User talk:Frecklefoot/Archive10

Image:PaperboyHazards.png

I have tagged Image:PaperboyHazards.png as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Bigr Tex 17:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PaperboyGameplay.png

I have tagged Image:PaperboyGameplay.png as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Bigr Tex 17:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PaperboyTitle.png

I have tagged Image:PaperboyTitle.png as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Bigr Tex 17:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WG5ModuleCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:WG5ModuleCover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Q1ModuleCover.jpg

I have tagged Image:Q1ModuleCover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JadeHareCover.jpg

I have tagged Image:JadeHareCover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DA2ModuleCover.jpg

I have tagged Image:DA2ModuleCover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PlayersHandbook8Cover.jpg

I have tagged Image:PlayersHandbook8Cover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MonsterManual2Cover.jpg

I have tagged Image:MonsterManual2Cover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FiendFolioCover.jpg

I have tagged Image:FiendFolioCover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dietiesanddemigodscover.jpg

I have tagged Image:Dietiesanddemigodscover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 20:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:T1ModuleCover.jpg

I have tagged Image:T1ModuleCover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading Image:PaperboyTitle.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 02:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

You are listed as one of the earlier editors of this article that still maintains their membership. I invite you to visit the peer review for the current article here.--Amadscientist 08:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Street Music Writer

Please reconsider your decision to link to the Underdogs site, given that the entry concerned contains a potential copyvio. ShakespeareFan00 12:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on this issue on the talk page of the article. And what did you mean "reconsider"? You already removed the link! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links can be renistated. BTW Thanks for the heads up about removing the heading, replacing the hotu link with one to a sit like MObyGames is probably recomended :) Sfan00 IMG 16:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a recent debate about the deletion of the {{hotu}} template resulted in it being kept, and therefore it can be used. Use with discretion, of course, and particularly for those games that are freeware, or where the HOTU page has moer information than the Wikipedia page. >Radiant< 09:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request help in establishing notability for MAngband

Hi frecklefoot.

I'd like to ask if I could enlist your aid and insight in dealing with an article I wrote that has been flagged for insufficient information on notability. The article is on the topic of the Angband variant MAngband (multiplayer Angband), which I wrote some time back when I realized the game was approaching its ten year anniversary. I figured it would be a worthy addition to wikipedia, as the game represents one of two primary instances of an odd form of roguelikes in general, and Angband in particular - namely, that it is realtime and multiplayer (the other example being a popular offshoot of MAngband, ToMEnet). I felt a decade of continuous presence would allow to cross the first threshold, so to speak, of notability, and wrote it up.

What I'm grappling with is the difficult issue of how to establish notability on a topic which is by its very nature ephemeral. Roguelikes exist, as you know, as a very popular, but still very "underground/oldschool," form of non-commercial entertainment software. This leads to the problem I've encountered with my article, being namely that I find it difficult to figure out just what I can find and use to flesh out the notability of the topic. A quick google of "mangband" leads me to around twenty-four thousand hits, but sifting through them leaves me eyes bleary trying to find little bits of information that would be usable (and, heck, probably a quarter of those hits arise from the addition of the article to wikipedia).

So! I come for advice and insight. Given the topic (an esoteric but fairly unique variant of Angband that's been around for a decade), what would you recommand I look for, and what do you feel would help me get a more acceptable level of notability established? I certainly sympathize with readers who have stopped by, and have found some ghetto-looking websites related to the topic (a common problem for roguelikes, heh) - leading them to wonder if the article is just a vanity page for some wierd looking wodge of ascii thrown on a terminal window. How should I approach addressing this response?

I'm adding this message here, but will duplicate it on the Talk:MAngband discussion page, and invite you do kick down any comments or ideas you may have there. Thanks Frecklefoot! Dxco 21:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-Com Origination

The Gollop brothers originally approached Microprose wishing to produce a sequel to Laser Squad. They had a graphics demo on the Atari ST. At This point their intention was to produce a squad level tactical battle game based on another planet with no extra strategic elements.

