Fogeltje

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Fogeltje, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hellfire

Hey I worked on the Hellfire game at Synergistic Studios. You can't use my name, but I can of course tell you anything you want to know about the project. So what's with the citations? --207.171.180.101 (Talk), 21:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations means that sources must be added, sources that can be verified. I'm not saying you are lying, but without documents (for instance a published work or website) it cannot be verified. Wikipedia wants verification to 'prove' things, otherwise everyone can write down what they think. So to back up the claims, you'd have to cite some documents (on a website for example) that confirm that. Look at this page to get more info: Wikipedia:Citing sources --Fogeltje 22:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

so show me the web citations for the cow quest... there aren't any. There can't be any. It's a "secret" level. Yet everyone knows its there. And in fact the text in wikipedia which I put there shows how to access it. If only web provable "facts" were in wikipedia you'd never be able to say that the CIA helped overthrow the elected leader of Chile. Yet they did. How about the CIA and the plots to kill Castro? The cigars?

But on this game, Hellfire. why is Bob Clardy now working for himself? The owner of a game studio? It's because that game got him canned. He and Ken Williams were and still are good friends. But Ken's out of Sierra to run his own stuff. Although the last venture failed.

did you know that the way the Blizzard North folks tried to keep people from hacking the game was to use random(seed) with a fixed seed, to generate the things you find in the game? And that's why it occasionally hacks up things that are diffrent if you save the game. 'cause if there is a code path, and there are a few, that don't regenerate the right number of calls to the random number generator it picks a differnt thing to generate. nice bit of hackery eh?

Besides if you look at the time line for when Synergistic ceased to Exist and that Blizzard North didn't. They quit and moved to Redmond after Vivindi ruined Sierra. It doesn't need a citation. The timeline fits perfectly.

Let the Blizzard North guys remove it if they feel its in error. --207.171.180.101 (Talk), 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Lager

I do apologize. This is what happens you have too many tabs and edit wikipedia for too many hours - I was thinking the yellow was your addition and the green the removal. Once again, my apologies. --Ozgod 07:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Warcraft 2 Story section write up

That wasn't "Copied text" as you put it, that was an original write up to which you just replaced. Could you consider at least reverting parts of what took a bit of time to write up? It is a unique passage, not a quotation from anywhere but my viewing of the game as I played it. --86.140.205.210 (Talk) 15:38 , 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is your own writing, it's way too long. The page needed to be cleaned up and drastically shortening the story is part of it. You can still save your original text for your own purposes if you wish, maybe even contribute to the WoWWiki, where it might have a better place than the regular Wikipedia. --Fogeltje 15:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I just don't like being accused of plagurism.

Warcraft II move

For future reference, the proper way to have an article moved is through WP:RM. --Wafulz 16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually scratch that, I'm stupid. --Wafulz 16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Human (Warcraft) reverts etc.

I certainly bow to your greater expertise about how the article should read--I know very little about the subject, it merely seemed to me that Warorelse's edits were arbitrary, power trippy, and generally contrary to what had stood unchanged through a good many revisions before hand--so I tried to revert to what seemed like the earliest version that made some sense in the context of the rest of the article. As for your edit summary note:

(revert last edit by Wysdom, don't link to redirects but the articles themselves)

I wasn't aware that the version I reverted to had that issue--linking to a redirect certainly isn't an editing action I'd make on my own. My apologies, and thank you for setting things straight.

Best regards,

Wysdom 11:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Understandable, it can happen, I made a mistake myself, simply reverting back to my version not looking at the good changes you made. It should be correct now. --Fogeltje 11:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the validity of the http://xwis.net/td/ external link to the Command & Conquer article

I'd say there are two things to take note of here.

1) From Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked, point three -- 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."

2) The Wiki rule quoted by you when you specified a reason for removing the http://xwis.net/td/ link -- "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."

As it is, the http://xwis.net/td/ link provides neutral and relevant material that can not be integrated into the Command & Conquer article due to copyright issues, as well as the sheer number of the available screenshots, meaning they can not be realistically imported to the article for these two reasons. This covers the Wiki rule quoted by you, as this link does constitue a unique resource for original images of this vintage game beyond what the article would contain even if it became a featured article. Thus, it's a relevant addition which meets all of Wikipedia's external linking requirements, and it should remain in the article's external links section because of this.

