User talk:Frodet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Frodet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines. First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette. Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame) 10:58, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Thanks for contributing to Girl!

An Award
For your contributions to the CotW focusing on Girl in September, 2005, I, Mamawrites, award you, Frodet, this THANK YOU.

[edit] Floptical revert

Could you please explain your removal of all my work in Floptica? All of the drives I added were definitely flopticals, and referred to as such. For instance, google "LS-120 floptical". You seem to think the content should not be in this article because the drive was called a Floptical, but considering there is no other article to put the content in, nor was that the official name of the product (it was I325), I can't think of any other place to put it.

Maury 13:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"Floptical" is/was a registred trademkark of Insite. Your first submission was a bit unclear about the difference between an Insite Floptical versus any floptical-like system. The LS-120 uses similar technology to the Floptical, but it's not a Floptical. That's why I reverted some of your work. Some use "floptical" as an adjective and I tried to describe that in the last sentence in my edit.
However, your current edit looks much better, BTW.
Frodet 14:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm still a little confused about the history here. If I read it correctly, Jim left Shugart and started work on the floptical at Insite -- is that correct, or was Insite really a part of 3M at this point? Anyway they released their drive and a number of companies licensed it, including Iomega. Iomega gave up on their version and sold the technology back to 3M, who then released it as the LS-120 before spinning it off as Imation. Right? So then if this is basically correct, who are OR Technology and Caleb? They both appear to be related to the Iomega project as well. Maury 13:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - forgot all about this one. :( AFAIK 3M founded half (together with Maxell) of Insite. And it was Jim Adkisson (not Shugart) who started it all. I'm also confused about the Iomega/Imation/3M/LS-120 connection. It might well be that Iomega licenced the original techonology from Insite and then improved it to become LS-120 which they sold off due to financial difficulties. ORT and Caleb were even less successfull startups from the same time and were competitors to Insite. I have tried to get hold of Jim Adkisson to get him to comment and elaborate on the facts of the article, but without success. --Frodet 20:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3D Monster Maze

I've moved our exchange here over to Talk:3D_Monster_Maze#1981_vs_1982 for everyone to see and participate... --BACbKA 09:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  

I was wondering why you actively use & nbsp; in articles - notably before and after numbers? I'm not aware that there is such a typographics convention in English. I see that you recently updated 3D Monster Maze with one and the article also has many more previously added by you. In my oppinion & nbsp; can be used when there are specific textual elements which should be grouped together on one line, eg. formulas. For ordinary paragraph text & nbsp; should not be used since people have different sized screens, different resolution, read articles with different sized fonts (eg. visual impairment), etc. --Frodet 19:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

While there is no supporting material I can easily find on the WP:MoS, I find it a good idea to use the non-breakable space wherever a line break would look really ugly, as taught by Donald Knuth's The TEXbook. One of these cases is when you have a single variable or number right before a punctuation sign (because in the beginning of a line, a number followed by a punctuation sign (esp. a period) looks ugly. BTW, in the last brackets, you may have noticed another  , coming to prevent a perception from a contraction to look like a sentence end (and to prevent some styles to interpret it like one (e.g., if the thing is dumped to a Wikireader through a typesetting process that, as per the English typography rules, puts extra spaces at the end of a sentence)).
--BACbKA 20:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I was not aware of Knuth's teachings on this subject, and personally I dissagree with the number/puncutation "rule". I do see your last point, however. I'm not sure if I agree with you/them, though. However, when something is written once (hopefully) and ready many times (again, hopefully) the author is obliged to put some extra effort into making it easily readable. Do you have examples or further readings? -- Frodet 00:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No furhter readings off the top of my head. However, to strengthen the case with the number before the punctuation, just think how this can be visually perceived (incorrectly) as a beginning of a list item if starting a line! Before the comma it is less critical than before a period or a closing paren. BTW, you might be interested in the MoS talk on Uses of  , —, etc?. --BACbKA 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] resubmitted as a FAC!

I've resubmitted 3DMAZE as a FAC. You're welcome to comment/vote on its FAC page!.. --BACbKA 18:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Over-categorization

Hello and happy anniversary on your first year of contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you included Robert Cailliau into many categories. Although he deserves credit for his seminal work on the World Wide Web with Tim Berners-Lee, I don't believe he should be listed with Tim everywhere notable computer pioneers are mentioned. If you read his own comments on his page history, he would probably agree. This is why I'll take the liberty of removing some of the category listings you added. I believe that Wikipedia categories are more useful when they are very focused. Of course, they may eventually grow so large that we will need super-categories ;-) -- JFG 16:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

