User talk:Eik Corell: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey, you reverted my change to Hitman 2 controversy page due to needing a better source. The problem is that this controversy is from a decade and a half ago about a fairly niche game and was not covered much at all let alone to include details of what was changed, changes were never officially disclosed. What I provided is a small writeup as well as comparison screenshots, it doesnt get better than that. Its literally screenshots of the changes. So basically I dont think something this old and niche will have a better source. If you arent happy with the source itself how about removing the cite but keeping the information? The information that was on the page before my changes is misleading because it makes it sound like content was cut. Link to the diff - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitman_2:_Silent_Assassin&oldid=prev&diff=735904353 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrushev (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is already covered in a better way in the reception section using this as a source. Eik Corell (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that reference, but there is no detail there. Someone curious about censorship of this game would want to know exactly what was changed, which is the info I provided.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey Eik Corell, If butch is making season 11 with some of the returning characters in the show, then he is making the new season.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlecharmersfan (talk • contribs) 21:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{[citation needed]} 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)[reply]

Hey there. The articles I usually mess with are usually older, more dormant ones, often containing these same ^{[citation needed]} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply] 

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)[reply]

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.

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you know what's wrong with an edit, you should spend a second to say what you think is wrong, even just two words, instead of making people go out of their way to ask you. Worst case you start an edit war. Read the guidelines on reverts Wikipedia:Reverting#Explain_reverts. --Hedja (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello Eik Corell,
I would like to ask you to add this image to the infobox in the article Club Penguin. I uploaded it to wikimedia commons for global use, but the aarticle is locked and i do not have an account in the english wikipedia, an cannot add it to the infobox. (images from wikimedia commons can be added like ordinary wiki images, [[File:Club Penguin Logo.svg|200px]]).
Thank you for your attention,
80.230.109.165 (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care who you are, you can not blatantly remove entire sections of a talk page. Who do you think you are? Try doing that on a page that's heavily trafficked rather than the WoT page. See how quickly you would get warned.

The WoT community is a disaster, the WG administration are sloppy and greedy, and people like you who whitewash everything for them only keep the problem going. Jersey John (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing talk page entries is perfectly acceptable in this case. The third bullet-point is the one you wanna be looking at. I'll also quote what I told you before: Wikipedia is not the place to grind your axe. That extends to talk pages. Eik Corell (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eik Correl, recently a User: JohnRatz has been reverting the budget for the film The Last stand from 30 million to 45 million even though two sources had been used to support the fact that it's budget is more near to 30 million and he used only BOM as a source for his edit. This is not the first time he has reverted the edit but many times before. BOM is not be all end all and sometimes is not reliable. This could be a possible case of vandalism. I left him a message on his talk page and told him to discuss before editing it again and sort it out. I request to please look into this matter. He has reverted my edit many times without even notifying once. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric,

Please stop removing the details I post on GRAW. I will repost again later today. There is nothing wrong with what I am adding under the online section of the game play details. GRAW RESPAWN is a place where players of the game can post results etc. It is a new page and will grow. you have no reason to remove the details.

regards,

Ray Rudd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xl BOOSTER lx (talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such information is not appropriate because Wikipedia is not a fansite, so it shouldn't be used to recruit for your website. Eik Corell (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Schießbefehl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalashnikov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that Jros83 added a comment that was clearly not in good faith onto your talk page. If you could, please review over his contributions and warning history. (if you haven't already) Do you think any actions should be taken? Thank you ChaseAm (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD LORD Chase are you kidding me? Let it go, and please see your talk page! Jersey John (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC) (sorry Eik, I'll be on my way again)[reply]

Hello Eric, how should I include information on the game's current unavailability from any digital download distributor into the article? This is important for people researching the game since it makes the game very difficult to acquire. Also, it is important to note this since the page lists "download" under the distribution section. This game was previously released at launch from Steam. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia clean.

Hmmm, I can't find any sources covering this. It may have something to do with publishing rights, but I can't find any reliable source covering it from the (list of reliable video game sources) If it's not available on steam anymore, and none of these are covering it, I don't think think mentioning this is a good idea; it may well pop up again in a week or a month as the rights are passed on. Eik Corell (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, Unfortunately, this game has been unavailable on any digital download distributor for around a year. If this game appears on any digital distribution service, I will make an addition to this section. This is important for all game consumers since complete works disappear from the market, due to issues beyond consumer visibility, and theoretically never return.

De728631 (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Off-World Interceptor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• be increased—picking up upgrade parts while in-game can break the default base limit of the car (for instance, the Vindicator has a base limit of upgrading its shields three times. However, if the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eik --

The external links in SubSpace (video game) are abandoned pages. I took time to choose the new links as per WP:FANSITE and WP:EL have spent quite a bit of time moderating external links on the wiki. I would appreciate you allowing these changes as proposed [7]. Thanks for your help ∴ here…♠ 07:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the edit I put in place. I was there when they wrote the game as they based a large part of the game on my D&D character. It was Petton Everhail, not Pelton and Grelminar. Nemisis was captured by Grelminar and you needed him to use his magical swords (Reference to the Campaign it was based on.). Anyways, you can check out the game but but most sources citing it are wrong. yes, I was in madison when they wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.194.176.137 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am going to start being polite!

Number 1, what is your qualification to be editing a large part of the video game section on Wiki? After quite a bit of research, the answer is not much! Kind of like an Amazon reviewer really! The reason my written English is not great, especially when typing too fast is that I have dyslexia, not major, but enough to cause problems.

Since stumbling across you, my faith in Wiki has plummeted. I thought it was run by knowledgeable people, who were interested in making Wiki a repository of facts, not citations and adherence to rules. There are many things on Wiki that it is impossible to cite a source for, for various reasons. I have to admit that you come across as any common or garden forum troll, with a small bit of power. You seem to delight in annoying an pissing people off. I am sure that is not what Wiki or its editors were set up to do!

You have heard of the Stanford Experiment? Guess which side you would be on!

These are MY credentials [well some of them] http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,127851/

I also worked with BI Australia, we were working on very similar projects for the USMC. See gobbledygook below.

