User talk:Eik Corell

List of free massively multiplayer online games

Hello! Do you believe Cosmic Supremacy is not appropriate in the list of free MMO games? Beowulfenator (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The game didn't have an article. The general consensus is that unless a game has an article, and by extension, has received notable coverage, it shouldn't be included. Eik Corell (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you believe it's a worthwhile idea to write an article about this game? There had been an article on this game in the past, but it was deleted entirely at some point.Beowulfenator (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Aces High

Hi why did you remove a list of vehicles that I added that are actually in the game??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.183.213 (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Lists of stuff like vehicles, maps, etc, are to be avoided per WP:GAMECRUFT, specifically #6. Eik Corell (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, content like this is routinely removed from video game articles because, to the general reader, it has little value. The guideline I link applies to all content like this in video game articles. Eik Corell (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So how is someone supposed to know what is actually in the game? I think its relevant to a reader to understand the updates and new additions to the game. I understand your intentions are well placed but not relevant to this game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.174.69 (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek: Klingon Academy

Hi, Erik. May I ask what kind of source would be good enough for you? Would it be sufficient to reference the http://www.klingonacademy.com/index.php main page which talks about it as well? Jiri Dvorak (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fansites are generally not considered to be reliable sources, unless they're official, or in some other way recognized as a trusted authority within the field. For something to be covered, the source should ideally be a neutral, third-party, which is to say that it's not affiliated with the subject matter, and and not biased in favor of or against it, which is why fansites are usually not sufficient. An exception can be made if a fansite reports something, and a reliable source picks up on it afterwards, then the fansite can be used as the primary source, and any neutral third-party sites as extra sources. It might seem a bit confusing, but there's a list of allowed and not allowed sources here, often with info as to why they're listed as they are, for example one not being allowed because the site has no editorial oversight. Eik Corell (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. Blue's News is listed as reliable source. Would be following link sufficient: http://www.bluesnews.com/s/118767/klingon-academy-modern-systems-patch ? Jiri Dvorak (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would be a game fan site considered as biased source for technical thing like this? Whether the patch improves the compatibility or not is imo not something you can be in favor of. Usually not many third-party sites care for news about game which is over 10 years old so having neutral information might be a problem. Jiri Dvorak (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources for smaller games/MMOs

Since you are very hooked on articles having sources for every information, then I would like to ask you how we are to proceed with smaller, but notable subject articles on games or MMOs. Especially MMOs will lack non-fansite coverage or lack coverage of certain important topics, policies and information. This makes it very hard to make complete and proper articles, as they end up being outdated and severely incomplete. (for example, Ultima Online article)

So how are we to approach these subjects? I think there should be some leniency towards game topics as long as the game itself is notable enough to warrent a full article. I would certainly think that an article riddled with outdated, missing and wrong information is worse than an article without many sources for everything.

But I'd like to hear your advice and opinion on the matter. AndersJohan (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll just post the info you wanted to add for the sake of perspective -

3rd party transactions involving real world currency. Ultima Online has permitted 3rd party transactions using real life currency, creating confusion and controversy amongst players, especially those who are used to other MMORPGs that do not allow such transactions. Mythic, the developers of Ultima Online, has tried to downplay this aspect of the game, by not allowing fansites to advertise for sites that use real life currency transactions for in game items and remain silent on the matter in public.

The very first problem comes in the form of WP:V - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This info was added under a category titled "controversy", and what often happens on video game articles is that fans/detractors of a game vent their frustration or spread rumors they've heard under just such a category, almost always without sources. Ideally, ALL information should be attributable to a reliable source, and this is especially true if we're talking about a big claim like the developers distancing themselves from a part of their own game. If the developers themselves have made a statement on the matter in an official capacity, that would qualify as a reliable source. Bear in mind, though, that this would be a primary source. It seems like a lot of the above info is analytical and interpretive in nature, and per the WP:PRIMARY rule, you will need a secondary source in order to include it. A good list of secondary sources can be found here: WP:VG/S. Eik Corell (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at with that. The problem is that there are preciously few sources if any for that game (as prime example) and the information is just about impossible as such to give verifiable sources to, even though its a major thing in the game, the game just isn't covered enough because its over 13 years old. Even fansite information is sparse. I am really at a loss of what to do in those situations, had it been a written medium, it would be easier to rely on the editor being knowledgeable enough. This creates an incredibly poor article. Another issue with it, is that a lot of the information is either outdated or flat out wrong now, which gives an unnecessary bad view of the game for readers. Ultima Online might not be an important topic as just another MMO, but its important and notable because of its status as the very first real commercial MMO and has won many awards, including Hall of Fame awards. So its very hard to deal with and it needs to be dealt with, as Wikipedia should be an informative source whenever possible. AndersJohan (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

BZ3 Genesis

Hey Erik, I'm new with wikipedia and really not sure why the page BZ3 Genesis is going to be deleted. What kind of source do I need? It is a legit video game being developed on the Unreal 3 Engine using the UDK kit. Also, I don't know exactly where to put the "hang on" text at. Nvm I figured where to put hang on at. ~Hi there. I've responded on the article's talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why you killed authors section in SpaceTanks article?!

