User talk:Eik Corell/Archive 2

Hi, Eik. You removed my name as writer. If you check the credits you will clearly see that 'Jeremy Drysdale' is named as the 'writer'of the game, although it was missing from your credits section. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.45.209 (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked up on it, and it does indeed seem like I was in the wrong here. Sorry about that. Eik Corell (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - thank you!

You reverted both changes, one of which is to add the official site to the list (uoherald), which was missing. That is clear and verifiable information, so no need to revert it.

The other change is a important issue in the game, more so than many others in the articles. Ultima Online is not recieving much media attention, so its rather hard to show reliable sources for an in game policy. This is a big controversy point, as it sets Ultima Online apart from any other Pay2Play MMORPG out there and that makes it a notable policy for Ultima Online and therefor important for the article. The article is out of date and rather badly written, so it doesn't help that when we try and update it and improve it that changes are reverted. We will of course try our best to find sources for any information we update, but thats not always possible with the scarce coverage of the game. So I would respectfully ask you not to revert the changes. AndersJohan (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eik,

You seem to have made a mistake in your research regarding the continuation of Legions on the website LegionsOverdrive.com. We are indeed licensed to continue developing and distributing Legions. Please contact me ASAP: [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by BugsPrae (talk • contribs) 02:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm responding on the article talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted useful information directly related to Urban Terror anti-cheats. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urban_Terror&action=historysubmit&diff=394413815&oldid=394413261 Perhaps you don't play the game. B3 is an underground server side technology admins develop into an anti-cheat force, and without it, there would be no Urban Terror community, as there is no current working anti-cheat. Thus, this information is highly relative to the article and should be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.76.19 (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, none of this info seems to be

Steam section. It even has its own article, which further underscores its importance in the Steam article, even if it's just a brief mention. Eik Corell (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ROSE_Online&diff=prev&oldid=300545403 you seem to have removed practically all the content and just made a section on weapons saying that "Dealers can craft their own gem into their weapons when they learn the skill." Yet you already deleted the section describing the different classes so any readers won't have a clue what your talking about anyway, similar is the edit done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heatseeker_%28video_game%29&diff=prev&oldid=308365699

Comprehensive does not mean that wikipedia is an

WP:GAMEGUIDE

. This is why listings of characters, items, weapons and so on are usually to be avoided. 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the top of the pages, Eik. Specifically:

This page documents an English Wikipedia guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss your idea on the talk page.

You seem to keep removing information from articles, which has been deemed valuable and relevant by other contributors. In other words, your edits defy consensus. Please re-evaluate your methodology and take use of discussion pages before making further drastic cuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackinches (talk • contribs) 08:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. There is a problem, though. Whenever you try to use a game article's discussion page, there is generally no-one to respond. This is the problem I ran into repeatedly: No-one really cares, and the anonymous IPs who do are the ones who have clogged up the article in the first place; there is usually no arguing with them, as they are not familiar with the basic tenets of Wikipedia. For an example of this, check the comment at the top here. He deleted it, but you can check the history and see for yourself. As he saw, or sees it, there is a Simple Wikipedia and a normal Wikipedia, and therefore the normal English encyclopedia should be bloated to hell with gamecruft. I can't claim exception to discussion, but there is none, even when I try. Also, in my defense: Silence implies consent. In video game articles, though, silence usually means no-one cares, as far as I've seen. Case in point: The

bold

on video game articles, because not many will; they won't bother. I myself have passed so many video game articles because I wouldn't even know where to start with them. 15:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thief DS

Why do you keep deleting the Characters list on thief DS? Those characters are NOT mentioned on the Thief series page. Get your facts straight. And if you're no good at contributing anything, note that you're not making yourself helpful by deleting content. As stated above, just because no one raises an exception to your bad behavior doesn't mean your behavior is correct. --

I always try to keep lists of any sort out of video game articles, especially when there are broader articles such as the Thief series page. Those characters were not mentioned there, but optimally, the list should be moved there. That's how I see it. Eik Corell (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just that you dislike the format of a list? How about if that were a paragraph, would you like it or accept it then? (like

(reply) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It's partly the formatting. It would be best if any relevant details were weaved into the plot section, but that presents another problem - The plot section is already way too long and overly detailed, so the info moved would have to be minimal, preserving only important info, like that of new characters. Eik Corell (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm further confused! I actually liked the idea of a characters section since you can include a bit more background info, which might be irrelevant in the plot section. Its like in a movie, you like to know the major characters so that gives you a feel of the plot. Same here with games, I'm sure people would like all the characters grouped up for easy consumption. I think this discussion is making its way towards anti-Character sections. Am I right? I thought this was simply about which article the characters should be described in. --

(reply) 01:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi why did you remove the internal links to the other gpotato games documented on the Wikipedia? (Jasenm222 (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thought I had replied to this. If we were to add a list of other games developers have made to every video game article, video game articles would become bloated to hell. Another way of looking at it is this way: Is the article about what other works they've done or the game itself? A list of games is more suitable for the company's wiki article, gpotato doesn't seem to have one, though. 00:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm new here. The gpotato page will be added in the near future. I'm used to tying my pages together. That is why I added those internal links. Some of those pages were tagged as needing more links. Luna online is tagged as an orphan.(Jasenm222 (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, I noticed you removed an external link recently, citing WP:EL. As you know, there are three sets of criteria for WP:EL -- WP:ELYES, WP:ELNO, and

While there are two external links for the article that lead to official pages about the game, technically they add no valuable information to the article. In fact, without that one link to bungie.org, one cannot tell that the game has been the subject of eight years of research and effort by fans who are updating and adding to the game's content as well as providing technical help to players (the only support the game has at all). Without that one link the game appears to be an inert fossil from 2001.

