User talk:Datumizer/Archive 1

License tagging for Image:RGBCube1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:RGBCube1.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello Datumizer/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 11:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

Isometric rotation images

Image:Wikipedia isometric cube 2.jpg and Image:Wikipedia dimetric cube 2.jpg look kind of cute, but they really need to be cropped in order to be used effectively in the context of a Wikipedia article. AnonMoos 13:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you re-upload images? I hate having to rename the files every time I upload them... -SharkD 23:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You just upload a different image under the same name. When I said "cropping", I meant triming away the tastefully colored background, which might add to the overall aesthetic appeal of the image in some contexts, but which only makes image thumbnail display in Wikipedia articles larger than necessary here. See the image description pages Image:Wikipedia isometric cube 3.jpg and Image:Wikipedia dimetric cube 3.jpg now. AnonMoos 02:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work cropping the images! -SharkD 02:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I still can't upload images with the same name :(. Wikipedia keeps telling me I'm not allowed to overwrite images. -SharkD 08:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Re-uploading problem

The problem was probably because there's a protective policy that you can't upload over an existing image until your account has been in existence for a certain number of days. It's kind of stupid if you can't overwrite your own images, though... AnonMoos 15:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:RGBCube2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:RGBCube2.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:RGBCube b.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:RGBCube b.svg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:HSLSphere1.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:HSLSphere1.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Your problems with Image:HSLSphere.svg...

Did you ever see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive#Trouble_with_SVG_image? Lupo 09:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! No, I didn't. Thanks! BTW, the reason I didn't use a perspective sphere is because I don't know how to create one (I'm using the Geometer's Sketchpad to design the image and export the coordinates). -SharkD 03:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sriyantra

Hello! I noticed you uploaded Image:SriYantra construct.svg. However, the image doesnot provide its source (like an internet site from which you got the image). It is necessary to provide the source along with the license of the image on its description page, so that we can verify its licensing. Images without sources may even be deleted. Kindly provide the source at the earliest. Thanks!--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 12:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are sources needed? I am the author. SharkD 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. If you are the author, then a source is not required. Thanks for the clarification. Regards,thunderboltz^(Deepu) 19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Black Isle Studios games

Please read this. Black Isle Studios, before it was named, made Fallout. This has caused edit confusion before, but multiple sources assert that Black Isle Studios developed Fallout. JimmyBlackwing 00:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Only a handful of people worked on both games. Also, if Black Isle created Fallout, then why aren't there more Fallout developers listed as members of Black Isle? SharkD 00:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the Black Isle Studios article (which references this page), "Black Isle Studios is the role-playing division of Interplay Entertainment. Black Isle was formed in 1996 but didn't start using the name Black Isle Studios until 1998 with the release of Fallout 2." The latest version of the official Fallout website includes the Black Isle logo, and the Black Isle website claims Fallout as one of their games. Obviously, the Fallout article needs better referencing (and that's something I want to work on), but I think this shows that it should be included in the category with the other games. Cheers. —GrimRevenant 03:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, but it should appear more prominently that the game was made before the studio was officially named. If I had seen something of the sort, I wouldn't have removed it. SharkD 01:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Action RPG

I'm curious as to why this original research is special and warrants being on their, while all other POV statements do not. Not only is it unsourced speculation, but it's from a certain POV. I expect that until you can source it, that you revert it back. Assuming that you aren't just keeping it on there because you agree with what's stated. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You stated that the reason you edited the article was to remove references to Zelda as being an RPG. The article does not state that Zelda is an RPG; therefore, I do not consider this a content dispute--despite your efforts at making it appear so. SharkD 02:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Action-adventure games that do not include character statistics (including the Legend of Zelda series but excluding Zelda II: The Adventure of Link) are also sometimes referred to as action RPGs. - It states that people sometimes refer to it as an action RPG. That's considered a violation of "weasel words" guidelines. Who said this? You can't just say "someone said this". It has to be an EXTREMELY popular position or a statement by someone who is an authority on the subject (such as a prominent developer of Zelda). And at what point is it not original research to say that Zelda furthered action RPGs? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Several people have mentioned Zelda as being an RPG here. Also, here and here are two Google search queries that bring up links to instances of the topic being discussed. SharkD 03:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Man, I wish I could find sources that good. I mean, what is a better source than random forums and Wikipedia itself? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And, regarding the influence of Zelda on the development of action RPGs: while not directly relevant, here you can find a quote by Bill Roper (one of the designers of Diablo) citing Shigeru Miyamoto (designer of Zelda) as one of his influences. Also, the article states that Shigeru Miyamoto "changed platform & action RPG genres". SharkD 04:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Zelda influenced Action RPGs does not associate it with them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of strategy video games