By the way, is Dutch of Flemish your native language? 84.192.125.204 13:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the link adds no valuable content what so ever, it is just a collection of images, so it does not provide a unique resource beyond what a featured article should contain and thus not meets the criteria for external linking. --Fogeltje 10:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, this on both counts. This is a vintage computer game which 1) is no longer in production, meaning many will no longer be able to have it in their personal possession, which makes quality screenshots of it indeed of relevance to readers of this encyclopedic article while 2) this video game is also of notable interest in general due to its distinguished status within both its own franchise as well as the real-time strategy genre as a whole. Furthermore, the notion that this link supposedly does not meet the criteria for external linking is incorrect. The third point of the first quoted Wiki policy by me in my first message on this page in fact reinforces that the link can be considered as valid -- specifically in that the http://xwis.net/td/ link contains a type of relevant content which can not be integrated into this article itself due to copyright issues, as well as due to the amount of detail it represents (in that the images are far too numerous to realistically integrate into the article even if there were no copyright issues at hand).

I've hereby validated the use of this link according to standing Wikipedia policies regarding external links, and subsequently re-added it to the article. If you continue to delete it, I will call on outside mediation on this issue. 84.192.125.204 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How does a page with dozens of screenshots add anything of value to the article? It has no informative value. One screenshot in the article would be considered valid, if no copyright is violated, but dozens of screenshots add nothing. --Fogeltje 21:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To prevent an ongoing edit war, I'm going to do what I should have done earlier and move it to the talk page of the article. --Fogeltje 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision to CSI page (Re: Radiohead music)

I removed the reference to the recoilmag.com article about Radiohead songs appearing in CSI as well as the specific number of Radiohead songs appearing, which is based off of this article. The article in question is a parody. The entire website is a parody website, similar to The Onion. All of the facts and interviews taking place in this article are fictitious. I am making my changes again. Please do not revert back, unless you have an explanation for why Wikipedia should be citing parody websites. Thanks. 24.44.171.195 06:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you should have written a proper edit summary. When an anonymous user simply deletes content I automatically assume vandalism. That can be easily avoided by writing your reasons in the summary. --Fogeltje 10:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: my original comment here was rude but offered no argument. For that I apologize and instead offer a rebuttal that is both rude and contains a detailed argument. I hope you prefer it:

This is why most of the mainstream considers Wikipedia a farce: like its users, the website is self-righteous and often very incorrect. The bottom line is that you made an edit without even taking one second to review it. In spite of your presumed assertion that it is necessary, no legitimate copy editor would operate in this manner and this is not Wikipedia’s sanctioned policy for editing. Which do you think they hold more important: expeditious editing, or correct information? You made the article less correct because you were too lazy to review the edit made and to review the discussion page, plain and simple. I do not dispute that adding an edit summary would have avoided this situation entirely, but that is only because of your ham-handed approach to editing. 24.44.171.195 14:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I simply consider any deletion of text without an explanation by IP users vandalism since in 99% of the case it is. If I started to verify it all it would simply be undoable. A simple edit summary would alert me to the fact that it is not senseless vandalism as most vandals either don't bother at all or just write crap in the summary. It's not a matter of lazyness but a practical issue. --Fogeltje 04:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pirated Phantasy Star version

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phantasy_Star_IV:_The_End_of_the_Millennium&diff=137332784&oldid=137326735

Hey, man! I provided a source. Why did you revert it? WhisperToMe 23:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"(cur) (last) 22:30, 10 June 2007 Fogeltje (Talk | contribs | block) m (8,832 bytes) (removed pirate copy mentioning) [rollback]"

You realize that we have articles on pirate stuff like Somari and Kart Fighter, right? WhisperToMe 00:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Diablo links

Hello! I'd like to see the list of links on the Diablo articles kept fairly short. As it is, they're fine, but when there are dozens of them, all to different forums and trading sites it's just silly. Can you think of an objective way to keep in useful sites without letting in the rubbish?

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 20:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, besides using good judgement with the guidelines in your mind. Any official sites should always be listed, for Hellfire there isn't one, but you accidently deleted the official page for Diablo. As for non-official sites, forums are usually a no-go (unless it's an official forum, but in that case a link to the official page usually suffices). Trading sites don't add any relevant information and are usually self-promotion only and shouldn't be added. As for fansites, I guess you have to take a look...if it's "just another fansite" without offering anything new of informative value, then probably no. But if sites go indepth on certain issues that are interesting and informative, but not suited for inclusion into Wikipedia (because they are too detailed for example), then it should be listed. Jarulf's guide and the Evolution site are examples of that, wiki's dedicated to the game also. Articles written there can contain large amounts of backstory information useful for everyone, stuff that shouldn't be included into the regular wikipedia. Unfortunately there will always be people who claim that a link they add has value while in the eyes of others it hasn't.