After taking a close look at all categories, I couldn't decide which should be removed, because the rationale for removing one tends to lead into removing most, which I think would be unfair to Robert. So I left them all in place. Sorry! -- JFG 17:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for you comments. Robert is a modest person, and while I agree that some articles are overcategorized, he is still a knowledgeable person and deserve much credit. And while he shares some categories with Tim, others he don't - and vice versa. ;-) The categoriezation, as you sort of discerned, are not completely unfounded. The one category I'm a bit uncertain about is Category:Computer knowledge engineers - not a very helpfull category in general. Firstly it would probably include any practicing engineer today (depending on the definition of "computer knowledge"). Secondly, I tried to make sense of that category and it's parent categories without really comprehending the connection - but that might be just me. :-)
If you have questions about specific categories, I might be able to clarify my position.
-- Frodet 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I took a deeper look; let me share my opinion with you. Robert is definitely an Internet pioneer. However, given the definition of Category:Computer pioneers, he shouldn't be here (whereas Tim deserves it along with Vint Cerf). Note that several prominent Internet pioneers are not included in Computer pioneers, for example Marc Andreesen and Paul Mockapetris.
Now, Category:Programmers is a thorny one: many people have programmed significant stuff, but how many should be notable programmers as per category definition? There are currently 187 people in this list, and a casual glance tells me that by my standard of notable, there should be no more than half this number. Can anyone compare Andy Hertzfeld with Hideya Kawahara? So I wouldn't add Robert there, although he probably did more notable work than some people who are currently listed. Maybe we should suggest renaming this category to "Notable programmers" (as if it weren't obvious in an encyclopedia) :-)
All right, I totally agree with you that Category:Computer knowledge engineers is ill-defined at best, because it starts with an irrelevant POV that the Semantic Web is a continuation of AI, and it fails to even define what a CKE is supposed to be. So this should go away and we should ask for clarification on the category's talk page, or directly to its sole author, User:Gorgonzilla.
Category:Technology writers is OK to me, although purists would argue that writing one book does not qualify somebody as a writer. IMHO, such purists should try and write a book by themselves first to realize the amount of work that is needed! Robert and his colleague James Gillies did write an outstanding book.
Category:Belgian people and Category:Belgian inventors are fine too, although a [Category:Belgian computer scientists] would perhaps be more appropriate if it existed. By the way, you should read about another fascinating Belgian called Paul Otlet who envisioned the Wikipedia in 1903.
Looking forward to reading your opinion and reaching consensus... -- JFG 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Phew! I'll try to be short. :-)
Category:Computer pioneers - well, I put him there on his merits compared to the other people already there. If he should be removed, so should several others, including Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Jarkko Oikarinen and Linus Torvalds to mention a few. I'm not even sure Tim should be there. However, seeing as Category:Internet pioneers is a sub-category to Category:Computer pioneers, I don't object to removing that category, since article shouldn't normally be in both a category and it's sub-category.
I wasn't aware of this policy. Sounds good!
I updated Tim as well. Not sure if I am prepared to wade through the rest of the "computer pioneers". :-)
Category:Programmers: Notable - isn't being included in Wikipedia notable in itself? :-)
OK for Robert compared to many other people there. But just wait until a million programmers get listed... 8-D
Category:Computer knowledge engineers - what about {Cfd}?
Absolutely!
Category:Technology writers - indeed it is a excellent book, and he has written several papers as well.
Actually, Category:Belgian people is redundant as Category:Belgian inventors is a sub-category.
All right.
You have put a lot of effort into this, rather than just editing the article. Do you show equal vigilance towards other articles? :-)
I do have attention to detail ;-) especially on subjects for which I have first-hand knowledge. Whenever possible I'd rather strive for consensus than start an edit war. In this case, I chose to contact you directly because you had added a whole bunch of categories in one shot, so I thought it would be more efficient to discuss the matter with you before editing the page.
I appreciate the initative. Just curious - what's your connection to Robert since you claim first-hand knowledge? :-)
We worked together with Tim at CERN. -- JFG 06:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I propose to remove Category:Computer pioneers and Category:Belgian people and {Cfd} Category:Computer knowledge engineers. Let me know and I'll edit the article and nominate the {Cfd}.
-- Frodet 18:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks for volunteering to go through the CfD process, which looks time-consuming. I'll go vote when this CfD is ready.
Consensus reached! -- JFG 13:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Everything in place at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 7.
-- Frodet 19:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I've added a Cfd-article on Tim's page so this CfD gets some attention. -- JFG 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Frodet! As the CfD vote has closed, I have emptied the category and moved it to the Delete Me section, until an admin takes care of killing it. -- JFG 15:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] italicised title

I've just noticed the italicised title you put into the 3DMAZE and Trashman articles. Thanks, I learnt smth new from the WP manual of style; before that, I somehow had been under impression that double emphasis was discouraged... --BACbKA 11:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kjetil r as admin on commons

Hi! The norwegians have put foreward an admin request on commons, commons:Template:Administrators/Requests and votes/Kjetil r. It would be nice to have your votes! — John Erling Blad (no) 21:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Yamaha-MDR1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Yamaha-MDR1.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 20:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motörhead

I reverted back to the disambiguation page. Please think of the people who come to Wikipedia looking for information about the band. It is a very, very notable band, and the average user doesn't put umlauts in search engine windows. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZX Spectrum

Hej, jag såg att du till slut gav upp din tappra kamp, rörande en viss lista, på diskussionsidan. Frågan är hur den sortens besserwissrar, mer intresserade av form än av innehåll, egentligen skall tacklas, vilka argument biter? Man blir ju lite orolig att han skall ge sig på fler artiklar!