Shaun Wallace Game Credits Business Close Combat: The Longest Day (2009) (Serious Games Project Managers) Officers (2009) (Serious Games Project Manager) Close Combat: Cross of Iron (2007) (President)

Production Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem (2010) (Serious Games Project Managers) Armada 2526 (2009) (Serious Games Project Managers) WW2: Time of Wrath (2009) (Serious Games Project Managers) Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein (2008) (Serious Games Project Manager) Commander: Napoleon at War (2008) (Serious Games Project Manager) Decisive Battles of World War II: Battles in Normandy (2004) (Associate Producer) Starshatter (2004) (Associate Producers) Eric Young's Squad Assault: West Front (2003) (Associate Producer)

Audio Eric Young's Squad Assault: West Front (2003) (Voice Acting)

Quality Assurance Eric Young's Squad Assault: West Front (2003) (Playtesters) G.I. Combat: Episode 1 - Battle of Normandy (2002) (Play Testers)

Creative Services Combat Command: The Matrix Edition (2011) (Manual Editing and Content)

Technology Eric Young's Squad Assault: West Front (2003) (Web Site Design) G.I. Combat: Episode 1 - Battle of Normandy (2002) (Web Page)

Other Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem (2010) (Father Figure) Close Combat: The Longest Day (2009) (Father Figure)

This is what I posted on the Talk page. You are telling me you can pull NO pertinent facts out of this at all? You ARE an editor?

Please stop the ranting and personal attacks and respond to what I wrote on the article's talk page instead. Eik Corell (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's it? You really are an arrogant piece of work, you DO know the definition of editor? Did you even read anything? You don't see any response to what you wrote above? [Hard I know if you have not read it!] You should not be in charge of video games, you are clueless! --Shaun Wallace aka Sulla (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, reply on the article's talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious why you decided to remove the screenshot I added instead of reverting it. The previous one was small and outdated so I updated it to a recent one which I feel showcases the game better. Thanks.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Blade & Soul page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Project Reality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foxholes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently developing this article and struggling on the source front. I see that you added this edit in 2010, inserting references for PC Zone Issue 203 and PC Gamer UK 105. If possible do you have these issues still and if so would you be willing to scan/photograph the pages relevant to the game so that I could use them in improving the article? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My last actions based on fact, that a big part of a dates, which are taken from this web-service, don't match with another sources. You can verify this information if you look at pages of games which are written on the other languages and at pages of videogames history: much dates are absolutely different. I ask you to do something with them, because I'm not sure in their authenticity.

P.S. My english language is bad =( Vova Freeman (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left that warning because this edit didn't fit the source - The source said 17, but your edit changed it to 15. Eik Corell (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted some edits of mine, regarding my "sneaky vandalism". I apologize wholly, and sincerely. A friend of mine had installed the Word Replacer Chrome extension on my laptop and had changed the word "Video" or "video" to "Jaguar" or "jaguar", respectively. This led to a fair amount of confusion, and me attempting to erase some vandalism that wasn't actually vandalism. when you "edit source" on a Wikipedia article, it seems to disregard the WR extension, leading to even more confusion for me. Moreover, upon looking at this closer, it appears to somehow edit all forms of the word video and change it to Jaguar in the entire article. I used Wiki love as a means of warning users who had made an innocent mistake and didn't need reprimand, they just needed someone to tell them not to do it again. I personally love Wikipedia and can spend hours poring over a well-written article. I try to keep edits summaries light and humorous while still to the point. Usually, I will put a summary on every edit that is not adjacent to an edit I just made. I hope that these mistakes are forgivable. Thank you Eik for bringing this to my attention. I was about to sit down and pump out 20 or so edits -- who knows what a disaster that would have been. k_scheik (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the World of Tanks page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have again removed the PROD tag for Tanki Online, which you restored after an IP had removed it. The IP was within its rights to remove it, even without giving a reason. Sorry, but if you want to see this article deleted it now has to be raised at WP:AFD.

From the PROD template itself: If this template is removed, do not replace it. This is confirmed in WP:DEPROD: Noyster (talk), 21:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reason given for undo/revert made. Please state reason so it is understood what areas of contention there are. Dated information that was listed was dated and incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westhill21 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it for the same reason the other guy did - WP:CRUFT. Eik Corell (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at List of Internet forums. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. The talk page is a place to resolve disputes - repeatedly erasing the talk page discussion isn't cool 72.181.218.181 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)>[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 72.181.218.181 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could explain some context to what is going on here. Simply repeating WP:NOTHERE in edit summaries is not instructive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hel-LO! Why did you revert all those links I created in Medal of Honor: Allied Assault?! 2601:646:8E01:9089:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could you please give me a more detailed explanation why you removed several paragraphs on the page Birth rate? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birth_rate&diff=prev&oldid=695740440 --Chrono1084 (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I removed that info because it made very specific claims but with no sources at all to back any of it up, as opposed to the previous paragraphs. Basically it looked like a clumsy, unsourced insert. Eik Corell (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helluw, felluw editor, I just created a Wikipedia account yesterday, a was really hyped to improve the page of a game I love : Warsow. I precised many features of the page and traducted from French (my native language) to the English page (which is waaaay less developed). HOWEVER, all the informations were true and deleted without verification : "reverting a troll". Indeed I was rapidly reverting edits, but they were many typos and errors in the page. Finally, I added changes to the presentation of the game, that I assume seemed false or funny, but are stated directly on the official site [[8]]. Therefore, I would like to improve this page without having to rewrite everything each 15 minutes. If there is the absolute need of references (present of the French page of the game), I'll put them AFTERWARDS, and maybe fiddle 1-2 days with the articles to make them best as I can.

Thank you for reading this and have a nice day/night :)

~SpectreVert

The troll comment was not aimed at you. I removed the weapons list per #6 of WP:GAMECRUFT -- "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts" are to be avoided in video game articles. Eik Corell (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For or War§ow ( which signifies " Warsow is Art of Respect and Sportmanship Over the Web ", previously " Warriors of Alternate Reality Over the Web [9], why did you delete it? Its not personal at all, it is present on the official site of the game.

