User talk:Frecklefoot/Archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Joe Siegler

From the revision history to my page, you said (wikify, wow, somewhat gussing for a webmaster). Are you referring to my own editing of my page, or someone else's? I'm unclear as to what that means. I have edited my own page, but just a few minor details, I tried to stay out of it as much as I can, since it's generally frowned upon to be editing one's own page.

Which reminds me - is it OK to deal with vandalism on a page about yourself? I'm unclear what the thinking in that regard is.

-- Dopefish 17:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You encountered a typo: "gussing" was meant to be "gushing." I was referring to the entire article, actually. It seems curious that a webmaster has an entire article about him, but I see you also did some voice-over work on some games too, so that may justify the article (though the article's opening doesn't mention this). I didn't think you wrote the article yourself, I just found it curious that you had an article when we usually only post articles on people who are somewhat more high profile.
AFAIK, it's fine to revert vandalism on your own article, Phillip Plait has done it a number of times. Vandalism is a nuisance and it doesn't matter who cleans it up. Minor corrections are fine too. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the TOC

You can move the TOC around by placing __TOC__ somewhere in the article. --John Nagle 20:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but that article needed another section anyway. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] SkillGames - "Online skill-based game"

Ok - so you were involved in SkillGames.com back in 2000 - but how does that empower you to edit a section in Wiki by including completely incorrect info? There are others (such as myself) that are currently actively involved today

Here is one example of one of the entire sections I revamped (this is the incorrect version - with my comments in italics): Skill based gaming sites became very popular in 2005 (nope - in the US market vast penetration took place 2002 through 2004, EU had a surge in 2004, but then went on a steady "trot" in 2005. There is nothing significant about the year 2005 other than continued gradual increase in traffic to those sites). Following poker sites, online casinos learned that users want to play against each other instead of the house (how is this relevant unless you include the fact that casinos in fact built out skill games sites - but then backed off them?). Like poker sites, skillgame sites take a rake from head-to-head and tournament games (true - but its somewhat tiny part of the mechanics of the games). Skillgame sites include SkillJam, WorldWinner , King.com, Smissie.com and IGN, among others (IGN is NOT a skill game site at all - in fact - the IGN skill games implementation that was live back in 2004 was a "skin" of the SkillJam site, Smissie is some tiny brand new outfit, and the list is missing the second largest EU player GameAccount, as well as other key sites like GameColony (US), GreenTube (German), GameDuell (German), GameTrust (US) etc). Skillgames are also available for download and fun playing from publishers like RealArcade and WildTangent (wildly incorrect - since there are no "competitive" skill games that are downloadable in the sense that the user wins prizes or cash from them - someone from WT and RA seem to have stopped by to add themselves to this topic - instead of sticking to "online casual games" where they belong).

So - when I have some more time I intend to go back to the topic, bring it up to date, and get several others from the current active community of skill developers to step in and provide more detailed info. IGDA has a good whitepaper that includes skill games, which is much more in line with current reality than your Wiki entry purports to be.

The failed Disney initiative (SkillGames.com) that never made it to market seems like an inappropriate main part of a topic that should focus on the companies that acutally made it! It's a little like writing about airplanes - and spending the whole article on the history of the De Havilland Comet DH 106 instead of on the Boeing 737. Clearly the Comet is no longer relevant - though I am sure the engineers that worked on it really cared about it a lot.

I was particularly amused by the notion that you made your edit to remove "spam" - what spam?

Like I said - I am more than happy to discuss specifics - but we will try to bring the topic up to modern standards.

Thanks! BB-Miler

Okay, first, sign your name with either 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~), not by typing in your username. The latter is preferred since it also adds a timestamp. If you don't like the way your signature looks, you can edit it by going to your Preferences page.
Now, as far as the revert goes, I looked at the change and it looked like spam because someone had added a new company to the list and it just looked like they were trying to push their own interests instead of improving the article.
From your discussion above, it sounds like you are lumping skill-based gaming sites with gambling sites (such as "playing against the house" and such). Skill based games, such as those hosted by the failed Skillgames.com, rely upon skill alone—by law, they cannot include games of chance, which games like Poker are (though they still require skill also).
As for including Skillgames.com, I created the article way back when, and since Skillgames was the only site I knew of that was going to be in the skill-based games business, I included it. It still deserves a footnote (at the very least), but can be moved out of prominence in the article.
But that will all be moot. I'm removing Online skill-based game from my watchlist. I'm not current in the industry anymore, and it sounds like you are, so you'll have more pertinent info. Revert my last edit, if you like. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for helping me figure out how many edits I have. I want to join Esperanza (need 150 edits) and the Counter-Vandalism Taskforce (need 250 edits), so I definitely need to start editing more! :) If only the Cleanup Taskforce would give me an assignment already.....! Ellie041505 13:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yer welcome! :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Wozniak

