User talk:G.W./Archive 2

Edit summaries
I'm really not sure, I'm thinking that after I type in my comment, when I go to click "save page" I'm somehow clicking on something in the popdown box of previous edit summaries, as both of those have been summaries I've used before. I think I just need to be more careful. --PresN 15:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II
I thought that you might like to know that British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, an article to which you have previously contributed, has been put forward as a featured article candidate. Thank you for your help. If you would like to comment on this article's nomination, please see here. Your opinions will be most welcome. Gaius Cornelius 12:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Morrowind FAC Push
Well, I'm looking forward to seeing Morrowind at FAC! I gave it a quick runthrough, the only things I really had issues with was that in the Setting section, discussion of the books takes up half of the section. I love the books too, but I think that's a bit much. I'd also maybe add in a picture or two to break the text up in the bottom half of the page, I'm going to see what I can find that has a purpose besides decoration. Other than that, this is looking really good, and can definately go all the way! --PresN 16:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support and comments, and good luck finding some pictures! I've trimmed down the book section. How does it look now? Geuiwogbil 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking good! Keep up the good work!  --PresN 14:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * good luck!--Rebent 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

tribunal
Geuiwogbil, I can see that you are a good editor on wikipedia and I respect that and I know I'm relatively new here (2 or 3 months) but I really think we don't need such a big section on Tribunal when it has its own page. Can you please tell me your rational behind making it as big as you have? Thanks -Rebent 07:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmn? Is it still too big? I just trimmed it. Geuiwogbil 07:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (One further response might be found on Rebent's talk page.) Geuiwogbil 22:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, good luck Geuiwogbil! I looked at how to peer review a page and I just don't think I'm qualified to peer review the morrowind page, as much as I'd like to.  So sorry!  --Rebent 22:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

fa
i don't think it's an fa yet... I don't know why it's on the list.

--Rebent 23:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

bans
Hey Geui, I'm trying to figure out what to do with this user Special:Contributions/Sindicut that's adding spam links to some pages. Can you help me? --Rebent

TES4
My overall impression when I look at the development section is that it's probably too long. It's all well-written, it's all well-sourced, but there's just a whole lot of it. As for what to cut then, that's the hard part. There are a few too many quotes, but not that bad. I had a go at cutting on the first two paragraphs of the devel section, here's what I got below

OLD: The first rumors of another Elder Scrolls release after The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind began to circulate in June 2004, following Bethesda's posting of an e-mail searching for new staff. The new staff were to participate on a team that would "[push] the bleeding-edge of RPG development for the PC and future-generation consoles". For those considering the job, the e-mail suggested that "knowledge of...The Elder Scrolls [is] a plus". At the time, a member of Bethesda's staff played down the importance of the last comment, stating that Bethesda was not going to say "what product these listings are for", and that "Obviously, we like candidates who understand RPGs and are familiar with the games we've made in the past."[23] Suspicions of a new Elder Scrolls release were confirmed on September 10, when Bethesda officially announced the identity of the game in question: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, followed with a feature in the October 2004 issue of Game Informer.[24][25]

As of the announcement, Bethesda had been working on Oblivion for 2 years, since 2002,[25] just as Bethesda was finishing up with Morrowind.[26] "No rest for the weary here!" said game producer Gavin Carter of the timing.[8] In the same timeframe, Bethesda's Elder Scrolls team was split in two: half, mostly designers and artists, were sent to work on Morrowind's expansions; and the rest, mostly programmers, were sent to work on technology for Oblivion.[13] The team's goal then was, in the words of executive producer Todd Howard, to "create the quintessential RPG of the next generation", with a focus on a "combination of freeform gameplay and cutting-edge graphics."[6] It was a wise decision to make at the time. Producing for next generation machines, rather than a cheap upgrade, gave Bethesda an additional four years of development: four years that "all but guaranteed" a punctual launch alongside the Xbox 360, four years that offered room for Bethesda to start from scratch.[27] Howard describes this as an aspect of Bethesda's greater goal of "Reinvention", where the team's goal is to make "a new game that stands on its own, that has its own identity".[13] "You can't repeat yourself. I think it's a common trap when working on a sequel to just add some new features and content, and keep doing that. I think that's a good way to drive your games into the ground. You start drifting from what made the game special in the first place. So with The Elder Scrolls, I'm careful to not repeat what we've done before, and to really focus on trying to recapture again what made the games exciting in the first place."[27]

