User talk:Frecklefoot/Archive5

Inline external links

Re this edit - I can't find any style rule about not using inline external links. As far as I can see, it is much less clumsy to do it this way than to instead have a wikilink to a nonexistent article, or a link to a footnote which contains the actual link. ··gracefool |☺ 06:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It took some digging, but here is the guideline stating not to do it: Manual of Style on links. I don't want to engage in an edit war, but just so you know for future reference. :-) Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Book of Mormon and Talk:Book of Mormon

This User:Gabrielsimon keeps inserting POV material in the article. I tried to discuss with him on talk page and he deletes my talk page comments (3 times so far). Can you help? I am an occasional editor and saw you editing some LDS articles I was contributing to anonymously back in Jan/Feb. Thanks in adv. I hope that it doesn't violate 3RR to restore my own comments on a talk page. Respond here as I don't have a username. 205.188.116.73 14:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I only occasionally contribute to LDS articles. You might want to instead ask for help at The Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject. It's full of careful and knowledgable editors who watch a great more LDS topics than I do. I'm sure they can be of more help than I. BTW, why don't you have a username? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sentinel Worlds I: Future Magic

Hey Frecklefoot. I notice you are quite the expert on some of the older video games and have appreciated your editting of my articles. Did you ever play this one? I'm not sure where else to link it or if you and others think it may have some more historical value. Thanks! --WillDarlock 21:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I never played that one, but I did a copyedit the article for you. It was already pretty darn good, it didn't need many changes at all. The biggest thing I did was italicize all the game titles and insert the MobyGames template (you can find it at the end of my user page here). I guess if you want to improve on it more, you could add the infobox from the project, here. If you're really a video/computer game enthuisist, you could even join the project if you like.

I notice from your userpage that you like one of my favorite computer game series, X-COM. You've probably seen a lot of my edits on those articles. I even was a programmer on one of the games in the series, the ill-fated X-COM: Genesis, until Hasbro Interactive canned us.

I'm glad someone appreciates my edits. Usually the only thing I hear are complaints. :-) Take care! — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:41, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Carrie Underwood

Hi Frecklefoot. One time you commented in talk:Carrie Underwood about Carrie Underwood being an expert yodeller. After thinking about that comment you wrote, I've just created this new section right now. What do you think? Regards, --Gramaic 06:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Last I saw, your section was removed. But it looks like the info has been integrated into the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk June 28, 2005 17:00 (UTC)

Category:Arcade games by year

I notice you were one of the people discussing categorizing arcade games by year and I have no idea how much you watch the WikiProject Arcade Games page, so I thought I'd mention that the categories have been nominated for deletion a few days ago. I thought you might want to know if you foresee the categories being adopted by the project. If no one acts it appears they will be deleted. --TheDotGamer ^Talk June 30, 2005 04:58 (UTC)

Well, I do watch the project, since I started it. But I missed this, thanks for pointin it out to me. — Frecklefoot | Talk June 30, 2005 17:30 (UTC)

No problem. I've cast my vote now, also in favor of keeping the categories. If and after the CfD passes I will probably go through and create the remaining categories, if you don't mind. --TheDotGamer ^Talk June 30, 2005 22:37 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind, but I'd wait until we have games to put under the categories before creating them. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk July 1, 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and created all of them. I think there is at least one article for every year since 1971, the first arcade game, but I could be mistaken. I also started work on categorizing the arcade games and finished those with a number or the letter A from list of arcade games and Category:Arcade games, removing them from the general category and into the specific year category. This is how you were thinking of doing it, correct? List of arcade games is a much better solution to getting an alphabetic listing of all the games, anyway, not to mention easier to manage. --TheDotGamer ^Talk 09:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like a lot of work. I'll categorize them by year from now on when I edit or create a new article. Thanks for taking on the task. :-)— Frecklefoot | Talk 17:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

You'll probably also want to update the category information at WikiProject Arcade games, mentioning that arcade games do not belong directly in the arcade games category, and maybe note that if a game has a port is should also have the XXXX computer and and video games category of the first port, or however you think that should be handled. --TheDotGamer ^Talk 21:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Done. — Frecklefoot | Talk 01:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Arcade Infobox Notes/Ports

