User talk:Frecklefoot/Archive7

List of Pre-Made Characters in The Sims

This recently created article appears to be covering a list of pre-made characters in The Sims series and SimCity 4. While this might be an opportunity to finally merge articles for individual families or individuals such as Bella Goth and The Langrabb Family, I doubtful whether this whole topic deserves any articles at all, as it seems to be a little on the fancrufty side, and was thinking about a VfD on this article for confirmation. What are your thoughts? + 25 ^ring-a-ding 14:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC) +

I agree. Why not add them all to VfD? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bella Goth, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pre-Made Characters in The Sims and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Langrabb Family. + 25 ^ring-a-ding 18:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC) +

DYK update

Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Redline (1999 computer game), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

- Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Explosion o' Vanity Page

Heya Frecklfoot - I stumbled upon an anonymous users (User talk:71.112.119.194) change, and happened to look at the list of changes they had made. This user seems to be on a bit of a vanity rampage, so to speak, for an indie game company they clearly have some relation with. This user added a page for their little three man indie company (they do have some titles they have released, so they do in fact exist, and I hope they do well). However, the page really strikes me as Ultimate Vanity Page, and doesn't seem to bear any resemblence to other similar company pages. It is blatantly non NPOV (not in the "BEST COMPANY EVAR!!!" sense, but more in general tone in that even a kid reading it would be clear on the fact that a very interested party wrote it).

I left a "holy crap! way non NPOV! Way advertisement/vanity!" message on the discussion (and a note on the users talk page mentioning it) that I'm sure they haven't seen and probably won't notice. As well, this user has gone on a bit of a trek through wikipedia, adding mention of their games and links to these games pages that this user is in some way related to. In short, the user has shown up to Wikipedia for pretty clearly the sole purpose of vanity-ing in their company and games and people (the main employees now have their own wiki page too, now).

Anyhoo, I am not l33t in the ways of the Wikipedia, and so I figured I would seek out a seasoned veteran of such things on the games related topics to take a peek at all this and see what they think. The contribution list for the user above (the company page is the Digital Eel wodge of entries) demonstrates what I refer to. So, if you might have a moment to take a look and see whatall you think of all this, that would be awesome. Thanks! Dxco 02:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for my assistance. I took a look at and wikified and NPOV'ed the page. This included having to just delete a large amount of material, but there was no way to NPOV it. It looks like they listed all their "publishers" in the external links section, which is totally unnecessary. Take a look now, and make any furhter changes you think it needs. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Castle wolfenstein

thanks for taking care of that, I should have made the adjustmensts myself instaed of just being lazy :| --larsinio 15:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Videogames infobox template

Hi. Since I had some difficulty navigating the various discussion pages on this project, I thought I'd just ask you. I really like the infobox as it is right now but I've been thinking that it would be interesting to add "composer(s)" beneath "designer(s)" in the box. I know most people really don't think much of videogame music (and the genre is often a bit neglected), but there has been an increase in appreciation over the years. At least in Japan the phenonemon is a lot bigger, and there are already quite a few "big names" out there (Nobuo Uematsu, Richard Jacques), not to mention classic videogaming scores (Quake 2 by Sonic Mayhem, the Castlevania series, the Sonic the Hedgehog series,...). Nowadays even regular music artists have begun to write videogame scores (think Chris Vrenna's Alice score). Anyway, point I'm argueing: composers shouldn't be left out in this infobox. As it is right now I don't really find a place in the box to put the composer (to list them as "designer" seems too much like a stretch to me). Let me know what you think. --Steerpike 22:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I think, if you haven't already, you should bring this topic up on The Project talk page. That's what the project is for. I'm sorry you have trouble navigating the discussions page, but all you need to do is go to the very bottom topic, click the edit button (I'm not sure where it is located on all the different skins since I'm using the classic skin), and add your topic to the bottom. It's really just as easy as you added comments to my Talk page here.