EDIT - The Warsow page has just been locked to autoconfirmed users. Thanks, Mister "Let me clean up your junk". Very poor first experience of Wikipedia indeed.

The website you cited for the change to the lead paragraph is a fansite. That's not a reliable source. Eik Corell (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A site with the COMPLETE and most detailled source of information you can find on this game (that you probably haven't played, for what I see), with a list of the open servers in-game (that of course requires the game devellopers access to have), the DOWNLOAD for the game, a forum where the devellopers themselves post is not considered (by your stadards) an official site? The site even has "Copyright © 2016 warsow.gg" writen on it, and allows to create a WARSOW account, that is used INSIDE of the game itself. I don't know what more proofs you need, but this abuse of power is inacceptable.

~SpectreVert — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpectreVert (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The acronym you're sourcing to "warsow.gg" seems to come from a forum post on the site. A forum post on a fansite is not a reliable source. Also, the article wasn't protected because of anything you or I did, but rather due to a troll that has been following me around and reverting my edits. That's what my "Reverting a troll" edit summary was referring to. Eik Corell (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- DVdm (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving us all a splash of cold water in the face about Silent Hunter III. That article was getting a bit out of control and we didn't need the extensive lists of ships and vessels. Probably a lot of stuff about the awards and career paths can be condensed too. The submarine types I hope to incorporate into the body of the text rather than a list. The history aspect of the game is why I became interested. -O.R.^Comms 16:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunately a general problem on video-game articles; A good article is only supposed to have four sections: Plot, gameplay, development, reception and external links. But what ends up happening instead is that people who are not familiar with Wikipedia but very familiar with the game end up adding lists, tips on how to the play, where to play the game, etc, instead of writing an impartial article with information accessible to to anyone, not just the people who play the game. That's how articles can end up in a very poor state for years: People come to the article, they see that it's full of stuff already, so they move on, even though the article is incomprehensible to anyone but fans of the game. If nobody wants to "reboot" articles in poor condition, very few people will take the initiative and rewrite it according to Wikipedia standards. Sometimes I do this in hope that the article will be rewritten, if very slowly and under supervision. Sometimes this does indeed remove most of the article, even though I try to keep what can be salvaged. Eik Corell (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your contribution, but what exactly was wrong with it? I would like to know. Thanks, JakeR (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I removed the soundtrack per #14 of WP:GAMECRUFT. Eik Corell (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I mean the gameplay and modes and that stuff. It was removed per WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:YOU. Why? JakeR (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eik Corell. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. One thing to remember is to make sure you leave warnings at talk pages to explain your reverts; I've noticed you've un-done a bunch of edits lately without leaving notes explaining why those actions were undone. only (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V • Talk 23:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have not yet heard back from you in regards to my email. I trust it's safe to assume that you no longer have need of IPBE? If not, please be sure to get back to me at your earliest convenience. Thanks! Mike V • Talk 23:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eik Corell, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.

HowlingAngel (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RRNO applies here. Eik Corell (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HowlingAngel: Reviewing edits to Infinite Flight, I believe 86.187.174.227, 86.187.170.145 and 86.187.175.155 are probably sockpuppets, and their disruptive editing goes back a few days. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eik Corell. I replied with some ideas of what you can do. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for reverting to my cleanup of the article. This user never seems to stop as is evident here. Could warn them and revert back? I'm hesitant in editing the article now. They also seem to use an inappropriate tone in edit summaries and replies. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 14:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was going to comment in support your request, as this editor is messing with a lot of aviation-related articles. All the IPs I have seen begin with 86.187. - have you seen IPs other than this range being used by the troll? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP hopping troll is back on a different range. If you find yourself getting reverted by IPs 31.55.x.x, the ANI discussion is here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tanki Online, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rank. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me why you are removing the New Feature sections. You never ever elude to that in your summary. You only elude to demo, cover and soundtrack violating. All you say is per WP:VG/GL. I've read through it and nothing says that New Features shouldn't be a part of the article.

If you don't give me a satisfactory reason (A Wikipedia guildline that says you should and/or a discussion that has reached consensus), I will be reverting those sections back and we can discuss this on the talk pages. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting the average reader with these long lists of "new features" leaves them no closer to understanding the mechanics of the game; On the NHL articles, this "new features" category was present in most of them in place of an actual gameplay section detailing the important aspects of the game mechanics. I generally remove these because they run afoul of #7 of WP:GAMECRUFT, along with WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If any of such features are truly notable, they should be explained in a properly-written gameplay, reception, or development section, not peppered into articles as a replacement for, at the very least, a proper lead paragraph.

As far as the soundtrack sections go, that's per #15 of WP:GAMECRUFT. The "demo" and "cover" present no third-party coverage to establish why these parts are noteworthy, but most important how they're justified as having a separate section within the article. At the very least, as separate sections, they trip over WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Eik Corell (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't explain how it violated #7. Not to mention it clearly doesn't support you and supports me when it says "Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry."

It is important in these games as the only reason these games get made every year is because of the new features.

Not to mention, WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE clearly do not apply. WP:NOTCATALOG clearly does not apply. The list isn't a directory. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is about data not in context. It's clearly in context.

Lastly (this I have the biggest problem with), Wikipedia notability isn't determined by if it's expanded in the article. Here's the problem I have. You say if it's notable it should be expanded. The proper action is for you to google and try to find third party sources on the subject. If you can't, you can clearly say that this isn't notable due to lack of third party source. Which you don't ever say.

If you had done that, you'd see that every single third party review talks about the new features (makes sense for a game that only gets produced every year because of it). The proper action isn't deleting it then it's expanding it. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If included under an actual gameplay section, I'm not actually that bothered by lack of third-party sources. This is a recurring problem on a lot of video game articles that I've gotten used to. It's best when they're there, but they're not really the focus here for me. What bothers me is these lists/pseudo-list rambling prose that only act as comparisons. They're problematic in the way I described, as I said, because they're only a comparison to the game directly preceding it. This presents a new problem: If we are to follow this bullet-point format of new features, you'd have to go all the way down the line for it to be comparable to an actual gameplay section, and in such a format, it would dwarf the rest of the article and be in direct conflict with WP:VG/GL's words on what sections are appropriate for articles, i.e Gameplay ones, reception ones, etc. As I also said, WP:GAMECRUFT #7 applies here because these are lists of gameplay concepts and mechanics. I'm not against the information being re-added, it just can't be in this long, shotgun-approach bullet-point format that lists every new feature. This segues to WP:DISCRIMINATE -- this guideline is actually mentioned as being the basis of quite a few parts of WP:GAMECRUFT including #7 which I cited.

