- 1 "Test drive's" cleanup
- 2 Holy Book
- 3 TV series and italicized titles
- 4 Jennifer Garner wiki links
- 5 AA page
- 6 Little Big Horn and Ed R Burroughs
- 7 Sleep paralysis
- 8 On blockquote
- 9 Pinball construction set box cover image
- 10 Kalisto
- 11 25 greatest games
- 12 Infocom
- 13 Star Trek Synopsis Pages
- 14 Wow, gee thanks for all your help
- 15 Did you know
- 16 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Alfredo M. Bonanno
- 17 Daytime emmy
- 18 DYK: The Other
- 19 Did you know?
- 20 Meg Ryan pic
- 21 The term "American"
- 22 Did you know?
- 23 Did you know?
- 24 DNX (Direct X)
- 25 Did you know?
- 26 Did you know?
"Test drive's" cleanup
Thanks for the cleanup on Test drive. One of these days I'll get the hang of writing in the proper style. Also, I suppose I should use the disambiguation template when the primary purpose of the page is disambiguation and not when there is merely a 'for this see that' reference. Courtland 05:16, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
I think the person meant that since she didn't believe in either she found it interesting that they would only allow doctrines specifically mentioned in what they consider Holy and not evaluate the value of Mormon doctrines based on their instrinsic worth, etc. Jim Trödel|talk 03:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
TV series and italicized titles
I'm afraid you are incorrect that TV series titles should not be italicized (referring to your recent edit of Fantasy Island). I edit books for a living and TV series titles most certainly do get italicized (however individual episodes use quotes). Same as books and movies. Wikipedia italicizes TV series titles, and I also refer you to the Chicago Manual of Style (among other reference works). Cheers! 23skidoo 17:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, what about our own Manual of Style??! ;-) Thank you for correcting me—I will try to stow this away in my limited memory. I wish everything in Wikipedia would conform to something like the Chicago Manual of Style. :-S — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:50, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Do all those years and other things really need to be wikilinked in the Jennifer Garner article? Too many wikilinks detract from article quality in my opinion, especially for things that a user isn't likely to click on. For things like a celebrity's birthday it is conceivable someone would want to know what else happened that day, but for other dates and times it is woefully unnecessary in my opinion. How do i go about changing wikipedia policy on dates and years and excessive wiki links generally because I've seen other article's quality drowned underneath excessive wiki links? I would guess that too many wiki links also slows wikipedia down. zen master T 19:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, you can bring the issue up at the Village Pump. I don't try to guess what a user may find interesting or not. Since it happened in 2003 and we have an article on that year, I link it. Dates with a month, day and year (or day, month and year if you are European) definately have to be wikilinked so that the software can arrange it according to the reader's preference. So, for example, April 15 2002 should be wiki-coded [[April 15]] [] (notice the missing comma). The wikipedia s/w arranges the dates and inserts the commas according to the individual's user preferences.
- Excessive wikilinking doesn't slow the s/w down: only database updates and requests do. So clicking on wikilinks slows it down, the wikilink itself doesn't.
- BTW, I don't think my wikilinking is excessive. I don't wikilink every word. That is excessive. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:55, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Hello Iv been having problems on the AA (america's army) page. I noticed you worked on it as well and need help with a user with a dynamic IP who keeps reverting it. Ele9699 02:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, me and K1Bond007. The user refused to allow us to mention that AA is the most successful serious game to date. He even refused to allow us to mention that it is a serious game at all. He sounds paranoid and seems to think that serious games are some sort of sinister plot. We gave up after not being able to reason with him. We asked for comment on him, but it was inconclusive.
- Actually, he only reverted my edit once, but I didn't attempt to make it again since, from the discussion we had on the Talk page, I could tell he'd just revert it again. He gets around—he might see this little discussion and comment on it too.