Microprose liked the demo but UK publisher Paul Hibbard felt the game should be ‘bigger’ to fit in line with the rest of the MicroProse strategic titles and ideally should have an earth based element. He tasked the development and marketing departments to come up with some ideas to expand the game and present them to the Gollop brothers. Peter Moreland from MicroProse development immediately recognised that there was an opportunity to use many of the elements from a 60’s Gerry Anderson Sci-Fi TV series UFO.

In conjunction with Rob Davies, Tim Roberts and the Gollop Brothers a brain storming session was held and the additional strategic elements were thrashed out including the Geosphere, Interception, Base building, Ufopedia and weapons research, the latter items being adaptations of strategy elements already included in other MicroProse titles such as Civilisation.

Peter Moreland87.114.1.219 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We would need a ref for that. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Went to your page... I am a Wikipedia virgin... I couldnt see how to start a new message... When you say you need a ref.. what do you mean? I am telling you the events as I remember them happening. Cheers

Peter Moreland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.21.141 (talk • contribs)

First off, create a Wikipedia account. It is free and offers you more privacy. Also, it gives you a talk page (like this one) where you can discuss issues with other Wikipedians.

A "ref" is a "reference". Valid references include books, magazines, and articles on reputable web sites. For example, if Peter Moreland had a blog and talked about the development of X-COM, we could refer to it in the article. For some examples of references, look at the first paragraph of X-COM: UFO Defense; it has two (one after Julian Gollop, the other after MicroProse). Clicking on them takes you to the reference, that is, the source for the information. For example, this article might contain information that we could use as a reference. You can look at the Wiki Markup to see how to create a reference in an article (if you still don't get it, ask me to help).

Personal recollections are not valid sources of information on Wikipedia (the reasons are many and varied, but one is we don't allow original research). So, we need to find someplace that has the information somewhere before including it in an article. Hope that's clear. If not, feel free to contact me again. :-) — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Frecklefoot, I am Gibly, and I am a moderator on the StrategyCore forums where I am known as Gimli. I noticed this discussion so I wanted to add to this. First of all, you said you need a reference for the claims of Peter Moreland. But the Computer and Video Games article you link to above basically confirms it. Isn't that a good reference? Also, I have found an old newsgroup post which has an interview with Julian Gollop by Computer Gaming World copied in it. The problem is that at the bottom of the page it says that the interview is copyrighted, so it shouldn't even be there. However, I've searched CGW (now it's called Games for Windows: The Official Magazine), and it doesn't seem to be there anymore. Furthermore, I tried using the Web Archive but it seems CGW has prevented it from collecting information. So I don't know what to do now. Is it OK if I post it here, for you to determine if it can be used? Alternatively, I could e-mail the link to you, but I don't seem to be able to find your e-mail here (maybe you didn't leave it?). My e-mail should be visible, if it's better for you to contact me first (in case you don't want to it to be public).

Speaking of your e-mail, I could really use it to talk to you about several things. I'd like to inform you that I am trying to collect all available information about X-COM and Mythos, especially information from the 1990s (and earlier) which is not well known to some/most(?) fans. I already have quite a bit of interesting information, and I still have a long way to go. Anyway, after I am done collecting all the information I can, I would like to make interviews with everyone I can who participated in the development of the X-COM games, including you of course. That's another reason I need your e-mail. Also, if you want I can share with you anything and everything I find regarding X-COM and Mythos. There's also a few things I wanted to talk to you about that I can't talk publicly about, which is another reason I need your e-mail.

I also noticed you had said somewhere else that you had some old material from X-COM: Genesis. Is there any way I could get hold of it? I am VERY interested in everything that had to do with Genesis, and would just die to get my hands on such material.

Did I mention I could really use your e-mail? :)

Finally, if something doesn't make sense, it's because I am half asleep and exhausted from gathering all that information about X-COM I mentioned earlier. So I apologize in advance. --Gibly | Talk 22:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've certainly given me quite a few questions to answer. Let me try to respond to them in order. First, if the article I linked to confirms the claim, great. But it needs to be used as a ref in the article. I'm not going to do it, but it's easy. Just in case you're not familiar with how to do refs in Wikipedia, it's done like this:

..., but according to the blog of Phillip Platt (a.k.a. "The Bad Astronomer"), Google Sky lacks some basic features that most astronomyphiles would require.<ref>[http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/08/22/google-sky/ "Google Sky" review] from [[Bad Astronomer|The Bad Astronomer]] blog</ref>

It would render like this:

..., but according to the blog of Phillip Platt (a.k.a. "The Bad Astronomer"), Google Sky lacks some basic features that most astronomyphiles would require.^[1]

and the ^[1] would link to the reference at the bottom. At the bottom of the page, as long as it has a References section, it will show up, pretty as you please, as a perfect reference.