'think it's vandalism ! the information you'll find in credits ...learn to read! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.94.226 (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You're putting undue weight on details that are not about the game as much as they're about the people who made the game. That's why I removed it. Eik Corell (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the authors are important because they also did the concept -what about other games ?! you'll find for sure the names of the individuals who thought it out- that's the infos one wants to read if one surf on wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.94.226 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

cool ! pictures and authors were erased every few weeks ... but nobody cares about the terchnical WRONG aspects in the articele like "different weight" etc.. . thats pure! wiki is PURE!

The article is about the game, not the team. Putting "undue weight" means that one gives special attention to something that is trivial. For example, a video game article needs info about who made the game. However, if you start putting in lists of the individual people involved in the development, you have have entered WP:UNDUE's territory. Eik Corell (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well

Can't have a description of the active efforts of a community which develops patches? Billy Bread (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As said by Eik Corell in their edit summary, discuss this in the article's talk page. Thank you. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Acclaim Forsaken

A while back me and another enforcer for this page agreed to leave a link to my site which is the only up to date location of the game (since the official company is bankrupt).

I'm not sure who added the giant paragraph to this revision but I agree it shouldn't be on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forsaken_%28video_game%29&diff=420278247&oldid=407722196

I understand completely the verifiability of wikipedia must be maintained. All I'm asking for is something of a "See Also", "Related", "Other Links", "Semi Related" etc.. Which I have seen on many other pages.. At least I believe so..

My site is the final and only resting place of the game, it's online community and it's only working version on modern systems. Thus I respectfully request to add http://fly.thruhere.net to one of the above proposed sections.

Much thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.danielaquino (talk • contribs) 01:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. It doesn't have enough info to qualify under the criteria that it offers more information than the article at the current time can provide, and the information it does have qualifies as gamecruft and gameguide material. Per WP:FANSITE, the only way I can see a possibility of this being included would be if this was written by a recognized authority, and being a fansite, that doesn't seem to be the case. Eik Corell (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."

We would fall within this line as the site is the only place that continued development on the game is occurring. Do you agree ? Many other game pages would include lines from, "game version 1" to "game version2" .. So the site should at least be in a section considered, "current developments" or "forsaken 2" or "forsaken community edition" or "forsaken sequels" ?

For example would you consider the, "see also" and "external links" section on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_2:_Sauerbraten to be appropriate ? I believe fly.thruhere.net is exactly the same thing for forsaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.0.78 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

Outlasting the competition doesn't mean that one fansite is authoritative(or more authoritative) than another. And by whom is this site regarded to be such? A quick google search doesn't reveal any major publications or anything to that effect mentioning this site as such. Now, the websites on the Sauerbraten are appropriate because they're all official. The problem with linking to unofficial websites or projects that haven't received coverage in reliable, third-party sources, is two-fold: The first is spam concerns, the second is that of putting undue weight on info that only benefits players of the game, or the people who are associated with the site, which goes back to the spam thing. Eik Corell (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I think the question of, "what is official" would cause allot of problems here too.. I could easily go and start some game review site and post my game there.. Then what ? Is it all of a sudden official enough ? Perhaps you can give me a list of these official sites so I can setup and interview with them and get our updated game some coverage from, "official sources"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.0.78 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Official in this context would mean sites such as the official company-run website for a game. Now, there's a problem with your request for a list: You contacting them to get coverage for the website would qualify as self-promotion. To quote the guideline:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

So you see, in contacting them, any coverage they might give the website would be tainted. But in any case, there's a list of reliable sources typically used for video game articles here. Eik Corell (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What if I make my own page describing the fork and then link back to the Forsaken one ? Will it be taken down ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.109.94 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

apologize that

excuse me are you adminstrator?

i think should link into sand box because that composer has not a page and i think if can not write in page to write on sandbox i think suitably

and i am student composer to if i have work i want to link to my user box from page to because my dean wrote his page and adminstrator has been delete

so my dean reconcile admin to have a page

my dean page http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%94%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%99_%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%B9%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%90

up to your decide thank you KLL_Joe KL Joe (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Linking to a sandbox page in a real Wikipedia article is never acceptable because the purpose of the sandbox is for users to experiment. The article in question was deleted, and seems to have reappeared on a user's sandbox, and after that, it was added again in this form. This can constitute gaming the system. Wikipedia articles are usually deleted because they lack notability(Thai version here: [1]). Eik Corell (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

how i can upload files

i upload files and you delete it, how can i upload files

i think if you delete this files why you don't finds picture to upload by yourself and i will not up load it

so you are not adminstrator i understand about illegal but you should not warn me by yourself you should notify adminstrator

i think every article should have least one picture if you delete at all i will not forbid but my interest article is motoi sakuraba

and i will find better motoi sakuraba picture for you

--KL Joe (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

External Links Problem

What I think is that since Korean is not the official language in the English Wikipedia, why add it then? Just because they made the games does not make them more superior than other countries' website. In fact, the publishers of the games probably earn more than the original company. As a matter of fact, you show only Korean website makes people think, "Why only Korean?". Especially non-english speakers who can understand English, they think it is an act to promote national pride. Also, for English speakers, Korean, Chinese or Japanese make no difference to them(Because they cannot understand). The purpose we add multi-language links is to give readers opportunity to explor the topic deeper(such as the update and the difference between each countries' CSO) which we cannot show on Wikipedia because that would be unneutral. However, just by showing Korean website is simply conveying that you want the readers to ONLY read the Korean CSO info. Jjj84206

The Guideline of External Links

• A video game's official home page (provided by the developer or publisher). Only the English version of the page should be included if there are multiple languages. If no English version exists, then the official page in the language of the country of first publication should be provided, but indicate that the site is in a foreign language. If the developer and publisher each offer a different site, include both.