Left a comment there; you might want to look into it, since you're the main contributor. · AO ^Talk 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Tradewars do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. /Blaxthos 21:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add any external links--I added a category. Look more closely next time. SharkD 01:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

DEFCON Move

Why did you move this page? The title of the game is just DEFCON. --Darksun 18:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

According to MobyGames the subtitle is 'Everbody Dies'. SharkD 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the subtitle/tagline isn't actually part of the title and shouldn't be in the article name. It'd be like moving Uplink to Uplink: Trust is a Weakness, or Darwinia to Darwinia: A Digital Dreamscape from Introversion Software. All of Introversion's games have these taglines, they're not part of the game title. Most of the comments on the talk page don't seem to agree with the move. --Darksun 17:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please change it back, then. Sorry! SharkD 19:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be low:

Edit summary usage for SharkD: 33% for major edits and 67% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will use them more often. SharkD 02:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Spaceempires.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Spaceempires.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewording comments after a response has been posted

Please don't reword your comments after someone has replied to them as it can make the response not make sense. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I never get things right the first time. SharkD 02:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:RGBCube b.svg

Hi. When you uploaded Image:RGBCube b.svg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 09:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Spaceempires.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Spaceempires.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

true isometric

Hi, just saw your pondering about this in the Isometric article.. and indeed, it would be interesting if some game had a non-square pixel ratio allowing that. Pixels would need to be stretched by 1.155 in the vertical direction. On a screen where 320x240 would give square pixels, but the resolution is 320x200 (something like that was the case in many DOS games I think), they would be stretched by 1.2 in the vertical direction - so quite close. But, there would be no real advantage to it, nobody says that something looks better because the 3 axis have the same length. The few 3d games we currently list in the isometric article all don't use true isometric either (even though they easily could) - instead some view the game from an even narrower angle (yes, i had nothing better to do than measure the angles in all screenshots earlier today :P). --Allefant 18:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at them a long time ago and for some reason thought they used non-square pixels, and therefore were isometric. I was wrong. SharkD 18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Marlith ^T/C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Fair use disputed for Image:Image:Deadlock screenshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Image:Deadlock screenshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Real Time Strategy section in Strategy Game Article

Re: Troy Dunniway not being a credible source for information on Real Time Strategy. Troy has been working as a developer for over 17 years, and has worked for Midway, Insomniac Games, UBISOFT, EA, Westwood Studios, Microsoft and Brash Entertainment. He recently worked on Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars. The Thomson / Delmar Learning Game Development Essentials Series will be publishing his book Game Development Essentials:Gameplay Mechanics. 22:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. SharkD 01:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries SharkD! I always find the articles you maintain accurate and fairly handled! 06:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Help in RTT article

Hey SharkD! Since we've worked together in the Real-time tactics article I'd like your assistance there. A Skywalker guy is consistently deleting the chronology section and not really listening to reason in the talk page. He has also "improved" the RTS article detrimentally and does not seem to fully understand the respect-and-consensus model of Wikiediting. Could you write something in the talk page? Miqademus 09:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC) (<-- Mikademus)

Could you point out where i said "improved" RTS article?. --SkyWalker 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mainguimarbleun9.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mainguimarbleun9.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mblade10.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mblade10.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

I'm guessing you normally do this, but just in case ...