My view condensed: Features should be described in relevant sections as described by WP:VG/GL; Gameplay, reception, development. Sources indeed help establish notability of such features, but the most important thing is to avoid these catch-all "New Stuff"-type sections lists because they're not conducive to the articles they're added to, and they fly in the face of WP:GAMECRUFT's #5 and #7. Eik Corell (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your view, you are clearly ignoring my rebuttals. Now you cite #5 (after ignoring my #7 rebuttal). I still can't believe you said #7 again after I clearly gave a rebuke on why it's not (not even addressing it). #5 clearly doesn't support you either. So a list of new features is excessive (#5)? So, now what else random guildlines that don't support you are you going to cite. Not to mention #7 supports me when it says "Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. "

What's more disturbing is this "I'm not actually that bothered by lack of third-party sources." You realize that goes against wikipedia guildlines? So even if you are right on that the New Features don't belong (you're not in this case), you just pick and choose what to follow?-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're problematic in the way I described, as I said, because they're only a comparison to the game directly preceding it.

This goes against what guildline or is that your opinion? It's becoming clear here that it's you opinion that you don't like it and you try to justify it with wikipedia guildlines. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the new features on a number of articles. I have also started a discussion on Talk:NHL 15. Where you are welcome to join. I have listed it for rfc and asked Wikiproject Video Game members to join in. The discussion should move there and no longer be here.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted reference to an ARC clone. Why? The article misleads the reader into thinking that no such game exists anymore, when the opposite is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitMonster (talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning remakes is discouraged per WP:GAMECRUFT, exemptions are those that "have achieved notability because of their far-reaching impact on the game(s) on which they are based.". The way that is determined is by third-party sources talking about them, that's why I mentioned WP:V in my edit summary -- Unless a reliable source comments on the significance of this remake, it's not proper to mention it. Eik Corell (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that requiring sources for remakes on critically acclaimed games and games that have otherwise gained widespread popularity makes sense, ARC never had a user base of more than 200 or so people and has therefore not received attention from what most would consider reliable sources. Even more true for the remake. By editing out this information you are effectively obscuring the history of the game, leaving no option for recourse. I don't think that your edit keeps with the spirit in which the guidelines at WP:GAMECRUFT are offered. Now, while entirely true, aspects of my edit to the wiki page were arguably subjective (e.g. that the game keeps largely to the classic styling of ARC). Can I simply say that an operational remake currently exists?UnitMonster (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best shot this has at inclusion in the article in one form or another would be if one or some of these sources have covered it in some way, otherwise it falls afoul of WP:GAMECRUFT discouraging mention of homebrew / clones not covered by such sources, and WP:VG/EL's insistence that links to such not be included. Eik Corell (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe you reverted my edits when there's a discussion still on going. Not to mention the discussion isn't even in your favour. I didn't respond to you because you added nothing to discussion. DO NOT revert it again or I will report you for edit warring. It's very obvious you don't care about wikipedia rules and guildlines. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also curious on why you still reverted it after two editors came to my support. Never even responded. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not learned a single thing from the discussion? You don't delete content that deserves to be there just because it's not written propery. ? Not to mention keep and rewrite means you cannot delete it. It means you can only rewrite it. So, if you care about this so much do the work and rewrite it. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was and is deadlocked; two for, two against. I've cited the guidelines, just as the other the other editor who chimed in on the deletion part did: WP:VG/GL, and I've specified which parts: WP:GAMECRUFT #7. The point of contention comes down to whether poor additions should stay on the article in the hope that they will be refactored. I've explained why I believe they shouldn't. Eik Corell (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked it was 3 on 2 and your supporter never responded to my argument. Not to mention they are fine with the feature section (just re writing it). You on the other hand deleted it because there's no main gameplay section. You see how you just did your own this? Again not understanding that wikipedia is not a voting system. But all that doesn't matter. Wikipedia policy is consensus. It could 5000 to 10. If the 10 are right that's all that matters. Wikipedia:Consensus. Yea that's your opinion. Not policy or guildline. How hard is it to understand that? Yea and that's why I posted the article below, but like usually you repeat that same thing like a broken record.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't turn this into a personal thing. I've explained in detail why I removed what I did. Eik Corell (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining it isn't an excuse for edit warring. And you still don't get that it's your opinion. Stop hiding behind guildlines that don't support you. that It's your opinion to blank instead of tag (a wrong one). It's your opinion to not alert real editors (a wrong one again). Not to mention no consensus means that the article stays the way it was before all this. Which means there's no exuse for what you did. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, why do they exist? I'll tell you. They exist to avoid gutting articles. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Report me. Seriously report me. I have every right to say your edits don't provide anything to wikipedia. I've looked through your history and all you do is blank other peoples work hiding behind guildlines that don't support the blanking. Only time they do is item list and soundtracks. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in reporting you, I just want you stop the personal attacks. That's why I left that notification. Eik Corell (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm interested in working with user. You on the other are not. I have tried explaining to many times why you are wrong. You keep posting the same thing over and over and never reply to the content to my argument. Forcing me to go to dispute resolution and even there you do the same thing. Let me ask you this how would you feel when you explain the same thing over 5 times to a user and they still repeat the same and never make a rebuttal back and then goes and continues what they are doing. Not only that by have 3 other user who say the only problem with the content is how it's written or reliable sources not any Gamecruft violation. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I even explained to you that Wikipedia consensus is not based on votes and you say that again. How do you expect a person to react when you blatantly ignore them? Not to mention you continue to get the vote count wrong. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on the vote count, I missed the comment by Axem Titanium, but yes I'm well aware Wikipedia is not based on votes. Eik Corell (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should never be talking about votes. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your post to the WP:RSN noticeboard as thats the correct place to get an answer. I can give you a heads up of the discussion in advance though - generally UK tabloids are reliable for basic statements of fact, un-contentious info etc. So it will depend on if people consider the SAS participating is a contentious piece of info or not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make one correction at this map here File:Syrian civil war.png please? [10][11] According to these two sources the NSA was beaten back by ISIL the whole 200 miles back to their base at the Tanf border crossing. Could you correct the map along the Iraqi border accordingly than? EkoGraf (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had put a lot of effort into the Vietcong article previously and you undid almost all of it just referring to the official guidelines. Well, I'm generally aware of the guidelines, I reread the guidelines, I agree with the removal of some of the content I had added but you removed too much. Please justify the removal in the article's talk section and let's find some sensible middleground. The moment you blindly remove so much that you're almost restoring stub status you're not doing anyone a service. --F4LL0UT (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, the same goes for the Delta Force article. Again: you removed too much, eliminating anything that explains the game's uniqueness or significance, the latter being the factor that justifies descriptions according to the guidelines. Improve or keep but please do not just remove everything and point people to the guidelines which don't even explicitly justify the removal. Evidence that your editing style makes no sense is that the stuff you keep in the articles is absolutely insignificant compared to the things you tend to remove. Please think before just senselessly censoring things according to your interpretation of the guidelines. --F4LL0UT (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I altered the Vietcong article (hopefully) in accordance with your feedback from the article's talk section. I still feel that your edit, which undid like 90% of my work, was too much but I apologise for my earlier outburst. Thanks for pointing out the specific issues with the article. --F4LL0UT (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might not have edited Iraqi maps in past but I will to request you to please upadte it.

