User talk:Frecklefoot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Non-free rationale for File:TapperTitleScreen.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TapperTitleScreen.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Wikipietime NPOV discussion[edit]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Frecklefoot. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is about the user Wikipietime who has been contributing to Son of BOSS among other pages; I would welcome your input. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Among the Sleep[edit]

Evening Frecklefoot. After considering your rationale for tagging Among the Sleep, I removed the tag as WP:FNNR explicitly permits the inclusion of general references that do not constitute citations. Cheers, Mephistophelian (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC).

Whereas the documentation page for Template:No footnotes states: Use this template to indicate that there are currently zero inline citations in the article, the article plainly satifies the requirements for in-line citations, with the prose referenced properly. For the above reason, Template:More footnotes isn't applicable either. Thanks, Mephistophelian (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC).

Peace out ...[edit]

I was trying to present a piece of history that I thought should be preserved.

For whatever reason, you've chosen to destroy that bit of history.

You win.

pcG — Preceding unsigned comment added by PcGnome (talkcontribs) 14:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What "bit of history" are you referring to? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking from your edit history, I think you're talking about the Epyx article. I seem to remember that you added some content about your personal experiences at the company. Personally, I found the information interesting, but the problem is that it is totally unverifiable. That's one of the pillars of Wikipedia: verifiable information. Personal experiences aren't verifiable, and are also original research, which is another big no-no here. If you can find verification of your information somewhere--online or in a magazine or book--then, great, it can be included. Otherwise, we can't add it to the article. Sorry, if I hadn't removed it, some other editor would have. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You know that whole "anyone can participate" is a lot of hooey.

There should be a balance between "new information" (NOT to be confused with "new research" ) and this place's insidious determination to be GateKeeper.

you want to increase human knowledge or keep the riff-raff out?

My suggestion is to adopt a rule something like:

Before deleting a submission, check to see if the information could be incorporated in some place and some fashion so that the appearance of meeting the mission statement of WikiPedia could be upheld.

Just chopping potential contributors off at the knees has soured uncounted numbers from ever trying again.

A plan, a scheme, a path ...

There's something seriously wrong here.

pcG — Preceding unsigned comment added by PcGnome (talkcontribs) 04:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to double edit here - but there's this problem I'm having with definitions. What exactly qualifies as "new research"? It would seem that a little over a hundred years ago Albert Einstein presented "new research" and you have no trouble with that.

Honest, I'm NOT being facetious - what is the difference between the guy you know who did something for the first time and the guy you don't know who did something for the first time and just plain new information.

If that last qualifies - then you cannot allow anything to be added to WikiPedia.

I'm so confused.

pcG — Preceding unsigned comment added by PcGnome (talkcontribs) 04:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


Sorry I left the tildes out ...

PcGnome (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you brought up a lot of issues. Let me attempt to address each one. But, what would help you most would likely be to read the guidelines on verifiability. Now, to your questions, comments:
You know that whole "anyone can participate" is a lot of hooey.
No, it's not. Anyone can contribute. But we want to make sure anything contributed is constructive. Otherwise, it's just anarchy, and there's enough of that on the Internet already.
you want to increase human knowledge or keep the riff-raff out?
Well, both. Initially we assume good faith, but if someone consistently vandalizes the 'pedia, we may block them from editing for a time. Your edits weren't vandalization, but they didn't meet our submission guidelines either.
My suggestion is to adopt a rule something like...
You can propose any new policy suggestions at The Wikipedia Proposals Village Pump. Mention it and discuss it with other editors there.
Just chopping potential contributors off at the knees has soured uncounted numbers from ever trying again.
My intent wasn't to "chop you off at the knees, and if that's how my edits came across, I apologize. I'd love for your information on the last days on Epyx to be included in the 'pedia, but it can't under the current guidelines. I can help you get it in, but it will take some work. Please ask me if you want help with this issue.
What exactly qualifies as "new research"?
Anything that you come up with yourself, such as a conclusion or an opinion, that you can't cite from verifiable references. For example, looking at the body of Einstein's work and concluding he was a communist as a result. You can cite others who've done so, but you can't include your own opinions or conclusions in the article.
what is the difference between the guy you know who did something for the first time and the guy you don't know who did something for the first time and just plain new information.
I'm not sure what you're asking here, but everything in the 'pedia is supposed to be backed up by verifiable references (a book, magazine article, online article, etc.). If you know something firsthand, it can't be included unless the fact is published somewhere that is verifiable. For example, if you have an email conversation with John Glenn, in which he claims he invented Elmer's Glue, you can't include that in the article on John Glenn. Even if he really did claim it, it's not verifiable. Only you and he are in possession of the emails, so no one else can check them to verify the conversation. However, if you or he release the emails to, say, TIME magazine, then that information can be included, because once they're printed in TIME, they are verifiable.
Feel free to ask me any questions you have about editing, but also feel free to reach out to the rest of the community too, such as at the Village Pump or the question desk, which even has help via live chat. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

