User talk:Soetermans/Archive 2013

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crystal Fighters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Soetermans. You have new messages at JDC808's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--JDC808 ♫ 20:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

{Soetermans|InternetMeme|Testing on Wikipedia|ts = 16:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)}

I've just edited my comment to be more descriptive. Unfortunately, that template has an error so I gave up on using it. InternetMeme (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Externe links voor de Fallout wiki

Hallo Soetermans. Misschien herinner je het niet meer, maar ruim een jaar geleden (februari 2012) heb ik, Jspoelstra, bureaucraat, contact met je gehad over Wikia's Fallout wiki link op Wikipedia's Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas pagina. Ik had hem toegevoegd, echter enige tijd later werd hij door een bot weer ongedaan gemaakt, vanwege commerciele belangen vermoed ik. Na een gesprek met jou heb je hem toch weer toegevoegd (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fallout_3&diff=next&oldid=476668216) want hoewel de host Wikia als commercieel bedrijf kan worden beschouwd, iedereen die actief is op onze wiki (Nukapedia) en de wiki maakt tot wat hij is, werkt hier vrijwillig en zonder enige vergoeding aan. Gisteren ontdekte ik echter dat admin Nikkimaria de link weer verwijderd heeft (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fallout_3&diff=536044982&oldid=536044373) waarschijnlijk weer om te veel commercieel belang? Uiteraard ben ik daar teleurgesteld over. Mijn verzoek is of de link weer terug mag en je dit wellicht met Nikkimaria kunt overleggen. Als het niet mag, dan lijkt het me ook niet terecht dat die andere wiki, The Vault, er blijft staan als wiki link. Zolang ik me kan herinneren staat The Vault link er, maar is de link aangepast door de oprichter Ausir, werkzaam bij Wikia t/m November 2011, ging werken voor concurrent Curse en zijn wiki (en vele admins) meenam. Destijds ontstond er dus 2 gelijke wikis waarna beiden hun eigen pad koos. Het success van de verhuizing is echter uitgebleven. The Vault heeft minder dan 10,000 bezoekers per dag terwijl wij, ondanks een moeilijke periode volgend op de split, een constant bezoekerstroom hebben gehouden en nog steeds in weekends bv. een miljoen bezoekers hebben. Dus het is toch wel vreemd dat een kleine commerciele wiki wel een link mag hebben en wij als duidelijk de grootste wiki niet. Bij zoekmachines komen we ook als er eerste naar voren. Je kunt zeggen van geef een kleinere wiki ook een kans, maar toch, Curse is minstens zo commercieel als Wikia, dus gelijke kappen, gelijke monniken. Of wij mogen er beide staan of geen van beide toch? Kun je me hiermee helpen? Jspoel (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

En de link was oorspronkelijk van ons en was toen toegestaan. Omdat hij veranderd is, mag de oude oorspronkelijk link dan ineens niet meer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspoel (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Metal Arms: Glitch in the System

Please leave the Metal Arms: Glitch in the System wiki page alone and stop editing it as im sure your not a fan of the game and you have better things to do thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.89.122 (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That's right, I've never played the game. I am however a fan of Wikipedia, so I try to follow its guide lines. If you want to edit Wikipedia also, I suggest you do so too. Your reverting doesn't help the article at all, because Wikipedia is not a game guide. I do have better things to do, like work on my essay, so if you could stop hitting that revert button without a valid reason, that'd be great, thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 13:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well why can you just not leave the Metal Arms page alone then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.89.122 (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a game guide website. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 13:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL,Also you made an edit to one of the versions of the page and changed things like PS2 to playstation 2 im sure people know what PS2 stands for so i see that as disruptive editing,I know you don't have better things to do then watch one page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.89.122 (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is truly hilarious that I try to make sure video game articles follow the video game guide lines. --Soetermans. T / C 13:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So your trying to stop me from editing this page cause i wont i will just make it neat ^_^ and add a few things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.89.122 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to stop you from editing, I am trying to get through to you that in its previous state, the article wasn't any good. Have you seen the article on BioShock Infinite? That is a great article: well-balanced, well-written, properly sourced, you name it. If you can make the article on Metal Arms just as good, be my guest. --Soetermans. T / C 13:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well that's what the other user was trying to do edit the page to include loads more stuff then what you keep changing it to cause right now it looks small as but with all that information it looked better just because it didn't look good to you doesn't mean it wont look good to others,Plus everytime that i will start to edit the page of Metal Arms to make it look better in the future please don't just jump in and edit it back thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.89.122 (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Loads more stuff" doesn't automatically mean it will get any better. Like adding a list of weapons or vehicles, that is rather trivial. For a game guide, sure, that information can be quite useful, but not here. It might "look good" to you and many others, but we've agreed upon how Wikipedia should be, you know, like a real enclyclopedia. Also, I am not trying to stand in your way of editing at all, but if you do something like this I will try to follow the agreed upon rules. If you want to look up how the game was developed, by who and where it was created, how it was received by the video game press, that would be great. --Soetermans. T / C 14:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Metal Arms: Glitch in the System had its 10 Year Anniversary on November 18, 2003 needs to be on the metal arms page also you do not own the metal arms page so you can not say that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.40.225 (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

