Changes

I would also suggest using the opportunity of the article protection to reach wording that both of you can agree with instead of reverting.  Your differences appeared to be minor, and there was no reason to force Dan to intervene and lock the article over a small difference that you should have been able to solve in other ways. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I would also suggest using the opportunity of the article protection to reach wording that both of you can agree with instead of reverting.  Your differences appeared to be minor, and there was no reason to force Dan to intervene and lock the article over a small difference that you should have been able to solve in other ways. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I've compromised a couple of times, but Jinx appears hell-bent on pushing his agenda of 'this game is superb, and no-one can actually level any valid criticism against it', come what may.  As far as I'm concerned, the article, in it's current form, if anything, is slightly biased in the game's favour (though far less than it was before I started editing it), due to the inclusion, by Jinx, of such phrases as 'Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address dozens of issues', as if this is something unusual.  It's not - most, if not all, games developers typically bring out patches post-release that address many issues.  That doesn't seem good enough for Jinx, however.  It seems very obvious that saying that all the criticisms and issues raised by the various reviews have been addressed is simply not true, but Jinx seems to be going out of his way to try to reinsert this into the article at every opportunity and using any excuse. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:30, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I've compromised a couple of times, but Jinx appears hell-bent on pushing his agenda of 'this game is superb, and no-one can actually level any valid criticism against it', come what may.  As far as I'm concerned, the article, in it's current form, if anything, is slightly biased in the game's favour (though far less than it was before I started editing it), due to the inclusion, by Jinx, of such phrases as 'Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address dozens of issues', as if this is something unusual (it's not - most, if not all, games developers typically bring out patches post-release that address many issues), and, for another example, the implication that the Game Revolution review was poor due to religious reasons, despite the fact the reviewer specifically makes the point he believes in the freedom of people to believe what they like (and his corresponding freedom to believe they're all nuts), and actually cites various gameplay, graphical and technical reasons for giving the game a poor rating.  That doesn't seem good enough for Jinx, however.  It seems very obvious that saying that all the criticisms and issues raised by the various reviews have been addressed is simply not true, but Jinx seems to be going out of his way to try to reinsert this into the article at every opportunity and using any excuse, so, in my opinion, it should be left as is, or that sentence removed entirely, and the first sentence of that paragraph reworded to 'Some of the complaints in the initial reviews of the game...'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:30, 14 March 2008 (EDT)