRS as a bolt action, but it does the exact same damage and has the same multipliers as any of the scoped bolt actions (so obviously it is superior due to its higher rate of fire). I'm sure you will see just how correct I am soon enough. And by the way, I did not say "crappy," I said "bad." (in reference to the Springfield's iron sights) Imrlybord7 13:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you actaully bothered to check the infoboxes, you'll see that what I extracted is exactly what that link has, only without the creepy-ass charts. The writeups on for each weapon are user-written strategies on how to effectively use each gun in the game, not a restatement of the infoboxes. Darkman 4 07:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

1. How are the charts "creepy?" 2. You do not list the multiplier differences or damage differences for scoped or unscoped. I did all of those. 3. You seem to have forgotten the existence of the human neck. 4. The write-ups contain tons of misinformation, mostly about damage. 5. In case you didn't notice, your friend Creepy is under the impression that I am wrong about some of my information, although at least you see that I am correct. Imrlybord7 13:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I merged head and neck because they both cause a similar amount of damage. you can change it if you want. Most of the info I extracted was from the beta, so I appreciate you changing the values. Darkman 4 16:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning - If anyone of you continue to argue back and forth like this I will consider a ban. If there is some sort of problem rather than insulting each others work try and discuss this like civilized people. Also Imrlybord7 please sign your post by typing --10:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not insulted anyone during this back and forth, I have simply corrected people. I want to know if I can go back and re-correct everything yet or will I get banned again? Imrlybord7 12:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am signing all of my posts to make this easier to follow, sorry for the incorrect times. Imrlybord7 13:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, sorry Imrlybord7, but I assumed that Rs4life07 had checked all the articles. You do realise that they weren't ALL destroyed, they were all gone through and hand-picked for vandalism.  I did not hand-pick them either.  Again, I am sorry if you were treated unjustly, but I am still not sure whether your info is correct.  If you are absolutely sure that it is correct, I wont stop you, and if you were banned for 3 days for absolutely no reason at all, then I appologise, but ultimately, it was Rs4life who made the decision.  I retired early last night, so I missed most of this, however, Rs4life07, this is hardly what I would call "insulting each other", unless there is something I am missing.  If I conveyed the wrong impression in my first message, I apologise for any mis-communication.  That can happen on-line.  Oh, and Imrlybord7, if you want to cancel the ban, although you have an account now so it probably doen't matter, talk to Rs4life.  If you and Darkman 4 both agree that yes, your weapon information is 100% right, then I won't argue with you, but you should put a source for your information at the bottom.  Sorry for any mistreatment.  Oh, and one more thing, seriously, I would love to believe that chart, because it is very well put together, and things like the shotguns are very believable, however, I refuse to believe that the Tokarev TT-33 is actually WORSE than the 3 earlier pistols, because of it's higher recoil and reload time.    M/Sgt. Creepydude  Sniper   Say Some'at Here!  16:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The part were someone said the charts are creepy could be considered a minute personal attack. Just wanted to make sure things wouldn't escalate. A warning usually prevents a flame war.--20:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mmk, I get it. Hopefully no offense taken, and we have a new member now. :)    M/Sgt. Creepydude  Sniper   Say Some'at Here!  21:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you. I am glad that this "situation" was defused peacefully, and I apologize for my vandalism. I just want everyone to at least recognize that I am a major contributor and that all of my information is correct. You have my word that I will never post speculation (and if I did for some reason I would take note of it). One thing I will do that hopefully nobody has a problem with is note any guns that are statistically superior on a weapon page (for example on the Thompson page I would write something like "It should be noted that the Type 100 has the EXACT same stats only with more ammo and different iron sights." Also, the Tokarev has the advantage of very fast reload from empty time, so it is not completely worse (technically the Nambu is the worst due to the glitched sights). Imrlybord7 04:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand. So then from now on, just please mention all these facts with a reference link, and where the stats came from (extracted from the game).  Thank you for helping to fix this error.

