User talk:Eik Corell



Dominic Santiago
Hey there! What do you think about this article about Dom? It's being nominated for deletion. The Optimistic One (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia revert rules, warning
Is this an edit war over Söldner: Secret Wars? You have the cite for the official website of the game and you will not recognize that as sufficient proof the site is down? You have exceeded the maximum reverts and now need to seek some consensus and get some others with you before you continue. You can read these to learn more about this topic. Edit_warring Reverting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.1.239 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice
As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Heroes of Might and Magic III
Hi, you recently reverted a change that I made, stating as a reason "Not notable unless covered by a reliable third-party source". I started a discussion whether the section I added should be part of the page. You may want to participate. If there is no opposition to my suggestion there, I'm planning to make the changes. -- Martinkunev (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please explain GPL reversion.
Please explain which guidelines you feel were violated to cause your reversion 02:40, 28 February 2020 ("Reducing gameplay section to essentials, avoiding WP:GAMECRUFT") of Grand Prix Legends. BMJ-pdx (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the bullet points per #7 of WP:GAMECRUFT. The last paragraph I tried to get something useful out, but that proved difficult given that I don't know what the start refers to, i.e "full race event". If this could be simplified, there's probably something there that could be re-added added to the gameplay section. Eik Corell (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * With the possible (but dubious) exception of the length of a typical race, the items you removed do not conform to the examples given of proscribed items. GPL is a racing simulator (did you understand that?) and the items I listed were included to give an idea of the degree of realism of its simulation, which is important to a simulator.  Bear in mind that the Manual of Style/Video games is oriented mainly toward games, not simulators, as can be garnered from the 'Genre' section.
 * "Full race event" was explained in wording you removed. It is not jargon.  If you did not understand that ("A full race event consists of ...") then I submit that you are not qualified to have made the reversion.
 * I don't want this to turn into an edit war, but you seem to have made quite broad removals based on generalities. Unless you can be more specific about the items removed, I am going to undo this reversion.
 * BMJ-pdx (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right that some of the stuff didn't conform to it, like players being able to compete against the AI, or against human opponents in multiplayer, which is why I took some of it and reduced it to prose. The WP:GAMECRUFT concern covered both specific details but also the general presentation: Some of the things listed in the bullet point version either are gamecruft or approach it simply by being listed in this kind of format. For example, listing the points of view. There may be value in saying that the player can change their point of view to external views of the car and including one or two examples, but when you list each available point of view, that's where my #7 of WP:GAMECRUFT concern comes into play -- The listing of gameplay concepts without broader explanation, and the same goes with the levels of car performance. A little example from that part would be "brake balance" or a "camber" -- The average reader will have little to no idea what these are and would be better served being told that various aspects of the car can be customized, such as breaks or the tire pressure. So basically, more of the general idea of the bullet points lists could be added to the prose section, but without the excessive detail that, again, to the average reader, is incomprehensible. In regards to the full race stuff -- Is this separate from the competing against the AI? That's the part that's lacking; It's described what a full race is, but is this something that the player can choose like a separate game mode? And even then, it's not very understandable to the reader. For example: "Race length is the same as the real event, typically about two hours." What is the real event? All of this leaves a lot for the reader to ponder. This last thing leaves me to the VG thing you mention; The simulator vs game distinction is a bit tenuous because the subject deals with a video game, the sources reflect that it's a video game, i.e the sources it cites: Gamespot, print gaming magazines, and the format of the article adhering to WP:VG by using the "Gameplay", "Development", "Reception" sections for describing content. I don't think you can get around it being a video game, however realistic it may be. Regardless, I'm going to try to add as mentioned the more general cliffnotes of some of the stuff I removed back to the gameplay section. Eik Corell (talk) 12:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

DCS Modules table
Are you a DCS player? The modules table is insanely useful for considering whether one of my favorite aircraft is available to purchase. I can't believe you deleted it. Nelsonblaha (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Jazz Jackrabbit
you tell me to search for a source, but i cannot pinpoint a single link. if you look at comments of multiple videos, websites, etc. you will see most people praise it's soundtrack, so maybe can you just add as a source to "Search in google" or that many people say on the internet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriDeadMort (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Google, twitter, or forums in general are not appropriate because mostly, the posts there are just posts by random people, and Google itself is just a directory. Twitter and forums specifically fall under self-published sources. People supposedly liking a soundtrack by itself is not notable. Instead, what makes it or anything else notable would be coverage by reliable, third-party sources, for example the Mass Effect 2 soundtrack - Notice how most of the sources they use are listed on Wikipedia as established/reliable experts within the field, for example IGN, Gamasutra, Venturebeat, etc. Long story short, in this case, unless established gaming outlets or music websites have covered it, mentioning the soundtrack is not really appropriate. Eik Corell (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