When reverting vandalism, it is always a good idea to look at the recent history of the article. You reverted a change to Console role-playing game, but in reality they made two changes in a row, so you only reverted part of their changes. Maybe you meant to do that, or maybe you were just distracted at the time, but I thought I would mention it. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 17:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Woops. Thanks. SharkD 23:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop Editing Prior Talk Comments In Place Following Reply

Please, for the sanity of others -- especially after comments have been posted in reply -- stop revising comments posted to article Talk pages. If you're comments are not complete, either start a new thread, post a separate follow-up remark, or don't post anything until your thoughts are composed. For example, Talk:Chronology of computer role-playing games#Questionable additions has now been edited in-place multiple times following a reply. D. Brodale 04:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, that should be "your" and not "you're" above. D. Brodale 04:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Deadlock II screenshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Deadlock II screenshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Deadlock boxart.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Deadlock boxart.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Deadlock screenshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Deadlock screenshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Chronologies

Heh, it seems that my format for computer game chronologies (with name, developer, archetype, setting and notes) really aught on with you, and you've certainly improved some other articles with the style template! Good work, and I'm feeling pleased with myself too seeing my ideas becoming adopted and used! Miqademus 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! Good idea! SharkD 10:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Chaosoverlords.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chaosoverlords.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nerds...

In response to User talk:D.brodale#Revision ... I guess I'll leave that status as something to be self-declared, rather than inflicted on me by nameless others. D. Brodale 19:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just kidding!! Anyway, who here at Wikipedia isn't a nerd? It's Nerd Central! :) SharkD 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, duh. I guess that was your point! SharkD 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Disciples screenshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Disciples screenshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

God damn all these image messages! SharkD 00:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Policies regarding use of quotations

I saw that you left a response for me -- then deleted it. What was that all about? (Note: I'm not upset or offended -- just puzzled.) -- llywrch 22:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not feeling well. SharkD 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope you get to feeling better! And don't let the BetacommandBot get you down. -- llywrch 04:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- SharkD (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Image24 source.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Image24 source.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Newwimebox.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Newwimebox.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

I appreciate your taking time to criticise the article, and your criticisms seem apt, but I don't have the time or resources to actively improve the article at the moment, so your comments might have to go unaddressed in the body of the article itself for some time into the future. Are you willing to work on the article? Do you know anyone who is? I'm just very busy right now, so I won't be able to help. Sorry! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, sorry if I'm out of line here. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't plan on writing for the article. -- SharkD (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason why? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to write articles for Wikipedia. -- SharkD (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it isn't; it isn't anyone else's responsibility either. It's just that you might get the results you're looking for in an article if you edit it yourself. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Why Remove Text?" (Roguelike)

I've responded on the Talk page about your concerns over my removal of two claims added to the Roguelike article. It's a fairly lengthy unpacking of the comments present within the editlog for that article. These were not hasty edits on my part, but rather a comparison of what the cited sources state with how they were applied in support of the claims forwarded within the article. Following this review, I could not find basis for either claim in the referenced materials, and lacking such, I removed the claims entirely.

Feel free to continue the discussion here or over there, whichever seems most profitable.

Moreover, the original claim still doesn't make a great deal of sense to me in isolation, in that it advances the notion of measuring "tactical"-ness through an item checklist rather than through treatment of entire game systems. Even if Game A lacks Feature X, it might possess Feature Y that compensates in terms of its "tactical"-ness (whatever that means) relative to Game B, etc. This isn't the foundation for my editing analysis, but it may be something to think about before declaring something to be more or less tactical because it doesn't have ________.

D. Brodale (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the remark here, but you're posting style on the Talk page is very difficult to manage, with the intermixing of one-line remarks buried within the greater bulk of my original response. Is there some reason why you couldn't summarize the points to which you were responding in a single block to ease following the discussion, both for myself and others? It also confuses who said what, because my post is only signed once, at the original base. I'll try now to respond in kind, after noticing this awkward posting-style. D. Brodale (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:TALK says it's OK. SharkD (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to wikilawyer, but reading that page it looks like you should have followed the suggestion re: Interruptions and the recommendation about editing your own comments after the fact. That is, if I were in a wikilawyering state of mind. D. Brodale (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Science fiction Western

Good catch on that duplicate statement. I've looked at that a dozen times, and never caught it. Blimey! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel even more stupid. I'm the one who added it. SharkD (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Aahhh... ha ha ha!! Well, we all do that from time to time. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Project Sylpheed

