User talk:HyperspaceCloud

April 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Elite: Dangerous has been reverted. Your edit here to Elite: Dangerous was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Elite:_Dangerous_FAQ) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to an external Wiki, then please note that these links should generally not be included (see 'links to avoid' #12). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Being completely out of touch
I hope I'm not coming across as a blundering philistine here! I'd hope that the fact I don't know much about the game, but have some interest in it, would actually be helpful here, because (like the MMO-or-not thing) I'm not going to be writing anything that seems "obvious" to me as a player, but which hasn't been clearly stated by Braben or the press coverage. By coming at it cold and working from published sources, this should help to build up an accurate summary of how Dangerous has been presented so far. It looks like a great game and deserves a solid article, and I'd like to help to build that. --McGeddon (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you wanting to help, as I'm not that well versed with Wikipedia editing, I will help find the sources where I can. The Wikia FAQ has mainly primary sources from the devs and some secondary ones, also I would suggest you preferably use the most recent sources as things change during development and that Call of Duty reference can easily be misinterpreted (Blame Braben for misrepresenting his own game or maybe the press, same with the shard thing) as it only applies to the twitch combat and Call of Duty has nothing like a singular persistent evolving galaxy. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, recent sources are best - it just gets tricky when we have a strong early source that's only contradicted by very weak ones later on. But I'm sure the gaming press have been over this, let's see what we've got. --McGeddon (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, don't use outdated kickstarter dev-diary gameplay footage. There is more recent material here. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:First encounters2 180.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:First encounters2 180.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:First encounters1 180.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:First encounters1 180.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EliteDangerous logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:EliteDangerous logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:First encounters1 180.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:First encounters1 180.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:First encounters2 180.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:First encounters2 180.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:First encounters3 180.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:First encounters3 180.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:First encounters3 320.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:First encounters3 320.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:First encounters4 180.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:First encounters4 180.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Elite articles
In the absence of an article about the Elite series, I think the Elite (video game) link is enough. We aren't helping the reader much by saying "for related information, why not see the Elite article? No? How about Elite II? Okay, not Elite II. I tell you what would be interesting to read now, though - the article on Elite III..." - give them the most useful one, don't make them guess.


 * Sorry, but because generally only the main Elite link is referred to in other articles, where the innovation of sequels are very much relevant, I think it's appropriate to put them on top as they are all important. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If the innovation of the sequels is particularly relevant to similar games (if a designer credits Frontier as inspiration, or if reviewers have compared an aspect of a game to First Encounters), you could go even further and write about that in the article. (Another editor agrees that just linking Elite would be better in the see-also sections.) --McGeddon (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that the media thinks that No Man's Sky invented procedural seamless planets and never mentioned the notable Elite sequels which pioneered this (I've seen quotes like: "NMS is like Elite, but with planets" at least twice by big media, see examples Here and Here, is evidence enough that the sequels should be more visible. Also compounded by the fact that Elite: Dangerous has announced big-game hunting wildlife (dinosaur-like according to Elite lore) before this game and confirmed dinosaurs at E3 they also all need to be in the "See Also" section of that NMS article. The Infinity article for example mentions the Elite sequels properly. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Have critics picked up on this? If they have, then sure, this can go in the article. If they haven't, then a WP:SEEALSO link should "provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent" so that the reader knows why it's there. But be aware of tripping into original research if the angle you're going for is "some reviews have made mistakes, this link puts them right". --McGeddon (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sequels seem excessive detail for the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH. The sequels may well be unjustly overlooked, but they aren't among the most important things about the 1984 game. If anything, we should be moving the big, important claims about its innovation and influence nearer to the top.
 * The sequels had more important innovations which shouldn't be overlooked and the games have been important to the Elite series as a whole. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely. But are the game's sequels really more important than the fact that 1984's Elite was "hugely influential", "ported to virtually every contemporary home computer system" and "a classic and a genre maker", all of which are currently a bit lost further down? We should give the reader (and sites like Google that pull out the opening sentences for search results) as strong an introduction to Elite as possible, in the opening paragraph. What do you think? --McGeddon (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All around the net, I've seen so many people not be aware of the Elite sequels, while virtually everybody knows about the history of the original Elite and incorrectly think the series stopped there. We have a whole generation now that don't know about the significance of the Elite sequels, which to this day hasn't been replicated in a notable commercial game. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Imagine someone who knows nothing about Elite googling it, or quickly skimming the first bit of the article to see what it's about: is it better to tell them that Elite was a groundbreaking, classic and influential 80s videogame, or that it was a videogame with two sequels? --McGeddon (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It already mentions seminal HyperspaceCloud (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. But is it better to say "it's a seminal space-trading videogame that was a classic and a genre maker in gaming history, being ported to virtually every home computing platform, it had groundbreaking 3D graphics and remains hugely influential" or "it's a seminal space-trading videogame, it had two sequels made by a Frontier Developments and there's another sequel due for release this year"? --McGeddon (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well if we get rid of the "made/publised by company X" until later, couldn't we get the sequels to fit in somewhere there?HyperspaceCloud (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "It's a seminal space-trading game that has two sequels and one more soon" still seems minor next to "classic, groundbreaking, widely ported, etc". I'll see what people think on the talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Forum links are flatly against WP:ELNO (#10: "chat or discussion forums/groups"). I didn't notice the Kerbal subreddit link because I was only looking at the see-also section. --McGeddon (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Forum links aren't against the rules, they are to be avoided which is a different thing, but the Elite: Dangerous subreddit is endorsed by Frontier Developments also I notified you about the KSP subreddit link, which you have seen by now and you didn't take action, so you don't apply your own rules consistently. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ELNO recommends applying it with common sense. If it was generally agreeed that a forum being endorsed by a game's developers made it okay, we'd have changed "discussion forums" to "unofficial discussion forums" by now. There are a lot of endorsed forums out there. You asked me whether the Kerbal subreddit link was appropriate: if I answered it wasn't but didn't dig the article back out to remove it by hand myself, that doesn't mean I was kidding and it was actually okay. I'll go ahead and cut it now.--McGeddon (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching wherever I might have "incorrectly stated that Elite: Dangerous was already release" - I'm thinking of it as being in private beta, and may have summarised that badly. (Maybe the beta status should be more prominent in the Elite: Dangerous lead section?) --McGeddon (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's in Premium Beta (Pre-Beta) right now, which is something between Alpha and Beta. The real Beta is going to start next month followed by an Extended Beta (Gamma), followed by a commercial release at the end of the year. There won't be an open Beta. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Files for deletion
See Files for deletion/2014 June 29. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits
Just a heads up that the minor edit flag is for the genuinely small stuff: "typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content". Some editors choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes, so you should always leave the box unticked if you're making any kind of change to the content. --McGeddon (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