Al Waleed border crossing and Qayyarah Airfield West base has been recaptured by Iraqi forces. A public road, al-Hathr junction and some villages have also been captured near the Qayyarah base. In addition four villages to the south of Mosul have been captured by Iraqi force. Also Peshmerga has captured seven villages east of Mosul in al-Khazir (probably area near Khazir River), Gwer and Makhmour. See Mosul offensive (2016) for sources.

Al-Waleed border crossing is in the southwest border and is marked with a green dot to show FSA control on Syrian side. Iraq now has control on its own side, so please represent that as well.

I hope you will update the map. You can find the sources to verify what I'm saying in the articles I've linked. You can use this Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map as a reference. Thank you. Newsboy39 (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the patch information? It's helpful to those people that look up the game and need help to patch it. It has encyclophic nature. Govvy (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Community-made projects and patches are only notable for inclusion if they've received covered coverage from reliable, third-party sources. Likewise, the article shouldn't serve as a game-guide on how to how to get the game running, etc. Eik Corell (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been in third party sources. I am reverting. It's useful and helpful to players. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it has indeed such coverage, the burden of proof is on you to include those sources if you want to re-add the material. Here is a list of what sources are considered acceptable, unacceptable and circumstantial by Wikipedia. Eik Corell (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

เดิม: ทำไมคุณไม่ลบมากที่สุดของ "แกรนด์เชส" หน้า? สรุปข้อมูลสำคัญเกี่ยวกับตัวละครและเรื่องราวของเกมที่ถูกถอดออกมาถึงแม้ว่าพวกเขามีความสำคัญและไม่ซับซ้อนมิได้ยาว. หยุด "หลอก" โดยการเอาข้อมูลที่สำคัญจากหน้าและ. Why do you remove most of the "Grand Chase" page? Summarizing key information about the characters and story of the game were removed, although they are important and not long and not complex. Stop deceiving by removed sensitive data from pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.228.132.61 (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reception section because the info was original research with no sources to back any of it up. As far as character lists go, those are mostly inappropriate per #6 of WP:GAMECRUFT. As for the story, the previous sections covering this have been way, way too detailed. Eik Corell (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With your reverts, there is no official public mentions that the latest public is not at all incompatible with the most recent source code version and may confuse many programmers that may decide to fork the github code. Can you propose a solution that stays within the rules? Currently you're making it as if there's only ever been one and a half versions of the game available where there is in fact, three different protocols which are incompatible with each other. It's like comparing Natural Selection 2 on the source engine and the spark engine. There is a debate over my changes due to a misunderstanding that you can read through on the grangerhub forums if you have the time to digest the information, as the history of Tremulous is rather confusing and could be expanded upon, despite the lack of resources to cite. ZdrytchX (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of info is discouraged per #10 of WP:GAMECRUFT, which ties into a larger concept - The average reader just looking for information would not be able to understand any of this. The rule for coverage of software updates like this is to cover it only as a brief summary if there's coverage from reliable, third-party sources. Even as it stands now, it shouldn't be included because the sources used are ones linking to the developer themselves with no indication of how or why said update is notable, and it will still be confusing to the average reader -- What is a public build? Why is the article mentioning this? Without any third-party sources to establish or clarify any of this, it shouldn't be included. Eik Corell (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: I think I mentioned that I needed a better source for one of the references saying that there isn't any good location where it says so specifically. In fact the only 'official' source that shows the protocol is different is the actual source code itself, and I believe linking to dynamic source code files is not allowed at wikipedia. At the time I grabbed something that was quite unsuiting which is partly arose confusion in the grangerhub forums (my bad on that part).

When I say public build, I refer to the latest qvm builds that were available on the official US/EU testing servers which are now no longer available (however it should be possible to obtain those qvm builds somewhere else such as mercenaries guild rehosting - which I believe are in these files). That latest public qvm build was released on the 8/8/2011. Note that the website download section does not include the latest public qvms. That was all protocol 70. Protocol 71 is what is available on github and people have attempted building their own client and qvms with that source code, only to find that the client is incompatible with the 'public' gpp version. You could say that currently tremulous is still somewhat in development and the latest version is a game on its own, seperate from the public builds, and becayse they haven't released anything since 2011, it is unknown if any plans exist to whatsoever to release any more client/qvm builds for the time being. But it is important that people should know that the GPP source code is not compatible with the versions listed at tremulous.net/files page.

