User talk:Solberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Solberg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

The Wookieepedian 15:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks a lot for the welcome. Is there any simple way to remove vandalism (like a button that completely reverts to the previous version?) -- Solberg 05:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg

Hi, I think the easiest way is to look at a page's history, and then press the 'time/day/month' link to the left of the last good version of the article, then you will get to edit that old version. Then just press submit, and it will 'update' the vandalized page to the old version again. Poulsen 14:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings. I apologize for my unjustly caustic remarks in the Mace discussion page. I hope we can end this debacle and start off anew on friendlier terms. --Exor 19:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Taking this discussion here to avoid too many spoilers on the Nethack page: if (INT+CHA) is at least 35, which is easy to achieve in the late game (blessed potions of gain ability, #sit on magic traps for CHA, helm of brilliance for INT), you'll always get the "good" result from sex. And yes, it is true about Pokémon! Cheers --Pak21 09:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Lol, thanks. I didn't get very far into the game. Usually die around lvl 14 even playing Valkyries (probably the easiest character for beginners.) -- Solberg 05:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Age of Decadence[edit]

You might want to reword the article to be more accessible. Or at the very least link to explanations. I'm a fan of roleplaying games, real-time strategy, and I have no idea what "old school isometric" means. Some people can be fans without knowing the jargon. - BalthCat 00:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

Policies[edit]

KarenAnn 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD SC units etc.. discussion[edit]

  • From your note back to me To your intent: "In other words, neither idea (cover all book minutiae or cover all game minutiae) was suggested on this page", I could not agree more. My apologies for interpreting your comment incorrectly, it was not until I reread the thread (in excruciating detail :) that I saw that JD79 used the chess arguement to keep, and not to delete, as I had expected. And, I had missed that you had previously made a much more detailed comment to not only this AfD, but the AfD process. My lengthy comment was definitely posted in reply to the wrong one. To your notes 1) clearly, there should be a policy, pro or con or whatever, to use as a yardstick, 2) the Beatles were a cultural phenomenon, SC is too early for me to tell, 3) definitely agree, 4) moderate how-to info would be totally acceptable in any article. Thanks again for the note, everything on WP, including the editors, gets better with discussion. -- MrDolomite | Talk 02:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. Hit save too soon. Wanted to mention that your sig seems odd. Didn't know if it was intentional to have your name on both ends or not without having a talk button. I only say that because I struggled with mine until I got it working right :) -- MrDolomite | Talk 02:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

splinter in mine eye[edit]

Solberg, you are absolutely correct that I jumped to conclusions regarding your commentary on this AfD; the discussion had become so convoluted and back-and-forth at that time that I misinterpreted your comment as being a response to the "weak delete" you were actually making (indentation inconsistencies were the least of the problems with that discussion). I apologize for mistakenly trying to generalize you, or anyone, as "you guys", and will keep that in mind in the future.

Your point about factionalization vs. perception of factionalization is a good one, and there is a tendency to apply our own biases sometimes to get the result we want (see also the myg0t and Encyclopedia Dramatica debates), and I had, or have, hopes of staying above that. With that in mind, I appreciate the reminder. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

CRPG image[edit]

Dialogue is probably not good becuase the images tend to look cramped, like this one[1]. Since you're choosing Arcanum, I'd take one that shows up the steampunk scenery, since that was the most unique attribute of that game. --SevereTireDamage 06:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

When you thumbnail that image (as it should be, by default at 300px width), as it shows up on the wiki page, what you primarily end up seeing is all the brown, black, and some floaty blurry text. Ideally, the demonstrative quality should be mostly clear from the thumbnail. Here are a few decent examples:[2] [3] [4] while this one would be a bad one[5], at least for the purpose of an obvious lead image. Sorry, I really don't mean to be overly anal about the quality of a screenshot, and I don't mean to make you jump through hoops or anything, this is only my opinion. --SevereTireDamage 08:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Much better, but maybe a tad too dark still. Again, it's a stylistic problem that applies to the thumbnailing, images that are too dark make everything look soft and out-of-focus when shrunk. But we're definitely at the point where I'm just saying "close enough."
Before you delete the images, since they're already here, might as well check if they can be used appropriately in the Arcanum article or others. For speedy deletion, I believe you use {{db|reason}} on the page, but you should double-check to be sure at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia. --SevereTireDamage 00:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a different image is called for - since it's talking about the character system, show the character status screen? Seems more relevant. Rarr 02:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Tim Cain, that dude with the crazy hair award[edit]

Well, I'll be damned. You're right - he's even the first two google hits. Bizarro!