NEW:

The first rumors of another Elder Scrolls release after The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind began to circulate in June 2004, following Bethesda's posting of an e-mail searching for new staff. The new staff were to participate on a team that would "[push] the bleeding-edge of RPG development for the PC and future-generation consoles". Suspicions of a new Elder Scrolls release were confirmed on September 10, when Bethesda officially announced that the game was The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, followed with a feature in the October 2004 issue of Game Informer.[24][25]

As of the announcement, Bethesda had been working on Oblivion for 2 years, since 2002,[25] just as Bethesda was finishing up with Morrowind.[26] In the same timeframe, Bethesda's Elder Scrolls team was split in two: half, mostly designers and artists, were sent to work on Morrowind's expansions; and the rest, mostly programmers, were sent to work on technology for Oblivion.[13] The team's goal then was, in the words of executive producer Todd Howard, to "create the quintessential RPG of the next generation", with a focus on a "combination of freeform gameplay and cutting-edge graphics."[6] Producing for next generation machines, rather than a cheap upgrade, gave Bethesda an additional four years of development that "all but guaranteed" a punctual launch alongside the Xbox 360.[27] Howard describes this as an aspect of Bethesda's greater goal of "Reinvention", where the team's goal is to make "a new game that stands on its own, that has its own identity".[13]

If I have time tonight, I may work on the page itself (It's about 5 in the afternoon, Prague time, so 7 or so hours from now). Maybe another PR is in order, as well? We got some good responses last time, though I'm not sure all of the old concerns have been taken care of yet. --PresN 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I recommend you move/save the development stuff to a user page, it could definitely have a place in a "development of the elder scrolls series" page sometime. As to the Prague time, I'm studying abroad in Prague for 6 weeks, usually I'm in Texas, thus the 7 hour difference. --PresN 00:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's late at night here and I just got back to Prague today from the countyside so I haven't given the Development article much more than a cursory run through, just wanted to say that I got your message and that I'd give it a going over tomorrow. From that cursory glance, I'd say it's looking great, the amount of references is astounding, and that there may be a few too many redlinks in the first few sections of the article, I'd recommend de-linking some of them.  Great job on it though!  loads of information.  --PresN 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for getting back to you so late, I got caught up with things. I see that you nom'd it for GAC, so we'll see how that goes, but right now my only concerns with the article is that 1) The lead jumps out at me as being long, though I'm not sure how to cut it down any without cutting it down to a short 1-paragraph summary of what the Elder Scrolls series as a whole is.  2) Pictures?  There's an awful lot of text here, almost makes my eyes glaze over.  Some more pictures like the one you have for the Morrowind section would be nice, though I'm not sure if any are uploaded to WP, so you may have to make some yourself.  Maybe Bethesda has some promo shots on their website?  Other than that though, good luck at GAC!  --PresN 08:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Overworld
Hi Geuiwogbil. Overworld, that you previously prod-ed has been transwikied to Wiktionary, so presumably the article can now be deleted from Wikipedia as per your original complaints? I'm not sure about how these things work, so thought I'd leave it to someone else. :) Cheers,  Mi re ma r e  21:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

TES4: part 2
Thanks for the barnstar! As to Oblivion, I've been noticing those sections get longer and longer, and they definitely need something to happen to them. I agree with summarizing the downloadable content section and moving the details to the development page, which I think I saw you do this morning. (I reviewed one of the GAC's above that page on the list today, so hopefully it will be gotten to soon.) I'd also recommend that you do the same with the ratings change- right now that section is huge, and it should really be about one paragraph, though like everything you write, it's so hard to cut it down because it's all so interesting and well-sourced. I think the details could have a place on the development page as well, though. Finally, the development section itself: right now it's 8 paragraphs. To really be summary style, it should be one or two, but there's such a rich history I think that about 4, or half the size it is now, would be fine. I know everything in there is also in the Development article, so hopefully it shouldn't be so hard to cut it down. Other than that, the plot section still needs de-crufting and sourcing, of course, but it really will be a minor job to do that.

