Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TapperTitleScreen.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Frecklefoot. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is about the user Wikipietime who has been contributing to Son of BOSS among other pages; I would welcome your input. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Frecklefoot. After considering your rationale for tagging Among the Sleep, I removed the tag as WP:FNNR explicitly permits the inclusion of general references that do not constitute citations. Cheers, Mephistophelian (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I was trying to present a piece of history that I thought should be preserved.
For whatever reason, you've chosen to destroy that bit of history.
You win.
pcG — Preceding unsigned comment added by PcGnome (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know that whole "anyone can participate" is a lot of hooey.
There should be a balance between "new information" (NOT to be confused with "new research" ) and this place's insidious determination to be GateKeeper.
you want to increase human knowledge or keep the riff-raff out?
My suggestion is to adopt a rule something like:
Before deleting a submission, check to see if the information could be incorporated in some place and some fashion so that the appearance of meeting the mission statement of WikiPedia could be upheld.
Just chopping potential contributors off at the knees has soured uncounted numbers from ever trying again.
A plan, a scheme, a path ...
There's something seriously wrong here.
pcG — Preceding unsigned comment added by PcGnome (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to double edit here - but there's this problem I'm having with definitions. What exactly qualifies as "new research"? It would seem that a little over a hundred years ago Albert Einstein presented "new research" and you have no trouble with that.
Honest, I'm NOT being facetious - what is the difference between the guy you know who did something for the first time and the guy you don't know who did something for the first time and just plain new information.
If that last qualifies - then you cannot allow anything to be added to WikiPedia.
I'm so confused.
pcG — Preceding unsigned comment added by PcGnome (talk • contribs) 04:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I left the tildes out ...
PcGnome (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, you've been most gracious - I hope I haven't been too impolite.
My consternation stems entirely from having contributions deleted without explanation. It seems if folks like you are prepared to take the time to watchdog areas of information, it shouldn't be too much to say why in the process.
True, most are very good about answering when asked - but this place is mighty confusing and it takes some ingenuity just to figure out how to look for answers. It seems that to properly participate here, one must almost need to take a college course on the subject. I've explored supposed "how to" "guidelines" and other supposedly helpful pages - but they seem written for someone who already understands what's going on here. I know you're not personally responsible for anything I'm complaining about - but when someone here writes "helpful" information, they really should put it before someone who knows nothing about WikiPedia and if they cannot understand it - you've done it wrong.
Right now, maybe you can tell me what's the deal with talk pages? Specifically, the paragraph you nixed on the Epyx page is now on the talk page and nobody seems to mind that. I'll admit that I am using it to save a record of what I couldn't seem to get right on the main page. Is this appropriate or am I misusing this?
And I'll stop now with a couple of questions about previous attempts that also failed. On the "grandfather paradox" page I pointed out it should really be called the "maternal grandmother paradox" as lineage (prior to DNA testing) could only be assured for the female line. Seems obvious, but was branded "new research" and I don't really understand how sound logical reasoning could be considered "new research".
The second on the "golden ratio" page. I merely pointed out that this number is irrational, which means just one thing - it cannot in fact be a ratio, golden or otherwise.
You see, I'd consider these things "new information" rather directly appropriate for the subject and should in no way be considered "new research".
Any clue to what I'm missing here? I think the contributions are both valid and pertinent and I ... well ... got "chopped off at the knees" without any understanding about where the lines are. They seem to stick on their respective talk pages, however.
Thank you for your time,
pcG
PcGnome (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC) PcGnome (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was a programmer. My first project was 6502 (Apple //e) versions of "Summer Games". Don't recall the events or even the official year. My second project was on Handy (with confidential agreements). Oddly, Handy was billed as a 16 bit game, but it was still good old 6502 8 bit. It was intended to allow (by infrared or direct caple) for 8 players, if I recall right. I wrote the communication software for this interaction. The most troubling problem was how to decide if "this machine" is first and everybody else listen to it. Seems there was a problem if two machines were switched on too closely together - both listen, hear nothing and decide to be Master.
As for your suggestion about minor grammatical fixes - I've actually done that in half a dozen places without subsequent edit - so I am happy to contribute that way.
My first programming job, Software Engineer actually was for a company called "Linear Corp", first noted for wireless garage door openers - but then got into wireless security systems. I was a major contributor to their original SS32 security system. I am a big fan of the MM1468705G2 micro controller.
I used that micro controller to build a personal project - a 3D display cube. Surprising results from extremely low resolution. The above processor driving an mm5486 serial display driver chip and 189 LEDs. That's a 4 cube inbetween a 5 cube to simulate a 9 cube with a lot less bits, 189 to be exact. Very few were built, but I did take one into Epyx one day and my favorite recollection was an Aussie guy who said "Yea, but what does it do?" somewhat derisively - then proceeded to stare at it for 15 minutes.
I live computers since about 1981, but before that I was a theatre projectionist and hung around with phone phreaks.
My first video game experience was in I think 1972 at LAcon. A space game with a glitch where you could position yourself in a certain place on the screen and the enemy ships couldn't hit you. Next computer game was what would later be called "Adventure" at a remote terminal connected by one of those pre-at&t breakup modems where you had to put the handset into two cups. This was about 1978.
Lots of history, shame this isn't quite the place. They have projects for things like talking to WWII vets before they all died off, I wonder if such places exist for my purposes?
Hope I didn't rattle on too much.
pcG
Darn, forgot the tildes again. Shouldn't there be an option to automatically attach it to "save page"? I mean, if everybody's supposed to do it, shouldn't it be automatic?