I've started a poll regarding the final decision (hopefully) of the Notes and Ports fields of Template:Infobox Arcade Game. Since you've been involved in discussion on the topic, your vote would be helpful. Poiuyt Man ^talk 7 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Did you know — Rescue at Rigel

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Rescue at Rigel, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Paperboy

Great article!!! hope that u can write more about the 1980s games, which still appealed to human imagination, instead of mere senses. --K.C. Tang 05:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade game in Port section of Infobox

I didn't realize Arcade Game was in the Ports section of the sample Infobox, I just copied over from the Pac-Man article, since it looked like everything was right. Perhaps it should be made clear in the Infobox instructions not to include Arcade game under the Ports section. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 08:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Application Development External Link

Frecklefoot,

Last Friday 7/29 I added an external link from the WikiPedia Rapid Application Development article to a 12 page article I have compiled over several weeks that includes RAD's history, advantages and disadvantages, appropriateness for various problems, core elements, process, as well as several modern CASE tools (http://www.blueink.biz/RapidApplicationDevelopment.aspx). I followed the model for external links from the Code Generation page. Within the hour you removed my edits with a comment of "rv spam edit." I admit, my intensions are not entirely pure, I am looking to increase search engine exposure, but I feel that this is the most comprehensive treatment of James Martin's RAD methodology on the Internet and would be an excellent resource for WikiPedia readers interested in the topic. I also intend to update the article frequently with new CASE tools or articles to other RAD specific pages. I certainly did not intend to spam, as I felt this would be a valuable source of information. Please advise.

Thanks, Lee Richardson lrichardson@blueink.biz

Okay, thanks for bringing this up. I'm not going to email you (it's not the wiki way), so I hope you come back here to check my response.

First, your edit was from an IP address and not a user account. Your edit was the only one you made on Wikipedia. I didn't follow the link, but it looked like an ad for someone trying to generate traffic to their website. It looked like a link from which someone was trying to sell something. Those are strictly prohibited on Wikipedia.

If you feel my revert was unjustified, please bring it up on the article's talk page. Then other users (aside from me alone) can look at the issue in more depth and discuss your site's credibility and utility. If the decision made there goes in your favor, you can add it again without fear of revertion (from me, at least). Just click on the article's "Discuss this page" link to get to the Talk page.

Next, if you create a (free) user account, your edits are less likely to look like spam. Lastly, the correct way to sign your posts is with 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is prefered as it also adds a timestamp. Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, that helps a lot. I've been reading up on WikiPedia etiquite and I believe the correct way to do this would be to flush out the article with more details (it's a pretty quick treatement at present) and provide my article as a reference. I'll try this within the next few days. I think I've added your page to my watchlist, so please add any additional thoughts if necessary. -Lee. Lprichar 17:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Film Foundation Spam

Hi, Frecklefoot--I see that you reverted my edit of the Tom Hanks article. Just to explain my accusation of Spamming... there has been a rash of modifications to film-related articles to link to the "American Film Foundation" . Most recently, they have been done by JaimeyWB . Before that, they have been done by an anonyomous IP.

For example, on July 23, a user from IP 67.101.217.126 revised the William Goldman article to include the text To those within the industry, he is "the most observant, knowledgeable and intuitive screenwriter in the business." In an on-camera interview, Goldman applies his brutally honest perspective to his industry and in analyzing his screenplay for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. This edit was removed as spam. User JaimeyWB then inserted the text Goldman speaks candidly about his writing process in American Film Foundation's series Screenwriters: Words into Motion' into the body of the article, and an a link to the American Film Foundation into the "External Links" segment.

Other examples: spammed Maya Lin article spammed Robert MacNeil article spammed Peter Norton article spammed Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy article Ray Bradbury article, spammed by 67.101.217.126

I realize that the Tom Hanks addition looks harmless on its own, but taken in context, it seems pretty clearly part of a not-entirely-appropriate campaign to insert mentions of this particular foundation in as many articles as possible. I've politely asked JaimeyWB to stop this campaign, but in the meantime, I've been trying to clean up after him. (In fact, as of this morning, he has gone back and re-inserted mentions of the AFF into every article I had cleaned up.)