1) The game was released ten years ago, are you sure it also had its ten year anniversary in the same year? 2) It was released ten years ago, that doesn't automatically make it an anniversary. 3) You are the who claims ownership of the article, because you do not follow guidelines and do no listen to others. Please, make your own fanpage and leave the article alone. --Soetermans. T / C 12:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lunar Knights may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Folklore (video game) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Just Cause 2 may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle: Los Angeles (video game) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to LittleBigPlanet (PSP) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Metro: Last Light edit

Hi there, this is regarding my stubborn support of my addition to the Wikipedia article for Metro: Last Light and your stubborn desire to keep removing it. :P You claim that the information I posted is not from a "notable" reviewer. Why is that? Is it because the reviewer is not from Western Europe or North America? What makes this any less "notable" than an American reviewer. I don't understand. Here is the dictionary definition of the adjective notable:

1) Worthy of note or notice; remarkable

2) Characterized by excellence or distinction; eminent

Whether something is "notable" or not depends almost entirely on one's opinion. If I claim that this Polish reviewer is notable enough and you remove the information I give regarding his review because you claim otherwise, then you're automatically placing your opinion above mine. Why is my opinion below yours? Am I not entitled to an opinion that is just as worthy as yours? Is Wikipedia not a place for equal editing opportunities?

Finally, if you think that for some reason GRYOnline.pl is not popular enough, then I assure you that it is. It is well known and considered a great source of gaming information in Poland. Furthermore, I am certain that Wikipedia uses Metacritic ratings to show critical reception of games in its articles. As you can see here: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/metro-last-light/critic-reviews GRYOnline.pl is recognized as a valuable, reliable and "notable" critic, since its score adds up to make Last Light's average and the verdict of its review is translated to English. If Metacritic recognizes GRYOnline.pl, then why wouldn't Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samotny Wędrowiec (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Samotny,

Sorry for my rash revert. As you can see, I already reinstated Gry-Online's review. Let me explain, Wikipedia works by consensus, what its editors think should be added or removed. But Wikipedia is not a democracy: what people think and want might not always be the best or easiest solution. Also, Wikipedia tries to use valid and checkable sources. So it is not that I personally thought that Gry-Online wasn't suitable, I was merely mistaken that I doesn't fit Wikipedia's guidelines on video game sources. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of video game websites and we just can't add them all.

But that doesn't mean Wikipedia prefers Western European or American websites, not at all. This is the English language Wikipedia, and it tries to encompass a worldwide view of its topics. And also video games! So with a little checking I saw that Gry-Online is in fact considered a decent and reliable source.

The reason why I reverted your edits was mostly because of its style, the bit by Gry-Online was quite long and it ended with a "must buy" advice. I'm sure you'll agree that's not really necessary to mention in a summary of a video game review. Also, naming the reviewer in question is not necessary, unless it is a well-known video game journalist (i.e. Jessica Chobot) and lastly, adding a direct link in the article body. A quick glance at the guidelines might help you with the style and mark-up.

Your help is much appreciated here on Wikipedia, and please, don't let my stubborn attitude get in the way :) Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 09:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much and sorry for my assumptions. I had experienced similar obstacles in the past, but unlike you they were quite discriminating towards anything that wasn't "Western". I'm glad you turned out to be a completely different person than I thought you were. Once again, sorry for my assumptions and cheers! :) Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, don't mention it, it was my fault to begin with :) I do get that, that sometimes experienced users can come off as impatient or even rude. Don't bite the newcomers is an actual guideline :P Also about non-Western video game outlets there can be some discussion. I actually saw a topic about adding reviews by the long-running Japanese video game magazine Famitsu to articles, to which another user replied that "Japan has their own Wikipedia". --Soetermans. T / C 07:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Game Maker

I am undoing your revision, as you were obviously not aware of Jaymd 123 section blanking and replacing and adding large portions of copy and pasted plagiarised content. 71.114.161.227 (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You do realize I took out whole bunch of stuff right? I'm sorry, but a YouTube video and a reddit forum aren't reliable sources. And the bit about the logo isn't a controversy as far as Wikipedia isn't concerned. Not everything ever should be on Wikipedia, you know. --Soetermans. T / C 14:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey I am not the one who added it there, and it has been there since 2009, but I do not have any problem with you removing it, major refactoring needed done to the article anyway. I was also not the one to cite youtube as a source, so :P yah 71.114.161.227 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, why is the article providing such information as each version or export module, that is all a part of the softwares license agreement, and is not something that should be on a Wikipedia article either, I have never heard of or seen that on a Wikipedia article for software ever in my life. That section should in fact be blanked, now that you bring up what should not be on the article. 71.114.161.227 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