No Man's Sky
Misread your edit, I thought you were saying "in the style of Frontier" when you were actually saying "in the style of games like Elite, but when you click the wikilink for Elite you'll get the Frontier article". "Correcting" the source material like that is WP:OR, even when it's as subtle as a redirected link - we should assume that when the dev said Elite, he meant Elite. --McGeddon (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He is talking about setting the player loose in a living breathing universe, with every planet having an ecology like Elite and then talks about upgrading ship, but original Elite didn't have much living breathing universe to speak of (economy was static IIRC) and NMS's way upgrading of ship is closer to Elite 2. And IMO if it doesn't link to the sequels then they should at least be mentioned in the See Also section. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Pre-beta / premium beta
But is that your own personal take on the game, or is it how developers and reviewers are talking about it? Wikipedia always goes with the latter, even if we personally think that they're phrasing it badly. What we can do is make sure that the article describes the premium beta in a way that makes it clear to the reader what the deal is - we should just be careful to stick to reliable sources. --McGeddon (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's factual. The developers said themselves that Premium Beta is just Alpha 4 with bug fixes and Premium Beta 2 added only another ship, station, 3 new star systems and minor refinements. If you follow the developers on the forum, Design Discussion Archive, Newsletters Here and Here and more to come, Dev Diaries, live streams etc, you will see that it's for from feature complete. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If PC Gamer ran an article headlined Elite: Dangerous "Premium Beta" now available in which Braben is quoted as saying "the start of the Premium Beta phase is another exciting moment in our development—from today we have over 10,000 additional people playing the game", then (in the absence of any follow-up articles of similar weight which contradict it) Wikipedia calls it a Premium Beta. --McGeddon (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Frontier seems to have their own definition of Beta, so better not link to beta version that talks about feature complete with premium prefixed. This will lead to massive confusion.