World of Warships
Hi! Could we please discuss the merits of the "reliability" of the provided sources? Yes, they aren't third-party, but it's a big game company and such announcements as the release dates, gameplay detail and naming could be trusted IMO. Zxmerlin (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the main problem is that most of the sources are from the developers themselves. This was already the case with the article, but this added a lot more. The charity part was very well sourced. Since the information related more to the company and didn't really fit within the article, meaning that it's not typical for games articles to have sections on charity of the developers, even if it's related to the game, unless it receives a lot of coverage, so I moved it to the the Wargaming article. There are other problems with the additions, too. Mentioning that the game features different kinds of ships is fine, but excessive detail like mentioning all the classes of ships, explaining how much armor the different kinds of ships have, which one is the fastest, etc is gamecruft and mostly game-guide material, this doesn't help the article, specifically in this case, the average reader does not need to know ship type A has about equal firepower as ship type B, and so on. Going back to sources, the player number that I kept with the RBC.ru source is also a problematic because ideally, the source that would be best in covering this would be again the ones listed as reliable on WP:VG/S. About the the awards addition to the reception section, I removed those I couldn't find in WP:VG/S, so videogamegeek was removed, but I left Igromir for example and the BAFTA one. The easiest way to improve the article would be to look for articles about the game from sources listed as reliable on WP:VG/S and rewrite the article that way. Eik Corell (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, now it's more clear. I just translated the Russian Wikipedia article which seemed more detailed, thought it would make a nice addition. Sorry I reverted your last edit (it broke some table formatting and you said you are moving "Charity" to Lesta which is not right since the developers don't do such charity, the publishers do (Wargaming). Also, I believe the "Collaborations" section is valuable since it adds a connection to other media and franchises/brands. But I won't mess with your edits again now that you made it described it to me. Zxmerlin (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Mu Online
why would you revert my edit in the mu online page! global mu left his server there and you deleted mine! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:8E03:3D00:90D4:5E60:EA1B:424 (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The rule of thumb is that private servers/community sites are not appropriate for mention per WP:VG/EL. Instead, the external is usually reserved for official links. Eik Corell (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Something went squirrelly
Hi Eik, in this edit, you stripped out the emojis in several editors' signatures. Do you have something installed in your browser that does that? I've fixed this instance, but it bears looking into. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for informing me, it was a misconfigured addon that wasn't supposed to be active when on wikipedia.org. Eik Corell (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I figured it was something like that. I remember when the add-on to change "Trump" to "Drumpf" when reading web pages was installed by dozens of editors, who then innocently edited the Donald Trump page.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