- I don't have any advice on what to do about him. Like I said, we didn't get anywhere. We'd answer his objections, and he'd just blast back about how we were biased. He kept saying that serious games developers can't be trusted and other paranoid stuff. Actually, most the time I had a hard time parsing his responses. He rambled on like a lunatic for paragraphs without ever effectively stating his point or objection. Sorry, all I can say is Good Luck. :^S — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:12, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, that pretty much somes it up! Oh well, thanks anyway. Ele9699 20:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Paranoid?? Because I do not accept advertisement in wikipedia? £¤£! I still find it interesting that although my arguments were all logical and compelling and convinced the neutral observers on my comment page more than yours did, you still seem you can't accept the truth and it doesn't seem you're pretending either. This only proves your dogmatism because you know the facts and you still object. Why? That surprises me because I don't know any person in my life behaving like that. When you posted your first acceptable source, a newspaper article, the definition even differed with your made-up one on the wikipage. The newspaper only seemed to write what those developers told them and the definition "other aims than entertainment" seems to be pretty idiotic and unclear to me (some play games to escape from reality. Is it a serious game now???). Your definition is a glorifying advertisement and is groundless. In fact "serious game" is an oxymoron, you play (a game) <-> you're serious, like a neutral observer pointed out. If this discussion on my comment had been continued, you might have to say goodbye to "serious game" in general. You still don't seem to get how vulnerable your wiki definition is, but I only focus on the AA article and don't need any other conflict. If you think 'you leave AA in peace - I leave serious game in peace' is not fair, we can try different ways. Why do I always perceive that you're underestimating me?? It just gives me the feeling I've to prove you're wrong. I don't know if you're interested in a conflict but if you reintroduce the sentence, you know that I'll certainly not give in, for the last time I gave in the AA article ended up destroyedNightBeAsT 19:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hey dude... the game is free, thus has no point of being a advertised. Games built with the intention to be serious games (as stated many times by the U.S. Army) are most probably serious games; no matter how old, non-realistic, and crappy they may be (such as flight sim '98).Thepcnerd 01:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Little Big Horn and Ed R Burroughs
hey that is a good bit of info, and I would appreciate it if you could give me the full exact quotation and source, as I am writing a book on the subject of Last Survivors of that battle. Thanks, Mike W. aka email@example.com 22.214.171.124 18:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Since you didn't source it, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I inlcuded a link in the Edgar Rice Burroughs article to his tongue-in-cheek autobiography that talked about this. But it was totally made-up, he didn't participate in that battle; he was a year old when it took place! The piece was a good bit of fiction, however, and really funny. The link seems to be dead at the moment and I couldn't find it anywhere else on the Internet (I probably just wasn't looking hard enough). The first place I saw it was in a book on Burroughs when I was a kid. I have no idea where the Internet version I linked to got it from.
- Sorry, I'm not going to email you. If you post a question here on Wikipedia, you'll have to come back for your answers. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:20, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- okay I will just search around for it. In the meantime I will cite you. ha ha. Thanks, Seesdifferent.
- Yeah, I edited it a lot because I suffer from it. I think the edit was just a really poor edit, and perhaps a little too sexual. SP for me is nothing short of horrible. I see that someone has reverted it, and that's fine. It wasn't really necessary IMHO. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:49, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
You wrote here:
I'm not trying to instigate an edit war here, but I have a question about the <blockquote> reinstatement. I removed it and replaced it with the equivalent wiki-markup (a colon at the beginning of the line). I also removed the italics and replaced it with quotes (my preference, sorry). Aside from that, I saw no visual difference between the two. Do some people's browser do something special with the <blockquote> that it doesn't do with the wikimarkup? I'm using the evil IE... ;-)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the goal was to use as little HTML as possible, since the wikimarkup is easier to use. That way people don't have to know HTML to edit a page, just simple wikimarkup. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm looking for enlightenment. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:01, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
<blockquotetag performs a distinct semantic task: it marks out a section which has been quoted from elsewhere (thus possibly providing an alibi for any egrgious errors of spelling or grammar. It also happens to display with both margins indented by default and and can be adjusted further using CSS styles (as you might or might not be able to see above). The colon markup, on the other hand, uses a rather unorthodox HTML cludge: it is actually the second half of the semi-colon/colon syntax, leaving out the semi-colon which means that it uses the
<dl><dd>tags without the
<dt>which usually makes up the set.
- Converting raw HTML markup to wiki syntax is great for tables and the like, where there is a direct equivalent, but in this particular case there is not. If we ever adjust wiki syntax to include an equivalent to the
<blockquotetag (in my lifetime :-) I will be in there with everybody converting them all. In the meantime I will continue using it where appropriate until and unless it is blocked by the software (like the very useful
<colgroup>tag which would allow specifying formats for multiple columns in a table in one easy motion).
- HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 08:14, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Pinball construction set box cover image
Hi, Gracefool. I noticed that you upload the Image:Pinball_construction_set_box.jpg. You mention where you got it from, but you didn't mention if you actually had permission to use it. As a matter of fact, it looks like GameSpy (where you got it from) nabbed it from MobyGames, so it's been bandied about quit a bit. So you may need to get MobyGames' permission to use the image. Though cover images are covered under fair use, when lifted from someone else's site, we still need their permission. Please check with those you lifted it from, and, if you receive permission, please post that information on the image page. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Do we really need to ask permission? Does MobyGames own the image? Aren't they also using fair use? ··gracefool |☺ 09:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hey Frecklefoot, nice to see you again. Over at Video game developer, I think I'll change the line you changed in the intro section to "As a rule, developers are privately held; only a very few non-publishing developers have ever been publicly traded companies". If you have a list of publicly traded developers in addition to Kalisto, I think it'd be interesting to mention them at that spot.