Please read the guideline properly. The links we provided are the links of the publishers'. As indicated in the guidline, we should include them. Also, I indicated what foreign language they are in. Eik, if I were you, I would focus more on making the content better. From what I have seen so far, you are provoking other wikipedia users rather than making wikipedia a better encyclopedia.

--Jjj84206 (Jjj84206)

Please assume good faith here - I'm not trying to provoke anyone. Anyway, I've posted about this issue on the WP:VG/GL, which is probably where we should have taken this to begin with. With you saying one thing, and another guy on that talk page saying something else, I'm still left unsure. I'm gonna disengage, which I should have done long before I violated the 3RR. Eik Corell (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dune II

Hi, I've reverted your removal of the Dune II link. I've read through it and it has a lot of useful information, and it's also a professionally published source. Ideally the information contained in the magazine will be worked into the wiki article but for now I'd say it's suitable as an external link. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. I made a mistake -- I assumed the guy who was adding the links was spamming since he added articles on the same website to a lot of other articles, but when I got through half of his edits, he had added articles from other sites such as eurogamer. I'm at fault here for not assuming good faith, so sorry about that. Eik Corell (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. No worries. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

External Link

WP:VG/GL indicates:A video game's official home page (provided by the developer or publisher). Only the English version of the page should be included if there are multiple languages. If no English version exists, then the official page in the language of the country of first publication should be provided, but indicate that the site is in a foreign language. If the developer and publisher each offer a different site, include both.

This means, if you only want the English site for Counter-Strike Online, only the Malaysian website should be presented because the South Korean website is Korean(non-English). In this case you are violating WP:VG/GL. Furthermore, WP:VG/GL says if the developer and publisher each offer a different site, include both. The links I posted are all the publishers of Counter-Strike Online and I indicated what foreign languages they are in. Such as Korean for the South Korean website.

By the way, do these external links make any difference to you? People want it there so they can have a different view on the game updates in different countries. This we cannot show on Wikipedia because WP:VG/GL says Wiki is not a game guide. Therefore, we put external links there for whoever that wants to have a deeper understanding about the game.

You delete all other multi-language sites and only put a Korean site is already violating WP:VG/GL as I have mentioned because only the English version should be showed. I suspect your act is discriminative against any other cultures except Korean. Please verify your point of view.

Recent additions to DragonFable

I've started a discussion on whether we should revert the information added to DragonFable by Superfighter on the DragonFable talk page. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your undo on the Shadowbane page

I get that you can cite WP:GAMECRUFT to support your undo on the Shadowbane page but then if that's the case shouldn't we remove the section on one specific race, the Irekei too. Due to going into too much detail? (if i'm going off of WP:GAMECRUFT) I figured since there was a list of all the races that expanding the classes section to list them would be alright too as it adds detail to the article. Dainomite (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

BZ2 Engine

From the BZ2 talk page, written by one of its lead developers;

"Clone Wars was based on Battlezone 2 and the Zero Engine but Battlezone 2 itself used the Dark Reign 2 engine. That seems to be the source of the confusion.Kdmiller3 (talk) Here's the long version of the history. Battlezone started with the Interstate '76 engine and built up a C++-based application on top of it. Battlezone 2 started with the Battlezone 1 code base but transplanted its application layer onto the Dark Reign 2 engine; it underwent extensive changes over the course of development but remained architecturally similar. Star Wars: the Clone Wars started with the Battlezone 2 code base but transplanted its application layer onto the Ground Zero engine; it underwent even more extensive changes during development, including the removal of all BZ-specific game logic and RTS features. Clone Wars was the last game using that code base, but the in-game world editor lived on as the Zero Editor for several years before it was finally supplanted by the Infinity Editor. Kdmiller3 (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)"

In short, BZ2 and DR2 use their own engine. An edit to a similar effect was placed on the DR2 page. ~AHadley 13:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

?

I see nothing at WP:GAMECRUFT that states that character sections in an article are not allowed, so could you lpease clarify why File:World in Conflict characters.JPG and its section were yanked? I would appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the section on the grounds that anything relevant should be mentioned in the plot section. What happens all too often is that articles get these lists of characters, weapons, soundtracks, etc, with none of the info really

warranting such special attention in such a separate form. The plot section of the article does a fine job of mentioning important details to understand the story, whereas the character section is just any and all info the player is presented with about the characters -- be they important, or minor ones like as Jean-Baptiste Sebatier, Johannesen and Vance. Eik Corell (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Twitter unreliable?