 * I've started a thread at the article talk page.--McGeddon (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Flat reverts
Disagreement is fine, but can you try to avoid doing flat reverts whenever you disagree with part of an edit? I assume you don't actually have an objection to quoting Braben's "thought of doing something along those lines" in the Development section, but you took out the whole thing when restoring your preferred lede. --McGeddon (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see that you put it in development section and I have no problem with that quote, but I think it's still important to have something in the header too. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Elite FPS
Could you explain this on the talk thread I started yesterday? "I haven't yet seen any third-person gameplay and combat will be on foot, so I think this implies it's going to be a first-person shooter" sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. --McGeddon (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that everything in ED happens in first person perspective with your own twitch skills, both of which Braben emphasized. It's not a dice rolling RPG. Also I just found a recent Q/A with Braben talking about first person walking http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/13/live_chat_david_braben/ HyperspaceCloud (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this on the talk page of the article so that other editors can see it. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Done HyperspaceCloud (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Fan-based gameplay videos
I'd say fan videos were at worst WP:USERGENERATED (they can't be trusted not to be misrepresenting the game, even unintentionally) and at best WP:PRIMARY (as even a crystal clear piece of gameplay footage from Braben himself would be a primary source). If a mechanic can't be sourced to any of the current third-party reviews and previews, WP:V tells us that it's not (yet) an appropriate detail for a Wikipedia article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for clarification. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dangerous "crucial information" revert
Look at the diff, I'm just removing excessive references and shortening the (accidentally?) repetitive "other interactions with other players and NPCs inside ships, combat and other interactions with other players and NPCs in the internal areas of space stations" to "other interactions with other players and NPCs inside ships and the internal areas of space stations". Worst I can see is that I accidentally lost the single word "combat" there. By all means add the word "combat" back, but I don't understand what "crucial information" you think has been lost here. --McGeddon (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Crucial info such as vehicles and turning it into buggies. Buggies is just 1 example of vehicles. Also the huge surfaces quote got trimmed which is an important detail as it won't just be simple levels, but full planets. And some important sources about the importance of getting space right and scientific models got trimmed. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I just read the fragmented "and drive vehicles around "To get out into buggies, to drive them around..."" as being a summary of the quote (Braben says "buggies", we summarise this as "vehicles"). Not sure it makes any difference to say "huge great surface" instead of "surface", it's all relative, but add it back if you like.
 * Importantly, though, a Wikipedia article shouldn't have seven references hanging off of a sentence because the videos they link to have something "important" to say something in relation to that sentence. If a video's saying something important that's not in the article, we should write the important thing in the article and put the reference at the end of it. If a video's repeating something that's already covered by another source, the video should go in the "External links" or "Further reading" section (within reason; we shouldn't build a WP:LINKFARM). References are primarily there so that a reader who wants to check that a statement is true can easily do so - we should limit them to the strongest references only. --McGeddon (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that VGH's edits were not clear vandalism, so the three-revert rule also applies to you. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile VGH reverted the article back again before reaching consensus. Who is now going to resolve that? HyperspaceCloud (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted it back per WP:3RR exemptions 3. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Exemption 3 does not apply: the user is not banned, and the edit was not by a sockpuppet of the blocked user. However, since my read is that you're working back to the status quo, I'm not going to take any further action for the revert this time. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference stripping
The article had 62 references before I cleaned it up and 61 after, and the IGN reference is still there (it looks like the cleanup bot combined some duplicates). Per WP:LEADCITE there's hardly ever any need to use citation footnotes in the lead, when the same statements are being sourced in the body of the article.

If you think I've summarised the game badly then by all means move that forward by editing it, but it doesn't help the article to revert to something as unreadably piecemeal as "based on the real Milky Way,[13][15][16][17] that's as scientifically accurate as possible[13][15][17][18][19][20][21] in a spaceship, and the gameplay is open-ended". --McGeddon (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Elite series (September 23)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:HyperspaceCloud Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe_Decker&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:HyperspaceCloud reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

j⚛e deckertalk 04:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverting other editors
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Elite: Dangerous. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--McGeddon (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * In addition, you must assume good faith of other editors. Your only contribution to the discussion about merging the sections has been to grumble about "saboteurs" who are "going on a concerted effort to slander Frontier". If you're annoyed about Reddit, this isn't relevant to Wikipedia. If you think some Wikipedia editors have a conflict of interest, raise it through appropriate channels. If you think they're showing some bias about a game, raise it politely and check the mote in your own eye. --McGeddon (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)




 * You shouldn't use other editors' conversations on other sites to argue why they are wrong about something on Wikipedia - this is considered WP:DOXxing, and at best should be communicated privately to administrators when investigating a possible COI, it shouldn't be bandied around as the first line of discussion. Focus on content, not the contributor. If your only argument for merging a section is "but this other editor is angry on another site and there are saboteurs everywhere", then your argument carries no weight. Say why you think the sections should be merged. --McGeddon (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not Doxing, because it didn't have any personal information and the user in question supplied the subreddit himself, also I supplied enough arguments in my edits that had nothing to do with the editor. Anyway, how do I file this COI thing? HyperspaceCloud (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Read the WP:DOX link I gave there: "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment."
 * Conflict_of_interest tells you more about COI, but note that "this guy definitely has a strong emotional opinion about one aspect of a videogame and I have proof" is unlikely to fly, and seems little different from your own position. --McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I was not really doing opposition research, because I was aware of them before their wikipedia edits and I understand that my position as a fan maybe similar, but what about the fact that he tried to delete the evidence? HyperspaceCloud (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're dredging, even if you already knew where to dredge.
 * Somebody posting a comment on a third party site and retracting it is of no interest to Wikipedia. If you'd found someone twirling their moustache and saying "I have a COI connection to this company's business rivals and am going to edit their Wikipedia article with lies, and then lie about this to other Wikipedia editors! Now wait while I delete this comment!" then it would merit a carefully-worded post to WP:COIN, but "fan posts to forum saying they don't like a thing" is meaningless here. --McGeddon (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Elite: Dangerous. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Elite series


Hello, HyperspaceCloud. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Elite series".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

New Elite:Dangerous Category/Userbox
Hey,

I have created a Elite: Dangerous Userbox category and used the Elite: Dangerous Logo that you have created/used for the Elite: Dangerous article for Wikipedia, I hope this is ok. D Eaketts (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)