User talk:Fogeltje

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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:

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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, Reso lute 19:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)