In short, my method is not entirely objective but I always look at sites with the WP:EL in my mind, but there simply isn't a simple mechanism to judge if sites should be listed or not. If you are in doubt, discussion on the talk page of the article will be helpful, gain insights of others and perhaps concensus on whether to keep it or delete it.--Fogeltje 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WoW Burning Crusade

Sorry that I may be messing up your page or something but I felt I had to tell you that the last time I checked the Burning Crusade Minimum Requirements on my box. It wasn't a AMD Athlon, it was a AMD Duron. That and this is kind of my first time every using Wikipedia... It's fairly confusing. --Zurc 11:23, 31 July 2007 Zurc (UTC)

Unreal Tournament page (not a link repository)

I realize that it is not a link repository. However, are you telling me that external links that are useful and have worthwhile content should not be on those pages? Because, if so, there ought to not be an external links section at all. There are other equally useful links in that section so I don't see any reason that the change was removed. --Sir Brizz 20:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WOW

I just failed to find the specifications :) I'll make sure it's the table of contents for the world of warcraft article, and that I'm not blind :) Mathiastck 21:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I re added my edit. Without it, there is no specification. As software, there must be a specification section, if possible, but especially for software of this importance. I'm defining importance by $, or # of users, or # of engineers. Mathiastck 21:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's right there in the infobox on the top right of the page. I see that your edit has been reverted already. --Fogeltje 13:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dexter

Who are you to dictate what is useful content?!?!?!? This site provides useful information for Dexter Fans. If you want people to find out about the TV series DexterTVseries.com is a viable source of information. Please refrain from undoing my edits. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.152.0.58 (talk) 13:11, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Read the guide to external linking. Please stop re-adding the link, it is considered linkspam to do so.--Fogeltje 13:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos Thanks for fixing what I missed

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

User:70.173.50.153 and User:Metastasize

Hi. Please be aware of this edit. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

After discussion on the AN/I here the page has been blanked by User:Luna Santin, a move which I fully support. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

seaQuest DSV articles

Thank you for your support in the "seaQuest article wars" that are currently being waged. ;) Your continued support in maintaining the integrity of the articles, rather than having them all simply changed to redirects or deletion without any discussion (as you said), is much appreciated. Kyle C Haight (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

James Brody

Can someone tell me when did this happen "At some point in his life, Brody sired a child with a woman. However, being a career-military and a private man, Brody never told any of the seaQuest crew of that aspect of his life." Just wondering? Cassandrasfisher (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference provided is the episode Spindrift from the third season. You would have to watch the episode as it is probably mentioned in dialogue there. It has been too long since I watched it so I can't tell and I don't have the episode easily at hand, only on VHS somewhere. Perhaps Kyle has the dialogue at hand but I'm not sure if he originally wrote this paragraph (I just restored the deleted refence). Check the history to see who wrote it.--Fogeltje (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing But the Truth (seaQuest DSV episode)

As someone involved, but less biased, in the editing of seaQuest material I have a question for you. For the article Nothing But the Truth (seaQuest DSV episode) does it seem that it is correctly and completely referenced to you? User:Pairadox keeps adding the reference tag but every section short of the plot summary itself IS referenced (and when a reference for it was added "seaQuest season 1" it was removed as pointless), or am I missing something you think? Dr. Stantz (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the references are sufficient. The reference for the plot itself is the episode itself obviously and the background material has been referenced with sources, do I really don't see a problem with the referencing.--Fogeltje (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Calgary Flames

Hello Fogeltje. At that article, we prefer to use sovereign state (with the exception of Canada & United States only). If you disagree? comment at Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:2007-08 Calgary Flames season

Hi, the decision in that field is the goaltender who got the result for the Flames. So, Kiprusoff got the decision in the first two games (a win and a loss respectively), and Joseph got it for his game three win. The Sharks article would show which goalie got the decision for the Sharks. Regards, Resolute 19:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Resolute 20:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

