User talk:Frecklefoot/Archive14

File copyright problem with File:Fellowship-combat-assign.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Fellowship-combat-assign.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added copyright status. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jaquays

Thanks for the read-through and fix on the video game credits table - I wasn't sure whether to cite all platforms or the first/primary development platform. Decided that getting the first cut for the article online seemed like a good idea, in the end, given how long that had been on my queue for! Cheers & Best wishes, David. Harami2000 (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was a fun little 10 minute project. Yeah, sometimes a first cut is more important than waiting and trying to get something perfect up. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

I'm a bit confused as to why you reordered my reply to StrangeAttractor in Talk:Infocom. I was replying directly to him/her and not you. I've never seen anyone object as you did. Frotz (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because my response was a direct reply to his last comment. You hijacked my meaning by placing your response above mine. I understand you were replying to his comment, and that's fine. Just do it below what others—including myself—have already posted. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game development being vandalized

An anon user is vandalizing the game development article. He appears to get his jollies by inserting the same outrageous remarks into the article. Can the article be semi-protected or in some other manner protected for a while until he gets bored and goes away? Thanks. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, but I am taking a look into it now, and may request page protection.--MWOAP (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page protection has been made, all offending users have been warned. Tim1357 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been semi-protected by an admin for 10 days. That is all I could get. --MWOAP (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone! I always appreciate the help. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is another user. I know what you mean. I agree it can upsetting after spending time on the arcticle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpblack (talk • contribs)

AbyssalGameEngine

Hi there, sorry, software is not eligible for speedy deletion. Please consider using WP:PROD instead! --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Used the other template you suggested. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Walton

Thanks for listening to my suggestions and improving the article. It looks good now. Regards--Bugnot (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are aware of it, please also include Sam Walton's final net-worth ie. net-worth at the time of his death.--Bugnot (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was revert some vandalism to the article, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. All I know about Walton is already in the article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 11:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Fellowship (video game)

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

It's hard to see how this game meets any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. meco (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Game development being vandalized

An anon user is vandalizing the game development article (again). He appears to get his jollies by inserting the same outrageous remarks into the article. Can the article be semi-protected or in some other manner protected for a while until he gets bored and goes away? Thanks. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They've been blocked for 3 months by Fox, consider an AIV report if they start up again under a different address. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the vandalism was by a single IP address, that was the appropriate action. Frecklefoot, for your info, vandalism such as this is best reported in WP:AIV, to block the IP causing the trouble. A page would only be semi-protected for quite specific reasons, such as lots of vandalism from many IP addresses. Wikipedia is supposed to be the 'Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit', so protection is a last-resort measure; IPs can be swiftly blocked if they are only being used for vandalism.

Thanks for bringing it to attention. Feel free to use a further {{helpme}} if you have any other questions, or talk to us with this. Chzz ► 19:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fellowship-combat-result.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fellowship-combat-result.jpg. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fellowship-combat-assign.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fellowship-combat-assign.jpg. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fellowship-game-logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fellowship-game-logo.jpg. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wyntoon

Instead of just pasting in a {{references}} tag in this freshly started article, why not make us all goose-pimply-happy by helping to expand it?—Quicksilver^{T @} 19:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't care enough about it to actually do any research on it? Hey, we have to choose our battles and I didn't choose this one. It needed references, I had other things to do, so I posted the notice. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 11:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi Frecklefoot! I don't know if you remember me, but quite some time ago we discussed a proposed restructure of the electronic games hierarchy. I sort of became upset with Wikipedia's model and style and moved on to Citizendium. (I made an article on Mario which I hope illustrates the stylistic differences--namely, to avoid "encyclopedese" and to omit citations for information that is common knowledge among experts.) With your background and experience you would immediately qualify as an editor of the games workgroup there. It's a project with many gaps but they all exist to be filled! I'd be ecstatic if you joined and made even small contributions because you are far more qualified than I am. Tristam (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The project is on Citizendium? I've never seen it, but doubt I have time to contribute. Even my contributions to Wikipedia has dwindled lately due to recent commitments and obligations. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that, but I know too well that real life takes precedence over online encyclopedias. Good luck with all your future endeavors! Tristam (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Game development article

Hey. I've edited Game development article a bit. I would appreciate some input as you are basically the main writer of it. I tried to avoid POVs and inline ref'ed most of it. But it is semi-protected so half the users can't edit it now.

The article is currently Top and Start. It's a bit weird that Top article got so little attention (that is positive attention, hooker orgies aside). Also it should be at least B/C. I know you nominated it for FA a loong time ago, which it quickly failed. I would hope this can be brought to that slowly. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 17:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the heads-up! My time has been directed elsewhere lately, so I may have missed it. Great job with the re-write! It looks like a real article now, with lots of juicy references. I saw a few grammatical errors wikimarkup problems, but they were minor and I corrected them.

The only big problem I saw was you seemed to confuse a producer with a publisher. A producer is a person--like Robert Zemeckis or Nora Ephron in films. A publisher is a company that releases and markets a game to the public at large. I know it's tricky, but I fixed the wording in the article.

Other than that, great rewrite! I can tell it took lots of work, but I think it was worth it! Thanks again and kudos! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Producer, publisher, he-he, well after 5 or so hours all the letters look the same... I know the difference though :) In any case, that's why I asked for someone knowledgeable to proof-read, and Thanks for that!

I also want to point you to this: WP_VG_Talk#Merger. I know you are the influential author of all these articles and this is going to seem a bit.. radical. However, I would be able to ref and restructure these much better if they weren't separate pairs.