MADDEN mobile, and real racing 3
This user removed interesting and informative and helpful information from pages that I love Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please revert these edits😑😤 Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the majority of what I removed was lists of cars, locations, and players. This was all per per #7 of WP:GAMECRUFT -- "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts: Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels (including lists of stadia/sport venues), character moves, character weight classes, unlockable characters, vehicles, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.". There was also a list of updates, which was inappropriate per #10 -- "A list of every version/beta/patch is inappropriate. Consider a summary of development instead.". The rest of the stuff I removed and rewrote, the "players" section in the madden nfl mobile article for instance, was written very poorly and way too detailed - That's what the WP:YOU thing I linked refers to; Text that addresses the reader directly with things like "you can do this", "your team", etc is not appropriate. At the same time, I tried to reduce what was there because it was already way too detailed. A bigger overall problem with all of these things is almost none of it was sourced. There was one source on the Real Racing 3 article: An article from The Australian, but this only covered one track present in the game, and all in all, without more sources that cover more than just one track, that really doesn't work too well. Eik Corell (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Still some things might need to be added because they have a lot of gaps in some places. And some of that stuff was okay for that page. Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The Hidden
Hey, what's the problem with what I've written? I understand if it isn't useful. Thanks :) Andrew012p (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with this kind of information is that it's only useful to players of the game. To the average reader for example, instructions on how to use the console to change frame rates, tic rates, or taking it slightly further than the info that was added -- which keys do what, what tactics players can use, etc is simply not relevant to their overall understanding of the subject, hence the WP:GAMEGUIDE link I left, which is a Wikipedia policy that says that Wikipedia should strive not to be, among other things, a game guide/instruction manual for the subject. Other than that, the information about how many players are left is not notable unless covered by a reliable third-party source. I re-added the information about how the hidden is chosen, but reworded it slightly. Eik Corell (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Clean up edits
Thank you for helping clean up the Bob the builder character page. There are a few things I wanted to bring to your attention. First the characters from the 2015 series should be in its own page and not on the list about the Bob The Builder characters as those characters are part of a reboot and are totally different than the original series. Another thing is some of the characters like Mr. Bentley, bird, pilchard and the other minor characters played an important role in the show, so therefore should not be deleted. Most of the Human characters playing important role in the show. The voice actors I can see being deleted however you’re only deleting half sentences and not the whole thing. The final factor is that some of the machines only appear every so often and you’re labeling them incorrectly. Mr. Smilie (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem is that there are no sources for any of this. Optimally, if a character was notable like you say, sources would support it. And some sources do; looking back, this version of the article cited sources for the bentley character you mention. Those sources are located here now, so adding those would be a good start, as well as keeping the minor characters out simply by virtue of them actually being listed as such; Either they're minor or they're not minor, and if they are peripheral characters that just appear in one or two episodes, as opposed to the ones listed as recurring, listing them just adds bloat to the article. Eik Corell (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * has been blocked as a sockpuppet. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Dansk tilbagetrækning fra EU
Can you support this Danish page, because after some time it will be deleted "Maskinoversættelse og/eller tvivlsomt indhold" and "Denne side virker ikke som en encyklopædisk artikel" on this page https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansk_tilbagetr%C3%A6kning_fra_EU ? Wname1 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020
Hi there, thanks for notifying me about GAMECRUFT #7 on the MFS2020 article. I feel like there could be an importance to add info about the exclusive planes and airports included though. I am thinking on giving the list of exclusive planes and airports in prose as I view it as concise. What do you think?  Gerald WL ✉  12:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By exclusives you mean the airports and planes that are only available in the Deluxe and Premium version right? As long as both are not presented as a complete list simply converted to prose, instead citing a limited number of each, maybe along the lines of "The deluxe and premium versions feature dozens of exclusive airports such as X, Y and Z, and aircraft such as the XZ, YZ and XZ." this is just an example of course, but that's the way I would approach it. Though a third-party source would be best, the prose version could cite the source already being used -- [The flightsimulator.com article], and I would assume that some sources have covered the locations and airports as well, but for now, at least to start with, the source above would be fine for a prose version. Eik Corell (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

FlyingsCool (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't say I like the idea of removing the lists of aircraft and airports. The chart that was in the Wiki was the most concise I could find anywhere, and it is very important to users who are considering purchasing the game and want to understand which version to buy. Not to mention the links to pictures of the planes were also very helpful in understanding what's in the game. I also disagree with "sort of" listing the planes in text. I find that very confusing, and for someone who doesn't know the planes, useless. That, too me, falls under the first section of #7

I have not found any other sources that listed this very important information as concisely as had been done here. All the ones I've found are too long winded and unreadable.