CSI Blog Refrence

Who are you to say that a TV Guide Blog is not a good source? Cite your source for "the speculated charicter.' You Forgot to do that, didn't you. Also, do not remove content that other wikipedians have put for "no reason" That is |wrong (you did say that in the edit summary you gave, just look).Miagirljmw14 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What did I forget? I'm not following what you are trying to say. I will leave the new character up for now, apparently others think TV Guide Blog is a good source. Still there was no reason to delete Wendy Simms.--Fogeltje (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Diablo (video game)

The link is usable - the class "Rogue" describes the sanctuary and the reader would like to get know more about sanctuaries - wikilinks are the whole point of reading Wikipedia. So, your revert is strictly baseless. Lothar25 (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's true, my mistake ;]. I've misled building sanctuary with the world Sanctuary. Thanks, Lothar25 (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your current solution is quite fine. I see no problem in linking sanctuary in that section. I hadn't noticed it was used there in the common definition of sanctuary. Also I should have been more clear in my edit summary about sanctuary and Sanctuary (the world of Diablo). Glad we could work it out :) Thanks for leaving a message.--Fogeltje (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

About WoW heroic difficulty

"Wikipedia is not a game guide", OK, but I believe, that providing the information, that the heroic dungeons are harder, have improved loot, and can be accessed after a certain amount of reputation is necessary, because this make a dungeon difficulty heroic. Being a game guide would mean to expose how to complete this difficulties.

--Drhlajos (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation Flashpoint 2 Edits

Why the destruction of the video and fansite links? These links are important to people trying to gain information and a summary of the game. --99.246.119.39 (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC) (Sir. Pol)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links. Youtube video's hardly add anything of informative value, unless they are interviews, which is why I didn't scrap all of them.--Fogeltje (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct not a "indiscriminate collection" the videos provide a look to the engine and graphics of the gameplay. As well they are a higher resolution content then what is posted in the interview. No other content exists at that quality to show what was shown in that interview. As well all this infomation relates to summrising and informing the reader of operation flashpoint in its entirety.

As for the fansites, I believe they provide a more active source of content that is not 100% suitable for wikipedia but is still good for informed future reading. This is why I believe them to be included. However if you deem them unsuitable I don't see a great need for them to exist. However people wishing to know more will not know where to find the infomation. Perhaps they should be placed in See also? --99.246.119.39 (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)(Sir. Pol)

I have taken another look at the external links. In retrospect, the first link seems OK, especially since a member of the development team seems to contribute there. The other two however, I'm afraid, are not. The German site might be linked to on the German article (if existing), but sites in other languages should not be added to external links unless they are official or provide some unique content that is not available in English, I doubt this is the case. The other link is basically composed of IRC and a forum. Such things sadly do not qualify. If this site had more, for example detailed production anecdotes that might be informative on the issue but not suitable for wikipedia, then it might deserve some consider, just a community however, doesn't.

As for the video's, an overabundance was used. I think it might be OK to have one short gameplay video, so readers can get a short idea of what it is like to play the game. But it is really unnecessary to post links to video's, going into details about weapons used. This kind of information gets way to specific, Wikipedia aims to give a broad view of a game. In that light, one short gameplay video (preferably showing multiple aspects but not too long) should be OK in my eyes.--Fogeltje (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, Perhaps later there will be a page dedicated to the grapics engine and there the other video could go. --99.246.119.39 (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC) (Sir. Pol)

No problem!

--SameerKhan (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

CSI

The runnning time of a programme is generally taken to be the time without commercials - stating that it's the time without commercials is perhaps being a bit redundant. Look at the entries for Spooks or MythBusters - running time is stated, the fact that it's time without commercials is taken for granted. (Note that BBC doesn't show adverts on its terrestrial channels based in UK.) Autarch (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

I think the Manual of Style could be tweaked a little, but thank you for sort of responding in your revert text. XD - Eugene Krabs (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure a lot of thought went into the MOS as it is now. But you can always address your thoughts in the discussion page of MOS:TRADE. I'd suggest you first read up on the archives to find out what argumentation was used for the current MOS. If you can reach consensus with other editors, the MOS might actually be tweaked.--Fogeltje (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bus Services in Nijmegen

Thank you for pointing out those two services at Nijmegen Heyendaal.

At Nijmegen Dukenburg railway station, would you be able to confirm those services go there. Google Earth also said that 1, 87 and 99 serve the Brabantse Poort, if so could you add some service information?