Hi, Frecklefoot. Here, you reverted an edit that changed Fortune 500 to Forbes 400 as vandalism, but I don't think it actually was vandalism. As a man and not a company, Wozniak wouldn't appear on the Fortune 500 list, but he could appear on the Forbes 400. Let me know if you disagree. Powers T 13:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my bad. Thanks for clarifying that to me. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obesity in children

What tool moves the name? I didn't know there was one. Thanks! Yensin 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Obesity in Children. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your help, support and suggestions. They have been very helpful. Dave635 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well on the "Games for Windows" page! It was looking pretty slim, and since it seems to be a very large up-and-coming campaign by Microsoft, I thought it was important to get it going. It looks awesome, great job! --Scottymoze 19:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Frecklefoot for the CVG award. It's my first award from Wikipedia and, sadly, my first message from anyone. You were a game developer? I'm aspiring to become one myself, as you can probably tell by my pattern of Wikipedia edits. --Thetanmancan 16:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the welcome and the help. Good man. Good man. --Thetanmancan 01:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PC vs. Windows in The Sims 2

While I appreciate your attempt to be completely accurate in The Sims 2 and the fact that you technically have the credentials to be an expert in the field, the article is going by the long-standing convention of referring to a game as a "PC game" with a system requirement of Microsoft Windows. This is based on the manufacturer's website and the general consensus among game retailers that the game is a "PC game." Feel free to bring it up in the talk page if you feel that the article should refer to the game as a "Windows game." For the time being, "PC game" is the consensus. Thanks. --Carl (talk|contribs) 15:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. But unfortunately, the consensus flies smack in the face and against the consensus at The Computer and video games project. I'll bring it up on the talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Famous Baby-Boomers?

Is this intended to include all people born between 1946 and 1964? Won't it be rather large and unwieldy? AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't create it! I just added a description for the category—I thought it was rather spurious myself. You can nominate it for deletion if you like—it wouldn't hurt my feelings. Or you can contact whoever is adding all the [[Category:Famous Baby-Boomers]] tags to pages (it looks like Jeromealden 85). — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Aha. I just saw yours was the only name on the category editing history, and assumed that meant you were the creator. I will ask him first, out of courtesy, but then nominating for deletion does seem to be the next step. I went and looked at just one random year of that range, Category:1961 births, and the first 200 entries only gets to the letter B, which is already pretty darn unwieldy. The proposed category would by definition be 19 times larger, which is painful to even think about, not to mention completely redundant. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Significant Games List

Saw your reversion of Weaver on the EA list. My two cents is that either Clive Barker's Undying or Mail Order Monsters could be sacrificed to make room for it, since Weaver was in fact a landmark game for EA and for sports games in general. I didn't want to rv what you had done, figured it was better to chime in here. Thanks for your tireless energy on games here. Coll7 22:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on the List of Electronic Arts games that will be a repository for every game that EA published. It's needed since there isn't a complete list of their titles anywhere else on the 'pedia. When it's complete, all of EA's obscure and miscellaneous titles can go on it. I'm not saying that Weaver Baseball is obscure or unimportant, but I agree that some of the entries on the "Notable" list aren't all that notable. When the complete list is finished, we can revisit the "Notable" list and decide what should stay and what should go. Until then, I didn't want the list to bloat and dominate the article. BTW, I removed "Undying" when it was added, but the user who added reverted my removal and I didn't want to get in an edit war. I don't think it is all that notable and it was what prompted me to start the list of EA games in the first place. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormon handcart pioneers FAC

Thank you for your edits and support for the article. — BRMo 02:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sea lion

Howdy, I noticed you removed a bunch of discussion on talk Sea lion. I assume this was an error and I reverted it, but I wanted to let you know in case there was something I was not seeing. Otherwise keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker 20:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what I reverted looked like a lot of vandalism. But seeing the change it looks like a goofed. Oops! Thanks for the fix. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star

The CVG Barnstar
Frecklefoot has been award the CVG Star for his tireless contributions to, and protection of the Game designer article


I don't know how much you are into games so if you would prefer a regular ol' barnstar just say so on my talk page, but I felt that you deserved one. Konman72 18:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Another barnstar to tack up on the barn! It's nice to know my work is recognized and appreciated. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heroes III move.

