User talk:Slike2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

new talk entry

Contents

[edit] Not a CSD

Please note Console game was not a candidate for speedy deletion. --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] Image:Halo_and_the_xbox_console.jpg

Image:Halo_and_the_xbox_console.jpg

Which license would you put in this picture? Maybe: {{GFDL}}? Hołek ҉ 17:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there's a license that is equivelant to putting an image into the public domain, I'd like to use that one. I'd like it if people were able to copy the image without attached license, to sell the image as part of a collection, and basically, to do with it whatever they wanted to without any obligation. Is there a license that does that? Slike2 19:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Scherer

Re User:202.37.72.100. If you check the contribs list for this user, you will work out who added "Karl Scherer made a turing machine at university....." to Turing Machine.

The answer is that Karl Scherer added such information. I.e. a vanity edit, and highly likely to be false (someone else would have made edits to that section if there was a source), especially as all the attempts to verify the validity of the edit, by other editors, have failed.

The edit is this one [1] if you are not able to find it. Note how, just in case you are not otherwise certain that 202.37.72.100 is Karl Scherer himself, he conveniently identifies himself by also adding a link to the Zillions website in the same edit.

This user (via the other IPs, and User:Karlscherer3) has also made numerous other edits of this kind to various puzzle-related articles.

If you note when User:202.37.72.100 started editing, you will realise that Wikipedia:Please don't bite the newcomers hardly applies to User:Karlscherer3. He has been here 4 times as long as me!

If you investigate all of Karl Scherer's edits (under the various IPs and Karlscherer3), you will realise how much of a problem this was.

If you had Assumed good faith, you wouldn't have bitten me, who, compared to Karl Scherer, is a newcomer. ~~~~ 20:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being here a long time does not mean he is aware of policy as well as you are, which makes him more of a newbie. I didn't bite you, and I did assume good faith. My manner was polite, and not hostile. I understand that you're trying to do what's best, but if you act hostile towards someone, they'll leave, or act hostile in return. If you do the opposite, the opposite will occur. And frankly, I think that it's rude for you to imply that I 'bit you' or did not assume good faith for the sake of finishing off your comments with a clever remark. Slike2 20:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I could accuse you of trying to have the last word, but that would be childish. ~~~~ 07:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it would, especially if your own 'last word' doesn't serve to say anything, but sneakily brushes off the advice that I've given. Slike2 14:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing sneaky there, unless you count the ambiguity as to whether childish is referring to the potential accusation, or the trying to have the last word. ~~~~ 14:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nobody's trying to have the last word, this isn't some silly movie-based argument with a spouse. I don't want to continue this exchange, but I do want to end it positively. Slike2 15:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have put Text based adventure game/Puzzle adventure game back into the category. They duplicate material at Adventure game, to suit Karl Scherer's own categorisation. ~~~~ 07:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re-removed, fixed concerns. Slike2 14:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiportal Video games

Are you going somewhere with your edits on Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Computer and video games ?? If you don't like the colors or something maybe you should discuss it first. Jacoplane 02:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe I am. Is it showing up differently on your screen, and if so, what browser are you using? It should look just about the same as it did before I started editing. Slike2 02:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm using firefox and it's completely warped. Looks something like this... Jacoplane 02:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC) Image:Cvgportal.jpg
I see. I was editing (accidentally breaking) a template at the time, it should be good now. Would you mind having a look? Slike2 02:18, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have to admit having patience is not something I excell at. But yeah that looks good, having more spaced tables. :) Jacoplane 02:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks :) The reason I was doing it in the first place was because I was having a terrible time going through the portals fixing various display issues - I'm on firefox as well, and I guess lots of people are on IE, since there's quite a few screw-ups in regards to css around (have a look at "in the news" at [2] for an example.) And the pages were a mess (code-wise), and hard to change, with all that code in there. Hopefully after I'm done things'll be easier. Slike2 02:32, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that's an important point. As wikipedia integrates more advanced interface techniques (I've been thinking about how AJAX can be used in wikipedia) there should be a movement within wikipedia to keep all templates and other things W3C standards complient. Jacoplane 02:38, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • When I press the edit-button in any of the boxes in the portal now, I seem to get an empty page. This can't be how you meant it right? Jacoplane 30 June 2005 04:13 (UTC)
    • There was a request that the ed template be changed to ed2, have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Wikiportal#Wikiportal_box_templates for reasons. I don't mind either way, though I do think that that method of organization is better. If you'd like, the changes could be reverted, or it may be better to move the pages over. Sorry for the confusion. Slike2 30 June 2005 08:41 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

If you continue to remove the VfD notice, you will be blocked, it is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy to remove any VfD notice. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 23:05 (UTC)

By who, you? Please stop making threats. My reasons for removing the notice are as follows:
  1. There is already a VfD notice in existance for that specific article, created prior to your VfD, therefore your notice does not apply.
  2. Your VfD is clearly titled "Zillions games", and the opening sentance gives no indication to the contrary. As such is the case, it does not apply to just any random (i.e. unspecified) article, just as it does not apply to egypt. You can't expect any sort of informed vote if you omit critical information. (this point has already been established by several other users, and who have read the page carefully)
Please note that it is innaproppropriate to list pages under a vfd when that vfd does not apply to those pages. I am simply correcting the article. Slike2 29 June 2005 23:23 (UTC)

[edit] Rules

You said I am extremely against people who are grossly rude without just cause, as I believe User:-Ril- is

Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

In particular, I draw your attention to the section

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.

~~~~ 29 June 2005 23:15 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the rules is flawed. I am critical of you as an editor. If I was vandalizing, and you called me a vandal, this would not be a personal attack, it would be a justified expression of opinion. Slike2 29 June 2005 23:21 (UTC)

You clearly wrote grossly rude without just cause, as I believe User:-Ril- is. This is a personal attack. I draw your attention once again to the policy, where it explicitely and extremely clearly states

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.

~~~~ 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the rules is flawed, that is not a personal attack, it is an explanation of the reasons for my dislike of you. If you'd like something nearer to a personal attack (without it being one), look for where I said you have no excuse for being a righteous bastard. Slike2 29 June 2005 23:34 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

If you remove the VfD notice once more, you will be in violation of the 3RR notice, the normal penalty for which is a 24 hour block. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 23:29 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject CVG

Just to let you know, a discussion on the WikiProject CVG came up about inactive participants. Your User:Slike was removed even though I noted to everyone that your username had been changed to Slike2 (jokingly). Just informing you so that you can add yourself again if it is a WikiProject you still wish to support. K1Bond007 01:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Daikatana screenshot.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Daikatana screenshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 22:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hitman cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hitman cover.jpg. 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) 12:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)