First, you've been most gracious - I hope I haven't been too impolite.

My consternation stems entirely from having contributions deleted without explanation. It seems if folks like you are prepared to take the time to watchdog areas of information, it shouldn't be too much to say why in the process.

True, most are very good about answering when asked - but this place is mighty confusing and it takes some ingenuity just to figure out how to look for answers. It seems that to properly participate here, one must almost need to take a college course on the subject. I've explored supposed "how to" "guidelines" and other supposedly helpful pages - but they seem written for someone who already understands what's going on here. I know you're not personally responsible for anything I'm complaining about - but when someone here writes "helpful" information, they really should put it before someone who knows nothing about WikiPedia and if they cannot understand it - you've done it wrong.

Right now, maybe you can tell me what's the deal with talk pages? Specifically, the paragraph you nixed on the Epyx page is now on the talk page and nobody seems to mind that. I'll admit that I am using it to save a record of what I couldn't seem to get right on the main page. Is this appropriate or am I misusing this?

And I'll stop now with a couple of questions about previous attempts that also failed. On the "grandfather paradox" page I pointed out it should really be called the "maternal grandmother paradox" as lineage (prior to DNA testing) could only be assured for the female line. Seems obvious, but was branded "new research" and I don't really understand how sound logical reasoning could be considered "new research".

The second on the "golden ratio" page. I merely pointed out that this number is irrational, which means just one thing - it cannot in fact be a ratio, golden or otherwise.

You see, I'd consider these things "new information" rather directly appropriate for the subject and should in no way be considered "new research".

Any clue to what I'm missing here? I think the contributions are both valid and pertinent and I ... well ... got "chopped off at the knees" without any understanding about where the lines are. They seem to stick on their respective talk pages, however.

Thank you for your time,

pcG

PcGnome (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC) PcGnome (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing articles and how to improve them. As an example, see the game programming talk page which is chock full of discussions about the article.
Talk pages aren't really a good place to store information forever, but big blocks of text are sometimes slapped there for editing and review before making it into the main article. This isn't normal practice—normally new content goes straight into the article—but it does happen.
I guess the Wikipedia "how to" and "guidelines" material can be confusing if you're not already familiar with some aspects of the 'pedia. The best advice I can give is, instead of trying to contribute new information, just read some articles and improve obvious small things, like grammar, punctuation and the like. This will get you accustomed to editing, style and terminology on the 'pedia and later, when you do want to contribute new information to an article, you'll have a better grasp of how to do it and what's expected.
From your post: I don't really understand how sound logical reasoning could be considered "new research". If you're drawing a conclusion, it's considered original research, something we discussed above. But you're right: the best place to discuss these issues are on the talk pages of the pertinent articles.
Just out of curiosity, what was your role at Epyx? Programmer, designer, producer, artist? Something else? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I was a programmer. My first project was 6502 (Apple //e) versions of "Summer Games". Don't recall the events or even the official year. My second project was on Handy (with confidential agreements). Oddly, Handy was billed as a 16 bit game, but it was still good old 6502 8 bit. It was intended to allow (by infrared or direct caple) for 8 players, if I recall right. I wrote the communication software for this interaction. The most troubling problem was how to decide if "this machine" is first and everybody else listen to it. Seems there was a problem if two machines were switched on too closely together - both listen, hear nothing and decide to be Master.

