User talk:Eik Corell/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Zombie Panic! Source
Hi. To request article protection, create an entry at WP:RPP, although it's probably also a good idea to try to start a dialogue on the article's talk page, to see what this anonymous person is trying to achieve by adding the information you contest.

As to your second question, there is a WikiProject dedicated to improving the quality of video game articles. It's located here: WikiProject Video games. There appears to be a lot of members involved in the project, as indicated in Category:WikiProject Video games members.

I hope this information is helpful! ... disco spinster   talk  21:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Zombie Panic! Source page
I could have added the article to my watchlist but I'm not sure if its vandalism or not..I try to stay away from content disputes, specially when I have no idea about the subject of the article. -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 02:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look like he has stopped. I'll watch the article and if he tries to add it again I'll ask him to provide sources. Per his edit summary, its original research. -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 06:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Article
Okay, sorry for the mistake. Letsdrinktea (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

SourceForts
I appreciate the need to be bold, but before large content removals please discuss your intent on the talk page. It would also have been a good idea, even if not discussing beforehand, to do so when someone reverted your edit, not to just revert them too. That could quickly lead to an edit war and 3RR violation. I'll leave your edit as it stands for a few days, to give you time to justify it on the talk page. Please also try to remember to use descriptive edit summaries. Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dystopia article changes
I appreciate that you wish to contribute to this article but i did request in the articles discussion page that we discuss the areas of the article you dislike and wish to change. All i ask is that before you make what i see as a big change in the article that you first post what you plan to do in the articles discussion page and give me time to respond before you do it. Thanks. --KindredPhantom (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

ZombieMod: Source
Regarding your comments on this page, the mod has already been released, so what I posted is in no way speculation. Please restore what was up there yourself or have someone do it for you. --Madkowa (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I assumed it wasn't with the very ambiguous "up-and-coming". However, I don't believe there's much point in restoring it. The primary content of the article was lifted from the MODDB entry. The stuff that wasn't, was in no way fit for Wikipedia. For the time, I think it's best to keep it a stub, pending the decision on whether it's deleted or not. It really doesn't seem notable in my opinion. To undo edits, check the "history" tab, from there you can undo, review, and compare edits. Eik Corell (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia page for the mod seems to be a word for word copy of it's page from the Valve Developer Wiki. --KindredPhantom (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hi Eik, I'd be glad to look through your contributions! A quick glance at your recent edits show removal of extraneous information in accordance with WP:VG/GL guidelines, which is fine. I'll go through with a fine comb later and see if I can provide you with some feedback tomorrow. Marasmusine (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eik, as I mentioned above, your recent edits are in accordance with WP:VG/GL and WP:OR. These cuts, often extensive, are thankless taska and can cause some upsets with the original contributors. My advice is to always link to the VG/GL in the edit summary, and to have the utmost civility where challenged (really, the worst I've seen you utter is accusing someone of making a mess or calling content "crap" : I'm sure I've done both of these in the past.) When cleaning up, and you come across a reference which is a bare url, convert it to Template:cite web. The only required fields are "url" and "title", so it only takes two ticks if you are only doing a quick cleanup (or fill in all the fields where possible) I'm a bit pressed for time, so let me know if there's anything in specific you'd like me to look at. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You guys might want to weigh in over at Talk:Battlezone_II:_Combat_Commander as well. Eik's removal of the unofficial patch listing (which I agree with), started up a conflict there again with some fan/community site people (scroll earlier up the page to see the earlier dealings with them). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars Battlefront
Hello why did you edit star wars battlefront page recently? it was good what i put in.