...Then why are you reverting? Just because it has been up there a couple of years doesn't mean it should either. Look at the difference: YouTube and reddit, not reliable sources. Steam and Valve are written with capital letters. An apology that isn't been given shouldn't be mentioned, only if it was. Direct external links in the article body is discouraged. GMC is not an acceptable abbrevation, and finally, the discussion about the logo just isn't notable to mention. This article is about Game Maker as a program, not about its developer or publisher.

Please stop your section blanking. You are vandalising Wikipedia right now.

I'm afraid I'll have to revert once more. I hope you see my point. --Soetermans. T / C 14:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Too late ^_^ I already blanked the section for you, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the Wikipedia:COPYVIO that was going on. My apologies I just thought you were doing more section blanking. Now as far as me section blanking the version info, that does not belong on Wikipedia articles, if you check revision history, X201 removed the version info, and I only furthered it by blanking platform version info, many of the versions listed there are not actually for Game Maker Studio, but older versions, such as the Mac Edition, there is only a Windows version of Studio which is the latest version of Game Maker. But do you see this kind of debate on the Microsoft Office artiles or Visual Studio or any other software article? No because according to me, and X201 and Wikipedia standards, it does not belong there. I hope you see my point as well. 71.114.161.227 (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, why did you message me twice about that, as soon as I left you a message here I went and blanked the logo controversy section you don't like, then decided to take out the rest of the version info like X201 started. What gives? 71.114.161.227 (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment on your cleanup

Two points on some of the cleanup that you are doing.

• While VG guidelines have gameplay before plot, I would be careful making this swap in articles, particularly those at GA, A-class, or FA. Like in Limbo (video game) the article is written with plot first because it is a trivial plot and it leads into why the gameplay is as gruesome as it is. This is uncommon but not disallowed by the VG guidelines, so I wouldn't be as automatic to swap these.
• While the styling of a title is typically not notable or discussed, it is important that if the title is commonly presented in a different structure from normal sentence/capitalization case in various news sources, repeating that for the readers helps them to understand that if they see that form of the title, they are reading about the same game. It's not necessarily just because that's how it appears on the game box cover, but how the press and the like use the term, even if they otherwise make no reference to its odd capitalizing or presentation. I would be careful about removing these too.

Everything else - rm'ing unused VG template fields - is all fine and dandy, otherwise. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Masem,

Thanks for your feedback. I see what you mean with swapping gameplay and plot, in this case it is actually better. On the style of a title it is still somewhat ambigious to me, because I would think most readers would gather from the cover in the infobox and a quick glance at the lead that it is of course the same game in question (however, most people are of course idiots. A guy in my class didn't know that: a) Spanish is considered a world language b) that most of South America speaks Spanish). When is it truly notable that a certain style should be mentioned? This is however a moot point, because it is about half a sentence between brackets. --Soetermans. T / C 11:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone can see the images (mobile browser/disability) and sometimes what's on the box is not in case-representative of the actual game's marketing. (eg Gears of War uses all-caps on the title but its marketing in print never uses all-caps nor is the game in third-party ever represented like that). It's a bit more intricate than just reiterating what the cover art seems to use. Also considering that Wikimedia's titling system is case-sensitive, listing the non-standard case title that may be a valid search term in the first line can help the reader make sure they got the right page (eg LIMBO does redirect to Limbo (video game). There's probably cases out there where editors are just adding that line to be "cool", so it's not that its always right to include either, I'd just be careful on "automatic" removals of such. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Plague Inc. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Plague

The Last of Us (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Official PlayStation Magazine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flow (video game) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hotline Miami may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peggle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [http://www.edge-online.com/features/feature-making-ofacirc/ ''[[Edge (magazine)|Edge]]'' magazine's

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Other stuff exists

Thanks for your edit of the The Last of Us article. Good to meet another video game lover! Just thought that I should make you aware that sometimes the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument can be valid, especially in dealing with relatively minor details, as it allows for the encyclopedia as a whole to become more self-consistent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists#Precedent_in_usage
"Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology."
In the particular case of my edit, the word "overwhelming" was used in another article (a featured article) in describing the reception of a game, so it would be consistent and therefore acceptable of the encyclopedia if this word was used elsewhere. This isn't to say I'll be reverting your edit - my edit was a large one and I happen to think that "universal" is more suitable - I just thought I should clarify that sometimes this rationale can indeed be valid.
Thanks :) Autonova (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Autonova,