I would therefore appreciate your thoughts on this. (Do note, I'm not touching the programmer/ing articles until the very end.) — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the barnstars! — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 14:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On game development

Hello, Frecklefoot! I know I have been systematically murdering every unsourced sentence in the vast majority of game development article series you had pretty much written. There is a lot of subtle insight one cannot find and reference from a published source. Thanks for occasional corrections on places I slip! It's really hard to pick out facts that authors actually agree on.

I also want to ask your opinion on this VG task force proposal. There are very few knowledgeable, interested editors; yet industry series articles are badly in need of some love. What are your thoughts on this? — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have a lot of personal experience in game development, but little literature on it, so I can't source most of my statements. I appreciate you adding new info and sourcing what can be sourced. The task force looks good, and I hope it proves to be fruitful. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VG industry topic names

Hey. I am unsure if you have VG talk page on the watchlist, but may I direct you at this entry. Since I did not get many replies, it would be great if you could chime in and then we would hopefully have some consistency consensus on this.— H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Dungeon

Hi, I reversed your edit. All the games are in the list of rouguelike games and each game's wikipedia article describe it as rouguelike. Japanese wikipedia page list the total sale of the first Torneko game to be 800000. The correct thing to do is to add ^{[citation needed]} for each factual assertion instead of deleting it. Diablo is rouguelike-like while the Mystery Dungeon series are rouguelike. Vapour (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gameplay of Mystery Dungeon series is described in a following manner. "Most of the Mystery Dungeon games centre around exploring a dungeon with randomly generated layouts and fighting other characters therein in a turn-based manner (and not just in fighting; every time the player takes a step, the opponents also take a step). Escape from the dungeon is usually only allowed in certain places, or through the use of certain items. Additionally, when the player loses the game the player loses all money plus half the player's items in the more forgiving variants, or loses everything and has to start from scratch in others."Vapour (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And few more articles. http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3166800 http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/03/play_the_delights_of_mystery_d.php

List of video game publishers

Hey. Are we listing the games developed or published? Because I was listing the games developed. Pure publishers would have no games. Developer self-published games would be mentioned. The same way the developer list works.— Hellknowz ▎talk 15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Go ahead and change it back. Since it was a list of publishers, I thought we were doing published titles. But developed is better, I guess. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it now. To be honest, I don't know which is better for readers. I put developed games because it is easier to copy from developer list. It's not that hard to change tbh, as developed games == self-published games in this list. Cheers.— Hellknowz ▎talk 20:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need your opinion

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion Wars - just few words (Idot (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:CastleWolfensteinPickChest.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CastleWolfensteinPickChest.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:CastleWolfensteinSearchGuard.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CastleWolfensteinSearchGuard.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer rights

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted List of indie game developers

You removed my addition "because they are people" but the list already includes several people like Jason Rohrer. These are well-known indie designers with many games and so are the people I added. They release games under their own names. Where is the difference and how can we justify not including these people when they are indie game developers? Where should we include them?

WarGamerGirl (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like these people released "free" games, sort of like experimental projects. If they have commercial games they've released—under their own names—please point them out. I'll even accept free games that garnered a signicant amount of press. MobyGames refs would be fine, but they need to be commercial games released under their own names. Hundreds of people release free games and mods, but we don't add them simply because the game would become overwhelmed with minor and insignificant "hobby developers". Looking forward to hearing back from you. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there is a real danger of link spamming but all three of these are respected indie developers whose work gets attention from the indie gaming press and beyond. When I think "indie games" these are some of the people I think of (also Jason Rohrer, Nifflas, Amon26 and a few others). Indie games are not just commercial games.

Some examples of attention:

Anthropy:

Kyratzes:

The Gregory Weir page is already really good and has lots of references and links that should prove that this is a respected and very well-known developer. The other two lists show that there are interviews and reviews from big sites like Jay is Games and JustAdventure and the Independent Gaming Source. Anna Anthropy even judged the IGF! These developers have fans and their work is followed (but Kyratzes and Anthropy are much more controversial than Weir and not as famous).

I follow the indie scene a lot and I think the Wikipedia pages are really not representative right now. I would like to help to fix that. My English is not always 100% perfect but I think I can contribute with my knowledge.

WarGamerGirl (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, WarGamerGirl, but I don't have time for this right now. Instead, bring up your discussion on the List's talk page. You may get responses from other editors there, which would be more useful than just my comments alone. You can copy this whole discussion there, but I'd recommend starting over and stating what you want.

If you don't get any response there, instead go to The Video Game project, where all things video game related are discussed. Be sure to post your concern on the Talk page, and not the main page.

BTW, the Gregory Weir article is a very poor article that rambles on and on. I was just about to chop it down, and still may. If you want examples of good game designer articles, take a look at Will Wright and Richard Garriott. Right now, the Gregory Weir article looks like something he self-authored, trying to validate himself. Don't worry, your English isn't bad. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. But don't destroy the Gregory Weir page. Maybe it needs improvement (better structure maybe?) and maybe it was written by fans but I think the details it has are relevant to Weir's work. I really don't think it's self-authored. Every game he makes is widely discussed in the indie scene. He is a very popular game designer and The Majesty of Colors was a huge hit. That's why people want to put all this information there even if sometimes it may seem like a lot. A lot of other designers are big fans of his.

Thank you for being nice and not just screaming at me :).

WarGamerGirl (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video game industry

I think is proper for my picture to stay there, but I was trying to explain the picture at the moment. Could you rollback it, please (with some repairs, so that it's not going to be an advertisement any more)? Alex^discussion 22:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a shot, but the image will most likely be deleted on grounds of violation of fair use. That's why the article has so few images as it is. As a general rule—except in the cases of outright vandalism—it's not a good idea to revert someone else's revert before discussing it first. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of X-COM : UFO Defense – A Novel

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas § 19:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]