New reply: well i dont care stop changing it

Newer reply: I apologise i am new to wiki and did not know you were not meant to put certain content into articles i have now read the 5 pillars and am now improving the star wars battlefront article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laptop65 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 01:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Earthsiege 2
I appreciate your clean up of my overly lengthy articles covering the Earthsiege universe games (Earthsiege, Earthsiege 2, Starsiege). I wrote those articles after I first joined Wikipedia, and I was young and naive then and thought I could write as much as I wanted. I think your changes are for the best, but I noticed you changed the Cyberstorm 2: Corporate Wars link, which is the exact article title and therefore a direct link, to Cyberstorm 2 which was not even a redirect. I have fixed the link and am about to create a redirect, but please just be careful about that in the future. Anyway, thanks for your work in improving the articles! Some guy (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR on Tribes 2
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.  APK  coffee talk  11:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eik, I've briefly protected the Tribes 2 article (6 hours) due to the edit warring. Yes, please be careful about constant reverting. If your edit is reverted, it's best to leave your rationale on the talk page and come back to it another time. Marasmusine (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, when looking at sections about weapons, etc, it is possible to create a briefer overview (perhaps citing comments made by reviewers) rather than completely removing all the information. For example, with, the information can be tightened up a bit but is otherwise okay; there's no original research as such. I hope this helps, Marasmusine (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit comments
Hi Eik, I see you are continuing to perform VGSCOPE cleanups... we even bumped into each other at the Synth (video game) article. I'd just like to ask you to be careful with your edit comments (such as ). Also, where the removal of material is contested, have a go at introducing some alternate, referenced material instead, as this may avoid some of the incessant reverting that is occuring (always assuming good faith...) Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability Guidelines on Unreal Tournament Soundtracks
Hello, I'm new at Wikipedia and I wanted to ask you why my article Unreal Tournament soundtracks does not meet the notability guidelines. There isn't an official data source for that information, since Epic Games, Digital Extremes and the other developer companies never said anything. The only places where you can find that information is on the composer's own websites, some references over the unofficial UT forums and websites (referenced from the official ones). Thanks. Pizte (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

DragonFable
Hi, I noticed you did quite a large edit to the DragonFable article the other day. While most of your edits I thought were great and long-needed, I did have questions about two decisions. First, why was the information about Dragon Amulets removed? They're an integral part of the game and are at least as important as DragonCoins- probably more so, because they unlock more of the game. I added the section back in, which I hope you understand.

The second thing was about the Critical Feedback section. I can understand that this section was getting messy and needed severe editing, but why did you delete it completely? If you think it needs to be rewritten, don't delete it and replace it with an expansion tag! Either rewrite it yourself or put a note on the talk page, but simply deleting broad swathes of a page isn't really going to make the section better. I restored this section as well, but I hope you can clear up my confusion on these two points. Thank you! --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 04:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

CodeRED: Alien Arena
Heya Eik, I'd just leave the "game engine" section for now, doesn't seem too bad. I think my main interest here is checking the neutrality of Alienrace's edits and the reliability of the sources he's cited. I'm going to go through the Critical reception section. Marasmusine (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Zombie Panic! Source
Hi. To request article protection, create an entry at WP:RPP, although it's probably also a good idea to try to start a dialogue on the article's talk page, to see what this anonymous person is trying to achieve by adding the information you contest.

As to your second question, there is a WikiProject dedicated to improving the quality of video game articles. It's located here: WikiProject Video games. There appears to be a lot of members involved in the project, as indicated in Category:WikiProject Video games members.

I hope this information is helpful! ... disco spinster   talk  21:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Zombie Panic! Source page
I could have added the article to my watchlist but I'm not sure if its vandalism or not..I try to stay away from content disputes, specially when I have no idea about the subject of the article. -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 02:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look like he has stopped. I'll watch the article and if he tries to add it again I'll ask him to provide sources. Per his edit summary, its original research. -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 06:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Article
Okay, sorry for the mistake. Letsdrinktea (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

SourceForts
I appreciate the need to be bold, but before large content removals please discuss your intent on the talk page. It would also have been a good idea, even if not discussing beforehand, to do so when someone reverted your edit, not to just revert them too. That could quickly lead to an edit war and 3RR violation. I'll leave your edit as it stands for a few days, to give you time to justify it on the talk page. Please also try to remember to use descriptive edit summaries. Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dystopia article changes
I appreciate that you wish to contribute to this article but i did request in the articles discussion page that we discuss the areas of the article you dislike and wish to change. All i ask is that before you make what i see as a big change in the article that you first post what you plan to do in the articles discussion page and give me time to respond before you do it. Thanks. --KindredPhantom (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