I don't contribute to the Soul Calibur IV article but I remember hearing that primary sources through twitter are reliable, but only for verified accounts, which Twitter shows. Where is it considered unreliable? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The main reason I removed that paragraph was that it seemed like fansite material more than anything; him generating "great fanfare", etc. Other than that, what is the purpose of this information? It seems like information for the sake of information, which video game fan communities are often very, very eager to add to their respective games' articles. The answer given is, ironically, very indicative of why Twitter is not reliable: "Yeah i found Soup Calibur !! I did co-director. My development team will be create new one .....?" and that's not to criticize the language, but what does that mean? Is it a statement or a question? It's vague enough that it should be discounted. Eik Corell (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Commentary by the developers isn't limited to that even with the Twitter word limit. It can be very worthwhile information, such as who portrayed what character in a game(if no other source can be found), a time frame of an earlier game's development cycle, tidbits of trivia that can add up into reception or development section material. I completely understand your case for deleting the information in question but it seems to me that the issue was more that of Cruft than unreliable sourcing. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony Hawk's Underground soundtrack

I think the soundtrack is noble to the game because it shows the songs that appeared in the game which could be helpful to some people if they are trying to find a song from the soundtrack and I spend a hour working on it. Also if you look some other tony hawk's games wiki page you see the soundtracks on the page because it shows the audio on the game. TheDeviantPro (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Is forum posts from a game master reliable source?

As the title says, is a link to a post of game master (employer of company that runs the game) reliable enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickyVerky (talk • contribs) 18:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That depends on a lot of things like what it's used to support, whether it's a player recruited to be one or an existing employee of the company. One example is if a game master complains on a forum about something. This alone wouldn't be fit to support an assertion like "The game has problems with X" because it's the opinion of one person who's not necessarily posting in an official capacity, meaning as a representative of the company. Criticism, as with all other info on wikipedia, is supposed to be supported by neutral third parties, and as such, forums are usually to be avoided per WP:RS. Eik Corell (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright. It's going to be hard finding a word of a GM. That hacking is going on can be seen on the forum. Every single forum page you check, players saying they got hacked. I remember some GMs saying that the 'rupee sellers' are behind the hacking. So I guess that is enough proof that players are getting hacked. As for taking security, they forced players to change their passwords. They changed some small things as captcha, case-sensitive usernames (even though if you signed up with a uppercase first letter, it changes to lowercase, so it's not like it changed a lot). Tbh a company with about 10 games, a few thousand active players, only took these measures to prevent people from getting hacked, is what I call a 'very few things' to prevent players from getting hacked. The hacking was going on for about a year already, then they forced a password change. That's just absurd.

Today it was my turn, I got hacked. So I wanna try to make people / new players aware that there is a risk getting hacked when playing this game. It would be a terrible thing for players to put some money in the 'cash shop' and then finding themselves hacked the next day, don't you think so?

A few links:

Forced password change

Rupee sellers hacking accounts

Once again confirmation that rupee sellers are behind it and that it takes a while to get restoration

I cannot find a post where the GMs said it takes 1+ or more likely 3 months for restoration. Here you can read players responds, waiting 3 and 4 months already.

So am I free to say something about hacking in Rappelz page, or must I let this company take people real money and then dump them when they ask for assistance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickyVerky (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Skyrim contribution deletion

Suggestion, I didn't take offense to you outright deleting my contribution as according to the video game project community the source I used wasn't reliable. However maybe instead of a rapid fire deletion approach, you should consider maybe delete the reference and tag for a couple days. Or you could remove reference and at least attempt to find another acceptable reference. This is probably the more wikipedian thing to do. Use the discussion page etc etc etc. Just a suggestion, as such brash action tends to discourage contributors and since you seem to decontribute (sorry I call it Like I see it) more often than contribute, maybe this approach should be tested. You will get better reaction to your "cleanup" efforts. --0pen$0urce (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. The articles I usually mess with are usually older, more dormant ones, often containing these same templates left long ago by other, more lenient users, which is why I'm hesitant to use them. You're right that having edits reverted can be discouraging, but in this case I decided that being bold was best here because the article in question is quite active, with many much more experienced Wikipedians watching and editing it. That's why I outright deleted it instead of rewriting or refactoring it; they could do it better than me. Eik Corell (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can You tell me what is my mistake on Point Blank (2008 video game) please..

Well, I played PointBlank Indonesia, I've explored many PointBlank sites in this world, and I know facts that PointBlank Korea was closed by NCSoft on July 3 2011 because, I've opened this site (PointBlank Korea) and it says it's already closed. I just want to share about this game. So can u pls tell me what is my mistake? is it spamming?? or wrong section?? or something else?? ヴィンズ... (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Savage XR information

Hello Eik,

I noticed that you removed the information I posted about Savage XR pre-release on Dec. 1st 2011. I think this information is important because it notifies people that the game is still being supported and developed. Savage XR 1.0 contains many new features compared with the 2.0e release, including GLSL shaders, Bullet Physics Engine, Python Scripting...

newerth.com is a fansite, so I agree on its removal, but savagexr.com is a proper game release site. If you require additional information from me to clear things up please do let me know.

Sincerely Anthony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.Beaucamp (talk • contribs) 09:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines

I couldn't find where it said not to put both patches into the website. Without putting the patch up, this article is clearly biased in favour of Wesp5's unofficial patch. Which I suggest you play, and then play the True Patch Gold, and then an unpatched version of the game

Tell me which one is an actual patch and a mod. Either link both, or neither. If not linking to Tessmage.com is possible, perhaps http://www.sailmaker.co.uk/vtmb/ - one of the official mirrors of TPG - would suffice.

The blatant, and constant, sabotage and drama comes almost exclusively from the 'Wesp5' camp - I am aware of how divided the VTM:B community is over these two patches and seek only for balance; while in the Tessmage camp myself, I refuse to resort to such base tactics as Wesp5 and his team.