As for my personal opinion, I really don't think it's necesarry. But, if I were a video game composer, I'm sure I would feel differently. If it were added, it would definately have to be an optional parameter since many games don't even have "composers" (think of most of the games from the home computer era—many had no music at all). But this is just my opinion. Get input from others in the project. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will. --Steerpike 15:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Vg, Cg, CVG

I still recommend against reinstating the article for the time being because the source information (required for Wikipedia's GFDL licencing) is split over too many articles. This needs to be resolved by an admin who understands how to fix all this. If you want to set the gears in motion to getting this fixed, I recommend discussing this with User:Jnc. Ask him about looking into fixing the page histories. At least find out what he thinks before proceeding. K1Bond007 21:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking into the situation some more and I think I've come up with a solution. Essentially, "Computer and video games" began as "Computer game" and was moved. Around December (20-28) 2004, "Video game", a seperate article at the time was merged in. So what I think I want to do is is just archive the current "Video game" article at, say, Video game/Old (any archives we make would be noted on the discussion page). Next, I think we would either delete "Computer game" and move Personal computer game there or we would simply redirect it to "Personal computer game"— the two share only a few sentences.

This is a mess and theres really no way to merge the histories as I previously thought. In the end, following your plan, "Computer and video games" would simply get moved to Video game (the contents of this previously moved to the archive) and then your new edition would be pasted over the new Video game. Does this make sense? Going ahead with this or not I think I'm going to archive Video game anyway (I'll have to sort out the discussion stuff too) and I'll note the discussion stuff on the discussion page.

I am more and more agreeing that the whole "Computer and video games" deal needs to be changed to simply "Video game", I just want to see a plan. If we iron this out, I'll aid you in anyway in making this happen with the CVG project. I just want to know what articles we're going to end up having and which we won't need and how the article of Video game will be treated. My current belief is that Video game isn't anything really more than an umbrella term and should be treated as merely an overview of the industry with links to Console game, Computer game, Handheld game, Arcade game, whatever. Then we'd have to figure out some of the rest, categories, history of video games (ridiculously named "History of computer and video games" then broken down to "History of video games (whatever generation)"—ridiculous being the History of CVG to History of VG.") etc.

Hate to drop all this on your doorstep, but... things aren't that great to begin with and it all needs to be cleaned up anyway. Let me know if this is something you wish to pursue. K1Bond007 21:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me (I think), but I'd move computer and video games to just computer game, not personal computer game. Just my preference, of course. I'm not sure why you want to get rid of the video game article, since I wrote it to replace the computer and video games article (unless you just think it sucks :-). I have less time to spend on Wikipedia as I used to, so I don't have much time to contribute to this whole effort, though I'd like to see it happen. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you got confused. Let me try to draw a picture here :D

Step 1. Move Video game to Video game/Old or archive or whatever.

Step 2. Move the current Computer and video game article to "Video game." (may require deleting the redirect of "Video game" to "Video game/Old", I don't know. We'll see.

Step 3. Paste Frecklefoot's Video game article over the new "Video game" article.

Step 4. Cleanup.

This move will probably necessitate a poll or more discussion at the WikiProject because a lot of things will get changed. So we'll definitely do the first step then discuss the move with the Project and continue on (assuming agreement) with steps 2-4. I do have some problems with your revision of video game and I went through and edited another version that puts more emphasis on the umbrella term of video game. I haven't finished going through the entire thing, but the intro and the first section is what I think the article should have. I also moved some sections around to give the article a little more cohesion and flow, but like I said, I really haven't read all of it yet. See User:K1Bond007/Temp2 - feel free to edit it if you approve. K1Bond007 20:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I like your plan, and your rewrite. I'll wait till you post it to make any changes. If you bring this up at the project, let me know and I'll give it my vote (sorry, but I have so little time nowadays, I'll need a heads-up). Sounds good, good work.  :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 05:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

New article for Don Bluth Productions

Any objections to moving most of the info from "Career" to a new article about Don Bluth Productions? Most of that info applies to his production company and not him personally. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's fine with me. Copperchair 5 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)

Ditto. -- user:zanimum

Picture of Orson Scott Card

You had commented on Talk:Orson Scott Card that you had a picture with eprmission but that pictures such as that were not allowed. Did you see {{PermissionAndFairUse}} or {{withpermission}}? What rule were you referring to? Thanks! -Scm83x 20:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I wrote to an address from his website. At first they said they'd love it. Then I explained the GFDL to them and they balked. They said they'd love to have a better picture on Wikipedia, but only Wikipedia. They didn't want it going to others (under the GFDL). So they yanked permission. If I could guarentee it'd only be used on Wikipedia, they might be more open. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you help watch Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.

Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. will be featured on the Main Page on the 23rd. Vandalism will probably be frequent that day. Could you help in monitoring the page? The 23rd starts at 7 pm ET on Dec 22nd, since wikipedia goes by UTC. Thx in advance. Troedel•talk 01:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you a Mormon?

Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? So am I! --71.111.209.99

Yes, I am. But did you have a question relating to Wikipedia? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Links on Family Viewing Hour

Just a couple of days ago, Bobblewik removed a lot of the links you just reinserted, "per Manual of Style." Mike H. That's hot 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a bummer. I thought they were really needed. I'm not going to fight over it, though. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I just popped over there. It looks like my last edit is still there. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove them because I think they should be there, but don't be surprised if Bobblewik goes through and removes them again. Just giving you a heads-up. Mike H. That's hot 21:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the advice The Half Gauntlet 23:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Apology

With regards to this message on my talk page, I would like to apologize. I took a considerable break from Wikipedia and I've come back as an improved editor, and I've become much more involved in the community. I hope there are no hard feelings, and I wish you the best. JHMM13 (T | C) 22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings. I've had hard times too. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Homeschooling project

Hello, My name Master Scott Hall (you can call me Scott). I am relatively new contributing to Wikipedia, though I have been a user of it for some time. I am currently soliciting for interest in a Wikiproject that I have proposed on the subject of homeschooling. Before finding Wikipedia, my wife and I were seriously considering, but not quite convinced, to home educate our children.

After discovering the depth, scope, and long-term goals of Wikipedia, as well as the individuals driving it, I am convinced that WP has the potential to revolutionize homeschooling. I am also convinced that home education is the right choice for my family. I have, however, been somewhat discouraged by the oversight of home education in most of the education related projects on WP. There are many potential reasons for this discrepency, but I have resolved to try to do something about it.

Although I personally have very limited experience in building complex Wikiprojects, -templates, -portals, etc., I am confident that the right team can be assembled to tackle these issues. I would like to invite you to join this effort to make Wikipedia the resource for the home education of our children. If you are interested, please visits the temporary project page I have set up. Thank you --Master Scott Hall 23:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you're going to revisit my page to discuss this, but Wikipedia is not the right forum to "revolutionize homeschooling." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and using it as a platform for the anything but distributing NPOV information is prohibited. If you want to start a Wikiproject to organize the education related articles, great, please do so. But don't try to use Wikipedia as a tool to preach the benefits of homeschooling--you'll quickly get shot down.

Starting a Wikiproject is easy. The page I linked above gives great information on how to do it. First start it and get feedback from participants on what you should do with the project. But I thought there was already an Education Wikiproject. Anyway, just keep it NPOV and you should do fine.

If you really want to use a wiki to "revolutionize homeschooling," though, start your own wiki. The Wikimedia software is free. — Frecklefoot | Talk 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression. It is not my intent to do anything outside the scope of WP. I simply want to further develop home education (as well as other "no-traditional education) related subjects/articles and then organize them in a useful way, as has been done with many other subjects in WP. The Education Portal is a good example and I am not opposed to expanding that project with non-traditional resources, as long as the organizers/supporters of that are open to the idea.

I am a supporter of NPOV myself, so rest assured, that won't be an issue. As you have most certainly read, only a small percentage of people, in the US at least, know much about non-traditional education. As a result, it has not been the focus of much more than the few, possibly a little radical, people whom I get the feeling you feel I may be one of. I am no radical, one way or the other. I would just like to focus my NPOV efforts on a subject that needs a little help. Perhaps using 'revolutionize' was not smart. I should know better than to wield words like that in this venue.