ZombieMod: Source
Regarding your comments on this page, the mod has already been released, so what I posted is in no way speculation. Please restore what was up there yourself or have someone do it for you. --Madkowa (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I assumed it wasn't with the very ambiguous "up-and-coming". However, I don't believe there's much point in restoring it. The primary content of the article was lifted from the MODDB entry. The stuff that wasn't, was in no way fit for Wikipedia. For the time, I think it's best to keep it a stub, pending the decision on whether it's deleted or not. It really doesn't seem notable in my opinion. To undo edits, check the "history" tab, from there you can undo, review, and compare edits. Eik Corell (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia page for the mod seems to be a word for word copy of it's page from the Valve Developer Wiki. --KindredPhantom (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hi Eik, I'd be glad to look through your contributions! A quick glance at your recent edits show removal of extraneous information in accordance with WP:VG/GL guidelines, which is fine. I'll go through with a fine comb later and see if I can provide you with some feedback tomorrow. Marasmusine (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eik, as I mentioned above, your recent edits are in accordance with WP:VG/GL and WP:OR. These cuts, often extensive, are thankless taska and can cause some upsets with the original contributors. My advice is to always link to the VG/GL in the edit summary, and to have the utmost civility where challenged (really, the worst I've seen you utter is accusing someone of making a mess or calling content "crap" : I'm sure I've done both of these in the past.) When cleaning up, and you come across a reference which is a bare url, convert it to Template:cite web. The only required fields are "url" and "title", so it only takes two ticks if you are only doing a quick cleanup (or fill in all the fields where possible) I'm a bit pressed for time, so let me know if there's anything in specific you'd like me to look at. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You guys might want to weigh in over at Talk:Battlezone_II:_Combat_Commander as well. Eik's removal of the unofficial patch listing (which I agree with), started up a conflict there again with some fan/community site people (scroll earlier up the page to see the earlier dealings with them). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars Battlefront
Hello why did you edit star wars battlefront page recently? it was good what i put in.

New reply: well i dont care stop changing it

Newer reply: I apologise i am new to wiki and did not know you were not meant to put certain content into articles i have now read the 5 pillars and am now improving the star wars battlefront article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laptop65 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 01:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Earthsiege 2
I appreciate your clean up of my overly lengthy articles covering the Earthsiege universe games (Earthsiege, Earthsiege 2, Starsiege). I wrote those articles after I first joined Wikipedia, and I was young and naive then and thought I could write as much as I wanted. I think your changes are for the best, but I noticed you changed the Cyberstorm 2: Corporate Wars link, which is the exact article title and therefore a direct link, to Cyberstorm 2 which was not even a redirect. I have fixed the link and am about to create a redirect, but please just be careful about that in the future. Anyway, thanks for your work in improving the articles! Some guy (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR on Tribes 2
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.  APK  coffee talk  11:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eik, I've briefly protected the Tribes 2 article (6 hours) due to the edit warring. Yes, please be careful about constant reverting. If your edit is reverted, it's best to leave your rationale on the talk page and come back to it another time. Marasmusine (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, when looking at sections about weapons, etc, it is possible to create a briefer overview (perhaps citing comments made by reviewers) rather than completely removing all the information. For example, with, the information can be tightened up a bit but is otherwise okay; there's no original research as such. I hope this helps, Marasmusine (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit comments
Hi Eik, I see you are continuing to perform VGSCOPE cleanups... we even bumped into each other at the Synth (video game) article. I'd just like to ask you to be careful with your edit comments (such as ). Also, where the removal of material is contested, have a go at introducing some alternate, referenced material instead, as this may avoid some of the incessant reverting that is occuring (always assuming good faith...) Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability Guidelines on Unreal Tournament Soundtracks
Hello, I'm new at Wikipedia and I wanted to ask you why my article Unreal Tournament soundtracks does not meet the notability guidelines. There isn't an official data source for that information, since Epic Games, Digital Extremes and the other developer companies never said anything. The only places where you can find that information is on the composer's own websites, some references over the unofficial UT forums and websites (referenced from the official ones). Thanks. Pizte (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