In response to your concern on Project Sylpheed failing to possess trading, may I inquire what should be your action on Bang! Gunship Elite, I-War, Star Trek and FreeSpace categories, in Category:Space trading and combat simulation games itself? I am curious as I had classified Project Sylpheed in that category under the assumption "Space trading and combat simulation" means a simulation where trading and/or combat is involved. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was going through the category and removing games. I simply haven't gotten to those yet. I'll create a category for space combat simulators and re-add the games there, later. The article is pretty clear in this regard. SharkD (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the clarification, and I really appreciate your work to separate the genres into clearer categories. :-) Might I suggest renaming the "Space trading and combat simulation games" to just "Space trading simulator" itself? This will allow the possibility of games like Elite to be classed as under both combat and trading categories, while allowing the trading category for games which might only be concerned with trading or such simulation (or research programs), though I understand if this is not done as the prospects of trading-only simulations are very dim and few indeed. Jappalang (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the name of the genre is "Space trading and combat simulation". Why would I want to rename it to "Space trading simulator"? SharkD (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SPWAW shot 01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SPWAW shot 01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rebelstartc.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rebelstartc.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Template talk:Vgrationale

If I were you I'd ask your question on WT:VG, since I don't think many people are watching that template talk page. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-30 20:12

OK, I'll do that. Thanks. SharkD 03:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for grammar help at the Village

The sentence was too long. Remove the "not only... but" structure and make two complete sentences. "Players control a, b, c, d, and e. They also control (especially in the later versions) x, y, and z." Then it will be much easier to group and punctuate the individual items in the lists. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've edited it. It's better now; still maybe not correct. Anyway, I'm leaving it for now, as I'm satisfied. SharkD 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Breakout Clone

Just wanted to say good job on the contributions to the article, and all your hard work. Also - make sure and double check the move of the page didn't effect any other pages since you didn't file a move request. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm in kind of a rush now. I'll do it when I get back home. SharkD (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I just checked, and there don't seem to be any double-redirects leading to the article (see here). SharkD (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay task force

I was about to comment when you deleted your thing; reposted here because... dunno.

Sure, but how do you think you're going to source things like that? I've tried to write a "gameplay" article a few times, but it's just hard, since there are hardly any reliable (or rather, reliable enough for Wikipedia) sources. So, in a sense, writing gameplay articles will be an entirely new work, which probably conflicts with the "no original research" policy. But yeah, I'm interested. --VPeric (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the text because, on second thought, I might not be a reliable candidate for membership. I would join one if it were already made; but if I were to create it I would feel a responsibility to maintain the project that I don't feel I could live up to.

As to the reliability of sources: there are several published books on game design (see the Game classification article for a few examples; there's another one called Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design). I'm not sure how consistent they are vis a vis each other. My brief audit of them led me to believe that they are often contradictory. I don't own any of them, which is another reason why I might be a poor candidate. SharkD 19:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, definitely a fair reason to change your mind. --VPeric (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Signature

Ok, if you meant the seed and peer thing? --µWiki Peers / Seeds (YouWiki) 22:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant the block-level formatting. Sigs should be inline. SharkD 22:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

--µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 22:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I am unsure what block-level means, please write the source code of what your ideal sig for me is below and the preview. (wikiformat block and then wikiformat) --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 22:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fine now, but it was block-level in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Turning inactive projects into taskforces of this project. SharkD 03:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Did I ever thank you for coming up with an abundance of sourcing in several recent AfDs? Your skill and willingness to use it to improve WP are both very valuable things. I just wish more people were like you - listing articles for deletion to force either improvement or destruction causes more problems than it solves, and it solves a lot. --Kizor (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I think research is one of the more interesting aspects of working on Wikipedia. In fact, I'm thinking of tracking down some books on game design at my local public library. However, my view of the AfD process is not so bleak. Often, sources never get added (or unearthed) unless articles go to AfD. SharkD (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV comment

Thanks for taking the time to comment in Deletion review.