I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'm not going to re-delete the info from the Tom Hanks article. Instead, having made my case, I'm going to leave it up to you. If you agree with me that this is part of a series of inappropriate behaviors, I'd ask you to go ahead and delete the info from the Hanks article. If you disagree and think it should be left in, I will of course respect that decision, and I won't edit the Tom Hanks article further. (I am going to go ahead and try to figure out how to stop JaimeyWB from repeating this behavior, though...)

Best wishes, --Jacobw 07:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I did a partial revert of your edit. What I found puzzling about your edit is that you deleted the text that mentions the AFF, but not the link to their site in the External links section. So I re-inserted the paragraph, but deleted the link to the AFF in the extern links section (just because the article mentions the AFF, that doesn't mean their site should be linked from the article).

I have no idea why this user is trying to raise the profile of the AFF. But I need to ask the question, is what he is posting untrue? Or is it not even worth mentioning? If so, then I guess it's justifiable to revert his edits. Otherwise, I don't see any harm in leaving them in.

I haven't investigated the American Film Foundation or have any idea of their agenda. From their (very poor) article, it looks like they make documentaries. What's so sinister about that?

Please don't stop editing the Tom Hanks article because I did a partial revert of one of your edits! Edit any article as much as you like (as long as they are quality edits). I don't want to engage in an edit war either, but I don't see your point in wanting to remove wikilinks to the AFF. The extern links the user adds to the articles that simply mention the AFF are unjustified, however, and deserve to be reverted. The link to the AFF site is what the AFF article is for.

If what this user is doing really is malicious, you can look into having them banned (their IP address will be blocked from editing). Of course, this will only work if they are not using a dynamic IP address...

Thank you for your thoughtful message, but I don't see why what this user is doing is malicious. Please feel free to educate me further. You may want to bring this up on the Village Pump or the Tom Hanks talk page too (or instead). The benefit of that would be being able to let a wider range of people know about the issue. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:24, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

JacobW, It's not malicious. It is making AFF's works available to the larger public because many of these films, as laudable as they are, have a great deal of information in them but are not widely known because it is only the newer documentaries that have become mainstream. We want people to know that there are older films in limited circulation that are really great and at the same time are hard to find.

Many of the films, including the ones about the Screenwriters and Return with Honor, presented by Tom Hanks, have trailers. The Screenwriter trailers are actually clips pulled from the films, some running several mintues long that are there for people to enjoy, even if they don't purchase a film from the non-profit film production company. So there is more information available in the form of film clips. And we're helping to get the word out about these two very important people in the documentary world, Terry Sanders and Freida Lee Mock because they haven't been so good at self-promotion. And it's really about the body of work they have and the importance of the work, not about them making money. It's about them continuing to make great films. We are new to Wikipedia. We're learning the ropes, as unfriendly and often ruthless and acusatory as it's been. These aren't the only things we're adding to wikipedia, so it's not only about AFF.

I have had the priviledge of seeing most of their films and as a filmmaker I find them incredibly moving and important to note in the articles on Wikipedia. How else will someone who's interested in Maya Lin or Screenwriting know there is a great film about it available somewhere if they are reading an article and want to pursue further sources? Shouldn't that be available to them? We believe strongly about this and will defend it. I've read the guidelines, and we appear to be within them. There are other sites added as external links that are blatent for profit things, but my understanding of the guidelines is that it's ok too. Maybe they are added by wikipedians here and there and not at once as we have done, but they are still for-profit external linking to commercial sites. And don't argue that IMDB isn't commercial. The very nature of putting information on that site is for them to show people ads. The traffic of information on IMDB is the catalyst for advertising sales for amazon.com. Our hope is that by getting the word out on Wikipedia, libraries will stock more of these films, making them available for free to the wider public. That's the goal, that the films be more readily available to diseminate the information and research contained within them. Not everyone is going to learn everything from reading articles on Wikipedia. Most of these films work directly with the subject (person or persons involved) so they are straight from the source. You can't get more true and real than that. We're not posting anything fictional here. They really did make some incredible films, starring famous and important people. It's not hype.