Just to make it even more confusing, the title 'darklegion developement' is quite ambiguous. Since the project is open source, it probably has a few hundred individual users who assisted the official developement, and some of those users are still available today making more community modifications, including those who were participating in the grangerhub community confusion. ZdrytchX (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You removed essential information as "fancruft". Can you explain further the removal besides not trying to write like a game guide or something like that? --George Ho (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen your response about removing a list of characters. George Ho (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Looking back over the edits, I've re-implemented a shortened version of the "Combat System" section here. Eik Corell (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you then re-implement a concise or brief list of characters? George Ho (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete information about Warthunder update 26.10.2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbowindsor (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial info, and it wasn't very well written in regards to WP:TONE -- Read more like someone using the article to complain. Eik Corell (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at War Thunder shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. MPS1992 (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

here is the warthunder changelog for update 26.10.2016. The following quote is verbatim taken from Warthunder Changelog....

"Battles in Realistic and Simulator battles require better accuracy, aiming and precision. The players in these modes hardly ever hit their allies unintentionally. That’s why we decided to turn off friendly fire damage from guns, tank mounted rockets and missiles and MGs. Damage from friendly aircraft rockets, bombs and artillery is still possible."

Why do you insist on deleting this from the warthunder wikipedia page? It is an important aspect to the "simulator" mode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbowindsor (talk • contribs) 00:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit at Dead Sea: You seem like a careful, responsible editor. Why are you putting clear vandalism back in after it has been removed? Hertz1888 (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hertz1888: I don't remember making this edit at all. I might have accidentally hit the rollback button, but just in case, I've gone nuclear and changed my password and email. Eik Corell (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I hope you will henceforth remain unafflicted by whatever phantom may have been involved. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eik Corell, you name was mentioned in a discussion at the Helpdesk. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you're engaged in the beginnings of an edit war on Star Citizen. Whether you're right or wrong, I encourage you to hold off repeatedly undoing the other editor's works until a talk page discussion can occur (WP:BRD). Otherwise, you might end up breaching 3RR and be blocked from editing. I've encouraged the other editor involved to move it to the talk page. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely love the tilt on your user page - I wanted to ask you permission to utilize the tilt on my own page, would that be ok? Thanks, Garchy (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert all of your edits to Infinite Flight page. It was a definite improvement and was requested from the developers of the game. Thanks - Wren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren Jago (talk • contribs) 11:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, check the article talk page. I'm going to respond there. Eik Corell (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cmon man NASCAR rumble is the best racing game ever. No one reads it's Wikipedia page, the game is too old. Just let me have some fun. Kingboyd (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eik Corell, would you be kind enough to take a look at Talk:Syrian Democratic Forces#One user deleting much of the component groups from the article and consider yourself reverting the worst mistakes you made in your bulk deletion of SDF component groups in the Syrian Democratic Forces article? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why did you remove my info where I wrote when a battle has started to free the city and when ISIS has been driven off? This information is useful InfiniteGreen (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These Syria-related articles are especially prone to exaggerations of progress by one party or another and the info didn't have a source. Eik Corell (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the jurisdiction of this article. Find more sources of information. I could not.--Baba Mica (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eik Corell, shalom. Can you please tell me why a Russian military briefing on the current status of the Civil War in Syria is not a reliable source, in your view? Be well.Davidbena (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Northern Democratic Brigade.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 18:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply]

I have now raised the continuing inappropriate edits to this article at WP:ANI. [12] 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:D9F6:91AE:F279:43C5 (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not looking professional. Many words used that even never were said/used around the game. Pointing out unnecessary and kinda wrong things:

Gameplay The game features four gameplay modes, capture the flag (CTF), control points (CP), team deathmatch (TDM), and deathmatch (DM). These modes are available on almost all maps. The game features crystals as an in-game currency, which is obtained by destroying enemies and by completing objectives such as daily missions and daily mission chains, as a reward for ranking up or by winning in contests. These allow players to upgrade their tank when not in combat. Supply boxes will periodically fall into the battlefield during the course of a battle. The game also implements a rank system, which offers players access to new equipment for their tank, such as new armaments and armor for their tank, along with access to new levels.

If I was a visitor of the page in the current version, it wouldn't get me to play the game neither give me much (describable) information. Thank God we got our own Wiki. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.159.233 (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I would agree on forums not being reliable, but what I linked to was a post from a then-employee of Petroglyph Games, who was employed at Westwood Studios prior to that, Adam Isgreen. His Petroglyph forum tag was Ishmael, which is why people asked him related questions at the time.

As for MobyGames, there is quality control and requests for sources when submitting data there, especially now that Blue Flame Labs are the parent company.

P.S. Sorry about the profile edit, it was a genuine mistake as I thought I already clicked on the Talk page. Sheldonist (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But there's nothing in the article indicating that Israel is assisting either side. Exactly. That is why there is a separation line between Israel and the rebels in the infobox. The established template for inboxes that we have been using for years is - when there are two belligerents not fighting each-other and are instead clashing against the same (third) belligerent, but are still not allies or do not support each-other, then we place them in the same column but with a separation line dividing them. See examples Battle of al-Hasakah (2015) Northern Aleppo offensive (February 2016) Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) Palmyra offensive (2017). So I would ask that you please cancel your removal of Israel which has been heavily sourced to have conducted four rounds of air-strikes against the SAA during this offensive. Regards. EkoGraf (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Left same message (a bit expanded) on the article's talk page as well. EkoGraf (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eik, the previous version of the article is poorly structured and does not follow the game article guidelines because it fails to present the reception on the game's plot along with its characters. Also the information about the character Phillip White is also incorrect. An in depth article focusing strictly on the guideline would be made later this day. U1Quattro (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC) U1Quattro (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro my opinion, information about charasters from game we add in Fandom site, not in Wikipedia. I.G.I.cool (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

: Yes but the article has to be informative as well. We cannot hide the charcaters' history.U1Quattro (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

В инете я нашёл крупную базу инфы по IGI, это igi.wikia.com, кроме списков оружия, миссий, персонажей там я нахожу инфу которую никогда не встречал при прохождении игр, "творчество" самих участников этого сайта, но хомячки схавают, им безразлично правда там написана или нет, вот почему U1Quattro я против добавления такой информации в Википедию. I.G.I.cool (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The previous information was vague and not in conformity with the reading standards.U1Quattro (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think, you are give poor argument. I.G.I.cool (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Corell,