The Sights are "Glitched"
Hey, I understand you think the Nambu and the Springfield sights are "glitched," but when referring to it in the article, please say "off" instead. "Glitched" implies that the game developers made a mistake, which the might not have, so saying that they are "off" sounds better. Since the Nambu is supposedly the "best" pistol except for the Magnum, they could very well have put this in purposely. Since the Springfield is most often used scoped and it is the first level rifle, it is likely that the sights are off purposely. Anyways, it just sounds better. Tanks,

Not trying to start anything here, but there is NO WAY IN HELL that the developers of the game misaligned the sights on purpose. I would literally stake my life on that claim. I agree "glitched" may be a bit harsh, but don't attempt to defend the devs on this one. Also, although the Nambu has the best balance of mid-reload time and empty reload time, that by no means makes it noticeably better than other pistols. And your reasons for the Springfield don't really make sense. 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not an "argument" per se, and you haven't done it in a while, but please do not put words with all caps in articles, like "So-and-so is EXACTLY the same as whats-his-face". You know?  I think some of the people that undo your changes would stop if they saw a neatly implemented "So-and-so interestingly is the same as whats-his-face, except for iron sights and reload time".  The example kinda turned out poorly, but you get the picture.  Just try and make the content well-written.  Oh, and by the way, if you don't mind, please post responses on my talk page, because then I can see them right away.


 * Yes, I agree; this is a legitimate point. However, bans are not necassary.  Basically, however annoying, there are usually 2 classes on wikis; the people who create the raw content, and the people who clean it up.  The sad thing is these days no-one knows any grammar, or even how to spell.  They use abbreviations and first-person, etc...  So if you want to be mainly one of those people who clean up, go ahead.  I am sort of a bit of both; I mainly like to add content, but I usually end up cleaning articles more (see my user page).  Also, be careful how much you use the bold as well, because although better, you don't want to be overbearing with emphasis.  Oh, and as a last note, if you want to chat about things conveniently, we could use the IRC channel, but we both have to be on at the same time.

Hmmm, I see. However, I think that like I said, if your edits are non-opinionated, good quality and grammar, and helpful, then no-one will delete it. If they do, then that is called removing content, and is bannable after a few warnings. Oh, and while you are here, check out the monaco template I made (it is uncomplete; raw so far). You will have to go to User:Imrlybord7/monaco.css once I create it, and do the Ctrl+F5 thing to make it show.

Oh, I forgot to add, if you hate it or want to remove it, just delete all the content on the page and hit Ctrl+F5 again.

Got a question about Stopping Power
Recently, an IP went and vandalised the page, saying something like, "ALL THIS INFO IS WRONG, STOPPING POWER INCREASES EVERY BULLET'S DAMAGE BY 40%". This was put in regards to the comment on the page saying that stopping power is more effective on weapons with a low ROF and thus less effective on weapons with a fast ROF. So I just figured I would ask you what is correct. I'm really not sure myself. I reverted the IP's change, but you can see what he did here Thanks,  18:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, I understand that. Hmmmm.  Maybe then the article needs a little revamp to be clear that it does do 40% on all weapons, but it is more effective weapons with lower ROF.  Thanks for your help, it is much appreciated.   19:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

MP44
I rollbacked your edits on the STG-44 because they were unnecessary. Delete the "old" strategy and put the new one in its place. It's much less confusing when you're reading it. Darkman 4 18:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please....
Leave me alone, OK? Im sorry! Please stop posting things criticizing me on the CoD6 talk page!!

Vandal
Got him. Thanks for the heads-up! Darkman 4 13:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

CAW
I blocked him for three days. Figured that should be long enough to make him realize that he's wrong. Darkman 4 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I was getting tired of his shit, anyways. Any moron could see that the gun was an ACR because of the notch near the stock. Darkman 4 23:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Guy
I banned him a few days ago :O Darkman 4 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

CAW again
Hahaha what a fucking baby. tell him that I didn't ban him on your orders; instead, I read your complaint and saw that he was incorrect and was causing major disruptions on this wiki because of a gun in an unreleased video game. As an admin, one of my duties is to keep order. I thought it was ridiculous that he continued to rile up people like you even after he was proven wrong, so I gave him a nice ban.