It would even be warranted to mention the community's efforts in the article itself, owing to the somewhat unusual circumstances surrounding the game, but instead a simple 77 characters has been used to lead the reader to that information, which seems like a very reasonable usage of space considering how much information is behind that link. So, would you please reconsider your edit? --Iritscen (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's one thing I don't understand; Bungie is the developer, and these forums are hosted on their website, so does that mean it's the official forums? I'm a bit confused over this one. If it's set up by Bungie, it could most probably be added again, just without the "(fan site with latest news and mods)" part. 18:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, bungie.org is a fan site (Cf.

halo.bungie.org, the most well-known part of the site). Bungie.net is the official company site (and .com redirects there). But Bungie no longer owns the game, Take Two does. When T2 acquired the property as Bungie joined Microsoft, they basically sat on it. This is why I advocate keeping the fan site link, because the official sites have not been updated since 2001, so bungie.org is the only place readers will find support/mods for the game. --Iritscen (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Bungie.org's particularly close with Bungie, too. They're what you could call an "official fan site". --Iritscen (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that often fan site links are frowned upon, but seeing as

WP:ELMAYBE, point #4. What's your feeling on this? Thanks. --Iritscen (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess the problem is that oni.bungie.org redirects to the forum these days, so at first, it looks like all there is. But there's also a wiki (wiki.oni2.net) and a mod server (mods.oni2.net) which are linked to from the forum. These sites show the ongoing work to extend and improve the game which official pages fail to mention (you might be surprised, but the download counts for the patches are in the high hundreds since they started being counted a few months ago).

On the subject of the forum, the value there is not opinions, but that they are currently supporting the game singlehandedly. In other words, the whole reason the game even runs on modern computers is this group of fans. When people have trouble with the game, this is the place to ask.

I'll tell you what, I know the site admin is going to create a new page soon that will direct people around the community better, so they can find the wiki and the mod server more easily. Probably, if you consent to having any link to the community in the article, you'd prefer that general page to a forum link. Maybe I can let you know when it's up and you can consider it then? --Iritscen (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This presents a different problem - Wikipedia is not a place for support, and in turn, recommendations for places to get it. If it was, Wikipedia would be flooded with links to files, forums, and all kinds of places. Many older games have what could be referred to as an "active" fan base. Unless any of these have received coverage from reliable sources, they cannot be included. Also, given the context of how the game is actually "dead" now, I don't think it's appropriate to put links to forums or unofficial fan sites on the article, it would only serve as advertising in my opinion. 21:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it from that perspective. You're right that WP articles are not for providing technical support links, and people can find support on their own with their search engine of choice. However, I do feel that in the context of video game articles, it is appropriate to link to any community that produces mods for the game. Nevertheless, I understand that your mindset comes from the policies that WP has set, so it seems that my issue is not with your edit, but with the current policy for video game article links. So, if you hold to your opinion, I will respect that. --Iritscen (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That IP address has been reverting my edits for mongths now, on many different articles. Thank you for helping. Geoff B (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.171.175.122 is another one of his. Geoff B (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles was it mainly, and I'll look him up and report him now. I've forgotten where his nonsense started. Geoff B (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed your message -

Blood_and_Ice_Cream_Trilogy, in that order. It seems that he was the initial creator of the latter article. Eik Corell (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Reported him. Geoff B (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about reverting him, let's see if this report does any good. Geoff B (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, let's try a SPI. Geoff B (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now an edit filter. Geoff B (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider

Who is the "unresponsive user" you mention in your AIV report. The edits from the IP seem fine. Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the user's latest edits, more specifcally, check the articles' history pages and you will find the slew of other IPs used by the anonymous user. Check the contributions of those IP's as well and you will find the many other articles they try to add original research, gameguide stuff and trivia to month after after month after month. Eik Corell 11:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I don't agree with you on removing the information about the private servers. After the official servers went from the iRose style to the Evolution style ROSE a lot of iRose style private servers came into existence to accommodate those who preferred this. There are quite a few of them and some have a team that develops completely new content on top of this (endgame, raids/instances). In the discussion of the article it is mentioned that these private servers as such are not illegal and from my personal experience I can say that many thousands of people play on these private servers (I have no info on the official ones).

The problem is that this is not an officially supported feature, and unless the existance of these private servers have received third-party coverage by

Gamespot, IGN

, or other notable gaming news sites. If the game's website mentions the existence of these servers, you you also use that as a reference for the info, provided that these servers are actually legal. If nothing can be found to support it, then it can't be included. Eik Corell 19:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you did here [1], but in reverting this [2] you somehow blanked a couple ELs. not even sure why those would have gotten hit. I've fixed them.--

Why you have removed my text? Please do not delete more without a reason explanation. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.40.64.133 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply not relevant to the article - It's trivia information, like listing easter eggs or how something said could be reference to something... It's typically not suited for articles. Eik Corell 21:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's trivia information for you, however not for me or other christians! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.40.64.179 (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eik Corell, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of

It started not working all of a sudden and I assumed it was some sort of misguided feature like users seeing only the signatures of other as hotlinks and not their own. Anyway, got it fixed now. Eik Corell (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove 3/4 of Take No Prisoners (video game) article?... Klow (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored a bit of it, but it is still not sufficient. On second though I shouldn't have removed it because of that. The multiplayer ports thing, however, I removed per

WP:GAMEGUIDE. Eik Corell (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for reading over the information i put into the article, i am new to wikipedia editing and i found the article quite bear. Thinking i have beaten the game twice i decided to add information. Though you got rid of some sections which i thought should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.17.11 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really should consider