I am writing this message to you with regard to some edits of mine you reverted, mainly the ones that had to do with adding the voice actors for the characters in the plot summaries of certain games' articles. I only notice it now because I took a break from doing any edits on here for a few weeks. Now, I see that you provided no reason at all for doing these reverts. These edits clearly had nothing to do with vandalism. Now, you may think they're irrelevant to the games that I've edited their articles on (my educated guess), but I'm more worried about consistency between the articles. There are already games where their articles have voice actors listed for characters, and I've noticed a lot of them already. Sure, maybe the games are bigger, more story-focused, have famous celebrities in their casts. However, I am just trying to do the same for a lot of other games, regardless of their quality, attention to story, or if those voice actors are not well known (although some of them do have articles written about them, usually small).

If there's a reason you reverted a lot of my edits pertaining to the matter, I'd like to know. If there's guidelines that justify your actions, I'd like to see them. If you decided all that on your own that they were not needed, then please tell me. I am more than happy to take your word for it. If you don't want to undo what you've done to my edits, that's fine. I'll lay off those edits for the time being, since I got other ideas on how I can get the smaller articles (usually on lesser-known things) to be more consistent with the articles that are bigger and had more work put on it. That's just my way of finding my place on Wikipedia, much like how you've found your place as an anti-vandalism expert. Respond soon and have a good day.

3RDRANGER (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you reverted outdated information that was removed from Gaia on the Gaia article, you could have just edited it out...? felinoel (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I think maybe your recent edit to Mech Warrior Online misread the changes that I had made. You cited WP:YOU for reverting, but I had only changed the formatting on a section already violating that standard. If I've misunderstood please let me know, I'm a recent editor and always looking for feedback! Egdoth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No you're absolutely right. For some reason it looked like new paragraphs were added when it was just them being moved down. Eik Corell (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to discuss your edits on the Voyage Century Online page.

1. You removed all the links to a non English external sites, quoting WP:NONENGEL. This makes me believe that you didn't actually read the article. This game is being hosted by multiple different companies on multiple languages, so it completely makes sense to link their versions as they are basically different games, based on the same one. Its a single Chinese developer, renting the game to other companies which are then hosting their own versions, on their own languages which are slightly different than the original version. Because of that WP:NONENGEL does not apply here and providing the reader a link to those other versions is a completely legitimate thing to do.
2. You've deleted basically all of the information about expansions, including the information about different versions of this game, complaining they don't have reliable sourcing. This again makes me wonder if you checked the sources. They all lead to their own developer websites. There is no more reliable source than the developer itself. Many links are dead, but they have been replaced with the archived versions of those sites, so those are also perfectly legitimate sources.
3. I can also argue that the different sections explaining how PVE, PVP and other different systems work, are not excessive fictional details. In fact, they are as concise as possible, giving the reader an idea how they work. It doesn't go into much details as for example a guide would do. If a reader is reading this article he definitely needs to have an idea of how different systems interact within the game, otherwise the article itself doesn't make much sense. Granted, those particular sections lack some reliable sources, but instead of completely deleting them, you should have marked them as lacking sources.

DSofa (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First off, sorry for the long delay. I wiped All that info because the first half (using this revision as a reference) up until the "expansions" section didn't have any sources. The reason I cited WP:V despite there being sources from that point on in the article was because these were all mostly primary sources, which an article should not be based on as the guideline says, in addition to that, the entire criticism section is synthesis using self-published sources and unreliable sources(MMOhut youtube video). I removed the mention of other language versions because when the article already has notability issues, mentioning other versions without third-party coverage just adds more verifiability issues. The expansions section, apart from the verifiability issues I keep mentioning was problematic in that there was nothing to signify how or why they were notable, which reminded me of WP:GAMECRUFT's #10; exhaustive version histories. All that aside, I'm gonna have another look at the article and see what could reasonably be brought back. Eik Corell (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I don't quite understand this whole complaint about sources. Legitimate MMO reviewing sites were linked as sources to criticism (such as MMOhuts), along with actual player criticism on various forums (such as Steam and Gamespot). Granted, criticism should not be based on self-published sources like forums, but how can a review site give any meaningful insight into an MMO game after reviewing it for a couple of hours? The answer is, it cannot. In this case the best sources for criticism are players who played the game for years and know exactly whats wrong with the game and whats not. As you keep digging online, you keep seeing same complaints over and over again, on various different, independent 3rd party forums, and soon enough it becomes quite apparent that they are very much legit complaints shared among hundreds of ex players. So in this case, it completely maxes sense to provide a synthesis of those sources. Also, this game is 12 years old, no one does reviews for such old games anymore, so all the reviews are dated to when it was first published. Game changed so much in the past 12 years that those reviews are no longer relevant. So I don't see how can we improve this any further.

The info about other versions I personally gathered for months. There is not a single article online talking about them. So I can't really provide any source which synthesizes all of it. All I can do is provide links to the publishers of those other versions, upon which after you visit them, it becomes quite clear they actually are the same game. So there's nothing more to be done to improve that section from what I can see.

Expansion section was far away from having exhaustive version histories. The game went trough 11 major expansions. Some of them literally had one sentence noting the most important changes that were made, listing like 2 or 3 items (e.g.new instances, new equipment or historical cities). The game had hundreds of in-between small patches, some of which actually had major impact on the game, but they were left out of this section. So I don't see how is that exhaustive or how it fails to note important changes. In addition, they all had sources, the publishing company itself. Those were primary sources and it doesn't make much sense to look for secondary or tertiary sources because in the end they will again be self-published sources like the game forum.

Lets make it clear, I spent weeks, even months to research everything above and you just threw it all away in a single click. I am a little annoyed by that and by the fact that you keep pointing out guidelines, but what you did with editing that article does not follow good editing practice guideline. You should always improve rather than remove. It seems that you didn't even try to improve, you just removed everything, and now again you are casually saying "I'm gonna have another look" which in all honesty sounds like you are not going to give much effort. So how about we go a step back and you revert your changes. Then lets work out a way to improve the article so it keeps all of the relevant data, but at the same time follows the guidelines, instead of just deleting everything. So I would like to see you providing some concrete solutions to the problems I mentioned above.