Heh. Just as a heads-up, I've put in a Requested Move on the Heroes III article. While I too appreciate your contributions, I think that the second move back probably should have been a RM rather than a unilateral move considering that it's been contentious in the past. Anyway, it's in RM now, so feel free to chime in. SnowFire 21:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I added my comments on the article's Talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote format

My feeling is that the giant quotation marks look sort of goofy, but I'll leave them be. Nareek 15:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? I think they look quite cool, but I won't revert if you change them back. I thought the 'c' in the {{cquote| stood for "cool." :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Kolins article

Hi Freckelfoot, I'm hoping you might spare a few moments to look at an article - I picked you as someone who has contributed to several comic book related artists and hope from that that you have an interest in such things (rather than just fixing typos and such.) In fact I think you worked on the articles for some authors particularly admired by Scott.

The difficulty I'm trying to overcome is that I have an unusual position with respect to Scott's page - one that has caused me and various wikipedia editors some troubles. I happen to be related to Scott. I didn't set out to create a page for him because of this fact at all. I was approached by a co-worker who knows of Scott's comic book background and is also a frequenter of wikipedia. He and I have both been making responsible(I hope) contributions in wikipedia in other places. He had noticed Scott was mentioned here and there but the links all ended with no page existing for him yet and mentioned this to me.

I thought no problem - I'll pound something out just to get the ball rolling. Well having my name linked to his name automatically deleted his page after a few seconds, and then there was a short war over whether there should be a page at all. Finally that got settled when I figured out enough syntax to go through channels. But I'm still getting warnings that the page could be summarily deleted. I think the whole thing is because I'm doing it rather than some disinterested third party. I have no vested interest in Scott's article - I thought I was doing a service. That's all. But clearly others need to get involved to make the page have a seemly status. Time might naturally bring this about but it could also benefit from alittle coordination as I think from within wikipedia standards - and it has been judged so - it should exist. It was suggested I try asking for comments and I set that up but I think that's a fairly dart in the dark approach so I tried to find someone who been around a while and edited some artist related articles. I hope it's not a dart in the dark too much.

I'd be glad to continue helping with the page - I know fairly little about his actual professional work. Everything I wrote was based on talk on interviews I found doing research. Except for "The Thing" cover - I knew about that before, I just had to find a reference for it. I know the bibliography isn't complete - I know Scott did one or two 'Wonder Woman' titles for example and I know the amount of information per entry in the bibliography isn't standardized.... Anyway. Just trying to do the right thing.Smkolins 20:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not especially interested in comics, but may do some copyediting here and there. The article is generally pretty good, especially all the references you included. But I fixed several things:
  1. I changed the gallery format for the covers to just sidebar art. Having it in a table at the top was distracting.
  2. I removed some of the descriptions that said "art by Scott Kolins" since that is pretty obvious—the entire article is about him (I preserved it when the art was by someone else as well). I also removed text of who did lettering, yadda, yadda, yadda since the article is not about them.
  3. I hid comments on the article in HTML tags—regular readers shouldn't see that text
  4. I changed all the refences into proper references using the <ref> tags. There is nothing wrong with the way you had it, but I prefer the ref tags because it gives a description of the reference without actually having to visit it.
  5. In biographical articles, we always refer to the subject by their last name (unless using it introduces confusion). So I changed most instances of "Scott" to "Kolins" (I may have missed a few).
One section still needs work. The Bibliography section is a disaster—I didn't even want to touch it. Instead of saying where you got all the info, just include them as references after the section's lead-in text. Alternatively, you could use the ref tags and cite several sites over and over. I did this with one reference in your article so you can see how it's done.
Also, in the same section, you alternatively use boldface and italics. In general, on Wikipedia, we use bold sparingly, reserving it for the topic of the article in the opening sentence. Apart from that, we try not to use in the body of articles (there are some exceptions). For comic book titles, use italics.
Since I'm not overly familiar with comic book lore, I didn't attempt to fix this section: I leave it as an exercise for you. Again, pretty good article. If you know his birthdate, that would be a boon to the opening section. If you need any assistance, feel free to ask. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. If you know others interested in such things, please suggest it if you have a moment. With all the emphasis on citation I didn't want to trim all the "by" stuff in case I stepped on copyright toes. I've seen and occasionally used the ref tags but find it very cumbersome. Using "Scott" may be my one concension to being his brother - I can't easily just call him "Kolins".... The bold/italics thing, I was trying to seperate titles of comic books that might otherwise be a wiki entry somewhere but don't seem to be from characters or sections but admit it's entirely unclear to me when to use b/I/u and I do see I mixed even my own version of a pattern.... I'll try and take a whack at the bibliography again....--Smkolins 22:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apple II survey

I'm conducting a survey about the Apple II -- any former users are invited to participate. I found you were active on Apple II related articles.