Thank You Chris0693 (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed another error on Heyendaal. I will also look at Dukenburg station. The Dutch wikipedia also has a comprehensive and up-to-date list on busservices in most large places. As for Nijmegen, it even has an article on it's own: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openbaar_vervoer_in_Nijmegen I've worked on that article myself in keeping it up to date. I will update Heyendaal and Dukenburg trainstation now.--Fogeltje (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Nijmegen Lent railway station

Hi Again

Could you check bus service information in for this station please?

Thank You Chris0693 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no personal experience with station Lent (opposed to Nijmegen, Dukenburg and Heyendaal) but according to my timetable booklet from Novio and online information from novio.nl the changes I made should correctly reflect the current situation. Buslines 25 and 32 also drive through Lent but don't call at the station as far as my knowledge goes.--Fogeltje (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

2009–10 Flames season

Don't ask me what happened there. I noticed something went awry after making the change, but while the display read one thing, when I went to edit it, something entirely different came up. When I canceled that edit, everything seemed ok. I was going to check back later to see if everything was write, but it appears you've corrected the issue. I guess Wikipedia had a hissyfit right when I was editing. Thanks, Resolute 04:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I Apologize

I am sorry for what i said a few weeks ago I have accepted I have done wrong I did not know the wikipedia rules before that I am truly sorry. --Whitmore 8621 (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)122.107.239.241

Thanks for your message. Good luck here on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask and I'll see if I can help you or at least point you into the right direction. --Fogeltje (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC) --Whitmore 8621 (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)122.107.239.241'

Help

How do you close a account, Because i forgot how to Could you help please. from 122.107.239.241 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.239.241 (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by close an account? Do you want to delete your Wikipedia account? That is impossible, since you contribute as an anonymous user, which means you don't have an account. Regardless, any edit you have made is permanent and found in edit histories. Please explain what you mean and I'll try to help you.--Fogeltje (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If I had a account how can it be deleted because I would just like to know how to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.239.241 (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible either. I have never looked into it, but since Wikipedia stores every edit ever made, accounts are not deleted either. I just looked at the help page for you. It's indeed not possible to delete your account as all edits made must be tracked. You can however request to have your userpage and user talkpage blanked. Please refer to Wikipedia:Account_deletion#Deleting_an_account. I hope this answers your question.--Fogeltje (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It does help thanks very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.239.241 (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 122.107.239.241

Glad to be of service. I have a request, can you sign your comments the next time you post on my talkpage? You can sign your comments with the following code: --~~~~ (without the nowiki tags). Thanks. --Fogeltje (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Caliber

Good catch of my misguided edit on 5"/38 caliber gun. I checked caliber before making the edit, but I saw what I expected instead of what was there. I think caliber could use some subject tidying, and said so on Talk:Caliber, in case you're interested. ENeville (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That might be a good idea as I had to read the caliber article twice to assure myself I was making a correct edit. I started doubting the correctness of the 5"/38 caliber gun article when you made your edit, read the text in the article, skimmed the caliber article, still doubted after I first skimmed the caliber article. Since firearms and artillery weapons are a completely different kinds of weapons I think it would be smart to split up the caliber articles as well.--Fogeltje (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

New account

• If you would like to know 122.107.239.241 thats is my old user account my new account is Whitmore 8621. Thanks for your help over the last few months.--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Whitmore 8621

GAA leader for the Flames

Saw your comment on your edit note. I'd go with Kiprusoff as the GAA leader given that Toskala has played an insignificant number of games. It's also consistent with how I wrote the previous seasons articles. Cheers! Resolute 23:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That was my thought, Kipper has taken the majority of the games, but I wasn't sure whom to pick. I'll change it back. In the last season this was never really an issue as McElhinney's average was never better as Kipper's. Thanks for the note.--Fogeltje (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Phantasy Star.

Please be careful with your reverts. My friend literally came to me upset because his improvements were reverted. Besides, you can't just revert something simply because you do not like it. Sometime this week I will get to that main SEGA article, and then I'll revert back to the correct way on the other articles. - Zhang He (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't revert things simply because I don't like them and I don't like to be accused of such. Furthermore I had explained the reason for my changes in my original edit, which your friend ignored and simply reverted without a comment, even stating a false edit summary (calling my edit "unmotivated" which it wasn't). I didn't assume bad faith since I think he acted in good faith making the initial change from Sega to SEGA and the fact the he probably was new to Wikipedia (impossible to tell from users on school IPs). When I reverted those changes I even explained my actions again (as I find it to be rude to just revert and leaving the standard edit summary in place, an editor deserves to know why a revert was made unless it's a clear account of vandalism which it wasn't in this case in my opinion). I also left your friend a message on his talkpage why I reverted his revert. He has no reason to be upset. He can simply take up the dialog.

