User talk:GoTLG

Hi There was a discussion 2005 about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lego/Archive_4#Excessive_links.3F and end up with http://wiki-brick-links.wikispaces.com is in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELMAYBE and some more sites. Which can a maybe site, but the good is that everyone with there own Lego pages/sites want to have someway to be find this site and add them to it instead of using LEGO page to to adds links to the article. The contents of wiki-bricks-links could not be moved into Wikipedia because of the WP:EL so it must be external. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klasbricks (talk • contribs) 23:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please stop changing "Lego's popularity is demonstrated by..." to "Lego has demonstrated by..." in the

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about general Lego minifigures, but about the new Lego theme, which is called "Minifigures". I understand that it is a bit confusing, but

Hello, I see no harm or ditraction to the main page by having an example of a licensed theme, in picture, in the section on the main Lego page. In fact, I would say it helps, because there is not an example of a licensed theme, so a novice could be in need of a pic. It's not like the article is overcrowded with pictures, why not? A picture is worth a thousand words.... QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 21:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I should have been more clear about the image. The image is not a very good looking picture of a Lego licensed brand or product. It looks like a general regular Lego model taken by a fan. A better picture of a current Lego licensed would be better for the section. GoTLG (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are implying that this pic is not of a theme, and it is a general, regular LEGO model (i.e. not of a theme) taken by a fan, you are mistaken. This is a pic of the only two sets in the entire licensed theme of Lego Avatar: The Last Airbender. So this pic covers an entire theme and shows an example that is nice for the section. Any other pic would probably cover only one item in a theme. Why can't I put it up until someone else comes along with something better? QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 22:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware those two LEGO models are from the LEGO Avatar theme. But not 'every day' person who look at the section or page may not see that. They can look at it as a ... 'just a photo of a fan creation'. The back ground wall picture of the two sets make the image look bad. All I am saying a clear and better image of the theme with a better background would be good. GoTLG (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going to have to wait and see what happens with

I do notice there is not a Lego Cuusoo page on Wikipedia. Lego Minecraft should be listed on Lego Cuusoo page if created. Lego Minecraft "Micro World" is gonna be a one item/set according to Lego Cuusoo website. Even though news media has made the project sound bigger. I do agree we'll have to watch how the Lego Cuusoo and MineCraft deal pans out. GoTLG (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand my edits. What is the Lego Duck (It seems to be a wooden toy) and why is it notable? What does the word "featured" mean in this case? Created? I noted that it is unclear, and it doesn't get any clearer by reverting. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the section "Clones of Lego" in the Lego article, since your only objection seems to be the section title. I have also reinstated the ordering of the category entry for "Lego clone", since it clearly (at the moment, given the name of the article) should come under "C". I don't understand your reasons for reverting these changes: you *seem* to be trying to protect the brand? Let me say: while I love Lego, Wikipedia, and the Lego article, is not purely for advertising and with the increase in Lego clone manufacturers, it is entirely appropriate for the article to mention them. If you disagree with that and revert again, I will seek some form of dispute resolution. Given your somewhat spurious reasons for reverting so far, you should probably consider what you are doing carefully and try to come up with better reasoning. Stephenb (Talk) 06:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was also a little concerned to see you reverting another editor's work (which seemed to involve a solid ten minutes of copyediting, rearranging sections and removing vandalism and original research) with the brief and unclear edit summary of "Information is about toy 'Lego' and information is correct". If you can see some problems or mistakes in another editor's work, please take the time to correct only those problems, rather than reverting the entire edit. If you don't have the time to do this, you should either come back to it later or leave a note on the talk page so that another editor can take a look. --

If you're willing to support that his proper name is spelled with a 'c' and not a 'k', then I suggest you revert the most recent three edits on History of Lego.--ɱ (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for your talk page message. I didn't just change Christiansen's name without searching anything, I had a look through the literature for a general usage history, and turned up an interesting comment somewhere about the family name changing over the years, which seems quite relevant - I left a response to your thread at