Just so you know, commenting "Agree" in a Deletion review is ambiguous — it is not clear whether you agree with the deletion, or the objection to the deletion. You might want to give Commenting in a deletion review a read to see how this works. Also, it's not a vote; unless you make a case for your position, it doesn't really count for much. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism

Huh. Well that's weird. Oh well, thanks for clarifying. I probably wouldn't have noticed anyway? Take care. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of tactical role-playing video games edits

Whoops, sorry about that. Trying out a new external editor and it appears it doesn't talk Unicode as well as I'd like. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tried using PSPad for this very reason, but I don't like it as much (too many features) as good old EditPadLite. SharkD (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop uses old templates

Please stop using stub type {{Video-game-gameplay-stub}} it is a redirect to {{Videogame-gameplay-stub}} Thank you Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of this. I'm the one who created the stub template and put it up for SfD. The template was added to the articles before it was renamed. SharkD (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping to a wrong conclusion. After change converting a bunch of the template entries and finding what appeared to be two new entries on the list, I over reacted. Still trying to learn my way arround this monster called Wikipedia. Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. SharkD (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Stub template location

The prefered position for stub templates is following the category list with two blank line between the last category and the first stub template. The two blank lines make the template more readable as it provide for one blank line on the display between the end of the article and the stub template which is then followed by the list of categories. Adding the stub template after the list of categories places the sub template at the end of the category listing rather than in from of the real categories. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Advert tag on RuneScape

Could you explain why you think the article reads like an advertisement? Please add your comments at Talk:RuneScape. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained why I added the tag. There's a whole section on the Talk page dedicated to the subject. SharkD (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, you just said it read like an advertisement because of the usage of unreliable sources. Was there anything else in particular? If there is, could you please point to specific examples? This is a serious issue, and I hope to resolve it as soon as possible. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'll just have to direct you to that section on the Talk page. SharkD (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

recent grammar query

Take a look at my suggestion at the village pump and tell me what you thinkDie4Dixie 03:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars: X-Wing

Hi, I noticed you have moved this article to the namespace Star Wars: X-Wing - Space Combat Simulator. Like Davhorn, I am curious on the validity of this being the full title of the game (it is not on the box nor on the Lucasarts site). Moby Games, and GameFAQs list it as Star Wars: X-Wing as well. Is there a reliable source on the Space Combat Simulator being part of its name? Jappalang (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the box over at MobyGames. It's akin to using the full title at Descent: FreeSpace - The Great War or Fallout - A Post Nuclear Role Playing Game. SharkD (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Seeing as how Wikipedia policy on dash usage is consistency within article and the X-Wing article is using em-dashes, would you oppose if I change move the article namespace to Star Wars: X-Wing — Space Combat Simulator with a redirect at the old title (as per Descent: FreeSpace — The Great War)? Jappalang (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article is using dashes properly. I will have to get back to you on that (I'm going to seek help on this). SharkD (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, in reply, WP:DASH states that as long as the dash usage style is consistent within an article, it can be <space>en-dash<space>, <space>em-dash<space>, or <no-space>em-dash<no-space>. Jappalang (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My concerns are not regarding which type of dash to use, or how to place spaces around it. Rather, I'm concerned with how their use within lists. I've seen colons used more often in these type of lists. Dashes shouldn't be used to join a term with a complete sentence (or paragraph); they're used to join a term with a clause to create some semblance of a complete sentence. SharkD (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Isometric projection images

My only "contribution" was lossless cropping with jpegtran (which involves just about zero copyrightable creativity), but feeel free to change it... AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

hey

Is that you, "assnuggets"? -- Solberg (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Solberg

Yep. SharkD (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I replied to your message on Chronology of computer role-playing games. I agree with your idea to merge the article. When I was here many months ago, the List of Computer Roleplaying Games was still not finished and its status was tentative, however, now would be an opportune time. It will take a while for you to merge the two articles, I suggest you put a special tag on the two. Like the ones here: [1]

Btw, I notice that the message is fairly old (dating from October). You should wait about a week to make sure nobody disagrees with your idea to merge/delete/make a major edit/etc but after that passes and no one says anything or disagrees, you should be proactive and do what you feel is correct. You can't mess up a page, it can always be reverted, so go ahead and use your better judgment. Don't feel that you can't do anything without at least one person chiming in. The CRPG pages are rather ghostly of late anyway. -- Solberg (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Solberg

Yeah, it will take a while. Also, I'm not sure the "Notes" field in the table is large enough for the history-related commments. I'll have to experiment a bit. SharkD (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, is the merge complete? If it is you should probably finish it up via a blankout with a proper Merge Redirect, per WP:MERGE so no confusion remains. -- Solberg (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Solberg

I'm going to put the article up for speedy deletion. SharkD (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. A redirect would be better. That way you can preserve the article's history in case you have to go back and look at it for some reason. SharkD (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use that name here. It's not one I chose for myself. SharkD  Talk  18:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Video game genres

Hey, I'm looking to discuss the issue of having non-video game articles in the "video game genres" template. See you at the spot: User:Someone_another/Genres_suggested_layout#Separating_video_games_from_other_games 65.95.157.232 (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

List of casual video games

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of casual video games, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of casual video games.