Not that I'm particularly fond of it and even playing it, but Ogame seems a pretty big game (the site is around 500-550 in the Alexa ranking) and it has a Wikipedia page. It may be browser-based and in space, but I still think both the "Massively Multiplauer Online" and the "Role Playing game" qualificatives apply here. In short, I'm just curious as to why you deleted Ogame from the MMORPG list. I'm not really lobbying for its inclusion, just wondering and trying to better understand the Wikipedia rules. Thanks in advance Chealar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chealar (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern is that it's not notable - The article has few if any

notability. People add a lot of entries to this list, and most of the time, they're not important enough to be listed. Eik Corell (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You keep engaging in vandalism (unnecessary content deletion) and edit warring (recently violated 3 Revert Rule AGAIN) while constantly acting against the community consensus. It might be beneficial if you for once added something instead of destroying everything in sight. I'd like to ask you to at least leave the Little Big Adventure articles alone. That's all I'm asking for. We will not let you vandalise it no matter what you do. It will be better for all of us if you just drop it. Thank you. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of your complaints. If you have specific ones related to the guidelines I link to, please, do share them. Otherwise, read them. If you did, you would know that accusing another editor of vandalism without them being a vandal is breach of policy, so please don't. Eik Corell (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned here [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... you removed a reference I put for the release date for STALKER: Call of Pripyat. Why is this not a reliable source? The text on the web page is Directly from the publisher itself, it is a press release that is sent out to various game websites. It doesn't get any more credible then that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.110.227.160 (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I'm having is that the source used is not a recognized, and notable source. I can't find the press release posted on any of the official websites, not even a hint of it. The game's official bit-composer page still says "1st Quarter 2010". Eik Corell (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers [4] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hereby, I formally apologize to Eik Corell, and Rehevkor, for my bad behavior until now. I promise I'll stop pushing my Versions table into this aritcle. I have decided to copy it onto my personal website about these games, The Island CX, and leave it there. It has more relevance there, than it has here. - OBrasilo (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C. Monique Berry is a verified source. She has the role of first-assistant director and location manager for the movie Undefeatable. Check IMDB--Internet Movie Database.

Advanced researchfinis coronat opus (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how she is in any way worthy of mention - Her main discernible role in the movie is playing a background character. It would be different if she was a very popular politician, but I can't find any reliable third-party coverage that establish her

notability. Another way of looking at it is - If she was popular enough, it wouldn't be important to describe in such details who she is. Hope this helps. Eik Corell (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Ms. Berry had an integral role in the making of the movie Undefeatable. For you to deny these facts, let alone claim that you could not/cannot find any third-party verification of C. Monique Berry, brings into question your journalistic integrity and scruples. Furthermore, Google is the most popular Web site on the planet. A quick search of "C. Monique Berry" easily reveals that she is CLEARLY THIRD-PARTY VERIFIED, as she appeared in the U.S. Capital Region’s Washington Post Newspaper, the State of Virginia’s Connections Newspaper, the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) for the DMV (District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia) among other media and that she currently has an online tv show http://moniqueberry.webs.com/cmoniqueberrytvshow.htm

Again, C. Monique Berry has three roles in the movie Undefeatable: She has the role of first-assistant director and location manager for the movie, AS WELL AS played victim #1. You obviously and clearly failed to acknowledge these facts.

FACTS:

 Ms. Berry had an integral role in the making of the movie Undefeatable.
 C. Monique Berry has THREE ROLES in the movie Undefeatable
 C. Monique Berry was the FIRST ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ...and... location manager for the movie...and...female victim #1
 C. Monique Berry is CLEARLY THIRD-PARTY VERIFIED
 C. Monique Berry is ABSOLUTELY a notable politician, 
 C. Monique Berry is OBVIOUSLY an actress, and integral team player in the movie 
 C. Monique Berry is someone who MORE THAN DESERVES INCLUSION HERE IN THE Undefeatable Wikipedia page

For you, Eik Corell, to attempt to remove C. Monique Berry's information from the Undefeatable Wikipedia page is total nonsense and clearly demonstrates not not only your hasty and haphazard approach to 21st century Internet etiquette, but also your total lack of sincerity as the latter pertains to proper and thorough scholarly standards of research and investigation.

finis coronat opus (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, please

reliable, third-party coverage. The JCRC article you mentioned I have found, and this in no way establishes notability, because that is a questionaire that has been sent to numerous politicians. A search on the text reveals another such article with the same questions addressed to another politican. I am having a hard to finding any of the stuff you cite - It's burried among results of other people. That is usually a bad sign. Eik Corell (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I posted a response on the article talk page. Elk Corell, you are right to try to keep the discussion on the article talk page, that is where it belongs. I suggest you can just delete this from your talk page and future such posts without response. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Really? Are you really having a difficult time finding information to verify C. Monique Berry? I do not believe this is true. Erstwhile, you made mention of someone's tone. Please, spare me the rhetoric. C. Monique Berry has 3 roles in the movie. Having 3 roles in a movie is not minor. She was also the first-assistant director mind you. What you ought to do is go back and read what I wrote with regard to my contention that having 3 roles in a movie is not minor especially given that one of the roles is first-assistant director. Furthermore, your claim that there is consensus about what you have conceded is absolutely silly. You cannot convince me that having 3 roles in this movie Undefeatable is not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the Wikipedia article. C. Monique Berry's roles were not all insignificant or minor for that matter. Also, you cannot convince me that C. Monique Berry's political activities are minor either. Once again, it appears as if you have not truly accepted these facts. Also, given that you are so adamant about constantly removing the credit given to C. Monique Berry in the Wikipedia article, suggests that you have some third-party interest in mind and that you are very much against the actor/location manager/first-assistant director. I cannot imagine that you are a true authority on the film, nor is it my inclination that you have a vested interest in history or truth. It appears as if your primary activity is to disregard various, important contributions to Wikipedia. BTW, here is more info that I found on C. Monique Berry that you seem to have a difficult time finding:[reply]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/23/AR2009102303810.html

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=333115&paper=63&cat=109

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2009/elections/va/

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:7WwYPb3pJPQJ:www.facebook.com/pages/Delegate-Dave-Marsden/54577028471+c.+monique+berry+washington+post&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.theamericanconservatives.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=909&Itemid=72

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:7TcDZSLX1UMJ:www.fairfaxtimes.com/cms/story.php%3Fid%3D527+c.+monique+berry+washington+post&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I can keep going. The notion that you were only able to find one publication with her name in it related to her campaign is preposterous. C. Monique Berry is clearly third-party verified. As I said above, "I cannot imagine that you are a true authority on the film, nor is my inclination that you have a vested interest in history or truth. It appears as if your primary activity is to disregard various, important contributions to Wikipedia."

