I understand why you removed my edition on store hacking but I think it's a bit over the top. In Sleeping Dogs, the hero dates many girls but the author doesn't want to depict sex in any form, so he uses everything at his disposal to make the audience understand that the hero had sex with the girls. The author does it without saying it, without showing it; just by implying it, so the "dumb guy" "don't get it" and the rest of the audience understand what happens "off screen". That's called "implicit" (opposed to explicit / explanation). It is an elaborate way to tells stuff but it can't be proof with any "explicit reference". This is where the factual policy fells short. It's an encyclopedy about a video game, not about a software. As we can't reference implicit, then we are screw.
Why would the first quest of the protagonist would be "Breaking The Law" if it was not to underline the very fact that, from now on (after the real world) he's breaking the law?
Why "store hacking" would be the first mission of "Breaking The Law" if it was not to underline the very fact that, from now on, he's hacker who use gateway to access the simulation?
So yeah, I defenitly get your point, we can't proove that the usage of hacking back doors and gateways are corelated to the fact that the shop are locked. Steve jarros should have tells it with words and sounds and pictures, but, he didn't.
This wiki is based upon facts.
The fact is that the narrative of the game does not address the stores becoming locked.
During The Fundamentals, using Friendly Fire is an objective - and the store is not locked.
Immediately after The Real World, the first mission is about hacking stores - at this point there is no reason for the player to even know that all stores had become locked.
Kinzie specifically says "I know hacking stores seems trivial, but it's a good place for us to begin", without any mention of the fact that the stores were suddenly locked in the first place.
Therefore, is it factual, and well worth mentioning, that stores become locked without explanation.
I don't argue the factual policy and I even think it's the best way to establish an encyclopedia. My point is, there are tons of informations unavaible in the video game (from an experience point of view) on that wiki, such as the spawn rate of vehicle. Where did the source come from? It comes from hacking the video game. There are no fact in the video game (from an experience point of view) that can establish the spawn rate of a vehicle.
Pretty much every fact comes from hacking a software and not experiencing a video game. So I won't argue with this anymore. It's just weird that this encyclopedia provide info unavaible in the video game (only on the game file), but don't want to provide information that are avaible in the video game (from an experience pov). Is this wiki is about video game users providing info about the video game they play or about hacker that spend time to explore data files? (Which is illegal by the way, but this is not where I am getting at)
"Where did the source come from? It comes from hacking the video game. There are no fact in the video game that can establish the spawn rate of a vehicle."
If it's on the disc, then it's part of the game. The vehicle speeds are provably part of the game, even if you can't determine them while in the game, they are still a provable fact.
I've explained this before, but it's not in a very easy-to-find place, so I'll make a new post about this in the near future. Including information from the data files has been a vital part of this wiki for over 6 years, and nobody has ever disputed including information obtained from the game data files before, so there has never been a cause for me to explicitly mention it.
But for the record, one of the policy pages has already said for some time that
"about the actual game" means
"in the game" - anything visible in the game is allowed.
"on the disc" - cut and disabled content is allowed.
"available as DLC" - downloadable content is allowed.
"from the developers" - trivia from developers is allowed.
"Pretty much every fact comes from hacking a software and not experiencing a video game."
That is not true. While obviously all exact numbers come from extracting the information from the data files, all quotes and mission details are verifiable in the game.
If this wiki were based solely upon "experiencing a video game", then it would rely on people's memories.
Extracting information ensures accuracy, and has uncovered countless times when people writing things down from memory has been wrong.
"It's just weird that this encyclopedia provide info unavaible in the video game (only on the game file), but don't want to provide information that are avaible in the video game (from an experience pov)."
The information is not available "from an experience pov". You are just making things to fill the gaps, which is subjective speculation, not fact.
I've explained very clearly what occurs in the game "from an experience pov". What you attempted to add was an explanation that you just made up, which does not reflect the experience in the game.
"Is this wiki is about video game users providing info about the video game they play or about hacker that spend time to explore data files?"
This wiki contains facts about a video game. Those facts can come from anywhere, including playing the game, or obtaining information from the data files, or statements from the developers.
This wiki is not about video game users opinions.
"(Which is illegal by the way)"
You have just accused me of a crime, and I was about to block you, but it turns out that while "legal threats" are specified in the Civility policy, "accusing someone of breaking the law", technically isn't.
Due to this oversight, I will not block you this time.
I didn't accused you of anything. I say that lots of data come from hacking the software, I didn't say that you hacked anything. And that's a fact so stop accusing me, it's bullshit. "It's fallacy, it's an opinion totally subjective you made up because you didn't pay attention to the fact, and you should stick to the fact before threatening me or anyone else." . End of story. I understand your point, just didn't get mine.
As I have no hacking tool, I will stop providing info that I can't verify since I have no appropriate tool to do so. I will follow this policy strictly because I don't want to make mistake or made stuff up.
Who do you think added the majority of extracted information if not me? Even if you meant someone else, you were still accusing an editor of this wiki of breaking the law, so just replace the word "me" with "an editor of this wiki", and it's the same offence.
"I will stop providing info that I can't verify"
Nobody should ever add any information they cannot verify. Unverified information is not much better than speculation.
Hacking tools are not necessary to verify in-game information. Simply playing the game is sufficient to conclude that the stores becoming locked is unexplained. Making up your own explanation is fan-fiction.
It turns out that the Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 in SR3 includes both sections, the Lassan (slow 1st half) & Friska (more upbeat 2nd half). The Lassan section was shortened such that intro for that was not repeated, but I'm not sure how much it is cut off by since it has been a while since I played the game. A fun fact for you is that I was the one who added that information on that Wikipedia article many years ago.
Hello 452, I have some images of characters from Saints Row Undercover that I got from my psp emulator but now the wiki won't let me upload them to the Saints Row Undercover gallery.
What do you mean "Won't let you"?
Is there an error message?
Please take a screenshot of the screen and upload it somewhere else and link it.
Dude this is 3rd5aints4life and thats the time where I Live. Its currently around 11:50 pm where i live. Also you didnt warn me that i was doing things incorrectly before you banned and didn't even give me a change to correct them.
1. The time where you live is irrelevant, but I'm pretty sure there's nowhere on earth where it's 11:50PM on the 2nd of August.
Your claim that - at 03:56 - it's "around 11:50 pm" where you live is odd, because at 03:25 you posted a comment claiming to be from "10:24". Somehow, 1 hour and 26 minutes passed for you in the same amount of time that 31 minutes passed on the wiki.
You sign your posts with ~~~~, just like it says on the edit page. The edit page instructions were your first warning, me editing your previous timestamps was your second warning.