Come to User:Applephreak/survey

Applephreak 18:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interviewing Wikipedia Contributors

Hello,

I'm a freelance writer just starting to research an article about Wikipedia. As part of this article I intend to interview several volunteer contributors about their experience with Wikipedia, why they do what they do, and other such stuff. If you'd be interested in participating, please email me at brianrhodges@gmail.com.

Thanks

68.39.158.205 23:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Brian

[edit] SDF Link in Not Spamming

Hi. In the Rogue page I added this:

You removed it claiming it was spam.

It is not spam. The SDF Public Access UNIX System is an open, free system that's been around for a very long time to give people a free UNIX account for educational purposes. It is most definately not spam. The link allows people to play Rogue, but it also allows people to get a free UNIX account from the most reputable source possible in this area.

Therefore, I ask you to review what I have said, review the link I added, review the pre-existing wiki page Super Dimension Fortress, then restore the link accordingly, perhaps with better wording to your liking. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because it has little to do with the article ("spam" in my book). It lets users create a free Unix account on a free Unix server. Rogue was originally written as a Unix app. Therefore you provide a link to let users create a Unix account for the server? You might as well provide that same link in every article about software written for Unix. It is only marginally related to the article, whether or not SDF allows them to play Rogue or not. I'm not going to re-add it. Try to build consensus with other editors on the Rogue Talk page. If they say okay, then fine. But as for me, it is spam. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's fair. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aquamid

My link to Aquamid in Plastic surgery was spamming?? Wow - I'm shocked. I added it in there (and wrote the article) as 1) it's become far more prevalent as a filler in facial reconstructive surgery 2) it's currently in the news due to the new FDA trials 3) it's talked about a lot right now due to its perceived longevity over say, Restylane® or Artecoll. But spamming??? Wow ... - Alison✍ 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, I am not a plastic surgeon or any type of medical professional, so I am not "in the loop" on the latest developments in the field. It looked like spam because it referred to a specific brand of filler, instead of a more generic description of a type of filler used. I've been around a long time, and often when a brand name of something is used, a generic description will work just as well. But the brand name is inserted by someone to "advertise" the specific brand. If you want to add a generic description of types of fillers used, I wouldn't object. But brand names look like "spamming." — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair point. However they're isn't a convenient way of putting "hydrophilic polyacrylamide gel". It's a polymer - like over 97% water - but because the polyacrylamide sucks up water like it does yet doesn't biodegrade, it makes an excellent filler. In medicine, people generally refer to 'Aquamid' to describe the product. It's fast becoming a genericized trademark. Still - not worth arguing over. Never mind - Alison✍ 16:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See talk

See talk page of Game designer. -- Solberg 06:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Solberg

[edit] Tile Based Games

I am confused as to to why games such as Blokus, Triominoes, Tantrix etc. are valid entries in the "Tile-based Games" article wheras Spectrangle is spam.

This is doubly-confusing as you exhort people to be bold when adding items to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SelectiveFocus (talk • contribs)

First, please sign your posts. Yes, I can see who added the comment from the page history, but you're really supposed to sign to save everyone the trouble. Do this with either 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is preferred since it also adds a timestamp.
Second, the answer is simple. Those entries were already there, the addition of Spectrangle was new. To me, an experienced editor, it looked like someone trying to push their pet game. I don't know mch about Blokus, Triominoes, Tantrix or Spectrangle, to be honest. But since the others were already there and no one had objected in the past, I assumed they were okay. The object, of course, is to include major entities in the topic. So, if Spectrangle is more recognized than any of the others, it probably deserves to be in the list. If not, I was right to remove it. But, as I said, I'm not really an expert with this topic. If you still want it on the list, bring it up on the Tile-based game talk page.
Lastly, Scrabble and Stratego are very recognized. My comment to be bold was in reference to them. I still encourage others to be bold, but not to add spam. Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Spam or no-spam the inclusion of the game in the tile-games catagory is probably sufficient of a cross-reference; hence I will not re-add it to the list. Stratego may be very recognised however it is probably not a tile game. I will try to continue 'being bold' in the right way. Apologies for forgetting to sign previous comment. Regards SelectiveFocus 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where does "Explore" link belong?