(hoppas du ursäktar lite skandinaviska)

/HenkeB 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeg har inte givit upp - gikk bare å la meg. :) Men det er jo klart at dess fler som sejer i från, dess bettre.
Skandinaviska er lungt. :)
--Frodet 11:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Abbreviation, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

[edit] Formatting Issues on WoS_game template

What formatting issues were caused by the ticks used to italicsize the game titles in the WoS game template? Thanks for the great job of re-linking the titles BTW! :-) --Frodet 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The formatting issues seemed to occur because there were the two quotes in the template and then also two quotes in the link on the page so seemed to end up with four quotes and it looked like 'This'. Might just need to remove the quotes from all the places where the template is used rather than from the template. --WOSlinker 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starglider

I'm curious on what grounds you are adding for this article to be on High importance. This is not anything really against it, I just want to know why a lesser known game should be on high priority. William Pembroke 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

These ratings are always very subjective. When I rated Starglider it was one of many games I rated in the same period and was based on my "feel" of how I remembered the game. There are also several objective reasons:
  • It was considered a killer application for the Atari ST.
  • It was (one of) the first games to be included as an integral part (and on a regular basis) of a (UK) TV-show.
  • The 3D vector graphics was very advanced for the time, using multiple colours.
Of course, the article should be expanded uppon and references located. It's on my to-do list.
--Frodet 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autograph Book

Can you please sign my autograph book, Frodet? --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 02:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZX Spectrum models

You got me convinced, I hadn't figured out they were model names. Sorry about messing with the pages. --SLi 16:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NP. :) --Frodet 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007

Hello, Frodet! Thank you for reverting vandalism to Wikipedia, which you did in Tim Berners-Lee. After you revert, I would recommend also warning the users whose edits you revert on their talk pages with an appropriate template or custom message. This will serve to direct new users towards the sandbox, educate them about Wikipedia, and a stern warning to a vandal may prevent him or her from vandalizing again. Thanks! — zero » 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uridium

So how does that one fall under original research?--Marhawkman 18:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you find any references to support that "it may be a misspelling of Iridium"? --Frodet 20:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The guy who wrote the game Uridium said that he used the name because he thought there was an element named that. Iridium is a real element with a name that could be pronounced the same way.--Marhawkman 10:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It was Robert Orchard who "invented" that name, and who thought '... it really existed'. There is no source which claims that it was a misspelling. Iridium and Uridium is as closly pronounced as I and you. --Frodet 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Either name could be pronounced using a schwa sound for the first vowel. Granted the correct pronunciations would be somewhat different. Iridium is prperly pronounced using a "short i" for the first two "i"s. Based on spelling alone, Uridium could be pronounced "er" without being phonetically incorrect. The actual pronunciation is unknown(to us) as it's a word Robert Orchard made up.--Marhawkman 18:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, there is no evidence that it is a misspelling of Iridium, could be a mixup with Uranium as well. Could be anything. --Frodet 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. For all we know he could have mixed the two elements up.--Marhawkman 20:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category you might want to join!

Did you know that there's a category "Wikipedians who use ZX Spectrum computers"? Judging by several of your edits, you might want to add yourself to this — although to be honest I don't think the current name is as good as the name "Spec-Chums" under which I created it. 193.122.47.170 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Games Machine

Hi there, thank you for your efforts in editing the above mentioned article. You also stated that you had removed the "==See also==" section because it was redundant and there was no relation to the other mags. Is there a Wikipedia rule stating that you can't list similar related articles? In this case, multi-format magazines. The "See also" section is merely a reference link, e.g. if you are interested in this article you may find the following, similar article(s), of interest. If you could let me know the Wikipedia ruling on this it would be appreciated. Thanks. Nreive 12:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The official "guide" is Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also. Basically, three of the items were already present in the article body. The other three are not really related, but more like "similar magazines" (in this case) - and for that we have the categories. If you add one magazine, others will add more - not really necessary. A topic which could have been appropriate in a "==See also==" section is perhaps Video game journalism - hadn't it already been in there. --Frodet 15:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I will amend any articles that I have done recently and will remember this for any future contributions. Keep up the good work. Nreive 07:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objection