DragonFable
Hi, I noticed you did quite a large edit to the DragonFable article the other day. While most of your edits I thought were great and long-needed, I did have questions about two decisions. First, why was the information about Dragon Amulets removed? They're an integral part of the game and are at least as important as DragonCoins- probably more so, because they unlock more of the game. I added the section back in, which I hope you understand.

The second thing was about the Critical Feedback section. I can understand that this section was getting messy and needed severe editing, but why did you delete it completely? If you think it needs to be rewritten, don't delete it and replace it with an expansion tag! Either rewrite it yourself or put a note on the talk page, but simply deleting broad swathes of a page isn't really going to make the section better. I restored this section as well, but I hope you can clear up my confusion on these two points. Thank you! --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 04:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

CodeRED: Alien Arena
Heya Eik, I'd just leave the "game engine" section for now, doesn't seem too bad. I think my main interest here is checking the neutrality of Alienrace's edits and the reliability of the sources he's cited. I'm going to go through the Critical reception section. Marasmusine (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Delta Force Land Warrior
Please, stop! We have many others old games and with many informations (Super Mario Bros.). Don´t kill informations! STOP! MisterMario92 (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed.. While your enthusiasm is applauded you seem to be removing most if not all of the information from the article.. please discuss changes on the talk page 4twenty42o (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Shogo external links
Hello, you modified my edit to the Shogo: Mobile Armor Division external links, removing the ones to ShogoMAD.com and the Blood Wiki: Shogo Sub-Section using WP:EL as a justification. Having reviewed that rules page I would like to post the following rebuttels. I am personally affiliated with the Shogo Sub-Section so I guess that does count as a conflict of interest. However, I would petition that you re-add it under this criteria: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.", the Shogo Sub-Section is designed mostly to compliment Wikipedia. It goes into more detail for topics that can only be slightly mentioned on Wikipedia, as such I think it deserves to be added. If I may say so, the removal of ShogoMAD.com is ridiculous given that the link to PlanetShogo remains. While XGN is not as famous or as large as the GameSpy gaming sites network, it is notable enough to warrent being added. Finally, although this is only based on my own research, once these two are included that documents every notable site. Thus I say that these links are worth having. Comments? Comrade Graham (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I've taken a look at the two links in question, and off the bat, they are both outdated; certain articles haven't been edited or touched for years. In order for a custom wiki to be added, it must meet two requirements: It must be active, and it must be stabile. Since it isn't active, that one cancels out the stability part because vandalism could stay there for months and/or the section could be potentially be removed because of inactivity. Furthermore, as you said, it's actually a sub-section of another custom wikipedia, which is just as inactive. Lastly, there are only 16 articles in that sub-section. Next, the Shogomad.com website: I don't really think it will contribute much, and it's not active enough to be added. You are absolutely right about PlanetShogo not being appropriate, though. I missed that one. I don't believe that PlanetShogo, the Wiki, or Shogomad.com are notable sites. To quote WP:EL:


 * "Fan-based sites, including those that may extend from the commercial sites listed above (for example, PlanetQuake) - These tend to be self-published venues and are not appropriate for verifiability within Wikipedia." Eik Corell (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR
Please remember WP:3RR. Two editors reverting back and forth just spams up the page history, and wastes your own time and patience. If someone's aggressively reverting, another editor will catch it in time; if they don't, you can just tidy it back up the next day.

If an editor's reverting more than a few times, put a 3RR warning - uw-3rr - on their page and let them choose whether to stop or to get themselves blocked. --McGeddon (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)