That being said, you sound like a well-seasoned wikiphile. I would still like to invite you to participate. I am sure that your POV instincts will be an asset to the project. Thanks, and again, sorry for the confusion--Master Scott Hall 04:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Frecklefoot, I think you misunderstood the point. (Or else possibly all I did.) What I read Scott as meaning was that Wikipedia is a spectacular education tool homeschoolers should use, and he wanted to enhance that as much as possible. I already agree Wikipedia is a spectacular homeschooling tool; the purposes are parallel: the dissemination of information. Wikipedia's purpose of, as you stated, dissemination of NPOV information is wonderful for a homeschooling family. What a project could add to that I do not yet know, but the idea would be something similar to Wikibooks and Wikiversity. In fact, Scott might find a better home in one of those projects. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm certainly flattered that you would personally invite me to participate in such a project. However, I can't guarentee participation for two reasons.

1) I am scaling back my Wikipedia time. Wikipedia is an amazing resource, but my involvement cut into some time that I should be devoting elsewhere.

2) I have no specilization with education, homeschooling or otherwise. I am neither a homeschooling opponent or proponent. I think it is right for some and a complete disaster for others (my exposure has been limited to the latter). So I don't think I'd be able to help with any homeschooling articles, since I'd probably just point out the negatives, which is clearly POV. Obviously, my kids aren't homeschooled (if they were, I probably would have more positive things to say--still I think it is done well by some, but not all practitioners).

I am a well-seasoned Wikiphile (thank you for saying so), but I can't promise my help on this project. I may copyedit an article here or there that you create, but it would be purely by chance. Thanks for the invitation, however. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for you input. If you are interested, check in from time to time. As you are probably aware, this project has the potential to suffer from POV problems. Feel free to drop in and help with this when you can. Thanks for your consideration. --Master Scott Hall 16:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Project Launch. The Homeschooling project has moved to its new home at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative education. Please visit the project page at your earliest convenience. If you have already discovered the move, please disregard this message. Thanks, Master Scott Hall 16:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Project Update: Our WikiProject Alternative education is going well. A large number of relevent articles have been assembled, evaluated, and sorted for the Adopt an article list. Alternative education (talk) and homeschooling (talk) have been selected as Focus articles. Please add them to your watch list so you can keep track of the latest changes, contributions, and discussions.

We want everyone wants to to stay as involved as they want, no matter how little time they have to contribute. If you've got a lot going and you simply can't find the time for regular contributions, just drop in from time to time to add your input to ongoing discussions. More input makes it easier for more active editors to make sure that their efforts are working toward concensus. If you feel that you don't have enough background in the subject at hand to make material contributions, you can still help by proof-reading and checking for readability. So, stay in touch, stay involved. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 07:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

MobyGames link practice

A debate has broken out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games about whether or not to link to MobyGames, and a lot of Moby links have been reverted. I recall that before I joined you were involved in a debate about what to link to in game articles. Can we get the benefit of your input? Thanks. Coll7 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Denver

Can you vote for John Denver on the Article Collaboration Drive? Thanks. Carolaman 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Release Dates in arcade infobox - preferred format?

(I am reposting this from the Project:Arcade talk page, in an effort to see if insight can be gained)

I've noticed that the user plaguing me on the Splatterhouse article continues to switch the format of the info placed in the infobox regarding its release date. I initially had it listed as "November 1988" but he/she continues to switch it to "11/1988" and I am curious as to which format/instance is typically preferred/accepted? TheMonkofDestiny 07:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, my preference is to just have the year and no month, since release months differ from region to region (remember, Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia). But, if you insist on having a month, my preference is to have the month spelled out. One reason is that it's more legible: the user doesn't have to translate "11" into "November". Also, date formats are not universal: in some areas the preference would be for the year to come first. But I also think it looks better spelled out. After all, 11/1988 is just a sloppy abbreviation and should only be used where space is at a premium (not a problem here on the 'pedia). HTH — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

External Link and Erimo Town

Sorry, but I am going to revert the change you made in Erimo, Hokkaido. The link is a foreign language link, but the context is appropriate. This is the official site for Erimo Town (and likely the only Erimo town site in existance).