Thanks for your message. While it is true that OTHERSTUFF not always applies, often it does. GA's and FA's are still checked by human beings, and we tend to make mistakes, or just overlook things. Words can have several meanings, as does the word "overwhelming". Objectively speaking, it could mean 'powerful' or 'to a great extent', like "The enemy attacked with overwhelming force". But you can also experience it as a verb: "I was overwhelmed by that gesture", if you were swept off your feet. So in the case of mentioning how a particular game was received it can mean two very different things. I also find the word universal(ly) more appropriate, because that is easy to back up ("Universal? How?". "Every reviewer gave it a good review". "Ah, I see!"). But I do assume good faith, I don't think that anyone wants to add a particular word or phrase just because of adding it :P Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 09:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

..for redirecting Mirror's Edge 2. I would have done so but I'm unfamiliar with the redirecting procedure. Anyway thanks! Happy Editing. <KirtZJ>^Talk 11:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't mention it! It is real easy to do, blank the page and put "#REDIRECT [[article name here]]" on top, like so. Hit save, and the page will redirect to its new destination. That also is handy for games that are often known by its initials (i.e., FFVII -> Final Fantasy VII), with different numerals (Grand Theft Auto 4 -> Grand Theft Auto IV) or by its subtitle (Skyrim -> The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim). --Soetermans. T / C 12:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I'll put that to good use. <KirtZJ>^Talk 04:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Rain Rain (video game)

At the very least, "rain" is something the developers are actually using; please see here. There's nothing wrong with tracking flourish (just put it in the lede and run) if it's being used, and as far as I know that's the standard. Despatche (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Despatche,

You're right, I'm sorry. The particular styling has to be used in promotion or in media. Often games use a particular typeface, (like you edited Payday 2 with its dollar sign thing, that isn't worthy to mention), but in this case Rain is actually used as rain. No hard feelings, I hope? Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 12:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops, how could I have made such a blunder?

Certainly no hard feelings here. There are an awful lot of people who spend their time trying to "fight" this with no facts to back any of the punches; if I ever seem rude about any of this, I apologize and blame it on having to deal with these people (i.e. having to come across as generally rude as it seems to be the only language these people understand). I was actually about to mention the case with Pepsi, until I remembered someone else came in, thought the same thing I did, and made the edits (and the previous group of folks have yet to reappear).

I truly appreciate the support in one of the most misunderstood realms of Wikipedia. Thank you. Despatche (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerns, jealousy or just plain hatred.

Well, yes, I did removed those on purpose and it wasn't IGN. It was Polygon's and Gamespot's reviews. Why are you adding them back? Do you hate the game that much that you must add those disgusting reviews? Despite The Last of Us being one of the highest rated video game of all time. You don't see any of those negative reviews in Wiki for Red Dead Redemption and Batman: Arkham City, despite those games having a lower total ratings than The Last of Us. Seriously? Why? To be fair? Or are you so happy that those two moronic sites gave it a low score that you had to type it in. Understood? You neanderthal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azyral (talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And Red Dead Redemption and Batman: Arkham City should probably have those negative reviews mentioned, too. Are they coming from reliable sources? Go ahead and add them. Despatche (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Species in Defiance

The article is certainly unsourced, but what's the evidence for your contention that it's a copyvio? john k (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Followills

I started a discussion on the Kings of Leon talk page about recreating the Followill articles. After all, they are members of a successful rock band and, in my opinion, are sufficiently notable to warrant articles. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eddy, thanks for your message. I replied here. --Soetermans. T / C 16:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Linking "video game"

I saw the WPVG discussion where you mentioned an edit war over linking the text "video game" in the first sentence of the lede. Have you considered linking it as action-adventure video game instead of action-adventure video game? I'm uninvolved in the circumstances, but that would be my suggestion or compromise, and it's what I tend to do, myself. Take care czar · · 17:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi czar, thanks for your message.

Niemti claims "video game" is a common word, and as such should not be linked. I think it should, as video games are (as you undoubtly know) a very broad topic and not just one typical product or art form. That's why I don't think that [[Action-adventure game|action-adventure video game]] is the solution either. With The Last of Us being a video game in the first place, isn't a link appropriate to what it actually is, even if were a common word? (which also begs the question, how "common" exactly are video games?)