Thank you for reading

BazYat (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources were provided, showing that the Wesp5 patch has received notable third-party coverage, something the other patch has failed to achieve. That's really all that matters here. The "sabotage" and drama has come exclusively from the forum dedicated to the "true patch", where the author of that patch recruited meatpuppets not just to tilt the debate in his favor, but to parrot his insane drivel after he himself was banned for personal attacks and soapboxing. Eik Corell (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sensible Software Soundtrack Deletions

Why exactly have my Sensible Soccer game soundtrack links been removed.  If they're worth mentioning then they are worth linking to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross drew (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC) 

I reverted those additions because none of the soundtracks are notable enough to warrant a separate link. Even if they were, direct links like that are discouraged, and what would instead be linked to would be the notable coverage of them. Eik Corell (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The soundtracks are notable enough to mention but not to provide? By this same logic images of anything and everything, and music samples of artists on Wikipedia should be discouraged as they can't be confirmed to be of the subject in question. Crazy.

Talkback

Hello, Eik Corell. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 23:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui 雲‍水 23:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Eik Corell. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 00:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui 雲‍水 00:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Will you explain exactly what irritated you?

I was just about to undo what you did, but I think it's... kind of okay to even spend my TIME and write this. (btw, sorry for the bad English in the first place) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimTaeyeon (talk • contribs) 19:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not about irritation, it's just standard practice to remove this specific kind of info per #6 of WP:GAMECRUFT. Eik Corell (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

World of Tanks

Hey Eik Corell:

I've seen you undo my edit on World of Tanks entry with the reason as 'Trivial Info', please check the website I just posted for more infomation which should prove that the added piece of info is not trivial. Apologize for inconvenience caused by the language of the reference website due to the location of the Chinese server. Thanks for your contribution to wikipedia anyway.

The issue there wasn't about sources. Rather, it was about the information not really being notable -- Developers add new things to MMOs all the time, and unless it's a change to something like the core gameplay element of the game, it's not really worth mentioning. I.e: The average reader will not know what a Type 59 tank is, nor will they likely care. Info like this is trivial, and it tends to bloat articles like this into oblivion. Eik Corell (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick responce first. Type 59 Gold is the first unhistorical tank in the game on sale, it also earns double experience and credit in every match. It delivers the important message that this game no longer relies on its historical background. More importantly this marks the beginning point of the seperation between its Chinese server and other servers of this game. These effects are certainly more important than the pull back of normal Type 59 in other servers, while remain onsale with higher price on Chinese server.(this info is not noticed here, probably I should edit that as well) All Chinese players are affected... Unless you mean they have no rights to talk about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.134.209 (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

None of this relates to the overall scope of the article, though. The addition of a new tank in a tank game -- Not relevant, unless it has some sort of impact on the core gameplay. I don't see how this affects gameplay in any significant way. It doesn't deliver any message, it doesn't mark the beginning of anything, it's just an added tank. Attempting to derive such conclusions from its addition to the game falls under WP:OR -- "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." Eik Corell (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your argument. So let's make things clear this way World of tanks has its core gameplay completely relied on historical background data of actual tanks in history. Type 59 Gold is not historical at all -- its existence destroys the core of the game. Type 59 Gold earns twice experience than any other tanks in the game along with the highest credit earning ratio -- The economy system of the game is completely changed by its existence. This was claimed by the official site of the Chinese server. I can give you site address if you wish so, proving that this is not OR at all. Before type 59 Gold every edition to the Chinese server is almost the same as other servers, so I don't know why it isn't clear that this does not mark the beginning. You are unable to see the significance of its affects because you are not playing on the Chinese server against it. You can't see the effect does not mean there is no effect, as you should varify. Personally I appreciate your critics but don't let your personal judge wipe out something significant about World of Tanks, even if you are free to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.134.209 (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC) http://wot.kongzhong.com/tank_recommend/59G/59G.html This is the site which introduces the tank, saying it is not historical hand has a great impact on game economy. I'll translate it for you if you wish so. http://games.sina.com.cn/o/n/2012-01-13/1121573613.shtml News site about its existence, remarking its high credit/exp earning ability and unhistorical background. "The tank is made from pure gold" as it claims. Does a pure gold tank sound reasonable to show up in a tank battle game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.134.209 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Also it seems that you only notice edits instead of arguments, so apologize for undoing your edit again. 12:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.134.209 (talk)