On a different note, however, I'm not going to be doing much editing for the next few weeks. As you know, I'm studying abroad in Prague right now, so it's surprising how much editing I've still been doing, but I'm leaving tomorrow and traveling around for a few weeks in Krakow, St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Scotland, so I'm really not going to have any time to do any editing. :( So, I guess I'll see how it all looks when I get home to America!  --PresN 22:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Attributability
"We don't deal with "truth". We deal with "WP:ATT"ributability, that which can be attributed to reliable sources. If you have a source which gives a more accurate figure, let's cite it" - So should I find that old quote from a senator about how gas stations directly pump oil from the earth and it's odd about how they always seem to know what street corners to put them, then delete everything on wikipedia about how we actually refine gasoline and replace it with that? It's not "truth", but it is a source I can cite. Are you actually the sort of person who stands in the rain saying it's not raining because the weather says sunny? That's ridiculous. 74.141.81.147 18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the same set of rules in real life as I do in writing an encyclopedia. The quotation about the 16 sq. miles is the most reliable published estimate I have found on the size of the world. It should only be replaced if a more accurate estimation is published from a reliable source. Wikipedians aren't allowed to look out their windows and say its raining; they have to go with what the weatherman says. Wikipedians can't publish their own estimations of what the world's size is; they have to go with what the published sources say. Read up on WP:OR, WP:ATT, and WP:RS. Although, at times, they may seem ill-founded, consider the alternative: every Tom, Dick, and Jane using Wikipedia to publish their own crank theories of everything from Mollusks to International Finance. Wikipedia needs to follow these policies and guidelines, because they're the best we've got. Thanks for your concern, though. The article's still very much a work in progress. If I come across a better estimate, I'll be sure to add it. Geuiwogbil 23:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, That's all fine and good to a point. I know that as a single person I'm not likely to change all of Wikipedia's policies on the matter, but lately this whole 16 sq miles figure has been driving me nuts.  Call it a perfect example of an old annoyance.  Everyone just accepts this figure, because it's quoted from one of the developers.  The problem is, with basic back of the envelope math on the average walking distance of a person in normal health (which assumes for not walking 24 hours a day and will thus create a much smaller distance than a character who never has to rest can walk in a day) then you start to figure that 16 sq miles (assuming a cross section of 4 miles) could be walked across in a matter of hours.  It takes DAYS to walk across Cyrodil in real time, not factoring in the difference between game time vs real time.  This is at a continuous rate of speed with no rest stops or overnight camping as would be common in a long distance hike of say, the Appalachian Trail.  Now my question as far as unattributable facts go is this... if it's obvious that a quoted fact flies in the face of every sense of reason and even off the cuff mathematics, am I going to have to hound the Times to get them to publish this inconsistency before it can be corrected?  Everyone else seems to have just accepted this as 'fact' without digging any further into it.  I could go as far as finding published studies on the maximum reasonable daily hiking distance of a person, then combine that with some mathematical formulas with references to my textbooks I'd be copying them from... but all that would do is more fully prove that the figure is wrong.  The company obviously isn't going to retract their statement for the fear of looking like complete idiots who can't handle a basic area math problem.  Plus, the issue is really pointless, in and of itself.  What it represents, however, is a much greater issue with how editors handle Wikipedia as a whole, and one of the main reasons why no college professor I know of will allow Wikipedia to be cited in any paper turned in.  I don't know the correct method of citing common sense or general mathematical theory, but whatever form is acceptable, I think it should be noted somewhere on the page that this figure is most likely inaccurate.  I'm not meaning to pick on you specifically, but you are the one who axed it.  I assure you there's nothing personal here, I just think that any user editable site that holds itself above reproach as far as how accurate its data is should take these sorts of situations into mind when forming these policies.  I mean, if I ever won the lottery, and was able to pay an environmental expert enough money to publicly state that the sky is actually green, you'd have to accept it in any article that references sky color... under these rules.  To quote another unconfirmable source, my mother "Don't believe everything you read."  Nephus 02:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination
Hello there Geuiwogbil. Thanks for nominating Development history of The Elder Scrolls series for GA review. Unfortunately, I have decided to fail this article. More details are available on the article's talk page. When these issues have been addressed, please feel free to renominate the article. If you feel that I have failed this article unfairly, please raise your issues on the article's talk page. Thanks for your hard work! Mouse Nightshirt | talk  14:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to say a job well done on the article. It looks considerably better, and at first glance, is much more likely to pass GA. If it hasn't been done by tomorrow, I shall re-review the article. Great job! Mouse Nightshirt | talk  20:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not at all! You stick very much to WP:Be bold! However, I do suggest that future renominations, you wait at least 48 hours, as this is the minimum time a GA reviewer has to wait before passing an article that has been on hold; it just looks better that way, as you aren't breaking any policies I'm aware of. Good work anyway; the rest of your Elder Scrolls articles are highly informative as well! Mouse Nightshirt | talk  21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're eager! I'm currently reviewing another article at the moment and will re-review yours after completion of that one. Mouse Nightshirt | talk  21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad news I'm afraid. User:Information_Center tagged your article as under review at WP:GAC yesterday - therefore he's reviewing it and should hopefully have it done soon. If he hasn't done it by tomorrow, I'll leave him a message. If he doesn't respond, I'll strike him off the review and do it myself. ;) Mouse Nightshirt | talk  21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oblivion
Well, I am sorry if I gave you a headache, but Wikipedia's not about sparing articles for the sake of other people's migranes. Call it pointy if you will, but your rush to accuse me of violating it 'long with the WP:BEANS link doesn't exactly inspire confidence that you regularly assume good faith if your articles are on the line. David Fuchs 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoop de doo. I am not personally attacking you; if I was, be fully assured I would have blocked you in an unwarranted fashion and deleted articles you contributed to. David Fuchs 14:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Last time, I checked, I still am David Fuchs, and if Oblivion was up for FA and met all the requirements, I would wholeheartedly support it. I'm not against video games or Oblivion, I just think that the level of detail approaches unmanageable and somewhat ludicrous levels, at some points making the articles hard to read. If the Wikipedian community doesn't agree with me, then there we go- that's why we have AfDs. David Fuchs 14:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