Kalisto Entertainment's mobygames page is here — a French company, which declared bankruptcy in 2002. They were not publishers and were publicly traded, an extreme rarity. Tempshill 22:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, add the info back in if you like. I couldn't find anything on them via Google (probably because they went bankrupt, as you note). I was going to look them up at MobyGames, but got sidetracked. The page we have on Kalisto is a hacking group, but is apparently not the same entity. I see you're changing it back and that's fine, but you may want to mention who Kalisto was and what happened to them. Or you may just want to write an article/stub on them so it doesn't look like a bogus entry (just MHO). Anyways, thanks for not yelling at me--some people get upset about merciless editing. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:56, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
25 greatest games
I VFD'd it. Any notable information should be merged. BTW, I noticed the whole talk at Serious Game. That just makes me shake my head thinking of all the time wasted on that :) K1Bond007 22:16, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments and the link. I think I read the paper a year or two ago, but it's worth a reread. A very thorough and well-written account of the rise and fall of a great company.
It's always good to hear that my edits are appreciated. I've been trying to improve any articles I find that I can contribute to, and Infocom is definitely one of my interests. Cheers!
P.S. And yes, I am enough of a newbie that I often forget to sign my comments. DOH! -DynSkeet 17:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Star Trek Synopsis Pages
Before you edit the ST pages, make sure you maintain consistancy of the others. None of them have a PLOT category, so don't add one. Thanks. Star Trek Damage Control. Cyberia23 21:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think they all should have a "Plot" section. That's what sections are for—to break up an article into digestible sections. But I'm not going to make a stink about it—I don't hardly ever edit Star Trek articles. But you might want to consider adding "Plot" sections to your ST template. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I thought that's what the "Spoiler" separator is for. Seems redundant to use both at the same time. Cyberia23 17:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wow, gee thanks for all your help
Thanks, Captain WikiNazi. It was a mistake that I can rectify. Go hang out in some other corner of the internet.
JHMM13 15:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Dude, we can't use images lifted straight off the Internet with no attribution or permission. It's not my policy, it's a condition of the GFDL. Unattributed and unlicensed images is one of the biggest problems Wikipedia has, and I'm just trying to curb the problem. If you really want to blank your Talk page, go ahead. Most likely, another Wikipedian will just come along and yell at you about it—I was just the first to notice it.
- All you have to do to fix it is edit the Image page and indicate where you got it from and note if was used with permission. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Did you know
- Gee, thanks, but, yeah, I did know that. I watch that page. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:03, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, wonder if you'd like to see how much Alfredo M. Bonanno article has been developed since you voted delete. He's a pretty infamous anarchist, it turns out, jailed for six years last year at the end of a huge trial. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi it was probably okay to revert the Daytime Emmy thing if you weren't sure, but wrong to call it vandalism. Obviously it wasn't vandalism because he has indeed been nominated for many daytime emmies and won quite a lot of them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I probably was too quick to delete that category, but I kept thinking that daytime Emmies were for soap operas. I know Spielberg wasn't involved with any of those and I couldn't find any mention of him winning an Emmy anywhere in the article. If he did win some, it should be mentioned in the article, even just one sentence would do. Looking on the IMDb, I see that he has, indeed, won some Emmies. So I apologize for my rash edit, but please mention it somewhere in the article so others don't make the same mistake I did. :-) Peace. :-D — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:15, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
DYK: The Other
Did you know?
- Um, I didn't create the article on John Ritter. I think that article has been around for quite some time. I created the article on The Other. It only mentions John Ritter. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:40, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Meg Ryan pic
Can't help but comment on Meg Ryan's gawd-awful picture in her bio. Where did they dig that one up. She should sue ( or at least have her publicist update it :)) ) --2222 cheryl
- This kind of comment should go on that articles talk page. See there for more. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
The term "American"
The term "American" can mean your from North or South America not just the United States. Read the alternative words for American to get proof. I will change "American" back to "United States". Heegoop, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link to the somewhat awkward article, but using "American" for a description as someone or something from the United States is not against the Wikipedia Style Guide. As a matter of fact, the article you linked to states that a term for "someone or something from the United States" has been difficult and fruitless. It looks like you changed "American" to "United States" because of your personal bias. I won't revert your edit, but I won't stop using "American" for "someone or something from the United States." It's already being done all over the 'pedia.
- Think about it. If I were from Canada, I wouldn't introduce myself as an American just because Canada is in North America. Likewise if I were from Colombia, I wouldn't consider myself as American either. "American" is generally accepted to mean from the United States, depsite the fact it is a bit awkward. — Frecklefoot | Talk 03:13, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Did you know?
Did you know?
|Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Bruce Webster, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.|
DNX (Direct X)
Where did you find this information about DNX, I cannot find it anywhere else but here and a mirror of this wikipedia info on answers.com.Thepcnerd 01:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm. I don't remember. But I confirmed the info with a friend who works at Microsoft. You might want to try MSDN. You could also try posting a question on one of the microsoft usenet groups, such as microsoft.public.directx.misc. I think they announced it at the last Game Developers Conference. Since it hasn't been released yet, I'm not surprised there isn't much info on it (yet). Of course, it might've been vaporware, but I doubt it, since it would guarentee more games for Windows and the Xbox 360. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Did you know?
|Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Into the Night, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.|
Did you know?
|Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Crush, Crumble and Chomp!, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.|