Take a look at Wikipedia:External links 1.1 and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) 2.5.

--imars 07:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge of LDS Missionary

Frecklefoot/Archive7, just wanted to let you know what I have proposed merging Mormon missionary with Mormon missionaries. I noticed you have contributed to these pages in the past, so please stop by one of the article's talk pages and leave your input on the merge. Thanks! --Hetar 07:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to Frecklefoot for his contributions to most every computer game and video game article on Wikipedia. His continual work on improving this realm of the encyclopedia is very appreciated. Tempshill 21:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! Finally all my hard work is recognized! I'm going to hang this barnstar right next to my horseshoe over my stable door! — Frecklefoot | Talk 02:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject C++

The WikiProject C++ aims to increase the quality of C++-related articles on Wikipedia, and has discovered that you have participated in the editing of them! So don't hesitate, join us! --Deryck C. 15:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Centuri

Thanks for removing the underconstruction tag -- it had slipped my mind!

Nandesuka 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Date linking

From WP:DATES#Avoid_overlinking_dates section of the manual of style: This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 21:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think someone's birth and death dates are important reasons. Every bio page I've seen does it. Not trying to pick a fight, but I think wikilinking dates is a good practice. After they're linked once in an article, I don't think they need to be linked again. If that's going on, it should be reverted. Just MHO... — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Tim Conway

Hi, Does Tim Conway still live in Gallatin,TN? --152.163.100.138

I have no idea. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Hi, succession boxes should never go after links which should always be the last section. Regards Arniep 19:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Normally, I agree that external links are always last. But "footer boxes" are a special case, IMHO. They don't create a "section" and look awkward before the external links. They create a "foot" for the article. When placed before the external links, large ones can actually hide the last section (user's may stop looking once they see the succession box). Do you have a policy to back up your assertion? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think most people agree that the best place for them is the bottom of the filmography section. If you put them under the links they can muck up sister project templates. Arniep 19:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a nice assertion, but you haven't cited any Wikipedia policy. And I don't have the time to look it up. So until some policy (or an administrator) is found, I'm going to continue to move them to the bottom after the extern links. Look around the 'pedia. Almost all footer templates are at the very bottom of articles. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Chronic Logic

Man, that was quick! And good, too. I have only one quibble: "Games" could refer either to the games CL developed or to the ones they distribute, which is why I went for the longer title.

On a related issue: do you happen to know who developed Gish?

Thanks for improving my edit. Cheers, CWC(talk) 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea who developed Gish. In fact, I have no special interest in Chronic Logic. It just looked like a fun article to edit.  :-) I know a lot about other games and video game development companies, but not this one. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, it was worth a try. Thanks anyway. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:ScoobyDooGameDesign.jpg

This was originally added to my talk page, since I briefly touched it to correct a white-balance issue. As I didn't originally upload it, and don't know its source, so I'm not suited to correcting the issue. Thanks. --Interiot 19:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Liposuction

Thanks Frecklefoot for making sections in that article. I'm thanking you but actually I'm a bit sorry you did it, because I was looking forward to doing it, figuring it out. I'll have to post another article and not leave it till I have it already in sections. Here's my question: Since medical topics don't feature in your LONG! list of contributions to Wiki and the world in general, how did you know it had been posted? Do you have some email notification every time ANYBODY posts a new article?

Now I think the way to sign and date this is to put 4 tildes, so here they are. Pinkgalah 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I just have the article on my watchlist. I was one of the original authors of the article. When it was changed, I saw it on my watchlist. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Template

I notice you are the creater of the MobyGames template. Would it be possible for some link GameSpot in external links? --Thorpe | talk 08:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this has been voted down before for two reasons:

1. GameSpot is a commercial site. They require a subscription for some of their most useful content. While they do have some useful information, they are first and foremost in the business of making money.
2. A great deal of their content is reviews, which we have a policy against endorsing and linking to here.