I suggest you take the name issue to the talkpage of the main article first. It might incite an edit war with users if you simply change the name of the article without prior discussion. I think the spelling issue came up before but I'm not sure, you'd have to dig in the talk page archives.--Fogeltje (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sega or SEGA

Split off from User_talk:168.99.144.58 to avoid confusion with multiple editors of the same IP adress.

Thank you for contacting me. In the future, please use my talk page located at User_talk:Fogeltje, that is intended for questions and communications. Or reply here on your talk page, I'll watch it for a while.

The reason why I changed the spelling SEGA back to Sega is because "Sega" is the way it is spelled on Wikipedia. Look it up at the article Sega. I think there has been discussion as to what the proper spelling should be. If you single handedly change the spelling on the Phantasy Star pages you are first of all creating a mess as every other page handles the spelling Sega. It would not be consistent. Also, many internal links to articles will either turn into unnecessary redirects or even not existing links if you just change them in the articles.

In short. The main reason why I changed it was because it does not adhere to proper spelling used on Wikipedia. If you think it should be spelled SEGA and not Sega, I would like to ask you to go to Talk:Sega and create a new discussion there. If the majority of editors think the spelling should be changed, then it can be done in a collaborative effort.

As you are evidently pretty new to Wikipedia, I will post a welcoming template your talk page. It contains useful things you need to know when editing on Wikipedia. You can also ask your friend or me if some things are not clear. I think it might be best if you created a user account for yourself as I think your IP is used by multiple people. That way I know I'm talking to you and not others from that IP.

I hope I answered your questions. If you have questions, feel free to reply.--Fogeltje (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Help-Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker

• I have had a edit disruption over the last couple of months with Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker. First their was a fight over a certain part of the plot I added into the article that was sourced. Yet it got removed and it became a edit war. Then I stopped and edited gameplay and a certain user by the name of Eaglestorm. He never lets me edit the page. Could you help me please Im not sure what to do or Could you help me find some way to help resolve this crisis. --Whitmore 8621 (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Whitmore 8621

Sorry, I had read this earlier and wanted to reply later, but it slipped my mind. The issue seems to be original research or unrealiable sources. Seeing this game is not released yet, I would suggest to let this page rest until the came is actually released. You will have a reliable source then, the game itself. However, you must also be careful to get too much detail into it, that was one of the complaints about your edits as well as far as I can tell. Please read WP:CRUFT about that.--Fogeltje (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Eaglestorm said it would be preferred I do not get involved in editing the game after it is released. The point is every time I try to edit something it always gets removed.--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Whitmore 8621

I don't know what his problems are exactly but no one owns that article and no one can forbid a user to edit an article. Maybe it's an idea to have people involved in the article proofread your submissions before you add them to the article itself (for instance posting them on the talk page first and asking for comments).--Fogeltje (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks yeah,The User/editor Eaglestorm pretty much is like the President or Chief of that article in his opinion. There was also a source of information from the Tokyo game show game preview that mentioned the CIA involvement in the plot and I added that but Ealgestorm removed that as well. Thanks very much for your support anyway I appreciate it.--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Whitmore

Addendum

Hello Fogeltje, Just so you know, the threadstarter has been indef blocked for edit warring and has used several socks to evade it. It appears his mental capacity as a Wikipedia editor had severely degraded over the past few months. If worse comes to worse and push totally came to shove, we would have to smash his face with the banhammer. President or Chief...hah, what a -for lack of NPA-compliant term- retard.

As for the article, I'm not bragging, but the early stages of its post-release expansion was my handiwork, arguably more than that guy could ever do. He's just jealous because the Nixon and Liquid Snake stuff he's been trying to put has long since been disproven. As explained in one of the archived threads, it would be better if he never contributed to the article at all because AGF on him was no longer possible, or he would have wanted the article improved according to his whims.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Next/Previous Stations Templates

Moved this to the appropiate talk page to keep the discussion centralized.

Orphaned non-free media (File:Miracle Warriors - Battle.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Miracle Warriors - Battle.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Miracle Warriors - Title.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Miracle Warriors - Title.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Miracle Warriors - Town.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Miracle Warriors - Town.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2014 (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) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fogeltje. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fogeltje. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)