I think providing a link to a sub-wiki that lists the planes and airports as they were would be helpful if they can't be put back in. But, overall, these two charts were very important to me and I think critical in understanding what you're purchasing and what's there. To me, this falls directly under "Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. " - FlyingsCool (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)FlyingsCool - Tom Perry
 * , I would love to be that way, but sadly Wikipedia is not a howto guide.  Gerald WL ✉  01:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover
Hi Eik Corell. The main references you wanted are the following: In any case, after you intervened in the article, my understanding is that no lists of aircraft should be visible on the article dealing with the video game. BUT... I could create, and I think this should be fine, I could create a list article especially intended to show those lists (the following is an example of such kind of list: List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters). Just tell me what you think about the above. Kind regards. Kintaro (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For this, an official reference (in the Steam video game platform) mentionning the re-release : https://store.steampowered.com/app/754530/IL2_Sturmovik_Cliffs_of_Dover_Blitz_Edition/
 * For this, a reference mentionning the lists of available aircraft in the Dover series: http://www.aereperennius.com/cliffsofdover/blitz-tobruk-planeset/blitz-tobruk-planeset.html
 * For the steam reference, this doesn't support the old version being dead, just that the Blitz version exists. Regardless of whether it is or not, without a source to show how or why it's notable, it's really not all that important to mention inactivity on the old version. However, about the upgrade being free, I checked this source and it mentions the new title being added to users' libraries, so I'll add that back just somewhere else than the gameplay section. As for the list of aircraft, the problem with the list is not lack of sourcing but rather #7 of WP:GAMECRUFT -- Exhaustive lists of maps, characters, or as the case is here: airplanes are generally not appropriate. This would probably not work as a separate list either, because lists like this, long and exhaustive or even short ones are supposed to be based on sources. The character list article you mentioned, for the most part, has reliable and established sources covering their inclusion in the game; Gamespy, IGN, etc, whereas the source you cite for the planes seems to just be a complete listing hosted on a personal website, the kind one would find in a game guide of sorts. Eik Corell (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is ok, Eik. I brought a few words on content, with sources, but not exhaustive. Regards. Kintaro (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Digital Combat Simulator
Hello, you made a few pretty major changes in the article a while back, removing the list of modules citing WP:GAMECRUFT, but since then an IP user has added a pretty lame version back. Would it be appropriate to remove it again? It is quite cluttered and really I doubt anyone cares.  HarryKernow  (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I've gone gone ahead and removed it as the problems remain: Information like this, without reliable third-party sources to show how or why it's important is not appropriate and runs right into gamecruft but also WP:NOTCATALOG. Eik Corell (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I care. I loved that chart and the information is too much to keep track of personally. It makes a lot of sense for the way DCS is played; it's not really a game by itself so much as an environment for these modules to be played in. Please restore it and stop removing it. Nelsonblaha (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The old revision still exists, you can view it here. However, the information is not appropriate for inclusion per #7 of WP:GAMECRUFT, and WP:NOTCATALOG more broadly. Basically, this list dwarfed the entire article which was already not in the best shape, and the sources were all first-party ones; I.e linking to the people that made the module instead of independent reviews, for example the ones used in the reception section like SimHQ, IGN and so on. The detail likewise was extreme and unneeded for an encyclopedic article, for example the number of player-controllable ground vehicles versus NPC-only ones; The target audience is the general reader who has no use for such hyper-specific information, not people looking for in-depth guides on such details. Rather, this information is more suitable for a fansite or Wiki. If you want to transfer the list, it's just a matter of copy-pasting from here. Eik Corell (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with your interpretation of WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts) and WP:NOTCATALOG. The lists were not a collection of game items but of modules that take years to develop by different editors and that are games in themselves. DCS is a modular simulator and the modules are the actual product, not just simple add-ons. Furthermore, it is appropriate to quote the persons who made the modules regarding the release date of modules. Contrary to your statement, those quotes had nothing to do with the review of the modules. Exercising one's judgement in applying wikipedia guidelines requires one to understand the value of the specific information in its context. Had you paid sufficient attention before assessing most of the content in the article is inappropriate, you would also have noticed that contrary to your claims there is no list of player controlled and player non controlled ground units. Moreover, DCS World targets simmers who want to experience certain eras in the history of air warfare. Therefore, it is appropriate to provide detailed information regarding the type, role and year when the simulated aircrafts were released and inducted. I regret the removal of content that is relevant without any regard for context. If the article is in bad shape as you suggest, then why don't you contribute or give advice on how to improve it? Also, if the reviews section is one-sided, as you suggest too (though it has been noted the sim is very demanding, obscenely obsessed with detail and not for everyone) why did you remove the content you find not suitable instead of providing advice or highlighting the content might not be balanced? I respectfully ask that you restore the content you removed and provide the  other editors with clues on how to improve it, the reader with warnings as to where it is lacking and, if you like, to contribute to the content too. Leviathan6677 (talk15:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As big a part