So, if that reference confirms his claims, fine. All that has to happen is that an editor (i.e. anyone) goes in there and adds it correctly. Once, again, I'm not going to do it, but you or he is free to.

Postings on newsgroups are not valid references. Neither are things like articles from The Onion, heresay blogs or bulitten board posts. Information from sources other than the Internet are also valid, like from books or magazines (as you mention). But I'm afraid if you can't find the primary resource (the old magazine), you can't use it as a reference. We can't just say "an old issue of Computer Gaming World says..." We have to cite the specific copy in question. You may want to post a query on the article's talk page and see if anyone else has the copy in question. Then you could include the information you want with a valid reference.

My email is available to Wikipedia users. On this talk page, you should see a link that says "Email this user". Click on it, and you can send me an email. I think I can email you back via the same facility or regular email.

Although I don't understand the connection between X-COM and Mythos, I'm happy to answer any questions regarding my previous experience. Concerning the old X-COM: Genesis material, it consists of source code and concept art. I have a full CD of concept art. But I don't feel comfortable dessiminating it publicly. Earlier I uploaded some of the artwork to Wikipedia for the X-COM: Genesis article, but now I feel that was a mistake. I have no idea what the copyright status of the material is and it was really just provided to me for personal reference. But we can talk about it if you email me. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get those awards on your site from?

Plz Give me a shout out when you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanbforthree (talk • contribs) 16:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Awards

Not like that, I meant the boxes that say you are drug free and a good person, stuff like that. --Dylanbforthree 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pygame Module.

Hi Frecklefoot,

I added a description about Pygame in the Game programming article. It has been removed by you (Reason: "rv advertising Pygame").

I have used Pygame for writing games and played many good games written in Python using Pygame module. I am new to editing Wiki-articles, but I feel that it was a relevant addition. Did I unknowingly violate any Wikipedia guideline? Please educate me.

Thanks,

-Abhishan83 08:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You added the mention of it to a table that discusses the major programming languages. Its addition there wasn't really relevant. The table's purpose is to breifly describe languages which are used for game programming and why. Other languages described there can also be used to program games, but they are by far a minority, as is Python. It would be just as off-topic to discuss tools that could be used to make Lua suitable for creating full-fledged games (or Smalltalk, etc.). It doesn't change the fact that Python is a fringe language, most often used for scripting.

If you think my change was unjustified, you can bring it up on the game programming talk page. Cheers! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I thought there was something wrong with the words I chose to describe Pygame. I thought it did not reflect neutrality and hence the comment "advertising Pygame". I still feel that the description doesn't hurt as it gives the reader some more information on Game Programming. But I am not going to pursue it any further as I see from your UserPage that you are an authority on the subject. I respect your decision.

-Abhishan83 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V-Word

Please don't use the term 'Vanity' in AfD's (see WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD), as you did in this AfD. It can be inflammatory. (Not that I disagree with your conclusion in this case, I just think it's a term worth avoiding). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for educating me! :-) — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ScoobyDooGameDesign.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ScoobyDooGameDesign.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —An gr 14:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —An gr 14:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is your problem?

wtf is your problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.100.43 (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume you are referring to your links to Linux clones of Bejeweled that I reverted. Using Wikipedia to advertise pet projects (or commercial products) is prohibited. There is nothing noteworthy about the two clones you listed. There are hundreds of Bejewled clones—we certainly aren't going to link to all of them. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are right. but, we aren't talking about games that are similar (match 3/three games). we talk about clones, and Gweled is the best 2D and Jools is the only 3D clone. that makes them noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.100.43 (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia can't be used for advertising. I think mentioning them in the article like that — for a game that has hundreds of imitators, many of which could also call themselves "clones" — makes it advertising. Look, don't take my word for it. I brought it up on the Bejeweled talk page. See what others think. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuddruckers

Fuddruckers never positioned itself as a fun center, just a hamburger joint)

Wrong. I've been in many Fuddruckers that were also game centers. 24.247.215.55 19:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I stand corrected. I always try to do the right thing. My research didn't show them demonstrating themselves as a fun center. Go ahead and make the change back. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, there is no evidence to support that. Someone saying "well I've seen" is not a valid source, and violates WP:OR. He needs an actual verifiable source that shows Fudruckers being billed as a "Game Center" that can be cited. I found a single reference to a Fuddrucker "Fun Centre" in Canada, but that hardly backs up Fuddruckers as a whole repositioning itself as a "fun center". --Marty Goldberg 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I didn't have the fight in me today. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well its still going on. He's insisting on Dave and Busters being in there, and he's insisting their bar/resteraunt format is a new thing. For chains, Tom Fooleries was doing that back in the early 80's and there's more beforehand. Not to mention bars/pubs being traditional locations for arcade games. --Marty Goldberg 21:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just remembered that Ground Round chains were doing that in the 70's and 80's as well. --Marty Goldberg 21:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did look up Dave and Busters and he's right, at least about them being a national chain (pretty big one too). But I didn't find anything to back up that they are a fun center, though they do their arcade portion of their restaurants on their website. But that doesn't prove they were around back in the late 80s/early 90s. The only really big "fun center" that had to change its business model is Chuck E. Cheese. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I didn't see anything about "fun center" either. Their site does state they opened their first one in 1982, but didn't open another one until 1988. So they were around in the 80's, however in just 2 locations in Dallas. --Marty Goldberg 21:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm looking, that whole section doesn't make sense. Chuck E. Cheese and Gatti's were not pure arcades that later added food, etc., they were restaurants that included an arcade as a major part of it from the beginning. That paragraph makes it seem like these places added restaurants as a reaction to the declining market after 1996 (paragraph before). --Marty Goldberg 21:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just rewrote it. Included an earlier paragraph showing chains combining restaurants with arcades sprouting up in the 70's (or some chains like Ground Round and Gatti's changing format to include them), and redid the later format to denote the sprouting of "family fun centers" and chains like Chuck E. Cheese and Gatti's changing formats to those. --Marty Goldberg 21:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Pop Culture Proposal

Just letting you know I formally proposed standards/guidelines for Pop Culture sections that a small group of the video game project's members (including my self) have come up with. We've been enforcing them on a few wikipedia video game pages (Pong, Galaxian, Galaga) since this past June and so far its worked out. I'd appreciate you weighing in here, as I've always appreciated your opinions in the past. --Marty Goldberg 19:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I weighed in. It looks like a great proposal. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! A hammer!

Thanks! LOL. --Moonriddengirl 18:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too! I'll put it on the mantelpiece alongside my anti-spam chisel! :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chris Sawyer (footballer)

Chris Sawyer (footballer), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Chris Sawyer (footballer) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sawyer (footballer) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Chris Sawyer (footballer) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hut 8.5 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create it, I just moved it. I don't know why its edit history wasn't preserved when I did that (yes, I do know how to move pages correctly). Thanks for the notice anyway. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, TWINKLE puts that notice on the creator's talk page automatically when you nominate an XfD. Hut 8.5 17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Appleiigs_computer.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Appleiigs_computer.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 15:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video game genres

Hi, when I checked Video game genres, I found that the article, its template and Category:Video game genres classify games differently. Is there any standard for this issue.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied in my email to you, bring this up on the Wikipedia Video games project. I am just a lone user, with no special authority above and beyond any other editor (though I do have a particular interest in video games). Ask there—they handle the "standards" for such issues. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge on Inverse kinematics

Hi, just wanted to get your feedback on a proposed merge from Inverse kinematic animation into Inverse kinematics. You're listed as a contributor. Chaos95 02:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Jones

Your thoughts on this one? I think it might be due an AfD. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nominate it. But why are you asking me specifically? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]