To ɱ , I have to agree with you regarding to 'Ole Kirk Kristiansen' name is correct. However others think it should be 'Christiansen'. The problem is people are using sources such as magazines, published books which are not official reports/books by the Lego group. Because they have not e-mail or spoken or talk to the Lego group. GoTLG (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be easier to discuss this if you read my comments more closely. I explicitly said that "sources favouring "Christiansen" include the New Yorker, Forbes and books published by the Lego Group itself", such as this one which mentions it in a foreword written by Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen himself. --

McGeddon (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I am reading your comments. Regarding to "sources favouring "Christiansen" include the New Yorker, Forbes and books published by the Lego Group itself". Forbes and the New Yorker are not reliable sources as stated news print magazines only write their own opinions, plus don't state where their information or source is from. As to the book mention it was published by DK publishing which is a quite a big book publishing company. DK is know to publish other books on other topics. DK did get license/rights or permission to make the book. Are you not willing to e-mail Lego? Wouldn't be better to have the correct information on Wikipedia. GoTLG (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DK Publishing book has a foreword written and signed by Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen that refers to "my grandfather, Ole Kirk Christiansen". It would be an odd and reckless piece of subediting to change a family surname in the CEO's foreword so that it didn't match the surname of the person writing it. It seems wrong to elevate a minor lego.com employee's (unexplained and unsourced) choice of spelling above that of a foreword signed by Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen. --

McGeddon (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay. GoTLG (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is unrelated to Wikipedia, but I had no idea that Lego Cuusoo existed until reading your talk page! As a fellow Lego fan, all I can say is, "WOW!!"    

Lego Harry Potter officially was discontinued 2012 not 2011, oh and Lego Space Police III is officially discontinued in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.188.64 (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information is incorrect. Lego Harry Potter ended in 2011. Fan sites or blogs are not a source. GoTLG (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look on brickipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.188.64 (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again as stated, fan sites, blogs and even Brickipedia are not official source of information. Brickipedia is a fan created site. GoTLG (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brickipedia is real source of info. 68.99.188.64 (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, Brickipedia is not a real source of information since anyone can edit it. GoTLG (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoTLG, I just wanted to ask about why you reverted recent edits to LEGO-related articles that I made updating the external links (1 2 3 4 5). They seem understandable, but unnecessary. I don't know if you know, but Brickipedia has moved itself off of Wikia and is now independently hosting itself on Brickimedia. There are several forums on lego.wikia.com about it if you'd like proof of this, such as this. This article also has some information about the move and the new site Brickipedia is hosting it at. The only reason that lego.wikia.com is still up is because Wikia policy prevents its deletion.

I do think that the link should reflect the new site, since the old site on Wikia has no active administration anymore (all the sysops moved to the new site), thus the old site has more incorrect information and is less tidy by the Manual of Style. The new site would be a more useful external link, since it stays more up-to-date and still has moderation that keeps articles in check with Brickipedia's Manaul of Style. I hope you understand what I'm saying. :) I didn't just change those links in advertising. I was an administrator back at the old site, and am active at the new site as well. ;) Would you be able re-change the links, or do you have any other questions/concerns? Thanks, George Barnick – Talk/Contribs 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, This is a short note. I am gonna undo some of the 'link' changes. Because what you mention regarding to old site to new site of Brickipdedia. However, no reason to list another 'wikia' providing the general same information you might find on Wikipedia on any of the LEGO pages. Plus, I am not sure, but I think Wikipedia has a policy regarding self promoting other commercial/fan sites. GoTLG (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, perfectly reasonable. I do believe that Brickipedia, unlike some other LEGO-related wikis, is more useful as an external link, which in my mind seems to fit at least one of the requirements in

WP:ELMAYBE. Since the old Brickipedia site was linked on those articles before I changed it, all I did was update the URL to reflect the new domain. :) --George Barnick – Talk/Contribs 04:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GoTLG. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]