Of course, I agree that the sub-cats should automatically be listed in the parent (if that's what you mean), but they're not. It's pretty clear from WP:SUBCAT#Secondary categorization rule that the entries in these subcats need to go in the parent cats too, because that's what it says (as I quoted). Other than that I don't know what to say really; I'm not attempting, and don't wish, to be difficult or disruptive with this, but it's a very silly situation for these categories to be in. Do you want another concensus thing on this? Cheers, Miremare 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I will, of course, stop until an agreement is reached. Miremare 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As you have not responded yet I will try to justify it a bit more, as this is by no means without precendet:
Manchester United is listed in "Category:Manchester United F.C.", the parent "Category:FA Premier League clubs", and the the two next parents "Category:FA Premier League" and "Category:English Football clubs". It certainly should certainly be entered in the first one as it's a category about the club itself, but it is also incrementally better known as being part of each of the parent categories, which is why it is also in them. It would be ridiculous to deny it a listing in these parent categories simply because it's in the first one. Just as Inter Milan is listed in "Category:Football Clubs in Lombardy" that doesn't deny it from being in parent "Category:Italian Football Clubs". In fact, there are hundreds of sports clubs with or without their own categories that are also listed in one or more parents.
The Beatles is a particularly good example of a whole web of sub-cats and parents that the main article is listed in.
Ultimately, this is what WP:SUBCAT#Secondary categorization rule says. If you still disagree let me know, otherwise I'll carry on. Cheers, Miremare 15:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't work full time with WP. :-) There is different pratice for almost everything here, e.g. take a look at Liverpool vs. London. Apparently, someone interested in football got their act together and did everything consistently. :) However, you don't need to argue with me, while I don't totally agree with you (for the Category:ZX Spectrum-only games at least, and less so for your other examples), I do understand the rationale for having them in both categories. But again, there should be a more elegang way of instructing WP to handle this automatically. --Frodet 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to persuade you to agree with me! ;) I'm not sure what you mean with Liverpool and London, as both appear in subs/parents...? Anyway, I really wish there was an automatic way for Wikipedia to handle this stuff too, but as there isn't, don't you think we have to try to work around it with what we've got? I just think it harms the parent categories (and indeed the whole concept of categories in general) to have entries removed especially when the sub-cat's based on a property that isn't the defining one. I reckon the best way to go about this is to add them to the parents (there were a few I found that were already in both) and to keep it all in check by requesting a bot to make sure that any future additions to these sub-cats are also in the parent. If what you're after is consistency, that would provide it. Any thoughts? Cheers, Miremare 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I am still not sure why the parent category is hurting - while browsing the parent I'd also browse any (reasonable deep) sub-cats, and the total is still the sum of all parts. But I do see your point, and while not agreeing with you, please go ahead. :)
(BTW: Liverpool has more redundant categories than London, e.g. Category:Towns in Merseyside, Category:Port cities in Europe and Category:Coastal cities).
Finally, there appears to be an initative already afoot at WP:CI which looks very promising.
--Frodet 07:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
When I say the parent category is hurting, I mean that it ostensibly has entries missing that most people would expect to be there. Not only does this not look good (and could be confusing, especially for new users/readers who aren't familiar with the intricate workings of Wikipedia's categories, and as most systems don't have an "-only" sub-cat), but for those of us who haven't got the patience/sense to go looking through the sub-cats it's a bit discouraging; I want to find Super Mario 64 DS in Category:Nintendo DS games, (not that it shouldn't also be in a sub-cat) not have to go looking somewhere else... :( Oh well, hopefully WP:CI will resolve this, though it seems to have been going on for quite a while, and nobody's even commented on it since April... Anyway, sorry for spamming your talk page so much but I prefer to try to sort stuff out amicably, even if we can't come to an agreement. :) Cheers, Miremare 21:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Yamaha-MDR1.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Yamaha-MDR1.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fuse (emulator)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fuse (emulator), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Fuse (emulator). Gavin Collins (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:SAM Coupé Defenders of the Earth.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:SAM Coupé Defenders of the Earth.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:SAM Coupé Pac-Man.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:SAM Coupé Pac-Man.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:SAM Coupé Sphera.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:SAM Coupé Sphera.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tasword

Many thanks for expanding the Tasword article, it was much needed. Also thanks for removing the irritatingly irrelevant speedy deletion request (I hate it when that happens). --Dan Huby (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:SAM Coupé ONM Lemmings.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:SAM Coupé ONM Lemmings.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SAM Coupé Bats 'n Balls.png

Thanks for uploading Image:SAM Coupé Bats 'n Balls.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SAM Coupé Tetris.png

Thanks for uploading Image:SAM Coupé Tetris.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nastassja_Senso.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nastassja_Senso.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Citizen logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Citizen logo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3D Monster Maze review

3D Monster Maze has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Stephen 02:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)