You are clearly in denial about the truth here. You have demonstrated on multiple occasions that you have sidestepped reality and that you have no interest in truth. 3 roles in a movie does NOT equate to a minor role not worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia article.

finis coronat opus (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eik. I want to add the proper version of the page Tanki Online but before i'd like you to read the translation and approve it. can you leave your email here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Star (talk • contribs) 07:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I'm a little confused as to what kind of translation it will be. I'll gladly take a look, though. It would be best if added the page in your own sandbox here: [5], that'll create an extra page on your user page. Go to that page and add the stuff there, and then I'll take a look at it. Eik Corell (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eik, view the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jane_Star/Sandbox please don't pay attention to design. I just need you to approve the text itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Star (talk • contribs) 09:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question was asked me at my talk page, about some articles you have been working on; I responded there at [6]. As you see, I basically support your edits, but perhaps there is a middle way. DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the above message to keep you aware, and to give you the option of referring to it as a third opinion supporting you. If you need any support in your good editing, just let me know. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. This happens once in a while due to the kind of edits I do on video game articles per

WP:GAMEGUIDE. Also, thank you for the support - It has indeed been a problem regarding consensus. I can talk about rules until the cows come home, but the problem of consensus is still there, even it's skewed against me by meatpuppeting. Eik Corell (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Could you please explain your Arx Fatalis article edit here? Thank you in advance! -- Janizdreg (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. My specific concerns were these: Links to games' sections on known websites or networks, planethalflife.com for example, are normally to be be avoided because it can be contrued as showing favoritism to one specific site. And when you go down this road, there are countless of other sites with equal notability, and at that point, you have two choices: Include anything you find, which is obviously not a good idea.

Now that was the gamesplanet entry. As far as GOG goes, my concern is self-promotion. While GOG is undoubtably a valuable resource as far as old games go and their continued distribution goes, sticking a link to a game's page on that site, as I perceive it, is a form of advertising. Having said all of that, I would like to get this particular issue clarified for personal reason, as in this case, I operated by what I have observed and read of the

The general rule at EL is to link to the site with the fullest information--subject to the

WP:ELNO

criteria for links normally to be avoided. The key criterion here is to avoid 5/"Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. " The "favoritism" criterion is a little different, to avoid "Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." -- when that became available, we were able to remove most links to Amazon. I do not think there is such a tool available for this material, so we would balance the amount of information with the amount of advertising. I see no mention of equity among all possible sources, but rather a practice of using whichever is on balance best for our purposes.

It is nowhere in the WP:EL guidelines, but there is a widespread view that we prefer to link to non-commercial sites. I expected to find it explicitly on the policy page, but it is not there. This may take further general discussion. Personally, I would strongly oppose our adopting a strict policy in this regard. Personally, in dealing with spam, I very drastically remove what is only promotional, but have a rather tolerant attitude to ones that are also informative. Some experienced people here tend to be less tolerant in such cases.

The rules in the VG guidelines seem more restrictive, though this is a subject area I am not very familiar with. The relevant additional restriction is to avoid "the video game's page at 1up, GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy and other commercial video game news and reviews sites - Such links can be seen as promotion of the associated commercial sites." GOG is a commercial site, and so is gamesplanet. And so is steam, which you did not remove. But again, I see nothing whatever about favoritism. I do not think that is an actual express consideration, although it is implied.

The various WikiProjects often establish their own guideline and interpretations, which sometimes substantially modify general policy--but they only have this right if the community as a whole approves of them. Just as no person owns an article, neither does any project, and project guidelines have sometimes been successfully challenged. We are not divided up into semi-autonomous subwikis. It has sometimes been suggested that we might want to do so, in order to cope with the unmanageable size of Wikipedia, and I see a good deal of virtue to this view, but I think the consensus would be very strongly to keeping the encyclopedia together, As for this particular guideline, I think it possible that the community would agree that for this class of article, the restriction is necessary.

Here's my suggestion: The VG guideline page has a list of examples that are not to be linked to under the guideline mentioned: 1up, GameSpot, IGN, & GameSpy. I suggest opening a discussion on the project talk page or the project guideline talk page about adding these three sites to that list. Don;t just boldly add it, propose it and ask for consensus. &,BTW, feel free to copy what I said to start off the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond here. If you post this on the article's talk page, I will. Looking at the websites you presented, though, none of them are sufficient. Please, go to the article's talk page and argue your case as you have been asked if you feel that strongly about this. Eik Corell (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you asked me a question; I answered, suggesting a more general approach. If you want to copy my comment intact onto another paqe, feel free to do so. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how that answer ended up in response to your post - My message above was supposed to have been added to the discussion regarding "C. Monique Berry" elsewhere on my talk-page. Eik Corell (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the guideline.

The wording is this... most not all & avoided not deleted. It is the only comprehensive website containing techsupport, mods and activities for each game. The forum is frequented and input produced by the game's developers. Close Combat is 13 years old. It has been sold and resold throughout the years to many different game developers. The links that survived this decade long bidding war may seem valid but offer no good content to find out more information on all games, let alone more than a couple. All those criteria, 1 thru 19 are very subjective and open to a lot of interpretation.

I can't understand why a site THE ONLY SITE that contains all game patches, mods and techsupport for each game of the series does not meet the criteria. If you cannot make exceptions to a rule that states "normally avoided & most" then you are doing a disservice to people looking for more information on the games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooxe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the edit Mooxe (talk · contribs) had; I've tidied it up, though. Acceptable in this form? HalfShadow 17:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, seems to be informative without delving into unnecessary details. Eik Corell (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did add some useful information, and it seemed a waste to just throw it away. I try to go for the middle ground if I can. HalfShadow 23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; you are right. I got wrong impression about release date. I came there from a different (apparently obsolete) page which said "will be released" and I forgot to double check. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eik, view the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jane_Star/Sandbox please don't pay attention to design. I just need you to approve the text itself. Waiting for your prompt response —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Star (talk • contribs) 08:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a bit busy, I'll have a look later today or tomorrow. Eik Corell (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, thanks. Let me know as soon as you've had a look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Star (talk • contribs) 11:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask when you removed that info from the Hellbender page? It's one of the things that the game was most noted for at the time, and mentioned in about 25% of ANY Google hits about the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmoloney (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Eik,, why did you delete all my changes in the article about the tanki online? I complemented her job developers of this game. Could you fix my own additions or finish the article to condition ? Thanks in advance and hope for your understanding.