PcGnome (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a difference without a distinction, but in a world of "look at me", I'm more of a "look at my ideas" kind of guy. Presenting myself is not my strong suit. So, facebook and the like are decidedly not for me. I suppose I could just ramble on as I see fit with my user page. Have to give this some thought.
How permanent are a person's user page? If somebody dies, there's little chance of notification, so is it a permanent posthumous record or does it time out somehow?
Thanx for the suggestion,
pcG
PcGnome (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm now using up more than 3/4 of your talk page.
Anyway, the short answer is as suspected "The user page remains as a memorial forever"
The long answer is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_March_18
Speaking of forever - there's been a paradigm shift in UseNet. If you see the ads, you'll notice that retention rates are increasing at the rate of one day per day - essentially UseNet articles no longer expire. Everything posted to UseNet from early September of 2008 forward is now forever. So, if you want to store something for free forever with only a minimal monthly fee to access, consider UseNet. As storage prices drop, this is only going to become more certain. Even the recent spike in HD prices due to that tsunami thing hasn't had the slightest effect on retention. And it is the most egalitarian system going - no recourse because every one of many providers would have to obey a "kill article" order and I don't think that's in the least reliable.
pcG
PcGnome (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, probably better places to ask, but you do it, so you should know.
Every time you respond, your text is indented. When I answer other places, it doesn't indent. I tried the tab key - but that just tabs me around my browser.
What's the trick?
pcG
PcGnome (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Frecklefoot
I have seen the page you have contributed to, UFO: Enemy Unknown, and really like the idea of using screenshots of the gameplay in the article. I am currently working with others to expand a stub of the video game Star Raiders (2011), and I was wondering what copyright issues we would have to be concerned with if using screenshots? The page for UFO: Enemy Unknown is well-developed and has been an example to us in expanding the page for Star Raiders (2011). We think incorporating screenshots would be compelling and add a lot to the gameplay section of the article.
The link to the talk page of Star Raiders (2011) is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nguyen102/Star_Raiders_(2011_video_game)
Any help you could provide to us on this subject or others would be greatly appreciated! KellyD78 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I note you uploaded this media, would you mind expanding the fair use rationale so it addresses ALL 10 points of WP:NFCC?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article Necropolis (browser game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gigs (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit is incorrect. Please see the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and my name is Sundogs and I have submitted a public vote on The Sims Task Force talk page and I am notifying all The Sims Task Force members to voice his, or hers, voice and leaving your comments, suggestions, feedback, concerns, or opinions about the forthcoming re-branding The Sims Task Force as Electronic Art Project under the Video Games Project here on Wikipedia. Please stop by and leave your thoughts there and make your voice heard.
Thanks for being apart of The Sims Task Force.
Sundogs talk page sandbox 02:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue
Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:
|
Content
|
Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
Whoops, didn't know external links were last. Thanks!
Judsonhillman (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete the tools I posted to "Patch (computing)"?
The currently listed tools are out of date.
I would accept it if you saw process patching as different then the "Patch" described on the page.
A number of on disk patching applications could be listed would that be more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmccoy (talk • contribs)
What authority do you claim for this reversion that a Hot Fix is not a type of patch?
Note the dual use on this pageexcerpt | ||
Build 57720 | - | TS12 SP1 English |
Build 57825 | - | TS12 SP1 Hotfix 1 English |
Build 57898 | - | TS12 SP1 Hotfix 2 English |
No matter, I added it back as a header 'see also', also saw the reversion trail there, Quick Draw, and reluctantly reverted his revert of you. see here and the Patch (computing) page now. Sincere thanks are expressed in green-grey spendable thingys. <G> //FrankB 15:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you join WikiProject Microsoft?
It seems that you have been editing Microsoft related articles, so why don't you consider joining WikiProject Microsoft, not to be confused with WikiProject Microsoft Windows. WikiProject Microsoft is a group of editors who are willing to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Microsoft, its technologies, web properties & its people. This WikiProject is brand new and is welcoming editors to help out. Add your name to the listatWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft/Participants and/or add the userbox {{Template:User WikiProject Microsoft}}. Thanks! jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know, a legend table for consoles is highly discouraged. It would be affective just to give the full name if there's no renowned abbreviation such as PSP. Also you can link them in the list once.Lucia Black (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Name | Year | Platforms | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Buster Bros. | 1989 | Ami, Arcade, C64, CPC, DOS, GB, iOS, PCD, PS1, SNES, ST, ZX |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to discuss something with you. The English Wikipedia is a global project, and does not specifically cater to any regional, political, cultural or linguistic circles. Per WP:PILLAR, one of the central founding principles of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV. One specific concern of the English Wikipedia that is frequently cited is a WP:Systemic bias towards topics that relate to the western world, most specifically the United States and Europe. There is greater coverage of western topics than those from other countries, which severely harms the project and its goals. I would strongly disagree with the idea that foreign concepts are "better suited towards foreign-language Wikipedias", because this only further worsens the state of systemic bias on Wikipedia. The language divides between different language editions of Wikipedia are to specifically increase accessibility to information for people with varying competencies in languages, and not to allow for the splintering, forking and fragmentation of POV and information. I hope you are able to understand my points here. --benlisquareT•C•E 14:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Frecklefoot - just wondering what the reasons were behind your reverting of my edit? You said in the comment the link I added was "non-notable" but I thought it was, given that the editor works with a number of games that do not already have editors listed in the article. Can you please clarify? Many thanks. -- Malvineous (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]