The Sonic 2 Beta Page

From Sonic Retro

Emotive language vs Factual account

Hi, I believe my revision of this page ( ) was more factual in it's language and content than the current reverted revision. As well as this Aurochs' bias is clear, showing how he want us to look bad despite everyone else moving on from the event and getting on with their lives, such as him editing the Sonic Crackers article on wikipedia to remove our page from the external links. Clearly we're not allowed to have any publicity or spread knowledge because of this event and we must forever be damned? "Qjimbo sprung his trap" is so emotive and completely inaccurate. I don't understand why we just can't move on, or at least some how come to a comprimise about the article instead of removing the work I put in to make it more accurate. Qjimbo 02:22, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

I will agree that your version did give more detail, but there were two problems:
  • I cannot verify the extent of Quickman's role. The entire edit, and especially the phrase "...Qjimbo and Quickman had forcably..." appeared to give him far more credit than I can see he is due.
  • The last paragraph was a justification of the coup. This is completely unnecessary for a factual account. Note that the other two History sections simply tell WHAT happened. They do not attempt to justify any individual's actions.
I am calm enough at this point to begin integrating your edit into the article (tomorrow: it's 4:15 AM right now and i have to be at work in four hours). Note that if you attempt to inject any more propaganda, the page will be locked again.
As for the Wikipedia revert, it was clearly linkspam added by somebody with a vested interest in improving traffic to the site (ie: you). Note WP:NOT a soapbox and WP:NOT a link repository. Aurochs (Talk | Block)
I can verify the extent of Quickman's role because, you know, I was there and I know what I did and did not do. Qjimbo crosschecked with me, so we know what parts of the coup were carried out by which people.
Also, the latest links added on Wikipedia were added by me, because I think Glowing Bridge is at the very least worthy of mention since it documents the prototypes. Is there something wrong with that? Quickman 05:38, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Pfft, yeah right about wikipedia, there are 4 links already on there, why shouldn't my site be in the links? Besides it was hardly spam, I'm giving out information on Sonic Crackers, do you want people to be uneducated? What benefit does traffic give me? I have no adverts, I don't make any money, I'm just trying to improve peoples knowledge and give them a community. You make it out like I'm some kind of nigerian spammer.
Also I question your citing of the soapbox rule, when considering this excerpt:
Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable.
The links were not overly abundant, well my crackers one certainly wasn't anyway.
I present to you this comment from Dispute Resolution (
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. 
The bottom line is, I don't really care about this article, I just don't want you spreading your opinions onto Wikipedia.

Qjimbo 05:31, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Considering you have no other information on sonic crackers other than what was allready at S2B I don't see the need for your link at Wikipedia. :P --SMTP 27 April 2007
lol it appears I was out of line:
Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but if you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when... editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with...
This does NOT exonerate you from linkspamming (and in fact explicitly paints you as a linkspammer - yes both of you), but since I can't claim enforcement of any Wikipedia policy without violating the same policy myself, I guess I can't remove your links. I will ask you to refrain from reposting them (especially the one on Crackers, which really adds nothing). --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
If it makes you guys happier that the links aren't there (on the S2B and S2A articles), than so be it. I just want to keep the peace here and I percieved your actions as another jab. I'm not trying to start trouble, it just surprised me because it was like we can never move forward. Ah well.
Also if any of you guys see LocalH tell him I want to give him, since I don't need it and it seems like a small gesture of good faith. Though it is just a domain name =p

S2 beta site not working

Just to tell that the Sonic 2 Beta site isn't working. It would be nice if it was fixed -Lightoftruth 18:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Lightoftruth

Someone could at least write in the article when the site was allowed to expire.--MUser 08:51, 28 September 2010 (CDT)