Hi, you just reverted an external link I added. It was to my own page of text-based adventure games - something I worked on back in the "early days" of microcomputers when text adventures were king. I figured it would be nice to add my own "history" of these types of games somewhere - is this an inappropriate place? Sorry if so. Can you suggest an alternative place that is better? Maybe the list of text-based games?

Also, you put "rv spamming" in the revert comment. Why did you consider this link "spam"?

Thanks, Lavajoe 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to one's own website are generally discouraged (see WP:EL), as are links to commercial sites (i.e. sites selling stuff), blogs, etc. From the description, however, it looked like it met the criteria of WP:SPAM. I didn't look at the page (I don't have time to look at all pages linked to), but even so, it is one of the kind of pages we don't generally link to. If I had a chance to reword it, I don't know if I'd call it "spam" again, since you aren't trying to sell anything, but we generally don't link to personal web sites.
I don't know where you could link to it from. If you create a user page (see how the link to your username is red? Click on it to create your userpage), you can link to it from there, without breaking any guidelines. But I don't think you could link to it from any Wikipedia articles without breaking our guidelines.
I looked at the page while responding to your query here. It looks like a nice site, but still can't be linked to from any article (but your personal user page is fine). Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia editing! Please continue to contribute! — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and thanks for the welcome entry on my talk page! It was useful to read more about the philosophy behind Wikipedia, and I look forward to contributing more! Lavajoe 00:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just a note to say thanks for cleaning up my imperfect edits, I think it's the third time now, e.g. Microprose and Wayward Design. I'm taking notes on how I should have done them in the first place. CiaranG 20:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia isn't always easy to get the hang of. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub placement

Re: your edit to Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons): it is not a hard-written rule that stub markers come before categories; please read WP:STUB#Categorizing stubs again, particularly the statement which says "However, since the stub category is the least important of the article's categories, some Wikipedians prefer to place the template after the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last.". Cheers --Pak21 17:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for educating me. I was working under the guidance of an old policy, I guess.  :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it certainly said that for a while. For what it's worth, WP:STUB is a guideline, not a policy. Cheers --Pak21 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last pure 32-bit DirectX

DirectX from December 13 2004 was last pure 32-bit only distribution - look here [1], its requirements matches only 32bit OSes. Next bimonthly update from February 9 2005 has 64bit mention in requirements - look here: [2]

Please download both DirectX, and you see using CAB viewer, that DX from December 13 2004 doesn't include 64-bit related filenames, while next update released two months later contains at least one 64-bit related filename.

DirectX from December 13 2004 requirements:

  • Supported Operating Systems: TabletPC; Windows 2000; Windows 2000 Advanced Server; Windows 2000 Professional Edition ; Windows 2000 Server; Windows 2000 Service Pack 2; Windows 2000 Service Pack 3; Windows 2000 Service Pack 4; Windows 98; Windows 98 Second Edition; Windows ME; Windows Server 2003; Windows XP; Windows XP Home Edition ; Windows XP Media Center Edition; Windows XP Professional Edition ; Windows XP Service Pack 1

DirectX from February 9 2005 requirements:

  • Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 2000 Advanced Server; Windows 2000 Professional Edition ; Windows 2000 Server; Windows 2000 Service Pack 2; Windows 2000 Service Pack 3; Windows 2000 Service Pack 4; Windows 98; Windows 98 Second Edition; Windows ME; Windows XP; Windows XP 64-bit; Windows XP Home Edition ; Windows XP Media Center Edition; Windows XP Professional Edition ; Windows XP Service Pack 1; Windows XP Service Pack 2; Windows XP Tablet PC Edition

Please don't delete this mention in release table - it is informal for 32-bit users which last version of DirectX is still 32-bit only. 64-bit DirectX began to be bigger than 50 MB, while pure 32-bit version of DirectX has only nearly 30 MB.

Why are you posting the here on my talk page? I did make a small change to the article, but nothing to do with deleting parts of the stuff you mention above. Besides, you already have this on the DirectX talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I didn't looked very closely. But you by reverting page reverted my cleanup of doubled spaces into single spaces.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.31.210 (talk • contribs)

Okay, I'm probably GAC for that, but the diffs don't show those kind of changes. But your "cleanup" introduced an error, which the revert fixed. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I earlier thought that you removed this last 32-bit DirectX version link, because Wikipedia sometimes shows non-refreshed version of page, even if edited and updated.


[edit] MobyGames template AFD

As you created the template I thought you may wish to know that there is Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_27#Template:Moby_game --Flipkin 15:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Look like it has a lot of support to keep. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)