User talk:Sir Lothar/Archive1
I gave a reason. Anniversaries are not notable, because there is no end to the ones people would be able to come with, and they can contribute a lot to cultural bias. If there are planned events for, say, the 100th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, that may be worth including. Grandmasterka 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry... I just realized you're not exactly new. :-/ Grandmasterka 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, there are. I really don't think there should be (at least on year pages) and I know lots of others don't think there should be, unless there's some significant event already planned for the anniversary. But as far as I know, there's no solid guideline about it. Those future year articles aren't watched too closely, so sometimes some mildly undesirable things persist for a while. I have them all on my watchlist but I don't follow changes to them closely. Grandmasterka 01:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
BrE on GTA IV
[edit]Personally, I could care less, but it looks like consensus was already reached: Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 5#Version of English. Since the entire article is already using BrE, it makes no sense to revisit the discussion. xenocidic (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Suggested WikiProjects
[edit]If editing articles on video games interests you, consider joining the Video games WikiProject and/or one or more of these platform specific projects: WikiProject Xbox, WikiProject PlayStation, WikiProject Nintendo. Cheers, xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 23:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not as far as I can see, but perhaps you could suggest it at the talk page of the WikiProject to see if there's interest in forming such a task force for retro games. xenocidic (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
GTA IV soundtrack
[edit]For now, I have not noticed tons of vandalism. I planned on using the game manual and confirming all the song titles. Once I get that done, if vandalism persists I would go for protection. As it stands, IP editors are fine as long as they are adding constructive edits. There is nothing wrong with letting them edit the page unless we start getting a lot of vandalism. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually... ATM the forum is the fastest I found, but I originally learned this from a news post on JoWood. You can look for that if you want more 'reliable' sources.;) diego_pmc (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you're wrong. On WP:VER we read: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources. Third-party meaning external sources (magazines, game portals etc.) not the producer's one. IMHO some external source would fit better as a source. Thanks, Sir Lothar (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Third party means not published by Wikipedia. This website would be considerably less useful if we never took anyone's word for anything! --Tom Edwards (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- As far as there are other sources in article - that's OK. My point is that if we put all sources directing to the producer's site - it's POV. For example: an article about Diablo III shouldn't have sources only from diablo3.com and blizzard.com but also from reviews sites like gamespot.com, ign.com etc. You see my point ? Sir Lothar (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but not how it applies to the article in question. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- As far as there are other sources in article - that's OK. My point is that if we put all sources directing to the producer's site - it's POV. For example: an article about Diablo III shouldn't have sources only from diablo3.com and blizzard.com but also from reviews sites like gamespot.com, ign.com etc. You see my point ? Sir Lothar (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Slug
[edit]Protected due to repeat pagemove and edit summary vandalism (those edits have been deleted). NawlinWiki (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
CoD
[edit]I noticed that you had removed the source for the game's engine, and since I knew that there was an article I recently read (there are, of course, likely other sources equally applicable, but this particular one was the first that came to mind) that confirmed that CoD5 used the same engine as CoD4, I looked for it and added it as a source. I recall another IGN article specifically about CoD5 that was published some weeks ago which also confirms the engine, but I feel that looking for it is pointless if both sources are only needed for the same small detail. Anyway, in case you haven't looked over the source I supplied, it should mention near the middle of the article that both Quantum of Solace and Call of Duty: World at War use Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's proprietary engine, thus resolving the issue. -- Comandante {Talk} 23:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. -- Comandante {Talk} 03:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
IRR
[edit]Could you tell me what this comment on my talk page is referring to? Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 17:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Gothic 4 release
[edit]Iam not concerned about the game or when the game gets released. You can wait for the information when it comes to GameSpot or IGN. Iam not going to look for a source if EuroGamer is not good enough. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
DNF
[edit]I believe the template it there to tell readers that the game is under development, not "to be released". By saying things like: "so probably [the game] won't see a sunlight", you're assuming the game has been canceled, which there is no source saying that. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 19:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't see your point. The game is unreleased and being developed[citation needed], plenty of sources saying that, right? The game's not 100% finished because it's still being worked on. And, even if a game is canceled it's still unreleased. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 20:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Gothic 2
[edit]I've edited the easter egg section to remove humo(u)rous. Syber Sid (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Gothic improvement drive?