As for your suggestion about minor grammatical fixes - I've actually done that in half a dozen places without subsequent edit - so I am happy to contribute that way.

My first programming job, Software Engineer actually was for a company called "Linear Corp", first noted for wireless garage door openers - but then got into wireless security systems. I was a major contributor to their original SS32 security system. I am a big fan of the MM1468705G2 micro controller.

I used that micro controller to build a personal project - a 3D display cube. Surprising results from extremely low resolution. The above processor driving an mm5486 serial display driver chip and 189 LEDs. That's a 4 cube inbetween a 5 cube to simulate a 9 cube with a lot less bits, 189 to be exact. Very few were built, but I did take one into Epyx one day and my favorite recollection was an Aussie guy who said "Yea, but what does it do?" somewhat derisively - then proceeded to stare at it for 15 minutes.

I live computers since about 1981, but before that I was a theatre projectionist and hung around with phone phreaks.

My first video game experience was in I think 1972 at LAcon. A space game with a glitch where you could position yourself in a certain place on the screen and the enemy ships couldn't hit you. Next computer game was what would later be called "Adventure" at a remote terminal connected by one of those pre-at&t breakup modems where you had to put the handset into two cups. This was about 1978.

Lots of history, shame this isn't quite the place. They have projects for things like talking to WWII vets before they all died off, I wonder if such places exist for my purposes?

Hope I didn't rattle on too much.

pcG

Darn, forgot the tildes again. Shouldn't there be an option to automatically attach it to "save page"? I mean, if everybody's supposed to do it, shouldn't it be automatic?

PcGnome (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you didn't rattle on too long. I'm always happy to meet a former game programmer like myself. Actually, all that stuff above would be good for your user page. : ) — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This may be a difference without a distinction, but in a world of "look at me", I'm more of a "look at my ideas" kind of guy. Presenting myself is not my strong suit. So, facebook and the like are decidedly not for me. I suppose I could just ramble on as I see fit with my user page. Have to give this some thought.

How permanent are a person's user page? If somebody dies, there's little chance of notification, so is it a permanent posthumous record or does it time out somehow?

Thanx for the suggestion,

pcG

PcGnome (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's something I don't know. I seem to remember one well-known editor dying at some point and they put some message on his user page. I don't remember what happened after that. This is a really good question, but you'll probably have to ask someplace. Start here. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I found this: WP:RIP, which lists deceased Wikipedians, but I haven't found any guideline that says User Pages are deleted (the dead Wikipedians listed still have their user pages intact). You can request a "right to vanish", but it's only granted under special circumstances. It sounds like you may need your heirs to ask to have your userpage deleted after you die, citing some verifiable reference that you are actually dead. But your best bet is probably to ask a question somewhere from the link I provided above. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I'm now using up more than 3/4 of your talk page.

Anyway, the short answer is as suspected "The user page remains as a memorial forever"

The long answer is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_March_18

Speaking of forever - there's been a paradigm shift in UseNet. If you see the ads, you'll notice that retention rates are increasing at the rate of one day per day - essentially UseNet articles no longer expire. Everything posted to UseNet from early September of 2008 forward is now forever. So, if you want to store something for free forever with only a minimal monthly fee to access, consider UseNet. As storage prices drop, this is only going to become more certain. Even the recent spike in HD prices due to that tsunami thing hasn't had the slightest effect on retention. And it is the most egalitarian system going - no recourse because every one of many providers would have to obey a "kill article" order and I don't think that's in the least reliable.

pcG

PcGnome (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, probably better places to ask, but you do it, so you should know.