I suppose that WP:OVERLINK "everyday words understood by most readers in context" might be the argument against mine, but at the same time WP:UNDERLINK states "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (...) so long as the link is relevant to the article in question." --Soetermans. T / C 20:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've found that linking to the genre serves the same function as explaining "video games" for those interested and would bypass your current struggle. You can have a style war, but it'll only rile the two of you. Unless you can point to previous consensus or have enough interest in making consensus, the issue is minor enough to be best addressed by compromise to something in-between (or no action at all) and otherwise moving on. Just a friendly suggestion. I'm happy to make such an edit as a neutral third party if you prefer. czar · · 21:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your comment

Hello, Soetermans. You have new messages at ACLNM's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Feel free to erase this as soon as you read it. Thanks. ACLNM (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Skyrim editing reversal

Hello, Soetermans. You have new messages at Durval's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, Durval (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pirates of the Caribbean: Armada of the Damned may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Remember Me (video game) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• At the time of the game's release, a 24-page print comic book written by [Matt Kindt]] and illustrated by [[Matthew Southworth]] was released by [[Dark Horse Comics]], as an exclusive

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Soetermans. You have new messages at Rhain1999's talk page.
Message added 06:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My bad, homie

Yo, that edit on The Evil Within that I made was just supposed to be a joke. I know wikipedia aint the place for that type of shit but I was drunk as fuck at the time. Sorry.

Thanks for your message. Like you said, you were just making a joke, but Wikipedia tries to be a real and decent encyclopedia after all. Maybe next time you can join Wikipedia when you're sober? :) --Soetermans. T / C 13:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Company of Heroes 2 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• than true successor, ''Company of Heroes 2'' repeats many of the original [''Company of Heroes'']] feats.<ref>[http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/26/company-of-heroes-2-review.html ]{{dead link|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Grand Theft Auto IV may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:Liberty City GTAIV.jpg|thumb|left|230px|''GTA IV''{{'}s rendition of Liberty City closely resembles modern New York City.<ref name="Liberty NY" >{{

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to EarthBound may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• analisis/EarthBound/El-pequeno-heroe-que-llevamos-dentro/5341/8041 Análisis de EarthBound (SNES) >> El pequeño héroe que llevamos dentro<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
• Of all ''EarthBound''{{'s} elements, however, the most lauded was its humor, being universally praised by all critics for

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alan Wake may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• provide a deeper understanding of the town's history and culture. The game's downloadable content]] episodes introduce other collectibles, such as alarm clocks, and video game boxes.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Call of Duty: Black Ops may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}
• feature=player_embedded&v=3_Cx82OFXM0 |title=Call of Duty: Black Ops Escalation - Call of the Dead [Official HD |publisher=YouTube |date=2011-04-26 |accessdate=2013-02-19}}</ref> The actors provided

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Mafia II

Fine.....I think you would probably shorten the plot section better than most of us there... JoesphBarbaro (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Joe! But actually, no. I'm not too good at trimming plot sections myself. Have you considered joining the Video Game WikiProject? Maybe someone there has the expertise to do such a thing. Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 10:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I wrote down and explain the issues that all three Mafia articles have. I think all three should be rewritten completely, which will take a long while, due to the amount of excessively overdetailed and unneeded information. Like you and Blake said, the new plot written in the Mafia II article is better off in the wikia itself. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Plantes vs Zombies Garden Warfare

Hey just wanted to let you know that Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare has NOT been confirmed for the playstation 3 or playstation 4 at all. I changed it but you undone my edit. If you could edit it for me please so that way it will have the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.115.57 (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Sorry for my edits. I've undone by now. Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 17:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

thank you. i really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.130.58 (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey someone edited this page again with incorrect information. can you please delete the info about it coming to the PS3 and PS4 platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.115.57 (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Hey, why don't you join Wikipedia? We could really use people like you! --Soetermans. T / C 18:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanking

I always find the thank button in the history section next to undo. Maybe this helps.Tintor2 (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

How strange, I don't have that! I concluded it must've been Revengeance, but when I check the history, there are no 'thank' buttons. I use Twinkle, could that be the cause? --Soetermans. T / C 13:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It could be the cause. I never installed anything and I got this option. I have also been thanked once by User:DragonZero who might now about it.Tintor2 (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

How odd. Well, thanks anyway! --Soetermans. T / C 15:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I figured it out, Tintor2 (talk · contribs). I had the "exclude me from future experiments" checked off for some reason. --Soetermans. T / C 20:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Planetside 2

Next time you decide to take a chunk out of Planetside 2 for 'gamecruft' reasons can you please create a talk topic about it on the Planetside 2 talk page? The changes made are controversial with some users. Thanks. -=NA-Trooper-NA=- (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Trooper, per WP:BOLD every user is fully entitled to their edits, and I try to follow WP:MOS/VG. Let me explain: amongst other things, a list of in-game classes and vehicles is considered WP:GAMECRUFT, not notable in-universe information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gameguide. A detailed list of the different types of characters, what weapons they use and so forth just isn't notable. For instance,

• Heavy Assault - A heavy trooper which uses a personal shield, allowing them to take more damage. A versatile role that has both a primary weapon and an anti-vehicle rocket launcher. Can equip LMGs, shotguns, battle rifles, and SMGs, along with a variety of rocket launchers, and the empire specific heavy weapons; The New Conglomerate's Jackhammer shotgun, the Terran Republic's mini-chaingun, and the Vanu Sovereignty's Lasher plasma launcher. Anti-vehicle and concussion grenades are available.