Designmotif 04:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is exactly the type of thing I wanted to avoid. I don't want my talk page to become the sounding board for why AFF is great or isn't or if one user or another is spamming articles. I'll make one last reply, then take it up on the Village Pump—don't bring more issues up here:

Mentioning that this celebrity or that appeared in an AFF production is not spam.
Wikilinking to the AFF article is not spam, when the AFF is mentioned within the context of an article.
Providing an external link to the AFF web site in every article where the AFF is mentioned is spam. Don't do it. The external link to the official AFF web site from the AFF article is plenty.
Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion or advertising. You're zealousness for promoting the AFF is starting to skirt the boundries of acceptable use of Wikipedia. As long as you add information in a NPOV fashion, your edits are fine. As soon as you start gushing on about how wonderful the AFF is, you've crossed the lines. Keep your edits NPOV and pertinent, and we'll all get along.
If there are links to commercial sites when they are not pertinent (for example, a link to Amazon to buy a book an article is about is not acceptable, a link to Amazon from the Amazon.com article is allowed), they should be removed.
The IMDb isn't commercial in that it doesn't charge for the information it provides. Yes, it is owned by Amazon.com, but they don't force users to buy anything when visiting the IMDb. If a visitor does want to buy something, they are redirected to Amazon.com.

Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Head Office, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Kibibyte

I can understand editors arguing against the use of kibibyte, because they are not in widespread use. However, removing kibibyte for kilobyte because "kibibyte and other term [are] nonstandard" is really curious.

This is a quote from the article binary prefix:

Using the prefixes kilo-, mega-, giga-, etc., and their symbols k, M, G, etc. (see below for the peculiarities of "k"), in the binary sense can cause serious confusion. In January 1999, the International Electrotechnical Commission introduced the prefixes kibi-, mebi-, gibi-, etc., and the symbols Ki, Mi, Gi, etc. to specify binary multiples of a quantity. ^[1] They have since been officially adopted by many other organizations.

IEC is a standards organization!

Especially in the Apple II family case, kilobyte is highly ambiguous, since it was refering to disk sizes. Disk sizes are very often expressed taking "K" to mean 1000 instead of 1024 as was implied by the previous use of "ki". — David Remahl 00:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that means that the edit that changed K to Ki might very well be inaccurate, but that is another discussion. — David Remahl 00:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being a computer professional, I am well aware of the ambiguity of the terms "Kilo" and "Mega" and so forth. To some, kilo means 1000, to others it means 1024 (2^10), as you state. However, I've never heard of the term "kibi-" or "mebi-" and I doubt most other readers have either. Also, those terms were adopted long after the Apple II's heyday (introduced 1999, the Apple II was popular in the 1980s).

Therefore, I'm against changing them back to a term that was non-existant when the computer was popular. If you want to resolve ambiguity of terms, I suggest adding a short section describing what KB and MB referred to, but continue to use the kilobyte and megabyte terms in the article. Just because a standards organization adopted the terms, it doesn't mean anyone is using them. It sounds like their goal was noble, but the terms sure haven't caught on.

But I suggest you bring this up on the Apple II Talk page to get others' input on it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

It is strange to use the fact that the terms were not used when the computer was invented as an argument. If applied to every topic on Wikipedia, we'd get some pretty odd results. I will bring it up on the talk page, some other day. I know that the topic has been under discussion (even voted on, I believe) on the dates & numbers style guide page. I doubt there was consensus beyond "maintain what is already there". The terms are in some use, and it is definitely increasing. I think that, when abbreviated, a reader who is not aware of the binary prefixes would not even notice the little "i". And if he/she did notice them, they would be linked to the page on binary prefixes. Thanks for your time. — David Remahl 14:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting of computer and video game "see also" edits

Hi! I notice you reverted my "see also" edits on the game design, game designer, and simcity articles. I appreciate that you included edit summaries explaining why. I am curious if you are part of the computer and video game team, or something like that? I find the categorization and crosslinking of the 1,000 or so articles in this area somewhat chaotic. If there is a guideline of organization in place I would appreciate learning more. -- Sitearm | Talk 17:04, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

I'm a member of the Computer and video games WikiProject. You can visit there and read the ongoing discussions on the Talk page of the project. You can also ask questions there on the talk page without becomming a member. If you want to join the Project, I think you will find the dues fairly reasonable ($0/month). ;-)

You may also be interested in the Arcade games WikiProject which I started. It's a related project dedicated to arcade games, but focusses on the Golden Age of Arcade Games. HTH — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, good to know. Thanks for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 19:29, 2005 August 9 (UTC)