User talk:Imrlybord7

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!  02:17, 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)

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.