That doesn't add any relevant information to the average reader. The article already has a decent gameplay sections, which briefly described the things available for the player. For a person wanting more than general information, what Wikipedia is for, there always fansites, gameguides or dedicated Wikias.

On a sidenote, you also undid my other edits (check the diff), like re-adding Steam to the media field (it's a channel of distribution, not distribution in itself), again mentioning DC Universe Online in the lead (not appropriate), and beginning the article with the abbreviation MMOFPS (let's assume the average reader hasn't played this game).

I've reverted to my revision. If you are one of the users that find this controversial, I am afraid Wikipedia might not be the right place for you, Trooper1005. You can also assume good faith first and use a friendlier tone in your messages. I try to make Wikipedia better, not worse, you know. --Soetermans. T / C 10:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We disagree upon the importance of such details. Also, mixing important edits with large scale reductions of good content still merits a revert to retrieve the content. If you want to edit in the important changes to the article again afterwards, then you are entitled to do so and I would welcome that. However, we interpret the rules differently. I would say that the rules determine that we must not use in-depth statistics for each of the game-play elements rather than what was present before which is a concise description of the core game-play options available to players.

On that note, I will not revert the article again and I will accept your version of events in regards to this article. Never-the-less, I am deeply disappointed that good article content such as this has been whittled away by needless restrictive guidelines and military-like obedience to them.

On a further note, please keep your comments about Wikipedia not being the place for me to yourself. I am not being hostile and of course, I assumed good faith throughout. Thanks. -=NA-Trooper-NA=- (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Trooper, sorry for my late reply. Thanks for your message and your honest opinion. What I gather from your talk page and list of contributions you haven't been a Wikipedian for too long, so for argument's sake, let me explain. Wikipedia works by a WP:CONSENSUS; for each guideline Wikipedians like you and me discuss what should and shouldn't be here. I edit a lot of video game articles, so I drop by WP:VG quite often, an informal taskgroup to work together on video game articles. It was there that consensus was reached. But things aren't set in stone, you could always start a new discussion about anything. What you might've guessed is that I am a huge gamer myself, and it is because of that enthusiasm I also like to edit articles. Maybe the same goes for you, I don't know. If it does, I completely understand you. I like games, and I want the articles to be in the best shape they can possibly be. And that's not always easy, agreeing on what is best. I have been in this kind of discussion before, like on Metal Arms: Glitch in the System, where a IP user said "the Metal Arms page needs more info on it" (in that case, Metal Arms eventually had to be semi-protected, just to stop that user).

I meant no disrepect with suggesting that Wikipedia might not be the place for you. I am glad to see that you spend your time editing articles, that's great. But from experience I also know that not everyone likes it here. Editing can be done by anyone, even by those sometimes pesky IP's. Consensus can be a pain. Talk page go through written form exclusively, which often can lead to discrepancies, like my assumption about your tone. I hope you do keep editing Wikipedia with the same conviction like before. Perhaps you can also become a member of WP:VG? Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 06:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback (RE edits)

Hello, Soetermans. You have new messages at Dragon DASH's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OKeijiDragon 05:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 5th Cell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Action-adventure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Guideline on redirects that are not broken

Hey S, thanks for your edits on Titanfall. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your redirect expansions (bypassing redirects for their targets) per the guideline on redirects that are not broken. I also kept the YT channel as useful and within the purview of EL policy. If you'd like to discuss further, please post on the article's talk page, otherwise have a good one!  czar ♔ 14:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me, in all my years of Wikipedia editing I never knew that that is a guideline. I've been changing single-player to single-player video game dozens of times! Thanks for your message czar! --Soetermans. T / C 09:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V actors

Hi Soetermans, I've raised the issue of whether the names of the three main actors in Grand Theft Auto V should be included in the GTAV article on the talk page of that article. I explain that I added these names, and you, reasonably, reverted my edit. I then make a case for the inclusion of the names in the article. Please do contribute (if you want to) to the discussion: Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_V#Three_lead_actors. --Oldak Quill 16:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

{{System requirements}}

Since you are taking the effort to remove them, you need to put a notice on the template and not just remove them on the article with a bland mention of what you want.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 19:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I offend you? It is not what I want, I just happen to know that consensus was reached on system requirements. If you don't like it, take it up with WT:VG. --Soetermans. T / C 20:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Snobby are you. I was saying, since you are the point of contact to the consensus and you are removing the templates from pages you need to add a notice to the template so other will not use it in the future.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 20:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Now I am snobby? Civil much? Here's how you also could've approached me:

Hi Soetermans,

I noticed your edit on Battlefield 4. Could you do me a favor? Leave a notice to the template so others will not use it in the future. Thanks, and happy editing, Cky2250.