as modules may be, the central criteria regarding whether information is included or not is whether independent sources that have covered it. Obviously a developer source is fine for information about the module itself, e.g for release dates and major details, but this is provided that it has met the criteria of said third-party sourcing. When we bypass this central part and instead list each and every finished, in development, and in early access product available, that's when we get into the advert part. I have actually been working on the article, rewriting, adding basic stuff like a reception section, a gameplay section, rewriting the lead of the article, etc, trying to do so using sources, even if it's developer ones. Kotaku for example has several including this one. While that one is very limited and not really useful, many others exist. As far as the reception section goes, there are more reviews out there such as, and that site has more. Another one of the Combined Arms part here. Straying away from the subject of sources, there's here's no real problem with listing specific airplanes or units in a limited and concise way, and I tried to do this in the current iteration of the gameplay section, i.e mentioning modern jets and helicopters and listing a few examples. There is absolutely room for expansion and improvement, for example merging the info in the setting section to the gameplay section, given that the game has no set "setting" as such, but many potential ones both story-wise and physically. Likewise, the availability of different airodynamic models, as well as information on the role of buttons and controls in the cockpit, etc. In other words, the gameplay section is indeed basic, but before, there was none, and certainly not one using sources. Also lastly, I did indeed get another list confused with this one, so you're right that there are no mentions of player-controlled/NPC. Eik Corell (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your point but I completely disagree. The core information such as the aircraft's name, its variant and its role are sourced. "The detail likewise was extreme and unneeded for an encyclopedic article", This ignores the very definition of an encyclopedia which is to provide comprehensive information, I can't fully understand the push towards wanting less information on this page especially when it is the most useful thing in the entire page. The core of DCS is its extremely detailed modules, the amount of information that was on there was fantastic, in my view, this is an extreme downgrade due to everything being dumbed down and core information being removed. Even the section mentioning upcoming Vulkan API integration has been removed. MrScottah (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a guideline that deals specifically with information for the sake of information: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The point it makes is that information should not be included simply because it's true or even verifiable, i.e has a source supporting it. That guideline, oddly enough, addresses the update part directly as well, and is also referenced in more video-game-centric guidelines such as #10 of WP:GAMECRUFT on exhaustive version updates. The development section still has this problem by the way; It's a version-by-version listing, using only primary/developer sources. I've tried to keep from pruning that or rewriting that in case proper sources exist for the info there. Eik Corell (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Armenia/Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions
Cabayi (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender – Into the Inferno
Sometimes I take a look at what other editors in the same IP range as me have been doing and I noticed that Avatar: The Last Airbender – Into the Inferno was in need of some improvement. Please note that I am a different editor from the person you recently reverted. I invite you to review my edits. Also I'm wondering where that Metacritic PlayStation 2 score could possibly have come from. -- 109.76.198.1 (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Cancelled Platforms User
Hi Eik. I just want to let you know that you should be OK to report the Cancelled Platforms to AIV user whenever they pop up with a new IP. I've seen you typically are very quick at reverting them as well, so thank you for that; it's much appreciated! If you're ever unsure on reporting them, just check their IP geolocation to see if it's in Ireland and that should be enough considering how blatant their edits usually are. (Apologizes if this is patronizing—I'm not sure how familiar you are with AIV, despite you being a much more experienced editor than I am.) Perryprog (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If only it were that easy... many of the recent IP addresses doing this show as U.S-based, for example 63.152.23.177 and 71.71.121.100. They're often single use, and my experience is that banning them is counter-productive because there are so many, but also, sometimes when left unbanned, they will continue activity which will lead to me being able to discover other IPs they use. Eik Corell (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , ah I'm sorry, I was mistaken. I was specifically referring to, as I had thought you reverted a few of their edits. I must have been looking at the contribs of another IP when I spotted you in there. I think it's worth mentioning though that often times (such as in the case of the Cancelled Platforms user) the user is using either cellular service (or any mobile IP), and the IP will just vary over whatever block the ISP has registered (you can see this on the WHOIS report as well), so any IP changes are out of the control of the user. Anyway—your point still stands, and you absolutely have more experience and expertise in this area than I do, although I personally think if an IP is being particularly persistent, it's worth reporting to AIV (as long as it's a documented LTA of course—otherwise they need to be warned). Perryprog (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Acceleracers
I spent a lot of time adding the cast section to the article. I thing that information is extremely important. I think you should undo your edit that removes it.Nosecone33 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've looked it over again and I've come up with a cut down version featuring what seems to be the main characters, listing one from each faction. Eik Corell (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Lalla Fatma N'Soumer:
You're right about the lack of sources, however this is common in articles translated from French and basically all articles on pre-modern history. I moved this text here from the article about the rebellion, where it was definitely WP:UNDUE.