There are a ton of WP:CVG stub types, and they're not even conveniently collected in a category (the stub templates themselves, I mean). Check 'em out here: WP:CVG#Stubs. I mean, just look at this monster. And there were about 600 various unsorted stubs in the base CVG stub category a week or so ago.

As far as prominent designers go, you've got many people I've heard of, but I'm also at a loss for knowledge as far as the more notable RPG designers from the 80s and early 90s are. Not to mention the whole adventure games/early computer RPG mixing thing. I wouldn't worry about it, though, surely the important ones will be mentioned by someone, even if you missed him or her. --SevereTireDamage 06:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I just don't know. I did my part to sort stubs I thought seemed reasonable into proper categories, but there were a bunch I was still left shaking my head at. For instance, I'm pretty the sure prods for this and this will go through. --SevereTireDamage 07:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Your recent edits of the SW categories on the Force Powers brought up a question I've been meaning to ask for a while now-- why bother having so many "main pages" for obscure abilities like Morichro and Force Meld? I recommend a merge. See Force Powers talk page to voice any dissent. Thanks. -- Solberg 07:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Solberg

If you would like to merge them into Force powers, that's fine with me : ) - jc37 07:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Edu-Ware's role in CRPG History[edit]

Reconsider reverting back Space (computer game) after removing it from CRPG articles. Space was one of the first CRPG's every to appear on personal computers, and one of the few science fiction-themed ones. Edu-Ware was a historically significant early Apple II game publisher. It's most significant game was The Prisoner (computer game), but its other games were notable as being "firsts" as well as being innovative (although not influential). See Wikipedia articles for external references. Applegamer 19:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments re: Baldur's Gate[edit]

Note: Moved both threads to my talk page since User:Cjwright79 deletes the contents of his talk page to keep up with the stream of complaints