Every time you respond, your text is indented. When I answer other places, it doesn't indent. I tried the tab key - but that just tabs me around my browser.

What's the trick?

pcG

PcGnome (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Screenshot images on UFO: Enemy Unknown[edit]

Greetings, Frecklefoot

I have seen the page you have contributed to, UFO: Enemy Unknown, and really like the idea of using screenshots of the gameplay in the article. I am currently working with others to expand a stub of the video game Star Raiders (2011), and I was wondering what copyright issues we would have to be concerned with if using screenshots? The page for UFO: Enemy Unknown is well-developed and has been an example to us in expanding the page for Star Raiders (2011). We think incorporating screenshots would be compelling and add a lot to the gameplay section of the article.

The link to the talk page of Star Raiders (2011) is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nguyen102/Star_Raiders_(2011_video_game)

Any help you could provide to us on this subject or others would be greatly appreciated! KellyD78 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one to ask on how to use images in article. While I am a very experienced editor, the image use policy of Wikipedia is rather Draconian and often trips me up (see discussion below). Perhaps you could contact Sfan00_IMG for guidelines on how to incorporate screenshots into articles. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

File:DefenderOfTheCrown.jpg[edit]

Hi, I note you uploaded this media, would you mind expanding the fair use rationale so it addresses ALL 10 points of WP:NFCC?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly why I--and probably many more users--don't contribute more images to Wikipedia. You make it so darn hard to contribute images and it really discourages it. The policy (item #10) only mentions THREE things the image description page REQUIRES and I fulfilled all of those. How about making a template or something that users can fill out so they know they're meeting all of the Draconian image requirements? Does all the stuff I added meet the requirements now? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Necropolis (browser game)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Necropolis (browser game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article admits the game got little critical coverage.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gigs (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Melissa Rauch[edit]

Your edit is incorrect. Please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Sims Task Force Rebrand?[edit]

Hi and my name is Sundogs and I have submitted a public vote on The Sims Task Force talk page and I am notifying all The Sims Task Force members to voice his, or hers, voice and leaving your comments, suggestions, feedback, concerns, or opinions about the forthcoming re-branding The Sims Task Force as Electronic Art Project under the Video Games Project here on Wikipedia. Please stop by and leave your thoughts there and make your voice heard.

Thanks for being apart of The Sims Task Force.

Sundogs talk page sandbox 02:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2013[edit]

Gamepad.svg

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Fairytale left.png Previous issue | Index | Next issue Fairytale right.png

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:


Content


To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

A kitten for you![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Whoops, didn't know external links were last. Thanks!

Judsonhillman (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Patch (computing)[edit]

Why did you delete the tools I posted to "Patch (computing)"?

The currently listed tools are out of date.


I would accept it if you saw process patching as different then the "Patch" described on the page.

A number of on disk patching applications could be listed would that be more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmccoy (talkcontribs)

I discussed why I deleted in the talk page of the article. I even pointed that out in my edit summary. Please always sign your posts on Talk pages. Please go to the article's talk page to discuss this further. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 00:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

By whose terminology[edit]

What authority do you claim for this reversion that a Hot Fix is not a type of patch?

  • A Hot Fix is certainly a type of patch! See the line: "The term hotfix was originally applied to software patches that were applied to live (i.e. still running) systems."—which incidently matches my experience in software; but perhaps you're an academic or haven't been coding since 1977 like me.
    • So what's the problem with mentioning the term, particularly when a major software vendor uses the Hot Fix term regularly over a thirteen year history?
  • I was merely making sure I could cross link to a 'pedia term making a fuller explanation on the Trainz Wikibook.
Note the dual use on this pageexcerpt
Build 57720 - TS12 SP1 English
Build 57825 - TS12 SP1 Hotfix 1 English
Build 57898 - TS12 SP1 Hotfix 2 English