The nominator took exception to the inclusion of Robotron, which I notice was added by an anon editor last week, so I've reverted that. Fayenatic (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Arc Template

Hey thanks for making the Arc the Lad template. I've been slowly trying to organize those articles here. I was just wondering, do you think putting the anime on there would be a good idea? Evaunit♥666♥ 02:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. You could put it into another section within the template. SharkD (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please Don't Chastise

...for something I don't recall having done for months, if ever in any concerted fashion. Throwing stones in glass houses and all. D. Brodale (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as chastizing. And, I do not appreciate your rude comments in your talk page. I was simply making a constructive criticism by pointing out behavior that, if made a policy of, could be destructive to the editing process. SharkD (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As noted on my Talk page, your criticism wasn't terribly constructive. It's not clear it was timely, applicable, or in violation of WP:STUB. I can guess at what prompted the vague notice, but one shouldn't have to in cases of constructive criticism, should one? D. Brodale (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In SharkD's defense, I'm going to assume good faith. He chastised me too for something pretty small. But I took it constructively and tried to improve the pages. We're all just trying to improve each article as good as we can. Randomran (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Di/Tri/Isometric image stuff

Hi, thanks for writing- sorry for the late response. Regarding the *metric image, I'm not sure how the video game perspective is different, as I generally work with CAD and not video games. Isn't there only one true definition for 'dimetric' anyway? I'm not that well versed in the video game aspect. Also, I'm not the one who did the overlay, just the CAD model and screencaps thereof. Cheers! Phasmatisnox (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dimetric projection refers to a range of possibilities that can vary as long as two of the three axes remain equally foreshortened. Isometric projection is the one that only has a single, true form. However—and this is the confusing part—the particular form of dimetric projection that is commonly used in video games is discussed in the Isometric projection article. Hopefully, you will be able to figure out what I mean by reading the article. The article discusses why this perspective is covered there instead of in the dimetric projection article (where you might think it should be covered), and provides the proper camera rotation angles for achieving this form of projection. Let me know if you need any more help. SharkD (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The image in this article is what I'm getting at. SharkD (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fallout Revert

I was wondering why you reverted my edits in the Fallout article, particularly the plot section. Admittedly some of the subsections could be filled in better, but I formated the section based on other featured game articles and reworded the writing more concisely and accurately. I don't understand why it was reverted instead of simply changed or added to, although it may have been for a reason I'm unaware of. Thanks. DavimusK (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My main beef with the revision is that the original text features well-written prose. It's written with style, and makes for an interesting account. It's short, sweet and to the point. The revision breaks this apart and sort of ruins it in the process. Some other issues: 1) you created a "Story" sub-section of plot, when a plot is really part of a story; 2) you created a "Characters" section, yet you only mention one (the main) character (there's also a separate "NPCs" section); 3) you used list formatting for something that isn't a list; 4) you introduced poor grammar and changed the tone of one of the remarks in the latter part of the "Story" section (though, granted, the text you edited also had a grammatical error, probably added by someone else since the text's original creation). In short, I don't think the article needs to be changed, simply because "other articles are doing it." SharkD (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, most of that makes sense and I appreciate you filling me in, but a few things still don't make perfect sense to me. 1)I don't understand what is ruined. Most of what I wrote is quite terse, but maybe I'm overlooking something, so any examples would be very helpful; 2)I was under the impression that sections like the Characters one, like red links, are to be left to be improved or made. Are they recognized markedly differently? 3)Just because other featured articles are doing it, doesn't that warrant following their lead? My understanding is that editors work to improve the article relative to featured status, thus shouldn't we approach this article like those in the Video Games heading of Wikipedia:Featured articles? Nearly all of them have subsectioned plot/story sections, so doesn't this article deserve the same? I've been reading a lot on formatting and policy since that edit and understand quite a few of the mistakes I made, but I believe it merited correction and improvement, not elimination. DavimusK (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