It doesn't matter if it's made from gold. Unless you can substantiate this with a reliable, third-party source, this is all internal squabbles being foisted upon an article. The way to tell if stuff like this is important is, as I mentioned, if it has been picked up by reliable, third-party sources. Both of those websites are associated with the game, so they're not third-party. Furthermore, they're not in English. Eik Corell (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, so that means anyting not in English is not reliable, right? Obviously you did not read the news I attached, which is from a Third Party news site independent from the game, as it claims itself to be at the last line of the news. If you don't even check those referenced I found, and saying that anything non English is not reliable, you are probably making some fundamental mistakes. Personally I admire you on your faith criticing every piece of information, but important informations should not be removed simply because they are not in English. "Sina gaming channel posted this article for the purpose of passing information." This is the translated claim on the news site.142.151.134.209 (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Besides, the reference used in the Type 59 removal line was the official news site itself. Does that fit into the third party reliable source resoning you used to ban my edit? Please explain why there is a difference between the official website and the Chinese official website.142.151.134.209 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any overall relevance to one added unit deviating from a perceived total historical accuracy. Lots of other MMOs, MMORPGs, and MMOFPS games feature golden weapons/units/whatever. A popular example would be Call of Duty 4: It's called a realistic shooter, gameplay-wise, but there's nothing realistic about having a weapon that's gold-plated in the middle of the battlefield, and yet this is not mentioned in the article, and this is because it comes back to that overall lack of relevance to the general reader, who's not really gonna care about stuff like this. It seems like the only sources that have covered this are Chinese. This unit's existence does does not "destroy the core" of the game, this is just hyperbole. It's the same kind of thing you hear from players of, say, Counter-Strike, about the AWP; a very very powerful weapon in the game that some players feel is overpowered, and so once in a while, the article will get peppered by "AWP is for noobs.", "AWP has ruined the game because compared to blah blah blah". All in all, it's still not relevant. If there were third-party sources covering the English version of the game that indicated that this in some way radically changed the gameplay, I'd consider it, but there's not. Eik Corell (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha, there you go. First of all, thank you very much for your exellent respond with nice reasoning and good appropriate example. I also agree it is hard for you to see the overall impact caused by add this unit, and I assume you don't want to spend several hours learning about online gaming in China, since you don't play any game on Chinese server. The reason I'm adding the line simply because it was claimed to have significant impact by the game company.(Several side facts: the price of the tank is approximately $600; earns double experience compare to any other tank; earns double credits compare to other premium tanks; etc. These are just informations revealed from the official news site.) While the reason that no English version was posted by the official website is simply becauseof its marketing plans. Game desiners certainly do not want players know that what they had pull back not long ago was still on sale on another server, as you should varify. WOT Chinese server is not even worth mentioning on the homepage of the game, and most players here have a good reason not to care about it; however, it is still part of the whole game, and significant facts there deserves to be known by other players, even if there is no translation.142.151.134.209 (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Also, according to your Call of Duty gold rifle, it still gets one score per kill, but Type 59 Gold is earning twice as much as other tanks; which is similar to getting two counts per kill with a certain rifle in the game. It is more than a paint-that's why it is important.142.151.134.209 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Since you did not reply I'll assume you agreed me to edit that phrase if you didn't say more about this. I'll wait till 12PM tomorrow before I undo your change. Thanks again for your time and your valuable critics.142.151.134.209 (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, unless another source has covered this, we can't rely on editors for translations, that's what secondary and third-party sources are for in this case. Maybe this would be appropriate on the Chinese article, if worded neutrally as in "On the date of X, a golden T-59 was added to the game.". Anyway, I'm continuing this on the article talk-page, where it should have gone in the first place. Eik Corell (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Copy that. So translations are not reliable sources after all, and you are not satisfied with them, and I'll follow your view since you are more experienced. I'm pretty sure marketing strategy of the company would likely keep this news blocked from major sources in English for a long time... I'll keep an eye on any of them poping up, and call your attention when there is some. Things will certainly be approprite on the Chinese page, but in China there is a more popular system that they don't really go into wikipedia... Thanks again for your time and argument, they are way better than any Nazi could make.(lol)142.151.134.209 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Jumping it at Eik's request to provide a neutral third-party opinion. First off, and most importantly, you need to stop edit warring over this - you are both in violation of WP:3RR, having each made four reverts. I'm not filing a report at this time, but one more edit by either party will see you both blocked. In addition, refrain from personal attacks - calling editors who disagree with you "Nazis" is not going to do anything for your position.

Whilst editor translations are not preferred, they are considered acceptable per the non-English sources policy. Remember to assume good faith; unless there's good evidence to the contrary, we assume that IP142's translation is accurate, or at least does not pervert the content. I haven't run the source through Google translate yet, but that's a pretty simple way to establish whether or not the translation provided approximates the original. As such, the sources appear to be viable; I'm assuming that wot.kongzhong is affiliated with the KongZhong Corporation, and SINA is a pretty viable media source. Both seem to me to meet the criteria for verifying information of this type.

Although Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, there is no direct prohibition on trivia in articles. Per Handling Trivia: "It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers." In this particular instance, I feel that IP142 has a pretty good case for their version of the article. I've never played World of Tanks, and know next to nothing about that particular branch of military history, but it seems to me as an outsider that introducing a non-historical tank into a game based on historical tanks (and souping said tank up with bonuses) is an interesting development in the game's history. It opens the floodgates for future non-historical tanks, and could thus feasibly be the first step in major changes to the WoT universe.

In summary then; in my opinion the information is sufficiently sourced and sufficiently non-trivial to be in the article. My two cents, take it or leave it. Either way, what I said above about edit-warring stands; if it continues, you are both going to get blocked.

Your expertise requested

Hi Eik,

I've recently been in conversation with User:Execom rt regarding an article on a software company that he wrote. As a result of our discussion, we concluded that although the company (Realtech VR) did not mee the notability guidelines, its main product (NoGravity (video game)) did (Realtech VR is now a redirect to NoGravity). The NoGravity article could use sprucing up by someone with a good knowledge of videogames (apart from categories, Execom rt has had to write the whole thing himself) so, knowing your expertise in this area far outweighs mine, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. If you're short of something to do and fancy a bit of article expansion, this one's ripe for improvement. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 08:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Minecraft Page Tag Removal

Regarding your removal of the "Video game clone" tag on the Minecraft page, I mean that in no way to be derogatory.