Hello Eik Corell. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Half-Life Dedicated Server, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. Thank you. GedUK  18:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I keep running into this one. I know there's a more relevant tag somewhere. The thing is, I've made this mistake before - A7 being declined, and another, more appropriate one being stuck on the article by another user instead, but for the life of me I cannot find the correct one. Eik Corell (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me why a description of gameplay which is in the Wiki above in not wrong, but a description of gameplay for the 360 demo IS Unecyclopedic... that is a bit contradictory in my opinion. Speaking of opinions, my additions werent very opinionated, and full of facts. If you owned a 360, and actually played the demo for yourself, you would see that its all FACT.. also you have reverted changes to facts that i have made, like AKS-74U being an unlock for GameStop pre-orders only... that is a FACT... not to mention i fixed the actual spelling of it, they forgot the "U" in the title of the gun... Lastly i notice in your history you do not contribute anything to Wikipedia... you seem to phish around for articles which your interested in and just remove content all day long... quite sad really, you should try contributing as much as you revert changes too... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.58 (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think its poorly written, then its a contextual, gramatical or spelling issue, in which you should fix it. Do not just remove entire piece's of articles, challenge it openly, or in the talk section. I have noticed you have had MANY people of higher ranking than yourself within wikipedia, complain about your wreckless destructive behavior, and you have been warned many times and complained to many times by MANY people... please review complaints filed against yourself, and maybe change your style of editing, because its not needed in this community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.58 (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written is to be interpretted like this: The stuff you're trying to add, is either indiscriminate info of doubtful relevance.

WP:GAMEGUIDE. Eik Corell (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I would report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism --Teancum (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A week has passed. Eik, did you manage to review the translation of the russian page Tanki Online here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jane_Star/Sandbox ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.206.134 (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the first section, haven't had time to look at the rest just yet. Eik Corell (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eik, any news on English version of Tanki Online page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.206.134 (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked most of the text now, gonna see if there's anything major missing, but I've already implemented the useful details of it in the English version. Eik Corell (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See #Thief_DS

'I don't know if we're hitting a language barrier here, but I'm pretty I know what "I hate you" means. It mostly means "Don't take anything I say seriously". '

Priceless. :-D . Some guy (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your request in January[7], I've been away from WP for a while now due to being busy with other matters, so sorry that I did not respond. Unfortunately as you may have figured out, the Unreal article has a chronic issue of being periodically subjected to a certain group of persons engaged in self-promotion or other forms of unsourced and largely irrelevant advocacy of a particular mod/patch. This is something that has required constant vigilance over the article (I have it on my watch list) because the offending parties simply have no respect for Wikipedia's content guidelines. Partial bans and page protection have been somewhat successful in stopping the edit wars but the offenders (anon IPs) still seem to check in once a while to see if anyone is paying attention. Those kinds of edits just have to be reverted or edited down, one at a time. The talk page contains a solid record of going through the usual channels of RFC and mediation and there has been a consensus to stop the promotion of the unofficial patch. If you still need any specific assistance please let me know. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review your last edit on Savage 2: A Tortured Soul: [8]! And please always use the summary field. --phobie (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally remove too much. It usually happens when a video-game article is written in such a way that I can't make heads or tails of what it's actually trying to convey, and then the dilemma is - Do you remove or rephrase? Anyway, thanks for the reminder, I rewrote some of the info and added it to the lead paragraph. Eik Corell (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I've reworked most of the text now, gonna see if there's anything major missing, but I've already implemented the useful details of it in the English version. Eik Corell (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)"

Any news on this? We would like to make a detailed description of the game, not that short as it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.206.134 (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your removal of some of my content in this revision - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quake_4&action=historysubmit&diff=351068502&oldid=351032863

You cite "unreiable sources", yet for the RA and TF links I referenced Wikipedia itself (check the pages, both reference Q4). The fact that other pages on wikipedia reference Quake 4, surely means that it is valid for the Quake 4 page to reference them? The mod battle between q4max + XBM is a significant part of the Quake 4 history. Knowing that this would need references I made sure I found some, which I consider reliable. I referenced a writeup on gotfrag (a well known site in the e-Sports community - top hit on google for "esports"), an interview with one of the developers directly involved, posted on the most active quake community website, and a column written by a fan to give context on the "battle" (which is also referenced in the interview with Kaffeedoktor). For the final statement about the number of servers, I referenced a realtime preview of the servers actually running - I don't know how more reliable a source you can get for this fact, since clicking the link allows you to check for yourself?

I accept that the view height comment was not referenced, however it is a verifiable fact that it is lower (if you like, I can give you a references in the source-code to Q3 and Q4 that proves it). It is also verifiable that this has a percieved effect on speed - google for "Game Type Revolution" for a mod which changed the view height in Q4 explicitly for this reason.

Can I suggest that in future you initially add a "citation needed" link rather than simply deleting content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.110.139 (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you want, I have a paper reference to the Q4Max vs XBM battle - it was referenced in the "Pro Gam3r magazine" (issue 1, page 48) in an interview with AnthonyJ (Q4Max lead coder). But far fewer people have copies of Pro Gam3r magazine than visit ESR or Gotfragged, so I guess that isn't reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.110.139 (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused what you mean by referencing Wikipedia and referencing quake 4. The first reference was to a forum, which is a

self-published source

. Forum posts especially are discouraged from use. That's the problem with the first paragraph. Second paragraph - The Gotfrag article does not support the assertion that this was what the competitive community wanted. As it says, it's just a look/overview of the mod. The source is reliable, though.

in addition to new gametypes and features useful to all Quake 4 players.