Dear Chris, consider relevancy when editing pages. Here's a useful test-- when adding something to the "See Also" section, consider how many equally important additions you could have made. For example, you recently added Ultima 7 to the See Also list in the Betrayal at Krondor page. But Ultima 7 is not by far the only renowned early 1990s RPG. You could have added many other possibilities like Realms of Arkania, Underworld, etc. If there are many equally important additions you can make, consider that the edit you are making is not relevant enough to the topic. Ultima 7 and Betrayal are both renowned classic RPGs but this in itself is not sufficient for relevancy in this case because the category of "renowned classic RPGs" is gigantic. You need more selectivity, eg if the games shared the same gameplay (they don't), if the games had the same designer (they didn't), etc. Besides relevancy, always check your edits to see if they contain unnecessary "fluff" or "filler", which is "information" that does not add anything to the article that is not already known, and therefore not really information. Your recent edits to the CRPG page are examples of this-- it was already mentioned in the article that CRPGs tend to feature fantasy settings, so that comment was not necessary. Regarding mundanity, there is virtually no game genre that involves mundane tasks (I can only think of simulation games but they are not focusing on the mundane aspect of a particular task usually). So to say that the CRPG genre lacks "mundane" tasks is not information. The RTS genre lacks "mundane" tasks. So does FPS. So does adventure. Why would it be important to note this specifically in the CRPG article. Do you understand what I'm getting at? -- Solberg 04:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Yes sir I do. Chris 22:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
However Krondor and Ultima VII are the two most popular, commerically-successfully, critically-renowned CPRGs from that era. So it's not as irrelevant as you purport, clearly. Chris 23:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
That still would not be enough, in my humble opinion. I don't know what CRPGs you've played so maybe my analogy isn't going to work but this is like saying Fallout and Baldur's Gate are both excellent and well regarded CRPGs from the late 90s, therefore let's mention the other in each article despite the two not really have anything to do with each other (totally different setting, different design philosophy, different mechanics, different modes (TB vs RT implemented in TB), etc). In fact they only share Interplay as some sort of tenuous conection. It does not make sense to mention both Ultima VII and BaK in the same breath just because they were both famous RPGs of a certain small arbitrary year span. When a person looks at an encyclopedia article, they want concise, detailed, relevant information. If they're looking at BaK or U7 articles, they want to know instead about Return to Krondor or U6 or U Online or Underworld, etc on the appropriate pages. They don't want to have another RPG mentioned just because it was also famous if it's not related for other significant reasons, i.e. same gameplay. If they wanted to find other famous RPGs of the same period, all they have to do is look here anyway: Chronology of computer role-playing games. By the way, it's usually customary to reply on the other person's talk page, especially if you're going to delete your talk page's contents regularly. -- Solberg 02:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg
See if you can't summarize your concerns in a sentence or two. Then I might have something useful to say to you. Chris 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Cheers.
Reply to your reply on my talk page: With all due respect, are you joking? The section above isn't long at all. Is English your second language? I will summarize tomorrow (I'm busy at the moment) if you really can't read it but otherwise I think that was just very rude of you. If you don't want to hear my advice, that's fine, and you can tell me now. I don't mind. I was just trying to help you out since it seems you're genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia but are frustrated because people don't like your edits and you don't understand why. -- Solberg 05:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg
Re: re your reply: you seem to be a rather angry young man. Maybe an old one -- I don't know. Regardless, I'm quite certain that I won't be able to offer any answers that you'll like. So, until you in a more tranquil state of mind, I have nothing else to say. I know I must seem very arrogant -- I am sorry for this. Still, I cannot abide by snarky people. Cheers. Chris 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I was hardly being snarky, the only snarky person is you. I spend some time making a substantial reply trying to help you and you just simply reply "Summarize" when it wasn't longer than a standard paragraph. Your talk page shows you get complaints all the time, don't you think this might have something to do with the way you edit Wikipedia and interact with the rest of the editors? I'm guessing you don't care? -- Solberg 19:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg

OK sol...[edit]

I'm just gonna let this all go. I'm wiping the slate clean. If you have any further complaints about my contributions, please, go right ahead and post them to my talk. Well, sorry for being snarky, and I will take all misgivings to be my fault. Sorry again. Will aim to do much better in the future. Cheers. Chris 20:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Screen0015.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Screen0015.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Possible copyright issues?[edit]

I have marked that page as a copyvio. – ABCD 17:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Screen0026.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Screen0026.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Galleries[edit]

As I said here, I'm not entirely sure. But I'm going to look it up, and get back to you if no one else answers. G1ggy! Review me! 04:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done some more research, and I can't find anything except what Marasmusine says here. Just make sure it's fairly used ;) G1ggy! Review me! 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)



Mace Windu Updates I just wanted to let you know that I like the Updates and Cleanup you did to the Mace page and also apologize for getting into a revert war with you over that text. I understand it now and should have given you more of the benefit of the doubt. Again nice job on the cleanup! --Vertigo315 16:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Screen0026.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Screen0026.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Freedomeagle 03:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

Regarding your Image:Screen0026.jpg image, fair use rational is a statement that says why the picture is needed. A license banner isn't sufficient for non-free images. You can write it yourself based on these requirements or you can use this template Template:Non-free use rationale. --Voidvector 04:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

D'oh you're right. Sigh. I came back a bit too late though. Oh well, SeveredTires and I both agreed the image was subpar anyway. Maybe now that the image was deleted, someone else will come up with a good one. -- Solberg 21:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Solberg

AfD nomination of Computer role-playing game and others[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Computer role-playing game, Console role-playing game. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer role-playing game for Computer role-playing game, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Console role-playing game for Console role-playing game. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)