don't worry about it. I dislike editors who swing WP:AGF and the other guidelines and policies like the 10 Commandments of the Wiki; I think it matters less what we say as long as we're still trying to improve wikipedia. See you around, I guess. David Fuchs 14:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, Wikipedia doesn't have restrictions on detail, in that its not really a guideline. It's more one of those "I know it when I see it" kind of things. Really, it's up to editors to decide- yours is a lot harder because everything you have is sourced, but I removed 30KB from the Release Marketing for Halo 3 article once because they were going into hour by hour detail of the Iris game (and its still in craptastic shape. David Fuchs 15:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Overworld 2
Hello again. I thought you might like to know our friend Overworld has reared its ugly head again!  Mi re ma r e  23:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oblivion Re-rating references
Sorry, I was under the impression that the reflist template was merely a predecessor to, but reflist is actually just a template that combines with code to make the text smaller. So, yeah, reflist is just fine.
 * OK, thanks. Geuiwogbil 01:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
I just found this with a quote from the author, including: "Due to the number of thoroughly depressing comments, I'm no longer providing any support or updates. Nor will I release any further mods of this nature, for this game or others. I'm not regretting having made this. But I am regretting releasing it to the horny, immature masses out there." Perhaps you can incorporate this into the article somehow. Sdornan 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure how relevant it is, and as a primary source we would do well to be cautious. Most importantly, though, I don't know where it would fit... :P Geuiwogbil 02:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

-- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that I do have to reiterate however - I gave this article the benefit of the doubt here. See the article's talk page for more information. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Much thanks, Anonymous Dissident. Geuiwogbil 15:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)