That's

POV

.

Many in the community considered it a “battle” between the two mods

What the community thinks is not really relevant here, because they are not neutral, reliable, or independant.

The “battle” effectively ended when the lead programmer from the X-Battle team joined the Q4Max team

Minimal relevance, and not covered by a reliable, third-party source, either.

Despite this split in the online community, almost all professional tournaments were run using Q4Max.

This needs a

reliable source

.

The majority of Quake 4 servers still running mods are now running Q4Max

The source here supports what you are saying, but here, too, we need a reliable third-party source. I'm not exactly sure about this one, though, so I'm gonna ask for some help here.

Another notable mod is SABot ^[1], which was the first mod to successfully implement multiplayer bots in Quake 4.

As said, forum posts should not be used as sources per

notable

unless, once again, it has received third-party coverage.

All of this needs more

verifiability

policy that says

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true.

As it relates here, one source is more clear on the issue, but is not reliable and hence violates that rule. So we need a reliable one. If you can find something from Gotfrag that directly supports that Q4Max is the most played one, then it can be included.

As for the Pro Gam3r Magazine coverage, I'm not sure that qualifies. I can't find any info on them newer than 2008, and even then I can't find any information on them. Eik Corell (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably figure out how to format replies here... hope this makes sense:

I'm a bit confused what you mean by referencing Wikipedia and referencing quake 4. The first reference was to a forum

Sorry, I didn't mean reference - I meant the crosslinks to

An earlier interview before kaffedoktor left XBM showing more of the "battle" in action can be seen here: http://www.gotfrag.com/quake/story/31498/?cpage=1

Note that the tournaments referenced in that article are online only, so does not conflict with my point below.

Despite this split in the online community, almost all professional tournaments were run using Q4Max.

This needs a

reliable source

.

Agreed it needs a few references. However it is true that all of the tournaments I linked in the "competative play" used Q4Max. Here are a few references:

CPL using Q4Max: http://www.gotfrag.com/portal/story/30293/

ESWC using Q4Max: http://www.mymym.com/en/news/2615.html

and from Gotfrag: http://www.gotfrag.com/portal/story/33264/?spage=1

WCG using Q4Max: http://www.gotfrag.com/portal/story/34160/?cpage=1

QuakeCon using Q4Max: http://www.gotfrag.com/portal/story/38720/?cpage=1

WSVG using Q4Max: http://www.gotfrag.com/portal/story/38172/?cpage=1

Another notable mod is SABot ^[2], which was the first mod to successfully implement multiplayer bots in Quake 4.

As said, forum posts should not be used as sources per

notable

unless, once again, it has received third-party coverage.

OK - I thought it more useful to link to the forum where the mod is hosted. Here is a better reference: http://planetquake.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=81776

That's a very old version to help the "first" claim (which it was, but I don't know how to prove the negative case of there not being anything earlier). A more recent release is referernced here: http://planetquake.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=124588

:As for the Pro Gam3r Magazine coverage, I'm not sure that qualifies. I can't find any info on them newer than 2008, and even then I can't find any information on them.

Yes, they closed down (who buys a paper magazines about e-Sports?), however AIUI, the fact that it is a printed publication makes it a bit more reliable? The copy I have was the one launched at QuakeCon 07 - http://forums.quakecon.org/showthread.php?t=8888

All in all, even if you disagree with some of the references, surely you can agree that there should be a section on mods, and references to the most well known mods - such as the "ports" (RA4, Q4F), and the mods played in the competitive scene - q4max and x-battle. If better references need to be found, then add "citation needed" references where required, rather than just deleting factually accurate content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.244.148 (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to have gone quiet on this issue, I guess you accept my response? I've re-instated the mods section taking account of your comments and so added more references to this section than there are in the rest of the article.

I see you've had arguments with "subject matter experts" on a number of different topics - perhaps you should consider different solutions rather than just deleting content - edit rather than delete.

(I don't know what this talkback is related to, but it's not the Q4 removal section above, so moving it out into a separate area... I guess you should delete it if you've responded?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.243.6 (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eik Corell. You have new messages at Mephistophelian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"I believe Jasca Ducato described it best in the summary when re-adding the soundtrack to the page: "this article is here to describe the game and its different aspects, including the soundtrack". The soundtrack is information regarding the game; it's not some random list of songs about a random topic that has and will continue to have an indefinite length. The soundtrack is set in stone and has been officially stated, and will most likely remain that way." Magicianbink (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eik Corell. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello Eik Corell. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

Could you please explain to me again why the mods aren't part of the game's page anymore? The game is one of the few actually promoting mod creation by making the game as easy to edit as possible. Would you please give me a link proving otherwise or a good reason why the citation is a problem? Looking at the site of the original game creator, you'll see that all the mentioned mods have links to them on this site. As far as citation goes, that should provide enough information regarding the mods, right? 93.125.198.182 (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,you deleted my ESIV Oblivion edit. Just wanted to know what I should do about it (besides start putting it back up). I realize the thing was unsourced but it's common information throughout the ES community so I thought that was alright. Should I still try to find a source? And don't get stingy since I'm only trying to help. I'm new here and I love Oblivion so I figured I'd add something to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arawn V (talk • contribs) 21:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's been four weeks and you haven't answered yet so I'll just put it back with citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arawn V (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again - It was out of place, and mentioning a specific cave isn't necessary. As far as side-quests, that's covered in other categories in the article, that's why I removed it. Eik Corell (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, fair enough. Thanks for the reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arawn V (talk • contribs) 11:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why did you deleted really useful link for Heroes 3 ? (Idot (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