1) My point was not that what you wrote ruined the section. Rather, the cutting up and rearranging of existing text ruined it. Imagine cutting up a picture and rearranging the parts to form a new image. One might say that the image has become ruined in the process. Also, I'm not actually sure you wrote anything (or very much), so I'm not sure why you thought that what you wrote ruined anything. 2) I don't see how replacing one block of well-formed text with a series of inferior parts is an improvement. 3) Yes, but you didn't actually contribute anything along with your rearrangement. Why not work on the article in your user space and submit it when it's a bit more substantial? Also, I'm not sure how elaborating in further detail upon the plot is an improvement. I feel the current text captures the essence of the game in few words. I'm hesitant to allow further changes, as I'm not confident that other users are capabale of writing the same quality text as the original author. I know I can't. SharkD (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

1) Ok, makes sense. 2) Perhaps this was miscommunicated, but I'm just saying that the formatting is correct (I think), not necessarily an improvement in writing, although I did change a few things for clarity. Simply, I believed it should be improved upon in that format instead of reverted to ""basic"" class formatting or whatever the appropriate terminology would be. 3) If you look at closely at what I wrote, you'll see I changed a few details and added bits that are relevant (and one or two that were referring to Fallout 2, oops :P ). Waiting for a change to be "substantial" would imply that minor edits should not be done, which is ridiculous to me. What do you mean allow? While you may be an admin that has not been added to the official administrator list, disallowing my edits would be breaking policy, particularly by starting a sort of revert war. Although I really don't care enough to retaliate in any way or report such actions, I think a third party would be a good choice in such a scenario. Finally, I don't think you should marginalize your writing or contributions: I've looked at some of you work with strategy-related articles and I think you've done a phenomenal job. Overall, I just think the article could use more detail and formatting, and that if someone with the expertise to format the article completely correctly and of featured or A-class article caliber, you, I and other fans could make this a feature-able article in no time with a little work. DavimusK (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe suggesting that an article be worked on in user space is common when an article or edits are being prototyped, or otherwise not ready for prime-time. Also, formatting alone does not make an A-class article. I can add all the "Plot", "Story" and "Characters" headings to any stub-class article, and it will not make the article an A-class article. You intentionally left it in an empty state for other users to fill in; without some additional content to go along with it, I don't see it as an improvement—especially since it alters the tone of the original text. "Allow" was probably a poor choice of words. Referring to a thesaurus, what I probably meant was "accept" or "approve". I don't think there's any policy against that.

Thanks for the compliments! I generally stick to things that don't require prolonged writing, such as copy-edits for grammar, spelling, italics, etc.; the formation of lists, tables, categories; as well as the occasional foray into creating a diagram. Cheers! SharkD (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as Fallout becoming a featured article: I have low expectations in this regard. I'm not that impressed with the quality of other video game articles (even if they're featured). [Once again, I could do no better.] Also, the Fallout fan community has a rather hostile (negative? hateful?) attitude towards Wikipedia, so I expect no help from there. Finally, there's little third-party information to rely upon with regard to Fallout, such as development history, impact on the real world, etc., which is important for an article to become featured. Spending a lot of time discussing plot and narrative while not covering these other aspects would create an imbalance in the article, and therefore make it not a featured article candidate. SharkD (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

HTML format is implicit for Template:Cite web

Regarding this reversion, please consult Template:Cite web: "Optional parameters ... format: Format, e.g. PDF. HTML implied if not specified." D. Brodale (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, when checking the template docs, format was not used for HTML. I'll stop using the parameter from now on. SharkD (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RE

"I have to take very strong objection to your erasure of any mention ([3], [4], [5]) of turn-based tactics from Wikipedia based on your dispute over Advance Wars: Days of Ruin. Turn-based tactics is an established genre with many reliable sources certifying that it exists. Your reasoning behind removal of the content is based purely on original research. I hope you do not do such a thing again. SharkD (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)"