But no, you just had to be nasty about it. But fine, since you asked oh so nicely, I'll RfD it. --Soetermans. T / C 20:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

My first post was neutral then you posted "I'm sorry, did I offend you?" if that was not intended to have a offensive sound it was a poor choice of words. Either way are personal consensus is agreed upon.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 20:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Through my eyes your post sounded offensive, but I guess I misunderstood. Will you drop by RfD for your two cents? Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 20:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Age of Wonders III may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a [[turn-based strategy]] [[video game]] currently in development by [[Netherlands|Dutch]] deloper [[Triumph, and was announced on February 6, 2013 following a successful digital re-release of the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Look before you edit

http://dsi0fanyw80ls.cloudfront.net/en/factions Italia2006 (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Soetermans. You have new messages at Italia2006's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit warring Total War: Rome II

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Total War: Rome II. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. QED237 (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right QED, I was out of line. While I did initially ask for outside help, I was overconfident thinking I could resolve the edit conflict myself. Sorry about that. --Soetermans. T / C 01:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No big harm done yet, I can understand the frustration, but I felt like a warning was needed to stop both from editing before the page gets blocked, which I dont like. The best thing is if you could reach an agreement on the talkpage or seek dispute resolution instead of all this reverting. QED237 (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It could happen to us all, believe me I have been close, so dont be sorry, just make sure you reach an agreement. QED237 (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

sic

re: WT:VG#Guys, I need feedback: Not worth engaging personally—let the editor have the last word. I imagine you're somewhat worn down by the hostilities on the page, so it's hard, but I'd recommend deescalating it yourself (not replying). When people respond to me angrily, I know that I'd share in their vitriol by responding, so I try to treat them nicely and let them have their way. That thread will be gone soon, so let's hasten its end and work on the things that matter most to all of us. czar ♔ 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, their reply was way out of line and not yours. I find it ironic they would cite INDCRIT and then insult the editor at length themselves. And it is pointless to argue or reply, because this has nothing to do with the VGReq template. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys, you've been a great help. I had to take a couple of days of editing, but I'm fine now. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 12:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Image opinion

I was wondering if you could give your opinion on an image I am questioning adding. Could you let me know which image you feel represents the Batman: Arkham page better: the one currently on the page, or this one at the top of the article? The one on the page now is more neutral, thus applying generally, but the one in the article, I feel, is a better representation of the main games, as it incorporates the design used by each. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Favre, sorry for my late reply. I must be looking at it the wrong way, but aren't those the same logos? --Soetermans. T / C 12:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. If you look on my talk page, I've gone a bit more in depth. The previous logo (Black and White bat logo) represented the shape and typeface of the series, but was just the Arkham City color variation. The collection logo, on the other hand, melded the three color designs from the three main games into one logo. Consensus between myself and other editors I approached seemed to feel that the collection logo, with the melded color schemes, represented the series better, than the previous logo, that only represented Arkham City. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I was not using Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising LOL just giving the link to the message that Steven Ranck said that is all.Calm down thanks Peace - Brad_snake412

re: Article feedback

Hey Soetermans/Archive 2013, you have a reply at my talk page, for when you have a moment  czar ♔ 05:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Soetermans/Archive 2013, you have a reply at my talk page, for when you have a moment  czar ♔ 20:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Some advice on handling a problematic editor, please

Greetings and felicitations. Since (from your recent comment on my talk page) you seem to be better versed in Wikipedia's "back end" than I, I'd like to request your advice on an editor I find to be (IMHO) problematic: Beyond My Ken.

If you take a look at his/her contributions you will find many reversions—most of my encounters with him/her have been because s/he reverted one of my edits to an article (especially ones related to New York City). S/he seems to have very firm ideas as to how articles should be structured, regardless of what the MOS or other, similar sources state (see for example this discussion), and enforces them with those reversions, most of them without an explanation. Since a large part of my editing is to fix problems with layout, I anticipate that we will continue to collide—what would you suggest I do?—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If you really want to talk about me behind my back, then you probably shouldn't ping me by using "[[User:Beyond My Ken]]", which notifies me that I've been mentioned.