No matter, I added it back as a header 'see also', also saw the reversion trail there, Quick Draw, and reluctantly reverted his revert of you. see here and the Patch (computing) page now. Sincere thanks are expressed in green-grey spendable thingys. <G> //FrankB 15:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

See my response to your comment on the Patch talk page. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 01:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Join WikiProject Microsoft![edit]

Why don't you join WikiProject Microsoft?
Wikiproject Microsoft Banner.png

It seems that you have been editing Microsoft related articles, so why don't you consider joining WikiProject Microsoft, not to be confused with WikiProject Microsoft Windows. WikiProject Microsoft is a group of editors who are willing to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Microsoft, its technologies, web properties & its people. This WikiProject is brand new and is welcoming editors to help out. Add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft/Participants and/or add the userbox {{Template:User WikiProject Microsoft}}. Thanks! jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Capcom list[edit]

Just letting you know, a legend table for consoles is highly discouraged. It would be affective just to give the full name if there's no renowned abbreviation such as PSP. Also you can link them in the list once.Lucia Black (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard that a platform legend is discouraged. Could you point me to the policy? For short lists, I would link to the platform once and have the full name of the platform. But for long lists, like this one, I've found abbreviations and the legend more useful. Also, for entries like this:
Name Year Platforms Description
Buster Bros. 1989 Ami, Arcade, C64, CPC, DOS, GB, iOS, PCD, PS1, SNES, ST, ZX
The full name of each platform would make the entry pretty unwieldy. I'm open to changing, but there is some pretty solid precedence for how I'm doing the list now. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not a specific rule by policy, but their discouraged by principle, and not by VG list specifically, but any list that has a variety of. SNES, iOS, etc. their fine, but the rest seem unnecessary and their not as long as you make them out to be.Lucia Black (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay. This discussion is probably moot now, however. I think I'm going to change direction and format it more like the Square Enix list instead, with the full system names like you suggested. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1[edit]

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.

Comparison of BPEL engines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Activiti
Datcroft Games (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Unity 3D
Stephen Kaplan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Elmhurst, New York

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding WP:Systemic bias[edit]

Hello there. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to discuss something with you. The English Wikipedia is a global project, and does not specifically cater to any regional, political, cultural or linguistic circles. Per WP:PILLAR, one of the central founding principles of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV. One specific concern of the English Wikipedia that is frequently cited is a WP:Systemic bias towards topics that relate to the western world, most specifically the United States and Europe. There is greater coverage of western topics than those from other countries, which severely harms the project and its goals. I would strongly disagree with the idea that foreign concepts are "better suited towards foreign-language Wikipedias", because this only further worsens the state of systemic bias on Wikipedia. The language divides between different language editions of Wikipedia are to specifically increase accessibility to information for people with varying competencies in languages, and not to allow for the splintering, forking and fragmentation of POV and information. I hope you are able to understand my points here. --benlisquareTCE 14:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Finally, if it's comparative notability you're worried about, then KanColle is getting at least four times as much buzz as Farmville, and magnitudes more than Mafia Wars, both which are considered "prime examples" according to the rest of that article. Not to mention, "艦これ" returns 29,800,000 web hits and 12,100 news hits, compared to 20,700,000 web hits and 5,870 news hits for "Farmville". --benlisquareTCE 15:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, guilty as charged! I didn't see how an R-rated game with impossibly buxon babes, which are actually starships, was a notable Facebbok game. I didn't check the references (I couldn't where I was), but I thought it was highly unlikely. I won't undo your revert, but you have to understand, a lot of people spam that article with their favorite Facebook games and I thought this was just another instance of that phenomenon.
In the future, discuss issues like this on the Talk page of the article so other editors can chime in. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 00:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
No worries, I can understand where you're coming from. I wasn't trying to guilt-trip you, by the way, just a friendly reminder. :) --benlisquareTCE 00:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Reasons for reversion on List of level editors[edit]