I can't believe he just sat around and spammed Stun Grenades. I would've given him a taste of his own medicine by spamming Frag Grenades at him. :O Darkman 4 07:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to play a rematch on a map that acctually requires skills, instead of just sprinting around with a stopping power MP5 with RDS CAW4 01:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardcore
Cool with me. I'd prefer that you keep it on the Hardcore page, but if feel that your weapon guide would take up too much space there, then feel free to make a new article. Darkman 4 02:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody unblock me?
I suppose to i can't upload images because sb block me....(sic. not clock:P) Could you help me and unblock me? Morihaus 19:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Morihaus

Look at MW2 discussion:D

Woah there
That wasn't that nice of what you said to Gage. Flaming isn't allowed here, so you might want to read up on COD:UTP. If you do it again, you'll be temporarily blocked. 19:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:
I am trying to find a source but it has been a while so it may take some time.-- 07:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I can't seem to find a source but I distinctly remember them saying that in game host migration was impossible due to the engine.-- 07:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's where I saw it!. We actually have that on the wiki. It's from a Q&A during the beta period of World at War. Call of Duty:World at War Q&A-- 08:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

YouTube issue
I remember seeing you on GameFAQs, and there was a particular post where you were effectively lambasting a guy on YouTube who was breaking the rules. You seem to know more about YouTube than I do, so I think you might want to know about this (if it hasn't come to your attention already): Someone started an account named "InfinityWardUSA" and is claiming it is the real Infinity Ward YouTube account, and that its videos are the real thing. At least three other accounts (SpecOpgamer, LupeFiascoOfficial, and DustyHacker) seem to be puppets of the impostor, and have been posting on the official IW channel that the USA one is real and has "new videos". This has, of course, led to confusion. Since you appear acquainted with how YouTube works (I'm not), could you take the trouble of reporting this impersonator? I couldn't find anywhere to report the matter, so I'm at a loss for what to do. All I know is I'm mad as hell at this idiotic parasite trying to rip off the real IW's hard work, and I want him banned out of existence. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I couldn't seem to find, a way to report a user, but maybe you'll be the one to find it. Thanks for your help. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

RFA
Hey, thanks for your vote. I would nominate you for adminship, but I'm not going to, because I doubt it's gonna get anywhere, because you, and some other admins have said we already have enough admins. --Cpl. Callofduty4 07:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

MW2 weapon and attachment names
Hey, I've got a question; when MW2 comes out, should we call the weapons by what the game calls them or their real-life name? Examples include the M79, which the create-a-class menu calls it the "Thumper", and the "Masterkey", which the menu simply calls "Shotgun". If you want, we could do an vote on it in the war room. Darkman 4 04:22, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Don't worry; I was planning on making redirects. Darkman 4 04:55, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Adminship
I saw that you asked Darkman what would happen when you RfA'd when CoD:MW2 came out. Not that it matters, but I thought I'd just say that I'd support you if you did. You've been instrumental in developing the MW2 page and many related articles, and with Bigm gone... 16:22, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

No problem. 20:17, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Live
This is TrainWreckDC7 and im always lookin 4 good ppl to play zombies w/. i also like long walks on the beach, readin' poetry, and swearing loudly wen i get killed  lol my gamertag is TrainWreckDC7 so if u ever want somebody to hunt zombies w/ or play CoD MW2 on midnight w/ go ahead and send me a friend request67.142.130.40 05:03, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

tactical insertion
yes i am. i dont see the problem here, robert bowling himself said he made a mistake and ment demolition. go to his twitter and look through the older replies. you don't re-spawn anyway in S&D. so before you get all angry, check your fucking sources for information. Patrickd13 22:57, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

ok, this is what he said on his twitter "@IRobitailleI There are no respawns in Search and Destroy so Tactical Insertion is useless there, I said S&D once meaning to say Demolition" i said twitter, not forum retard. learn to read.

and guess what i fucking found. "There are no respawns in Search and Destroy. That was my bad. Was rambling and said CTF (which is accurate) and S&D, when I was meaning to say Demolition (which is a new gametype)." again, LEARN TO FUCKING READ BEFORE YOU GO THREATENING OTHER PEOPLE.Patrickd13 23:49, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

See, now if you said that at first then this would of not happened and you wouldn't come off to people as a dick. next time, take time to make someone understand rather then threaten them.