In truth, the only "problematic" thing here is that you don't appear to know how to edit in any way except totally robotically, without taking any effort to examine if the "rule" you're following (which is actually a guideline, and not a policy, and therefore not in any way mandatory) is really the best way to serve our readers. Editors such as yourself are very often attracted to MoS work, because it appears to give them carte blanche to override the well-considered work of other editors as long as they follow the "rules" and color within the lines.

The only thing that I am interested in is in presenting out readers with the best possible articles: accurate, well-written, and visually interesting and easy to read. The vast majority of the time, the MoS guidelines are more than adequate to achieve that, but when they are not, they must take a backseat to improving the encyclopedia. This is the entire reason that WP:IAR is a pillar of Wikipedia.

Through the years, I have tried numerous ways to improve the visual layout of articles, and I do try to protect those edits from people who work automatically, without thinking about what they're doing, but every single time that an editor has come to me with a coherent and cogent reason which explained why what I was doing was not beneficial, I have stopped doing that thing. I do not accept "But the MoS says so" as a valid explanation, but when I'm presented with rational and convincing reasons to stop, I have done so, and undone my actions. I am, in fact, extremely amenable to valid argumentation, it's merely the rote reciting of "rules" that I reject, since guidelines are there to guide us and not to rule our editing.

So, when you have some valid reason why your edits should be restored, feel free to suggest them to me, but please don't bother to keep coming around and saying, in essence, "The MoS made me do it." That's not editing, that's being a cog. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@User: DocWatson42, thanks for your message. I can't say I agree with you, Beyond My Ken seems to me as a constructive editor. However, @Beyond My Ken, you'll have to assume good faith about others, even when others don't about you. I know, I've been there, but if you are being accused of something, take the time to write a clear message that show your intentions in editing. I think your reaction in the discussion DocWatson42 linked (the one on your talk page) could've been a little more... civil? Let's all remember that were editing Wikipedia voluntarily and we all want to make it a better encyclopedia. If you can't come to a consensus (let's face it, the question where to put the coordinates in an article isn't exactly our top priority), you can always ask for WP:RFC. --Soetermans. T / C 12:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Soetermans:, it is not a good idea to revert BMK's edits (I am saying this from personal experience). He assumes good faith a lot of times, but takes others' negatory comments in bad faith a lot of these times. I think it's best to leave him be. He is a net good to Wikipedia but does not do particularly well when he takes some criticism. @DocWatson42:, this may not seem like a good idea, but could you not revert BMK's edits for the time being, please? I am saying this in sympathy. Epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ken Levine Edits

I appreciate your feedback and I'm glad the content itself is up to par. I haven't really been instructed in the heavy nuances of Wikipedia editing and I appreciate your assistance. You should play Infinite by the way, it's incredible. Best wishes and Happy Holidays. --TheShark93 (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Question on Rome II from Italia2006

Hello my friend, I wanted to ask you a question regarding the factions again on the Total War: Rome II page. Would a collapsed template of the factions present in the game be considered extraneous material? It wouldn't be like a list clogging the page, it would be something users could open if they were interested, and would be a collapsed template at the end of the Factions subsection of the article. I have a feeling it might be considered GAMECRUFT so I wanted to ask you. Sincerely, Italia2006 (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Italia2006, sorry for my late reply. I don't think that would be option either. A collapsed list of in-game weapons or drivable cars would also be considered gamecruft. I just undid an anon IP's edits to the article coincedentally. --Soetermans. T / C 13:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you, for some odd reason Wikipedia didn't tell me that you had responded to my post. Italia2006 (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday wishes!

Soetermans, thanks for your hard work this year, you deserve wonderful holidays! I wish you success and happiness in your endeavours for this coming year, and I hope we'll be able to carry on improving the wonderful project that is Wikipedia together! Keep rocking on! :) Salvidrim!, wrapping up another great year of collaboration with y'all!

Thanks for your kind message, Salvidrim! Happy holidays to you too. Hopefully it won't get too cold already in the Great North! --Soetermans. T / C 13:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Jak and Daxter Change

Dear Soetermans, It was I who made the change in the Jak and Daxter article. See, "Jak and Daxter: The Lost Frontier" is not a part of the main Jak and Daxter series, it is a spin-off title to the main series. Jak 1, Jak 2, and Jak 3 are the main titles in the main series whereas The Lost Frontier should actually be in the "Spin Off" section of the box, and not the main series. The opening of the game itself says, "Based on a franchise created by Naughty Dog" implementing that the game is not a direct sequel to Jak 3.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4:2100:245:9DF3:DA57:6F79:A6A0 (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi 2601:4:2100:245:9DF3:DA57:6F79:A6A0,

Thanks for your message. Sorry for my warning. You see, in your original revision of the article, you just removed it, that's why I assumed you removed it without reason. I see that it has been moved to the correct section now. Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 01:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)