User talk:GoTLG

Lego Infobox

Hi there. I take it you actually have a problem with the infobox, rather than deleting it by mistake as I first assumed? It was certainly not my intention to introduce new information, nor do I think the infobox has done so. I think the purpose of an infobox, is to find the most relevant information about a subject without having to read the whole article. ie, for a researcher who does not have time to read pages and pages about subjects they may not be interested in, but needs to know dates, birthdays facts etc to help their research. That is exactly why I added it to the Lego page. My research needed to find the original date it was first produced, and i had to wade through the article, even though i didn't want to know everything about Lego. I tired to also insert a useful infobox that was relevant and standardised for toy items such as lego, as can be seen in other toy articles such as Action Man, Transformers, G.I. Joe, Matchbox, Hot Wheels. So as you can see, the infobox I added was to standardise Lego along with other toy product articles. Robert Fleming (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Lego SpongeBob SquarePants

I have nominated Lego SpongeBob SquarePants, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lego SpongeBob SquarePants. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lego#External_links

Hi There was a discussion 2005 about this http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Lego/Archive_4#Excessive_links.3F and end up with http://wiki-brick-links.wikispaces.com is in http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:ELMAYBE and some more sites. Which can a maybe site, but the good is that everyone with there own Lego pages/sites want to have someway to be find this site and add them to it instead of using LEGO page to to adds links to the article. The contents of wiki-bricks-links could not be moved into Wikipedia because of the WP:EL so it must be external. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klasbricks (talk • contribs) 23:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

Hi. Please stop changing "Lego's popularity is demonstrated by..." to "Lego has demonstrated by..." in the Lego article. "Lego has demonstrated by..." is incorrect grammar and does not make any sense. "Lego's popularity is..." is grammatical, and uses the possessive case. This is not the same as the word "Legos". Thanks. Frankie Roberto (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Legoland Discovery Centre

Greetings ... I noticed your recent edits on the article for Legoland Discovery Centre, regarding how the word "centre" is to be spelled. I would request that we open this discussion up to other editors on the talk page before making this decision, because even in my recent view of the website, the vast majority of uses (outside those for the American locations) were with the "-re" spelling. While that's hardly definitive, I think we should establish consensus before making a move, especially considering the number of articles connected to it.

Also, such an action should not result in the creation of two identical articles. Instead, the decided-on spelling should be the main article, with the alternate spelling being a redirect, as it was before ... should the primary spelling become "-er", then we should do a page-move, that way all the history from the original article remains intact.

I completely believe you're working in good faith, so this isn't a warning or anything. In fact, I cordially invite you to offer your opinions on the talk page, and look forward to working with you on this article in the future. Thanks! :)

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "Lego Minifigures"

This article is not about general Lego minifigures, but about the new Lego theme, which is called "Minifigures". I understand that it is a bit confusing, but Lego Minifigure is a different subject than Lego Minifigures. I'll see about changing the article name to "Lego Minifigures (Theme)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by EWikist (talk • contribs) 17:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture on 'Licensed themes' section on main page

Hello, I see no harm or ditraction to the main page by having an example of a licensed theme, in picture, in the section on the main Lego page. In fact, I would say it helps, because there is not an example of a licensed theme, so a novice could be in need of a pic. It's not like the article is overcrowded with pictures, why not? A picture is worth a thousand words.... QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 21:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I should have been more clear about the image. The image is not a very good looking picture of a Lego licensed brand or product. It looks like a general regular Lego model taken by a fan. A better picture of a current Lego licensed would be better for the section. GoTLG (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are implying that this pic is not of a theme, and it is a general, regular LEGO model (i.e. not of a theme) taken by a fan, you are mistaken. This is a pic of the only two sets in the entire licensed theme of Lego Avatar: The Last Airbender. So this pic covers an entire theme and shows an example that is nice for the section. Any other pic would probably cover only one item in a theme. Why can't I put it up until someone else comes along with something better? QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 22:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware those two LEGO models are from the LEGO Avatar theme. But not 'every day' person who look at the section or page may not see that. They can look at it as a ... 'just a photo of a fan creation'. The back ground wall picture of the two sets make the image look bad. All I am saying a clear and better image of the theme with a better background would be good. GoTLG (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Lego Minecraft

