User talk:Crossbowman

Earlier Comments
Please do more - in addition to editing articles, I'd love it if you would make some new ones. We desperately need more articles. --Dthaiger 16:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I love you too, we need more people!!! :-) --Snow93 12:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dumb AI...
Funny you mention being obsessed with turtling and organising your base, that's what I do too. I find that only AI enemies are stupid enough not to attack me while I'm biuilding my eperfect base. --Snow93(talk)(contrib) 12:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed..the AI is sorta stupid, since when I am constructing something, the AI (if GDI) uses an Ion Cannon and destroys one of my normal power plants, leaving the rest of my base untouched. Another time, by pure chance, the Hunter Seeker thing flew into just one of my Light Infantry. When they attack, the send one man at a time...and anything subterannean digs into a tiny square in the middle of my base that I purposely surrounded with walls and defense and that was not paved over. -- Çяøѕѕвøщмди Rant 23:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing?
Please, don't be condescending to me - I'm by far the most contributive member here, and all removal/moves I do are to ensure that the wiki looks clean and is informative (including the main page I did myself). As for the content... there already exists a ton of game guides on the net, and this wiki doesn't need it. As outlined on the main page, this is first and foremost a lore guide. Therefore, a detailed overview of development and use of units and structure is warranted, but in-game use, cost etc. is not. Mikael Grizzly 06:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You just used the incorrect style for your writing (formal). Also, the help page guidelines resulted in a cluttered mess of unit articles. Plus, the data there didn't necessarily pertain for all gamers. Mikael Grizzly 07:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "About the writing style, I don't really understand (formal writing style? I thought you were supposed to write formally on talk pages)"
 * No, this is not Wikipedia.
 * "Also, the help page, advising new users to go ahead, edit, add tactics, et cetera, did not really "clutter" the units section."
 * Trust me, it did. Not to mention that what was stated in there was usually based on in-game unit performance, which isn't canonical (if it was, then the Mammoth Mk. II wouldn't be the beast it is), as what happens in the cutscenes is.
 * "By the way, this wikicity, as stated before, is in-universe; all information is good, even if some users don't look at it."
 * Provided that this information is logical and canon.
 * "For example, say, there are twenty users. There is one article; in this article, eighteen out of twenty don't look at a certain section. However, that section should not be removed just because of this; the two other users are still users, and still deserve a right."
 * 95% of the sections I have removed are pure game guide material, and there's enough of this over at GameFAQs. The Command & Conquer Wiki is essentially a lore guide, which attempts to be a comprehensive resource for storyline, characters and similar (just check the frontpage). Not a game guide.
 * "Real-life: the Construction Yard article orginally had a "design" section, and this was removed without warning. Personally, I actually read this section, but if you feel that it could be improve, then please do so! Please don't just remove it without warning. Remember, just a suggestion."
 * I removed it temporarily because it didn't really add that much to the article and could be expanded. Now that you say it, I think I can add it back.
 * "By the way, no need to tell me about being the "most contributive member here". And also, don't brag about anything that you have done/accomplished here. Just because you revamped articles does not give you the right to consider yourself superior."
 * I don't consider myself superior. I merely state a fact taken from the Wiki statistics. And that so far I fathered some 40 articles (which still puts me behind Makron1n, our resident Generals expert, though) --Mikael Grizzly 06:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)