MobyGames does have reviews, but their foremost goal is cataloging and indexing game metrics, credits and other information. In fact, many of our articles on video games use the information on MobyGames as a starting point. While MobyGames does have banner ads, they're not really "commercial" in the same sense GameSpot is. The revenue from their banner ads probably just covers the cost of the server space and little else.

But I'm not the final authority on this stuff. If you want to argue for a GameSpot template, discuss it at the project. HTH :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal!

Please stop vandalizing my talk page with comments that are brought about because you are stupid. I think its obvious that I clicked on the wrong link and then reverted my mistake if I upset you, your holiness

Dude, it looked like you intentionally vandalized the page. It wasn't obvious that you clicked the wrong thing. I undid your mistake. And I didn't vandalize your talk page. I brought up a legitamite concern. Sheesh! — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude?!?! Take a second to think, it isnt that hard to figure out.

I just looked and you reverted to a version that had vandalism in it. Just as I said, I reverted the version back to what it should have been. Unless you really think game testers are correctly called "evil monkeys." I didn't act rashly. I think my actions were totally justified. If you really think I'm a menance, report me to an administrator. I'd be more than happy to defend my actions. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

External links for PCS

Hi Frecklefoot -- I wanted to let you know my thinking about removing external links from PCS. I believe that these links are essentually linkspam, adding little or no useful information, and serving what is essentially an advertising purpose for the two sites listed. What's the point in providing links to entries with a database like these? I have removed them again, although provided we continue a decent discussion on it, I'll not do so again until this is resolved. --Improv 13:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I copied your comment to the Pinball Construction Set Talk page. Let's discuss there. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to make Solar tower a disambiguation page

We are having a bit of a discussion about a possible name change of the Solar tower, see Proposal to make Solar tower a disambiguation page. Your input would be appreciated. JdH 17:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hommlet

Hey,

I notice The Village of Hommlet is a redirect to Temple of Elemental Evil. Heresy! Is there a reason this is the case?

Regards,

Tempshill 05:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm not up on D&D like I used to be, but, from what I can tell, TEE was an expansion of VOH. I guesss VoH doesn't have an article of it's own? I guess it should have an article written about it. It looks like we already have an image for it--you can see it in older versions of the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Spamming links

Wikipedia defines spam-links as links that promote a website. They recommend that you do not link to a commercial website that "primarily exists to sell things." The three links you removed from the Starflight article were, in my opinion, valuable online resources that contained downloads, walkthroughs, etc. that would otherwise not be obtainable in the article itself. I would not consider them spam because they only offer free downloads and have absolutely no commercial product advertising. I have seen dozens of articles that have similar links for games and other software. I have restored the original links. I understand your concern for keeping Wikipedia free of commercial interests. I would be happy to discuss the matter if you truly find the links objectionable. As a long-time fan of Starflight, I am only looking to promote the game, not companies or individuals.

Wikipedia has a policy about not linking to fan sites (though they just revised the policy to allow a link to one fansite, but only if it is recognized as a major fansite). For the Starflight III link, I suggest you create an article on the game instead and include the external link there (AAMOF, I'll do that after I write this response. The other two links, are IMO, analogous to fan sites, neither of them "official" or "major." I won't revert your restoration for now, but bring it up on the Starflight Talk page.

It looks like you're somewhat new to Wikipedia. To sign your posts, use 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is preferred, since it also adds a timestamp. Cheers! :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to 'Dvorak Simplified Keyboard' page

Frecklefoot, Please take a look at the articles on 'Free Software' and 'FreeWare' on wikipedia to understand why Free Software and FreeWare were in separate sections on the "Dvorak Simplified Keyboard" article. Free Software was separated from FreeWare+ShareWare by me(enyc) some time ago. Uner StuartBrady has now separated the 2 types again. Enyc 00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)