[edit]Hello, I'm trying to gather up people interested in articles about Gothic, and I noticed you've done some editing to the various articles. If you'd be interested in such an endeavor, please head over to the Talk:Gothic II page and leave your thoughts. Thanks! --VPeric (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
References
[edit]I refer you to WP:CITE. mgekelly 01:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- The template I added to the relevant article in place of the {{unreferenced}} which you removed should explain what needs to be done now to the article, according to WP:CITE. mgekelly 22:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit summaries
[edit]Please use edit summaries. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: Warning
[edit]It wasn't the content of what he put that enraged me, it was the fact that he was a pirate. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you put the notability flag on my article. There have been several moderators that put it, and then we proved it, and then some other moderator puts it, and so on and so on. :) Just check the article's history. So, do you mind telling me what was it that you didn't like? Thank you for your time. Donbonifacio (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC) a
Polonia Restituta
[edit]A źródło podaję tutaj. - Darwinek (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Fallout 2
[edit]Hello! Per the infobox template syntax guide, the infobox should contain "the game's rating most widely accepted in the game's country of origin (and any English-language censorship ratings)". As Fallout 2 was not developed in Germany, I removed USK. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
is it allowed by rules? (Idot (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC))
RE: Assassin's Creed 2
[edit]Okay, I'm sorry. I just didn't think that we needed to add things like that when it was announced on TV and the internet. I'll remember to use that next time. Jackass2009 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Poland Navy...
[edit]No, the chart is not better... in fact it looks very amateurish. We are constantly having problems with people adding random stuff to the page that does not actually augment or improve the text itself... just some random changes that could be classified as "neither here or there". It almost comes across as if someone had nothing better to do, so they just changed some stuff on a Wiki page to burn some time.
Please keep the page simple and clean... not clutter it with random pictures of excessive charts. Keep it meaningful. Every picture has to relate to the text, every chart has to have a purpose and match other lists on the page... this chart did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.248.15 (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Dust 514 soon release date
[edit]During the keynote during Fanfest 2011 the official release date AS PRINTED ON SCREEN was 'SoonTM' ill add the refrences before 7:00 eastern std time but i may not be able to before 5:00. please leave the edit there until then. Ryukage19 (offline edit, not logged in)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Vandalism report
[edit]Sir Lothar, I appreciate your diligence, but please don't jump to an only warning for this kind of edit--it doesn't rise to the level of a single, blockable offense, nor did the one after that. I'll warn the user one more time: three insults is probably sufficient for a temporary block, but it is not yet time for that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Limbo trademark spelling
[edit]Hi! Please do not change "Limbo" to "LIMBO". See Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). The article would not have been promoted to FA if this was an error. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
re: River Raid
[edit]Wolałbym nie. Z uprzejmości wolę na angielskiej Wikipedii pisać po angielsku, nie jesteśmy tu sami.
I'm seeing that you apparently used the interpretation "it's easy to find sources, therefore Template:Unreferenced is not relevant". I'm viewing it differently; regardless of availability of sources, the article is still unsourced and keeping the template in is not quite pointless.I might have been too quick with reverting though.
Also: You're claiming it's easy to find the sources. Why don't you add them? ;-)
Shouldn't this be discussed on the article talk page? It's not a personal issue. --Krótki (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you followed my answer. No one contests verifiability of the contents of the article. The problem is that sources that back it up are not referenced in the article's text. That's the point of adding Template:Unreferenced. The template has nothing to do with popularity of the article's topic, or availability of reliable sources, or so I believe.
- About your remark about quick reverting - please keep such remarks to yourself, we're not buddies. ? --Krótki (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am, I am assuming good faith; that's why I've put the "please" before "keep", with the hope that it would make my answer less of a taunt, and more of a "I believe you are trying your best, it's just offending to me being picked at, even if in jest, by a person completely unknown to me". I hope no feelings were harmed. --Krótki (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- As the discussion has apparently moved to the Polish Wiki, I'll cease to respond here; this comment is only to make it clear that it's not my intention to ignore you. --Krótki (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've replied to you on my talk page.--Krótki (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
IW Engine
[edit]There is typically a lot of confusion surrounding the version numbering of MW3 engine. I feel that it is necessary to document the fact that it is called the IW 5.0 engine and that they only "refer" to it as the MW3 engine out of respect.
BurkusCat (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2013
[edit]
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue 
Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:
|
Content
|
|
RE:ANI Edit
[edit]The correct place to discuss standardization of video game categorization would be WT:VG. Though I'd likely not have reverted you at ANI if you had in any way stated or suggested that it was turning into an edit war. --erachima talk 08:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Sir Lothar. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)