User talk:Slike
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Not a CSD
Please note Console game was not a candidate for speedy deletion. �xfeff; --fvw* 19:01, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
- I think it falls under the category, a console game (describes typical gameplay, history, what to expect from a console game) is not a video game console (the actual hardware). If lumber did not exist and I pasted what was under tree into it, I think what would fall under no meaningful content - related, sure, but not what you're looking for. Slike 02:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not arguing whether or not it should be deleted, I'm arguing it's not a speedy deletion candidate. Please read the page linked in my original comment, there are five strictly defined criteria for speedy deletion of redirects, this wasn't one of them. This sort of stuff should go on WP:RFD. --fvw* 11:25, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
- You misunderstand my response, I'm arguing that it is a candidate under "No meaningful content or history". The redirect is an error, so it was removed - the article has no meaningful content or history. --Slike 11:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No meaningful content is not a criterion for speedy deletion for redirects. Also, note that "no meaningful content" refers to patent nonsense (read this "is not" list on this one, I think it'll clarify things), not "this is silly" or "this is stupid" things. --fvw* 11:33, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
- Ah, serves me right for not reading your entire link before posting a response. My above comment stands as an explanation. I'll use the other page. Thank you --Slike 11:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Move of article content
Slike, thank you for your valuable contributions, especially in the area of console/video/computer games. I just noticed that you moved a large section of game programming to game development. I authored that article (most of it) and wrote it as game development from the perspective of the game programmer. It doesn't include many other topics, such as the artists', producer, testers' and game designers roles, only that of the programmer. While I think an article on game development would be valuable, that large chunk from the game programming article isn't appropriate. Perhaps you could start the game development article and refer to the specific roles in their own articles.
In short, I'd like you to revert your removal of the content from the game programming article and start the game development article from the ground up. You may, of course, borrow content from the other pertinent articles to make up the content of that article, but the chunk from the game programming article is imbalanced since it just talks about developemtn from the programmer's perspective.
If you'd like to discuss this further (or at all), please do so on the Talk pages of the game programming or game development articles. Thanks! :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 02:23, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
- You're absolutley right, and I've reverted accordingly. Your intent is clear now, at the time of the move I had assumed that it was a (rather fine, if I may add) development proccess and that the weight on programming was due to the author being a programmer. Slike 02:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm gald you like it and that we are eye-to-eye on this now. I look forward to your future valuable contributions. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 02:49, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Talk comment order
Hi, thanks for documenting your refactoring efforts in Talk:Computer and video games and others. I just wanted to let you know that it is much more common to post new comments at the bottom of a talk page rather than at the top. It's a bit confusing to have comments in both reverse-chronological and chronological order. --Mrwojo 17:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll edit. — Slike | Talk | 01:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! --Mrwojo 14:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] External link removal
FileFront should be added to the links section of "computer games". They are the fourth largest gaming site in the world and offer news, articles, and files. In fact, they are bigger than most of the sites listed. I attempted to add it twice, but it was reverted.
- Please bring this up on the appropriate talk page. Both of my reverts directed you to the talk page, which has a discussion on this matter.— Slike | Talk | 04:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Reply: video and console games
- (First of all, many thanks for expanding console games. I have, however (though not because I'm not thankful for your input), removed your edit to computer and video games, and your redirect in video game. The definition of computer games, or video games, or interactive games, or electronic games, or what have you ;), is not a light subject, and I'd ask you to read Category_talk:Computer_and_video_games, as I'd be unable to do it justice here. If you do disagree with my changes, let me know on my talk page, and we'll get a discussion going.— Slike | Talk | 08:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC))
Ah, sorry about my edits to Computer and video games. However, I think, regardless of what the name implies it is, video games, have always been, well, video games. "A game with a video display" just sounded quite vague, and I've always heard video games as a words used to refer to electronic games played on consoles. We should define a word as how it is used and what it really means in popular culture, not how it sounds, in my opinion. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 18:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- By 'how it sounds', you mean to say 'how it is defined in all respectable dictionaries' :) Many people, including people in the industry itself, see both vid and comp games as referring to electronic games with (...). There are three concepts - games as they exist controlled by a computer, and then the 2 platforms that they're played on (PC, console). The specifics of each platform are not as important as the topic of games themselves, so the disambig page becames "comp and vid games". — Slike | Talk | 23:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Not a Personal Attack
My edits to Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Computer and video games was not a personal attack by any means (at least, it wasn't meant to be). Alas, I won't reinstate it but I do not see how you interpreted it as one. Just wanted to clear up any misunderstanding. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 02:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It's under "Political affiliation attacks, such as calling someone a Nazi", or in your case, an implication of Dictatorship. He was making a request, not oppressing you in any way.— Slike | Talk | 02:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't implying he was opressing me, I made a silly comment that he should have a dictatorship, I did not say he was trying to gain one. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 03:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest that you check what the word imply means. It's has little to do with "what you literally said". By sarcastically suggesting that he should be wp's dictator, you use dictator and it's negative connotations as a political affiliation attack . Tell me, what other purpose did your comment serve? — Slike | Talk | 03:12, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know what imply means. Read my comment here, please: Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Computer and video games. I certainly didn't mean to call anyone a "Nazi". ✏ OvenFresh☺ 03:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Don't try to pull a straw man here, I never said you called him a nazi. Apart from that, thank you for leaving the section removed. However, an explanation of your deleted actions is not something that needs to be there. Please remove your last comment, with an edit summary of "See prev version for my response to Slike's reverts", or something similar.— Slike | Talk | 03:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Done. Sorry about that. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 03:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, no hard feelings I hope. — Slike | Talk | 03:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
None! ✏ OvenFresh☺ 03:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] your rv: computer games:external links
ur right, but not everyone "googles". the open directory page contains many related links but i have not checked them out further.Akidd_dublin
[edit] Mike
[edit] WIKIPEDIA ABUSE Ril, (81.156.177.21).
Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.
RIL - M.O.
1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.
2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.
3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone
4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone
5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.
PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator - User:Melissadolbeer - see the user's edit history, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by Jerome which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Ebionites). It also contains material presenting Eusebius's views of what was Biblical Canon - better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and Gospel of Matthew, at the suggestion of User:Wetman. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of abuse against me, 81.156.177.21, doc, Slrubenstien, etc. are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Wikipedia, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD. ~~~~ 19:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