"The term is sometimes derogatory, implying a lack of originality, however clones can be anything from a pure "ripoff", to a legitimate derivative or improvement on the original or even a homage." - Video game clone page

I am an avid fan of Minecraft and consider it to be a legitimate derivative of Infiniminer although it is heavily inspired by it. Also, I do not find the creator of the game self-proclaiming it to be a clone to be "subjective". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HereticKiller6 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it was the derogatory angle that I judged this from - I know that there's some kind of drama regarding this issue within the game's community, hence why reaction was to remove this. To be honest I'm not quite sure whether this should be included or not. I think it would be best to see what people say on the article's talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just that the Minecraft fans don't seem to understand that "clone" isn't meant to be derogatory but they are using it as such. I fear that they will not allow the tag to appear on the page as they see it to be derogatory. HereticKiller6 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

NASCAR 98 edits

I didn't realize some of my edits were inappropriate. Although I have seen driver tables on other racing game articles and I have also seen censorship sections on Formula One game articles. Would it be okay to add the driver table and censorship but not put the trivia section there again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.22.78 (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Tribes 2: TribesNext

It is infuriating that you keep removing the TribesNext section of the Tribes 2 article. I want people who visit the page to know they can still play Tribes 2. How is it not verifiable? The TribesNext site is right there--it tells you exactly what it does. And let me quote to you from Wikipedia:V--"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". The TribesNext page obviously qualifies on all counts. Please do not revert before answering this. --Jtle515 (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? You got rid of it again? And this time because it's supposedly not "notable". Well, guess what, Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article as you should know before you go on with your obsessive deletions. And let me point out that on the Tribes 2 talk page (on 9 July 2009) you said that TribesNext "has earned its place to be mentioned", but instead of saying that you'd changed your mind, you just went back on what you'd said. Well, I am sick of it. --Jtle515 (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and if you keep it up I'll report you for edit warring. --Jtle515 (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

How and why is this notable for inclusion? What I mean is, has any of these sources covered this project? As far as having earned its place, I honestly don't know why I said that. I don't hold that stance now, unless something comes up, like what I mentioned. Eik Corell (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

As I have said again and again, this falls under WP:ABOUTSELF and does not require third-party verification! --Jtle515 (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Day of Defeat

Why cant you let the few people who put a website on its page stay? It is a dying game, the few including myself are just trying to save it. Maybe having a few websites of groups on the page may save the game for a couple of more years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.154.82 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My contribution to Descent 2.

Why did you delete it? --74.96.87.36 (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed this material a while back per WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:FANSITE, sorry, I should have linked it in the edit summary. Eik Corell (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Reported for edit war on Tribes 2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

--Jtle515 (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Transhumanism

Hi, I see you define yourself as a transhumanist. I've been working a bit on Wikipedia:WikiProject Transhumanism although it still needs a lot of work. Could you have a look at it, and maybe give me some pointers? I created a little userbox to promote the wikiproject, in case you're interested. You're very welcome to subscribe as a participant, expand the project and of course improve it's articles. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

My extensive KalOnline contribution

After checking the KalOnline wikipedia page, Kal Online, it seems that my lengthy contribution, to indepth descriptions of each class and how each class works was deleted. Considering that the wikipedia page for KalOnline is plain boring, and non-descriptive of the game in any sense, and therefore useless to new players or aspiring players. Can you please let me know why it was deleted? I mean if possible, I could rectify these mistakes if restored. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazthe123 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Max Payne 3

I don't understand how i am vandalising when i am simply adding information about the game. As i understand it, the issues i am writing about are included on are copies of the game. I am writing factual information with references, so how is it considered vandalism?

Please be specific, and do not link me to other wiki articles in an attempt to explain. You made the decision to delete my article, so i want to know why you don't think it is appropriate, with specific terms.

The content you're adding qualifies as gamecruft. The general tone of the edit also suggests some axe-grinding is taking place, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Eik Corell (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So would it be acceptable to write it in the game development section, seeing as it is part of the games development, seeing as it is still in development, since they are still working on fixes for these bugs?Spiderliam (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be better, but still not appropriate - Wikipedia relies on reliable, third-party sources for all info added, and this is especially true if something like this is to be added to an article. For example, mentioning that a patch has been produced, and sourcing it to this article[2] would be appropriate. As it stands, your contributions runs afoul of WP:OR, WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NPOV. Eik Corell (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Aha, that explains a bit more, thank you! Apologies for any annoyance! and might i say, thank you for your professionalism, i've been conversing with another wiki editor (Niemti) about this and their attitude absolutely stinks, so it's nice to talk to someone who doesn't act like a 12 year old child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderliam (talk • contribs) 16:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Fjordman and Bat Ye'Or

Hi. I noticed that you've removed the Islamophobia template from the articles on Fjordman and Bat Ye'Or. I don't believe they should be removed, and would be happy to discuss it with you on the respective talk pages. Best regards, benjamil (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making this place less fun.

good job I guess 76.105.194.160 (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You like getting blocked I guess. Eik Corell (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Eik Corell. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 06:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Allegiance (video game)

Hi Eik Corell,

you removed the link to http://www.freeallegiance.org, because you think it's a fansite.