Hi Frecklefoot - just wondering what the reasons were behind your reverting of my edit? You said in the comment the link I added was "non-notable" but I thought it was, given that the editor works with a number of games that do not already have editors listed in the article. Can you please clarify? Many thanks. -- Malvineous (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Two reasons:
  1. In most lists (such as list of indie game developers and others), an entry is non-notable if it doesn't have an article written about it. And that article, like all articles, cannot be written by someone who has a conflict of interest with the entry.
  2. You used a direct external link to the editor, as opposed to a wikilink. Direct external links are discouraged in the main article text; they normally should only appear in the external links section or used as references.
There may be other editors in that list that are non-notable, and in general, they should be removed as well. HTH! Please keep contributing to Wikipedia! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
You know what? On second thought, I'll restore it, with some changes. There are many level editors in that list that don't have articles, but the games they work on are notable. Since the one you listed works on several games, including it is fine. I've added it back here. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Great, many thanks! As you say, I was thinking more of the notability of the games rather than the editor itself, and I was hoping by adding a link to the editor, even though it is my own, would benefit people looking to edit some notable games. Thanks again for your explanation. -- Malvineous (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Reads like an Ad[edit]

Hello, Frecklefoot. Thank you for notifying that the iClone article needs to be more from a neutral point of view. I tried tried my best to maintain an unbiased point of view, and only stating facts about the software. I kindly ask if you could provide more suggestions on how to improve the article? Thank you very much. - Oxidus1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxidus1 (talkcontribs) 03:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll respond on it's talk page. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

sugestion[edit]

Is that my english is bad. I'm just a Brazilian using the google translator. Can you make these two favors for me? João bonomo (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What two favors? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
And there is a Portuguese Wikipedia here if that's easier for you. :) — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Voynich manuscript, etc.[edit]

I'm curious about that recent HerbalGram study and its alleged criticism by experts. The only source provided is to a blog entry by Nick Pelling, who seems to be a self-promoter here on Wikipedia. Reading his article, I'm not sure what makes him notable let alone an expect on Voynich. I'm not criticizing your edits, I'm just curious to know more about this guy and why his opinion on the recent study matters. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other criticisms of that study. They should be added as refs too. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
So you don't have any problem with Pelling promoting his own work here? The study was posting, and Pelling posted on the talk page objecting to it based on criticism that happened to be his own post from his blog. I'd hardly call that neutral. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead and remove the ref, but I would like another that criticizes their "study", and another that supports it would be great too (if there are any). That's neutral. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG Interview[edit]

This hasn't hit the mainstream yet, but today is an important day for WP:VG. We've reached our 10 year anniversary! The WP:VG Newsletter crew are interested in running a feature this quarter on the early days of WP:VG and because you are one of the earliest contributors to the WikiProject, we need your help. In the last 10 years a lot has changed and we'd love to hear your perspective on it. One of the biggest changes may be your level of participation in the WikiProject or even in Wikipedia generally. This is why I'm contacting you almost 2 months before the newsletter is due to come out (it's due on April 2). I'm hoping that you'll have time somewhere between now and then to answer a few general questions reflecting on WP:VG and Wikipedia in general. Please contact me here if you would be willing to answer a few questions for our anniversary article. If you can participate, please mark this beside your name on the list, and if you can't participate please also mark this on the list by deleting your name or overstriking it. I hope this will be a fun and interesting quarter for the WP:VG Newsletter! Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks again. I'll drop a note on your talk page in a few days when I've got a draft of the questions. -Thibbs (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, I've posted a preliminary set of five questions at my sandbox (linked above) so that you can get a sense of what kinds of questions I'll be asking. The final interview will probably be 10 to 15 questions in total. -Thibbs (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering...[edit]

...but is this fine under WP:EL? George8211 // Give a trout a home! 20:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably not, but you can ask on the article's talk page. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback needed on using special characters[edit]

Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like , IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

Screenshot of the Insert menu in VisualEditor
The "insert" pulldown on the task bar of VisualEditor will lead you to the 'Special character' tool.
Screenshot of Special Characters tool
This is the Special character inserter as it appears on many wikis. (Some may have customized it.) Your feedback on this tool is particularly important.