IT HAS BEEN ATTESTED THAT THE 227F PATCH EXISTS JuanJose (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter. Read the discussion. Eik Corell (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eik. It would seem that you erased one of my posts on the Dead Rising 2 talk page. I would agree that was not the most useful of comments. Be advised however that removing talk page comments is generally frowned upon, and your choosing of my particular post was I believe somewhat arbitrary. I would kindly advise you to refrain from such practice in the future. Thanks. --142.213.254.2 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it because I didn't see what it had to do with the plot section before realizing that I'd gotten rid of it somehow. Sorry for that. Eik Corell (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit off-topic but I really enjoy Wikipedia. There are alot of smart educated people that can write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joonie K (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is 7000. My sources come from E3 2010 so there was no reason for you to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joonie K (talk • contribs) 16:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am part of the dev team for WFR and I confirm the accuracy of content. you are removing non speculative information. Stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.0.44 (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it to the article's talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you already know about not

Got it. Eik Corell (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on her response, I can see there's a bit more to this than a new user in an edit-conflict. I've added the article to my watchlist, and will do my best, when I'm online, to help enforce Wikipedia's rules and avoid disruption on it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a similar dispute going on

here. Same website, except on that page it's a guy who wants to include his own patch for that game. That's how I found the bloodlines article; he had added the same website to that article. I'd appreciate it if you would take a look. Eik Corell (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, it's the same problem- well-intentioned users who think that Wikipedia should be a game guide, and don't understand why an encyclopedia doesn't include the same kind of content that a game guide includes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the edit I made to modding requires better sourcing to be verifiable. Wouldn't the fact that there are companies selling controller mods for xbox and playstation be a pretty good source that controller modding is a type of modding?

I was pretty surprised to see that wikipedia mentions all types of modding, even some weird thing about pen twirling, but no mention of controller modding for console games. How about some feed back on a way to make the edit I made useful. I spoke with the company I mentioned and his site gets over 2000 unique visits per day. I'd say that is pretty notable within the scope of modding. Anyways, I'd like to restore the edit that I made, but since I am pretty new to editing wikipedia, maybe we can have a discussion about what to include on the modding page as far as controller modding goes. Is this how I am supposed to handle this? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbitech (talk • contribs) 01:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that there were no

source for the info you added. For something you be included on Wikipedia, this is an absolute must, especially when adding complicated or long batches of info. Eik Corell (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Which edit(s) are you giving the level 4 warning to Antonio cruzazul (talk · contribs) for? I want to make sure they were after the level 3 warning. I don't see any edits made since he acknowledged that warning at 21:03 UTC today. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The warning I added was for his edits to the Barney & Friends and Uncharted 2 articles. I didn't see anyone mentioning either of those in the warnings, so I tagged on an extra warning for those. I know that deleting warnings means that you acknowledge them, and I probably shouldn't have re-added it, but in the context of the additional warning I wanted to give for the ones he hadn't been called out for, I figured it would make to bring back the September 2010 warnings section. But no, they weren't made after he deleted the warnings, so that might be my mistake here. Eik Corell (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for me to make a new account because this one is getting hacked because im not the one who is making all these edits because I never read those articles!--Antonio cruzazul (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep using this account, but you should probably change your password and log out when you're not at the computer, assuming you're sharing the computer with some other people. Eik Corell (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Remove the perfectly valid client addition I made recently on the UO client, it's worth noting I will not let you remove it and it will remain, it's exactly what's designed to be there, it is a separate verifiable and accurate as well as specifically in it's spot complete with reference, even the section title mentions the existance of similar 3rd party clients, your not verifying anything by removing it, your version of removing falsly useful information seems to be to just remove anything you see if this talk page is anything to go by, you might be a professional something but I consider it doubtful it's as what you claim, in future don't remove things without leaving a valid explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander Deathstalker (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed mention of the client because there was nothing to indicate its notability - The reference just lead to the site hosting it, which is not enough for inclusion. It needs to have coverage in secondary,

reliable sources. Eik Corell (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I've responded on the article's talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can writa a private message to developers of this game. http://forum.tankionline.com/user/profile/317649.page

I must deleted all tables with the characteristics and supplies's activation key + add source? And all, yaeh ???)))

Thanks for adding the second-person "you" tag to the article. I would have never noticed all of the "you"s and "your"s. I've made the edits to the article and removed the tag! Landiien (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw you reverted my edit to Red Faction II. I believe it is quite important to have that piece of information in the article. Could you state why you reverted it?

Hmm. Is Youtube a reliable source? I can provide links if you want... -

Talk to me.) 14:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

No, youtube is not a reliable source, because you can basically upload anything you want, and there's no editorial oversight. That's one of the criteria of what constitutes a reliable source here: Whether or not the source has any real editorial oversight. So in light of that, sources like Youtube or forums are usually not appropriate. No, what's needed is a

verifiable; attributable to a notable, knowledgeable source. Eik Corell (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

What about Gamefaqs? -

Talk to me.) 15:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I took a look at Wikipedia's list of sources and their reliability here[9], and Gamefaqs is listed as a situational source, only being reliable for release dates, so I don't think that'll do in this situation. Eik Corell (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you removed the notability section and the ext. link but why did you remove information about the cameras and system requirements? Could you also check the Level section at Ballance. I don't think it belongs, do you? - Shiftchange (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements stuff was

gameguide form. Eik Corell (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, well key presses are provided on the Defense Grid: The Awakening article with sources. They indicate functionality and are not guide material imho. What do you think? - Shiftchange (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the sources you mentioned would be in violation of

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is where you should go. --Teancum (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eik. While I agree that the ECO page needs some cleaning-up, your approach by just deleting chunks from it without any useful edits is simply not helpful. For example, why delete the section on the ingame races and jobs when they are one of the chief features of the game? I will get to updating it with more information and I would appreciate it if you would just leave this alone while I'm working on it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.167 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The marionette system thing should not have been deleted, so I've reinstated that part. However, other parts I've trimmed per