Thanks.

DSofa (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eik, if you need help with work about articles Project I.G.I., i can help. Tak. I.G.I.cool (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Infinite flight page is outdated and need to be edited since Infinite flight now feature global flight, and a dozen of features with the introduction of Pro subscription originally call Live subscription as well as new aircraft: TBM 930, MD-11, DC-10, MD-11F, DC-11F, CRJ-200, CRJ 900 and CRJ-1000. I have a reliable source and also it’s very important Aces of the ace (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I realize it isn’t clear so I need help editing this page Aces of the ace (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Eik Corell,

You recently deleted complete sections of the article "Dangerous Waters" without providing any sufficient reasons. I am pretty new to Wikipedia but taking your long dispute history of content deletion into account I ask you to read the "before reverting" section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting and perhaps for a change try to contribute to Wikipedia for once by helping to fix flaws like providing sources before spending all the time deleting other individuals content and thus disprupting any effort of gaining knowledge.

If another unreasonable revert/delete should happen on that article without considering the rules provided by the Wikipedia help page I am sorry to tell you that I would inform a higher moderator about your actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.195.227.152 (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ^^

Quote "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines"

Yet you removed Portal 2: Wake Up from the Source Mod list. "18:29, 12 October 2018‎ Eik Corell (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,683 bytes) (-401)‎ . . (WP:VG/S -- Twinfinite is not a reliable source"

Could you explain that please?

– Jakob Bambu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.129.142.15 (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked WP:VG/S, which lists a lot of sources determined to be reliable, unreliable, etc, and found the source supporting the mention of the mod -- Twinfinite -- listed as unreliable, that's why I removed it. Eik Corell (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification, Eik. I've re-added it with a direct developer source as stated in the WP:VG/S under Official_information. I hope that's fine. Jakob Bambu (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new source is problematic in new ways though -- It's not listed on WP:VG/S, and it seems that you're affiliated with both the site and the subject mod, which is a conflict of interest. Lastly, it's a WP:PRIMARY source. Without the kind of reliable third-party sources listed on WP:VG/S, this is not enough exposure to list the mod. Eik Corell (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that edit from Tom Harry's Pro Shaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminkirsc (talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, accidentally used </ref></ref> instead of <ref></ref> when citing the source. Nice catch. Eik Corell (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

with your edit here. Since fixed. --Palosirkka (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think Dark Eden came out in 2002? it came out in the 90s. I personally as well as friends have played it in the 90s as well so you can't say it came out in 2002, that is false. I could easily find some earlier proof too if that is even needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.134.68 (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea. Both could be vandalism, or neither could be. It's hard to tell when there's no source presented for either number, and that's what vandals typically rely on when doing this kind of vandalism -- That it's hard to actually tell which is a user legitimately changing wrong information and a vandal putting in fake info. Right now the only release that has a source in the article seems to be the Thai one. Eik Corell (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if im replying wrong, but I understand why you may think that. I personally have proof of updated version of the game at least in 1999, I can probably find earlier if I look hard enough. in 2003 Softon released ousters as a new playable race, and Dark Eden was out for quite a while before they added the new race, definitely earlier than 2002. If need be I will do some researching and find the proof so it's not questioned any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.134.68 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the Star Trek Online page! Your profile design is also very awesome.

Syarolin (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eik Correl. You reverted what i wrote for tanki online. You said that wikis/user generated content is not a good source. Wikis are not a good source of citations. I agree. But the tanki wiki is made by the developers of tanki. Denkiden (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I noticed this I double-checked, so I re-instated the wiki source in this edit here. Eik Corell (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering what you got against the bios on the Hot Wheels: AcceleRacers page where your deletion made the page short again. Also, I would like to let you know that I had also added the external links that you also removed since the page never had them before. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My previous edits on that article have been in the context of MOS:PLOT -- While there is no plot section in the latest iteration of these additions, the limited notability of these movies (being direct-to-dvd) combined with the fact that plot arguably plays a somewhat smaller role than traditional titles I feel combines into a reason to also keep character listings out to avoid straying into listing information just for the sake information. Eik Corell (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The site works. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked again and you're right. For some reason it didn't work for me on the first try. I've changed it back now. Eik Corell (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a new editor so I was expecting my edits to be removed pretty quickly. Would you mind helping me understand what I'm missing? I want to put the edits back in there for this book as it's not well known. I also created an entire article for the book which I'm assuming you removed too. What am I missing? Sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawnstarts (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. The problem with the edits on the Twisted Metal 2 article is three-fold: First, there were no sources presented, that's what the guideline WP:V refers to -- that sources are needed for all information added to articles. Second is that the article linked in the edits is a draft -- Draft articles, articles in users' sandboxes on their own profiles, etc, cannot be woven into existing articles as they do not constitute an accepted article themself, at least yet. Lastly, the edits on the draft page were not mine, those were by a bot that removed them due to copyright violations - Wikipedia is very, very strict on copyright issues. For images of commercial works to be usable, they must be scaled down and/or reduced in quality so that Wikipedia cannot be accused of simply uploading as-is visual art that is actually copyrighted, and there must be an adequate reason for using an image, for example to illustrate the subject. It seems that on the draft article, you uploaded the comic in its entirety with no such rationale, that is a big no-no. Wikipedia has to make a vigorous effort to seek out and delete such content, lest it lose its protections from lawsuits that the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA affords it as a content host. The comic could still be mentioned in a limited way if there are some reliable sources that have mentioned it, for example notable, established comic sites. If such exist, it could probably warrant a brief mention somewhere in the article. Eik Corell (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	BOI, i think your page got vandalized NamelessLameless (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SourceForts

Yo man, you are updating a page I'm currently updating with new information. I am a in the credits of the game, check on ModDB for the original link with current information. You'e deleted a bunch of text and are sourcing old articles while you can just play the game now given its F2P and see that you're in the wrong...