Read this
You really need to read this -- 23:27, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for supporting me for admin, means a lot.   Maj.Gage   Talk . 23:27, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Re:
Thanks for your vote in the RFA. 20:19, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

re:
I changed my vote because I believe that you deserved a neutral vote. The extreme oppose I gave you wasn't the correct vote. You really need to improve your people skills. Unfortunately, probably neither of us are going to be admins, which kind of leaves me a bit disappointed. You would make a fine admin, Imrlybord, but before you become one you need to stop flaming other users for being stupid. Sure, you may hate them, tbh who doesn't, but keep it to yourself. By the way, when you attacked me on the MW2 talk archive 2 page about the perks, you are forgiven. I took the place of the stupid user there. Believe me, I have learned this the hard way, I have tried 4 times to be an admin and failed 4 times, because of my personality, and am probably going to fail this one as well. I would rather have no more admins than someone else being picked over us. We have been here the longest out of those people, and likewise with you, I have been using this wiki for info ever since it was created. I dared not create an account, I wasn't old enough lol.

So, that's the reasons why I've changed my vote. I hope you have some success. Good luck.

19:35, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Woah there (2)
Regarding what you recently said on Akyoyo's RfB, you were quite rude. Saying "I am considerably more valuable as an editor (which you are free to dispute, but nobody will agree with you)" was both selfish and rude right there. Seeing as how the last time I had to message you regarding behavior was in June, I'll just leave this with a second warning about a temporary block. Please keep COD:UTP in mind. 05:07, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Here you are, my good man
Since I already typed it, I'll just point this out instead.

Don't worry about the other guys' comments about user treatment, either. I was the bad guy first, and we both need to work on that in general. Let's just not do things like this again, 'kay? 23:50, October 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, now that we've established good diplomatic relations...or whatever...I have to be honest. I'd heed the warnings of the other users: especially with your history, I think that maybe you should work on keeping your cool and treating people properly. Granted I did just the opposite, and it won't happen again, but I have to tell you, for your own good, that you should really focus on this. I know, it's incredibly hard to walk away from people directly being douchebags to you, but it takes the bigger man to follow the rules and approach the conflict differently. Yes, I have to do the same, but I'm only reinforcing this to you because you seem to have had this problem before. If you think I'm going a little over board, or you resolved just that before I even said anything, or whatever, then never mind, I suppose. 01:26, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

why?
the hell do you care about my user page? and the admins here dont run this very well, this is about CALL OF DUTY NOT HALO! i have ran into so many pages that have references to halo or another game. plus all the vandals around here make this one of the wikis that i absolutely hate going to. they need to go to the fallout wiki and learn from the admins there, they know how to run a wiki and make it as close to vandal free as physically possible. havoc131

ok first of all i make/run my own user page so shut the fuck up about that (yes profanity as necessary) and second who the fuck do you think you are telling me that my user page should be perfect? i do believe that you are neither an admin or a bureaucrat or someone who i give a shit about so dont think that you can come over to my page and say that it isn't up to your bullshit quality cause i dont give a flying fuck. and i think i will stick around and keep my user page how i want it with my opinions on it. so have a nice day. havoc131

ya know what your right, im sorry, that was uncalled for.you did nothing wrong, im just tired of the bullshit i got from the wikia staff for a flame war on another wiki that ruined my chances of becoming an admin on another wiki. i found the halo thing a long time ago and it just pissed me off but it was removed. it was on like 4 different pages. the admins here just arent what im used to and it just seems like they dont care about the vandals on the site (on the fallout wiki vandals are given two warnings and then banned for good). i dont like being commented on my user page mainly because it is my user page and yeah people read it but they dont control it.sorry for being so rude, its not that you pissed me off but you caught me at a bad time. havoc131

Weapon Page Names
I know how you are with anything and everything to do with MW2, so maybe you would be interested in my War Room topic (by the same name as this post's subject) that deals with what the Weapon Pages Policy should say about what to name the pages. I mean, everyone should be voting on this, but I know you're interested in that area, so, there's my recommendation. Seeya 'round. 07:20, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at this
You need to have a say here. Forum:An_extremely_serious_discussion_regarding_Modern_Warfare_2 18:44, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Re: Was this REALLY your idea?
I really don't know what to say. Go check my response at the war room. Ok here's something for you: WHAT. THE. FUCK? I'm sorry, but this is just sad. (I'm not even going to waste my time giving you a different response than cod4) 03:05, November 5, 2009 (UTC)




 * By the way, if giving you rollback will satisfy your "anti-vandalism" ambitions, then I will happily grant you it.  18:53, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

What is RegCore?
Is RegCore just Team Deathmatch?   Maj.Gage   Talk . 20:40, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Re:
I messed up archiving it but it's ok now. I can't give you rollback because I'm not an admin. Sorry. 21:36, November 16, 2009 (UTC)