WP:NONENGEL(links specifically). Eik Corell (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, I see. However, I don't really see why the races and jobs section should be deleted. I would like to rebuild (alas, when I have the time) that section so that it can provide a more detailed description for this area. Also, the sentence about the ingame theatre not being available in the non-Japanese versions should not be deleted as readers would be left with the mistakened understanding that that feature is available in all versions of ECO instead. Also, the links to the Chinese, Thai and Indonesian official sites should be included as well, since they are, after all, the official websites for (still operating) the non-Japanese versions.220.255.2.67 (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be best to take this discussion to the article talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hello, Eik

Currently, MekTek has EVERYTHING to do with MechWarrior 4: Mercenaries; it is currently in charge of its distribution as well support. I also considered deleting MekTek Studio link but after due investigation I discovered that it is the site responsible for MTX (a distribution channel). Therefore, I have contested this edit of yours as strongly believe that

Hey there. I really can't say I have a problem with keeping them. I was involved in a debate about these sites a while back, and I guess I forgot that it was actually this specific game they were related to. I was operating under the assumption that these were links related to a previous game Mechwarrior series being plastered onto other related articles. Eik Corell (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a while they were just fansites, but since they are authorized to distribute the game for free (and make new patches/expansions?) they are certainly notable. Some guy (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eik Corell. Fleet Command (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, this page and you are really gay, if you think I'm a nazi though we can talk about it publicly so I can feel good about myself. Thanks for using wikipedia that lets nobodies like me dictate and destroy other's important messages that they know nothing about. I feel so good, like you, we're gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.201.102 (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're angry at me because of my edits on the

Be nice, though, mkay? Eik Corell (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I can see you are trying to clean up the Diaspora article and that is appreciated because you are no doubt well read on wikipedia and we would like for the article to be written in an wikipedia friendly format. However 2 things, one you are deleting things under the premise that it is written that they "should be avoided" and "should be avoided" does not mean "should be deleted" so quit deleting it. Also you will delete external links and then delete the information related to it claiming it was not notable because it had no references - it might have references if you hadn't deleted them. You delete the clone links because they are "not notable", how can they be not notable when they link directly to the clone's main website and it is still active? Now I maybe can understand that you may think a listing of clones is inappropriate but the strength of these clones can not exist on their own as their own wikipedia entry (I've already tried) and no matter what you think of clones / remakes / continuations they are an important piece of encyclopedic information relating to a game. So if you are truely trying to be constructive and helpful then quit deleting and instead reword it and make it right. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.176.208 (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding on the article talk page, better that way. Eik Corell (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Seriously? That was what I'd been trying to bloody do all along. Maybe if you weren't so quick with the undo button and actually did some editing of your own, you'd actually be useful to that page. I tried to do that three times and you reverted each time for blatantly ridiculous reasons. "Plot section changes are still not covered by the source"? Then move it outside the source yourself before coming up with "Plot section info doesn't necessarily need sources". Seriously, this is why anonymous users get angry sometimes, because some guy comes along and removes what they did without any logic or reason. --81.132.64.48 (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that edit was that your citation was way too vague. Another reason I reverted was that it would be best if the plot section used secondary sources, instead of the game itself. Now, a source is not an absolute neccesity in a plot section, but it's really good to have, and if we are to have one for that line, a secondary one would be best. Eik Corell (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After that latest edit of yours, you just summed up my point exactly. Here's some rules to how to edit Wikipedia.

1) Stop.

2) Think about the edit you're about to make (or revert, in your case).

3) Is your edit going to help the article to be promoted?

4)

a) Yes? Good, go for it.

b) No? Close the editing window.

5) Restart from step 1.

You reverting a detailed plot section did not help the article in the slightest. Yes, it may be overly detailed, but did you even look at what you were reverting and what you were reverting it to? All you did was completely remove the plot section. That used to be classed as either vandalism or a pretty stupid mistake if the editor doesn't even notice. Has Wikipedia changed so much while I've been away that it's encouraged amongst it's editors to pigheadedly undo things instead of edit them for the betterment of the article and the site as a whole? --86.143.24.5 (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be

civil. I've explained this specific edit on the article talk page, so it would be better for us to take the argument there. Eik Corell (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Will do. --86.143.24.5 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the

Hi Eik, I already left a message at User talk:178.239.115.6‎ for [10] - although I didn't revert it which might be why you left another warning. We don't want to issue two warnings for the same edit, so would you be kind enough to rollback your message? Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Eik Corell (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You tagged Railroad Tycoon II with gamecruft and tone tags. I tried to improve the article to be a bit more general, including information about the gameplay itself and removing some unnecessary information. I'm also looking for good refs but have added none to the article yet. I'd like you to review the article and make suggestions for further improvement (or edit it yourself if you like). Zakhalesh (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outwars&diff=prev&oldid=310687541

I see you cleaned up the Outwars article here. The most notable feature of the game is it's multiplayer, and while I do see why the previous information about the multiplayer was not suitable there needs to be some added.

1. Numbered list item

Quirks of the game engine allowed it to be played in a way completely unexpected by its programmers. SingleTrac, the developers, hosted a tournament for player clans with the ultimate prize a chance to compete. The winners annihilated SingleTrac.

1. Numbered list item

One feature of this game that made it stand out amongst its peers, and even games today, is the ability to fire each weapon independently rather than cycle through them. Because of this, the multiplayer was much more fast paced and deadly than the singleplayer.

1. Numbered list item

The lead multiplayer developer, Kirk Baum, kept in touch with the online community to some degree. He eventually provided an unsupported mission editor which allowed die hard players to enhance the multiplayer experience. Baum is better known for his involvement in the Twisted Metal franchise.

Can you assist in including this additional information as is suitable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.43.110 (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is wrong with you? Why did you revert a revision on the Contra series article regardign Probotector's supposedly being based off Tekkaman? Did you not even do any research? TEKKAMAN FIRST CAME OUT IN 1992 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.236.120 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake on my part. I think the reason I did it was because the user who changed it, or something related to it, had been on a vandalism streek, so I assumed this was, too. Eik Corell (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]