Issues you might consider:

  • How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters?
  • Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
  • How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
    • Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
    • How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
    • How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
  • The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like and . Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
  • Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
  • Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.

P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Koch media and Zenimax Media[edit]

Both are 2 of the largest private western game publisher's why are you removing them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushio01 (talkcontribs) 18:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I undid all your recent edits because they broke the anchors in the article. If you read your talk page, you'd see the message I left explaining it. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
But looking at it now, the anchors seem to work fine. I don't know why the version I saw was messed up. Carry on. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Peace in[edit]

In peace in: I came across this interesting discussion wondering who was so kind to add an infobox to a dancer, finding that the one has also patient good answers ;) - deceased: normally a template goes on the otherwise unchanged user page, for example this. Even some pages of banned editors are tagged but kept, so we can still get inspiration. - Back to the infobox: I believe that {{infobox person}} is better, for education, awards, spouse, see for example Tatjana Gsovsky, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't know what you're asking or trying to tell me. Can you rephrase or point to the specific article you're discussing? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
You moved it out of context, never mind. Only after I hit save I noticed that it was an old discussion. The header "peace" and the topics seemed fresh ;) - About the infobox for Lucia Lacarra (or any other not too specialized person), I think that {{infobox person}} is better than {{infobox dancer}}, see above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
You're right. The dancer template is pretty sparse on information. Go ahead and change it. I just used it because it's specific to dancers. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Will you defend me if the arbitraton enforcers come and wikilawyer that it is adding an infobox which I am restricted not to do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Wait, what? I'll go ahead and change it, but I really have no interest in that article. I just added the infobox because it needed it. Are you allowed to edit infoboxes in they're already present in an article? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am. Feel free to add short ones to the many articles (including where I expanded a stub) that "need one" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

giving birth to important and interesting articles
Thank you, veteran editor mentioning leisure early, knight, gnome and fairy, proud that you were "able to give birth to such important and interesting articles" as Video game developer and many more fundamental ones in the industry, based on first-hand knowledge, for Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and other expeditions to peaks, for patience in discussion and simply helping out, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (30 January 2011)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! :) — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you know that I have a friend who developed a game which I translated to German? (while and because he was gone) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey, hey! I guess you get to call yourself a game developer then! W00t!
At least one of my games was translated into German (and French, Spanish, Italian and a few other languages), but I don't know who did it. That was all handled by Hasbro Interactive. : ) — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Interview ready for responses[edit]

Hi Frecklefoot, April 2 is coming right up and the quarter is drawing to a close. Sorry it's taken me a bit of time to get this together. In reference to this previous discussion, the interview is now completed and I was hoping you could share your thoughts when you get a free moment this weekend. The numbering in the interview may change as I edit the thing into perfect shape after the responses have all come back, but the questions will stay the same and of course I won't modify your or anyone else's responses. You can respond here, at my talk page, or within the interview itself. Whatever is easiest. Thanks again for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

See this response on your talk page. Regards! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Impossible Mission[edit]

VIDEO

Explain to me how after looking at the video, that the game is not an exploration based platformer like Metroid, Montezuma etc? Branching paths, mutiple floors, full exploration. JakIIDax (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a debate with JakIIDax about Impossible Mission here. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 18:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow, it seems I came in a little late. Sorry, I would have come down on your side, }IMr*|(60nna)I{. But it looks like JakIIDax is blocked now, so this issue is moot, I guess. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Apple II games, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New wave and Breakout (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) 08:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

About the list of Capcom's game[edit]

The new page that you created is too complicated. The old one is easy to read and understand. That's why I reverted it. Come on body (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)