I erased the mention of TBT because it is the same as TST (I replyed at the project talk), but it may be better to mention it once in the intro. None of the sources you provide tell me it is a genre, the sources provided just state TBT in the article. Show me a site that has both TBT and the word TST in it (I don't think you will because they are synonms of each other (which is why we are merging the articles)). My removal of content is not original research, rather, I am removing original research. -- penubag  07:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you're more tuned into this then I am, just tell me, for the love of god, is Advance Wars TBT or TBS? I will burst if Deathmark doesn't shut up-- penubag  07:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's TBT. I'm sorry there aren't more good sources discussing/defining the TBT genre. It's a niche genre within a niche genre. Notice that none of Jappalang's sources mention TBT, specifically. (Even the one he did provide, despite his summation and though it does discuss tactical games, merely mentions "turn-based" out of hand.) The references in the article are merely there to proove that the term is in wide use and that the genre exists, which is why they appear after the terms and not at the end of the sentence. SharkD (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But then what do you have to say to this, from the TBT article:

The gameplay of turn-based tactics games is the stop-action counterpart to those of the real-time tactics genre and as such is characterized by the expectation of players to complete their tasks using only the combat forces provided to them Advance Wars uses much more than just provided combat forces; including terrain, money, and such and usually by the provision of a realistic (or at least believable) representation of military tactics and operations. This contrasts with other current wargame genres: for instance, in large-scale turn-based strategy games battles are generally abstracted and the gameplay close to that of related board games, and real-time strategy games de-emphasize realism and focus on the collection and conversion of resources into production capacities which manufacture combat units This is exactly what Advance Wars is, not contrasting itthereafter used in generally highly stylised confrontations. In contrast, turn-based tactics games' military tactical and realistic focus, emphasis on executing intricate and well thought through plans and comparatively short risk/reward cycle usually provide a distinctly more immediate, intense, careful and meticulous experience of battlefield tactics and mêlée than strategy games of other genres.

And yeah, I'm aware he didn't say anything about TBT, but whatever, I'll just make the assumptions he wants me to make. -- penubag  08:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that, in Advance Wars, you merely capture buildings. This is not the same as building a production economy. You might want to pose this question on the Video Games WikiProject talk page. I'm having trouble explaining it. SharkD (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please participate at the disscussion on AWDoR at its talkpage, I'm so confused right now, I don't know what to say. They apparently say it is TBS... -- penubag  17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Add to Videogame Infobox

Shark, Jay Lender here. I'm not sure if this is the right way to contact someone but: I'd like to change the videogame infobox to include a "written by" heading, just below "designer(s)" and you seem to be the guy to ask.

I added the variable definition to the test version of the infobox, but I don't know who the gatekeepers are for the actual functioning version, or how to reach them. Can you help out? --Jay LenderUser_talk:Jaylender —Preceding comment was added at 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to propose this to the Talk page for the template. I would personally recommend against it. A writer is a designer. SharkD (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Shark, thanks for the response. I'd love to make my case on the talk page, and I hope I can win you over...but I have no idea how to find that talk page. I can't seem to get my bearings in here. Can you link me to it? --Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaylender (talk • contribs) 17:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Try here: Template talk:Infobox VG. SharkD (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Logical (computer puzzle game)

Hi. You added:

• Logical, a 1991 computer puzzle game for various computer systems

to the page Logic (disambiguation). I'm inclined to remove redlink entries from dab pages unless an article can be expected to be forthcoming. This has been and remained a redlink since May 2007. Is this game notable? I can't find anything on it – for which the name doesn't help.  --Lambiam 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and remove it. SharkD (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spaceempires.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Spaceempires.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

image problem

SharkD, your image Image:HSLSphere.svg is still being used to illustrate color solid, even though it does do a good job of representing HSL or any other color space. I'd be happy to review what needs to be done to fix it (basically, measuring saturation horizontally out from the axis instead of radially from the center), if you'd like to make a replacement. I intend to remove it from color solid soon, as it is quite confusing and misleading to have an illustration that lacks the properties we discussed, like a line of neutrals in the middle. Dicklyon (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still don't see what's particularly wrong with the image. If you want to remove it because it's original research, then do that. SharkD (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I want to remove it because it's basically wrong, as I explained before, in its representation of saturation. But I thought you might want to provide a corrected version. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with the representation. The mapping of the coordinates to the sphere is correct. Anyway, if you want to a line of neutrals in the middle, why not use a cylinder? SharkD (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We do also use a cylinder already. If you're interested, I can try again to explain it, but sounds like you're not. Basically, it should work like the description on the color solid page, and it doesn't. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)