I think we're going to have to wait and see what happens with Lego Minecraft before we can say with a level of certainty if it is a set or indeed, a theme. The scale of the project and publicity suggests that Lego has bigger plans with Mojang, but they didn't explicitly state what will become of it. By my reasoning, the title "Micro World" suggests that it will be a theme, but that could have just been the naming convention for a one-time deal. I don't know; we'll see how this pans out. In the meantime, I don't really know how to classify the page, so I'll leave that to people in the taskforce. DarthBotto _talk•cont 07:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I do notice there is not a Lego Cuusoo page on Wikipedia. Lego Minecraft should be listed on Lego Cuusoo page if created. Lego Minecraft "Micro World" is gonna be a one item/set according to Lego Cuusoo website. Even though news media has made the project sound bigger. I do agree we'll have to watch how the Lego Cuusoo and MineCraft deal pans out. GoTLG (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Lego Timeline

You don't seem to understand my edits. What is the Lego Duck (It seems to be a wooden toy) and why is it notable? What does the word "featured" mean in this case? Created? I noted that it is unclear, and it doesn't get any clearer by reverting. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Clones of Lego

I have renamed the section "Clones of Lego" in the Lego article, since your only objection seems to be the section title. I have also reinstated the ordering of the category entry for "Lego clone", since it clearly (at the moment, given the name of the article) should come under "C". I don't understand your reasons for reverting these changes: you *seem* to be trying to protect the brand? Let me say: while I love Lego, Wikipedia, and the Lego article, is not purely for advertising and with the increase in Lego clone manufacturers, it is entirely appropriate for the article to mention them. If you disagree with that and revert again, I will seek some form of dispute resolution. Given your somewhat spurious reasons for reverting so far, you should probably consider what you are doing carefully and try to come up with better reasoning. Stephenb (Talk) 06:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I was also a little concerned to see you reverting another editor's work (which seemed to involve a solid ten minutes of copyediting, rearranging sections and removing vandalism and original research) with the brief and unclear edit summary of "Information is about toy 'Lego' and information is correct". If you can see some problems or mistakes in another editor's work, please take the time to correct only those problems, rather than reverting the entire edit. If you don't have the time to do this, you should either come back to it later or leave a note on the talk page so that another editor can take a look. --McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Christiansen

If you're willing to support that his proper name is spelled with a 'c' and not a 'k', then I suggest you revert the most recent three edits on History of Lego.--ɱ (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your talk page message. I didn't just change Christiansen's name without searching anything, I had a look through the literature for a general usage history, and turned up an interesting comment somewhere about the family name changing over the years, which seems quite relevant - I left a response to your thread at Talk:Ole Kirk Christiansen. --McGeddon (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

To ɱ , I have to agree with you regarding to 'Ole Kirk Kristiansen' name is correct. However others think it should be 'Christiansen'. The problem is people are using sources such as magazines, published books which are not official reports/books by the Lego group. Because they have not e-mail or spoken or talk to the Lego group. GoTLG (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It'd be easier to discuss this if you read my comments more closely. I explicitly said that "sources favouring "Christiansen" include the New Yorker, Forbes and books published by the Lego Group itself", such as this one which mentions it in a foreword written by Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen himself. --McGeddon (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am reading your comments. Regarding to "sources favouring "Christiansen" include the New Yorker, Forbes and books published by the Lego Group itself". Forbes and the New Yorker are not reliable sources as stated news print magazines only write their own opinions, plus don't state where their information or source is from. As to the book mention it was published by DK publishing which is a quite a big book publishing company. DK is know to publish other books on other topics. DK did get license/rights or permission to make the book. Are you not willing to e-mail Lego? Wouldn't be better to have the correct information on Wikipedia. GoTLG (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The DK Publishing book has a foreword written and signed by Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen that refers to "my grandfather, Ole Kirk Christiansen". It would be an odd and reckless piece of subediting to change a family surname in the CEO's foreword so that it didn't match the surname of the person writing it. It seems wrong to elevate a minor lego.com employee's (unexplained and unsourced) choice of spelling above that of a foreword signed by Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen. --McGeddon (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've temporarily redirected Ole Kirk Kristiansen back to Ole Kirk Christiansen while this issue is discussed, as Wikipedia should clearly not have two copies of the same article with the same content but different titles and separate talk pages.