You may haven't considered this:

• Microsoft doesn't provide servers for the game anymore, that "fansite" is maintaining the game since 2002, so everyone can play it for free
• Microsoft provided the source code of the game in 2004, because of that "fansite", which is working to improve the game, see readme within sourcecode release: http://svn.alleg.net/svn/Allegiance/tag/msoriginal/src/readme.txt
• Microsoft Research doesn't offer a download of the source code anymore, that "fansite" does

Removing that link cuts off many users from additional informations about this game (which don't belong into that wikipedia article) . Would be nice if we find a solution for this. --pkk (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What About Nazi Zombies?

What is in the article I made in Nazi Zombies that doesn't comply with GAMECRUFT? The gamecruft really doesn't say much more than 'don't put in information that is false, fiction, or small'. I tried to make the article as informative as possible, and nothing in the article wasn't factual. It was about a fictional thing, but video games have a fiction eement included in it, in one way or another... So what's wrong with it? Nazi Zombies is generally its own thing, so I think a page on it is deserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.156.225 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not what WP:GAMECRUFT says. Check out #1 and #6, those are the parts of that guideline that apply here. Eik Corell (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I can sorta understand 6, but I don't get 1. The fact is Nazi Zombies is notable. anyone who has played CoD from 2008 onward knows what NZ is, thus making it notable. Heck, there are people who have bought Cod WaW and CoD Blops, solely for Nazi Zombies. So, how anyone could reason that Nazi Zombies isn't notable is beyond me. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not mad. I'm just trying to get the clearest picture I can of why my article wasn't good enough for wikipedia. Also, in argument with 6, Zombies is a game mode, with elements different from campaign and multiplayer gameplay. It'd be kinda stupid to write an article about it, without at least giving a brief summary of the differences between NZ and normal multiplayer and campaign, dontcha think? 71.114.156.225

Well, notability is established through continuous coverage by reliable, third-party sources. I haven't seen much coverage of this game-mode outside mostly passing mentions in reviews on video-game sites. "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.". Whether something's notable for its own article depends on WP:V, of which WP:N is kind of an extension. Long story short: We need sources that reliable, third-party sources to support a separate spin-off article. For a more layman approach to notability, check out the DayZ article. This is an article about a mod/game mode for the game ArmA 2. Initially, it received just a mention in the article, but it grew in popularity far beyond the scope of the original game, and this fact is supported by sources. Check out the References section to see what I mean. Eik Corell (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, then what about the CoD wikia? I'm not sure if it fits Wikipedia's guidelines of 'continuous coverage by... third party sources', and I don't have high hopes that it does (-__-), but that site is a wikia that constantly updates the topic of NZ on a near-regular basis. What if I rewrote the article with sources from that website? 71.114.156.225 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.156.225 (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If you mean this[3] one, it has only 7 sources, and the ones it does have are twitter, youtube, and fansites. The ones that aren't are not about the subject at large, so they don't underscore notability of the subject. Eik Corell (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Your recent editing history at Rise of Flight: The First Great Air War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Unreal II: The Awakening

Hi Eik Corell, I'm wondering why you undid my recent change to the Unreal II: The Awakening article. Visitors who go to Unreal II are being forwarded to aforementioned article. There is another Unreal II, namely a demo by the Future Crew. The full name of that demo is "Unreal ][ - The 2nd Reality". It's usually referred to as either "Unreal II" or "Second Reality". The latter is the name of the article about the demo. It would be helpful for certain visitors (like me; I was looking for the article about the Future Crew demo) if there is an easy way to reach the correct Unreal II they are looking for. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Rise of Flight: The First Great Air War. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not addressing the block. Anyway, I'm still in the dark here - What dialogue is possible with these[4] people[5]? They're not responding to anything I say, they're just reverting. What am I supposed to do? Thus far all of them have failed to even communicate, with the exception of User:LukeFF. In all cases I stuck to policy, and explained my edits. I contacted the editor about this on his talkpage when this first started, and my entry was promptly deleted[6]. I failed to bring it up at the talk page. This was done after I requested a third-party to get involved in the dispute to get the discussion going. The response I then got from the user on the talk page didn't address what I kept saying: That the information was a direct violation of WP:GAMECRUFT. So my question remains the same: What should I have done? How can a content dispute be solved when the other side does not care about policy? I could keep citing whatever part of WP:VG/GL I wanted and it would make no difference. Eik Corell (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Rise of Flight: The First Great Air War. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eik Corell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I intend to seek dispute resolution and/or request for page protection. What I wrote above still stands, but edit warring is bad. I get it. Eik Corell (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The time to seek WP:DR is before the first block for edit-warring, not return to the same actions on the same article and get blocked again. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Disute Resolution

Please note that I have reverted your addition to WP:DRN because the request was not filed properly. In order to file a request at DRN please follow the procedure stated here. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

However, if you do then the request will still probably be declined for lack of discussion on the article talk page. All major content dispute resolution procedures generally require talk page discussion by all disputants before resorting to dispute resolution. If the other editor will not discuss and continues to revert after you have made a request for discussion on the article talk page and left a {{talkback}} on the user's talk page, either file a RFC to draw in additional editors or file a complaint for disruptive editing at ANI. (But don't edit war first, or you may suffer a boomerang). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

yeah I spotted the article talk point, too. DR will have to wait it seems. In any case, thanks for elaborating! Eik Corell (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea

About what you said [[7]],yeah that is not a good idea,you see if you do that he will ether sue this place or you.So I wouldn't recommend it,just take it to Jimbo.~Tailsman67~ 74.178.177.48 (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)