User talk:MinesGrist

Just because you regard the term "joke WAD" as referring solely to its original meaning of a WAD made deliberately badly, it doesn't follow that anyone else shares your opinion. Your twice deleting a section on another kind of joke WAD, without attempting to seek any kind of consensus for this action, borders on vandalism. -- RobertATfm (talk) 06:34, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * The same could be said for your opinion that WADs with Beavis and Butthead files count as "joke WADs", and your continued restoration of this spammy garbage. Stop trying to sound like an internet tough guy, act like a polite human being and maybe people will want to seek consensus with you. MinesGrist (talk) 16:40, August 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * So this section of Joke wads is spammy garbage according to your opinion? It makes no logical sense to remove that section of the article that has been there for years without real good reasoning, since it's an actual part of joke wads in general.  Both Robert and myself are administrators here and recently the Joke wads page was protected to prevent repeated deletion of the one section.  You did however make one good edit by removing trivia of the BFG9000 appearing in a non notable game.  Justice ∞ (talk) 02:18, August 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Gee, if people keep removing it, then perhaps a lot of people feel it's a junk section? It's definitely really poorly written, and it's spammy in the "rocket spam" sense (as opposed to the "advertising" sense). Again, like I said in the edit summary, just because a few clueless newbies misuse the term "joke wad" doesn't mean that particular section should stay - some people use the term "joke map" to refer to maps that they simply don't like (for instance, 2fort in the TF2 community), should there then be a section describing how some people consider E2M7 to be a "joke wad" due to its relative unsuitability for deathmatch? MinesGrist (talk) 22:45, August 24, 2012 (UTC)