I plan, unless you strenously object, to put this on the talk page as requiring work. There actually are people starting to work on Algerian history now and one of them will possibly know the ancient saga this story is probably from. At that point someone can improve the reference format and take a stand at improving the tone. But it does provide information that likely *can* be sourced. There's plenty more of this in French medieval history if you are looking for work, but it's a bit arbitrary to just delete actual information in just one article IMHO, and I'm requesting that in future you take reference issues you may have about any given articles to the talk page in future; constructive criticism is great. Elinruby (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion
Hello, Eik Corell,

Just a reminder that any time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/TFD/CFD/etc.), you should post a notice on the talk page of the page creator to inform them. Sometimes, there are steps they can take to eliminate the problem with the page. I recommend using Twinkle because, once you set up your Preferences, the program will automatically post this notification for you, whenever you tag a page. This really speeds things up and makes things easy. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Having your talk page askew really makes it difficult to read but I'm sure I'm not the first person to tell you this. Liz Read! Talk! 00:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Vaush for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vaush is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Vaush until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Deku link (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

T4C (The 4th Coming)
I understand you are just trying to remove vandalism but nobody will help improve this page, its disgusting and finding non-wiki sources for this game is impossible while still having a nice page, so please.. help me, T4C deserves better than this crap, I have personally talked to Erik Ashley and Francis Lahaie and you dont have to tell me that; that isn't a source and not reliable.. i already know. you will not find anything great about this game to write home about and yet the fans of this game have to see a dead article. How can we show good information on a games history if all the good history is from old BBS forums that dont exist anymore and are not on wayback machine. so i ask again, instead of deleting please help find a solution. Matthew Smith (talk)

AfC for Vaush
I recently created a draft for an article on Vaush. However, upon seeing that an article on him was recently deleted at Articles for deletion/Vaush, I decided to put the article through the AfC process instead of moving it straight to mainspace. If you have any comments feel free to discuss the draft page at its talk page Draft talk:Vaush. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Please Do Not Mass-Undo Edits
I was trying to make the List of Samurai Jack Episodes summaries more consistent in length with those of Season 5. Other TV series episodes list in this encyclopedia get more than one or two sentences per episode. Why should this be the exception? 67.169.3.238 (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Drawing from the this diff, the problem is two-fold: The info added changes what are supposed to be concise summaries into event-by-event re-tellings. In one instance, mention is added that a bridge is located in a region resembling the American South, and that a man is not just robust, but also aggressive. Neither of these are important to understanding the plot, instead they're just information for the sake of information. Another example is this added info: "The children are not easily convinced by these stories, as they call out Aku for his inaccurate and often contradictory portrayals of himself and Jack. Aku leaves in frustration and failure while the children make up their own story about Jack heroically killing him.". This info is just needless retelling of what the immediately preceding text already stated in much better brevity: "Seeking to weaken Jack's popularity among his subjects, Aku gathers the children of the world in his palace and tells them a series of "fairy tales", all of which portray himself as a hero and Jack as the villain.". When added after this first part, the text is now repeating itself, only this part sticks out like a sore thumb as the first part is a summary, and the latter a re-telling of events in the episode. Length should not be the goal here, either, since quality is what matters, and that lacking in these additions. In other words, all this new information is just not an improvement, but rather a lot of unneeded detail and re-telling. Eik Corell (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Albatross cx --> Korolupy
Please, remane page Albatross cx to Korolupy who was the origin name. See the history of the page. See also cs:Korolupy and other languages. Thanks. Petr Tomasovsky (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've already made an entry on WP:ANI about the issue here. They should be able to fix it. Eik Corell (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Command: Modern Air Naval Operations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DLC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Have you got any problems or personal issues with Flight Sims enthusiasts contributing to Wikipedia?
I see that you spend a lot of time reverting and so destroying additions which are respectful and useful... what is your aim, to discourage valid contributions from other users? I thought Wikipedia was intended as open to voluntary contributions and that no one should be allowed to vandalize proper work made by others.Corrado72 (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, the contributions of yours that I removed here and here had the problem of adding new information without a source. This becomes more problematic because the info added mention of certain titles or companies being especially notable -- Anyone can make such claims, that's why reliable third-party sources should be used for such claims. That's for the first article. On the F-22 article, the problem is pretty much the same - Mentioning that something is interesting or was innovative for the time can be, in lieu of sources supporting such claims, completely subjective and/or just untrue. Or it could be true, but the ones to make such judgments has to be those reliable sources I mentioned, not ourselves. Eik Corell (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)