I attempted to move the Christiansen article to the K-spelling (along with its edit history) by the standard WP:MOVE method, but this was rejected by the system as it would be overwriting an article, and I am not an admin. (Possibly you hit the same problem and opted to perform a WP:CUTPASTE move instead?) Normally I'd just raise this as a technical move, but since the move is clearly being disputed, it cannot be counted as a purely technical fix. It's a bit of a clunky solution, but I think it makes the most sense out of available options (redirecting the C-article to the K-article would lose its eight-year edit history if left in place; speedy-deleting the K-article as a duplicate would have left the page empty and required it becoming a redirect anyway; speedy-deleting the C-article would have lost the edit history). Would appreciate your thoughts on my WP:COMMONNAME suggestion at Talk:Ole Kirk Christiansen. --McGeddon (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. GoTLG (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Pardon my French, but: HOLY MOTHER F***ING CRAP!

I know this is unrelated to Wikipedia, but I had no idea that Lego Cuusoo existed until reading your talk page! As a fellow Lego fan, all I can say is, "WOW!!"    DKqwerty    08:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have to edit pages?

Lego Harry Potter officially was discontinued 2012 not 2011, oh and Lego Space Police III is officially discontinued in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.188.64 (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Information is incorrect. Lego Harry Potter ended in 2011. Fan sites or blogs are not a source. GoTLG (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Take a look on brickipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.188.64 (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Again as stated, fan sites, blogs and even Brickipedia are not official source of information. Brickipedia is a fan created site. GoTLG (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Brickipedia is real source of info. 68.99.188.64 (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to say, Brickipedia is not a real source of information since anyone can edit it. GoTLG (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent reverts of external link changes on LEGO articles

Hi GoTLG, I just wanted to ask about why you reverted recent edits to LEGO-related articles that I made updating the external links (1 2 3 4 5). They seem understandable, but unnecessary. I don't know if you know, but Brickipedia has moved itself off of Wikia and is now independently hosting itself on Brickimedia. There are several forums on lego.wikia.com about it if you'd like proof of this, such as this. This article also has some information about the move and the new site Brickipedia is hosting it at. The only reason that lego.wikia.com is still up is because Wikia policy prevents its deletion.

I do think that the link should reflect the new site, since the old site on Wikia has no active administration anymore (all the sysops moved to the new site), thus the old site has more incorrect information and is less tidy by the Manual of Style. The new site would be a more useful external link, since it stays more up-to-date and still has moderation that keeps articles in check with Brickipedia's Manaul of Style. I hope you understand what I'm saying. :) I didn't just change those links in advertising. I was an administrator back at the old site, and am active at the new site as well. ;) Would you be able re-change the links, or do you have any other questions/concerns? Thanks, George Barnick – Talk/Contribs 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi George, This is a short note. I am gonna undo some of the 'link' changes. Because what you mention regarding to old site to new site of Brickipdedia. However, no reason to list another 'wikia' providing the general same information you might find on Wikipedia on any of the LEGO pages. Plus, I am not sure, but I think Wikipedia has a policy regarding self promoting other commercial/fan sites. GoTLG (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, perfectly reasonable. I do believe that Brickipedia, unlike some other LEGO-related wikis, is more useful as an external link, which in my mind seems to fit at least one of the requirements in WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE. Since the old Brickipedia site was linked on those articles before I changed it, all I did was update the URL to reflect the new domain. :) --George Barnick – Talk/Contribs 04:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Lego timeline, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --McGeddon (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Lego retail stores map

Hi GoTLG,

I see that you have reverted my retail stores map. How can it be improved?

cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, GoTLG. 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)