User talk:Wgungfu/archive 2

Straw poll vote on binary prefixes

I note that you voted on a proposed MOSNUM policy for Wikipedia to use the common binary prefixes like “kilobit” rather than the IEC prefixes (“kibibit”). Since you took an interest in the issue at that time, I thought it proper to let you know that the proposal has since morphed into a broader policy (MOSNUM #Follow current literature). A straw poll on whether the basic principle underlying that policy is sound is currently ongoing here at Talk MOSNUM #Straw poll. I hope you read the policy and vote as you see fit. Hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Marty for so quickly weighing in to state your opinion on the matter. I think Wikipedia will come across as a more professional, mainstream encyclopedia after the details have been worked out. Your vote was a big, big help in making this a reality. Greg L (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Greg, not a problem. I mainly focus on articles to do with retro gaming and retro computing, and got in to the whole debate when certain parties were trying to forcefully change all the instances of binary values in these articles to the "ibi" format in direct contradiction to the prefixes actually used in the sources cited in the articles. If certain editors want to use "ibi" for articles dealing with newer/current subjects, I don't have as much of a problem with that provided it goes by consensus. But I do have a problem using it in articles dealing with subjects matter that was around before the whole "ibi" thing was even invented. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Wgungfu. I appreciate your voting your conscience. There is another (and probably final) vote going on here at MOSNUM #Figure of merit. Greg L (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your work helping to reach consensus for the MOSNUM guideline. We now have a target upload date where editors can give their final thoughts. Fnagaton 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Great edit

Amazing, 49% of Atari, Inc is worth just $11 million! I didn't even know about the offer, let alone the merger. That infomartion deserves a new section IMO.

Also, will the articles remain separate or be merged? I really don't know, I guess they might remain separate.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting a C64-picture?

the picture you deleted was not a C64C; check again. It is an original C64 with Amiga-colors; in production after the first Amiga's were released and just before the C64C had been introduced. Please comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphitz (talk • contribs) 23:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As stated, you need references for such claims. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced Tags

Thank you for the clarification on the usage of those tags that I used. After going through them yesterday, I kind of thought something was redundant, as well. MuZemike (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

BreakThru

Why did you undo the revert. The video game got released on 1986. [1]. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Because we only disambiguate with years when there's additional releases of the video game with the same name. Please read the guidelines on disambiguations at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines/Naming. As it states, and I said in the edit summary "The former is preferable", i.e. "Further disambiguation can be made by appending "(video game)"..." --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For your kind information. There are many breakthru video games. Also please look at Spore and many others disamg and it is not what you claim. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no other breakthru titled games on Wikipedia. If any are added, they can certainly use the year dissambiguation. Regarding other articles, if they're using disamigs incorrectly, then they just haven't been corrected yet. Thanks for pointing them out. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So why can't the existing game use 1986?. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Spore, it clearly follows exactly what I said. The initial release and titled article is disambiged with just (video game). Additional releases have video game and year. We can't use "1986" because its not called for, per the guidelines. There are no other Breakthru entries here, and any added after now would get the date. These guidelines were developed through the consensus of regular contributors involved with the video game project. If you'd like to change the guidelines to match your viewpoint, feel free to propose the change on the guidelines talk page. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Arcade system board

While your edits are much better than mine and the detail was badly needed, the edits I made were using the assumption the article was talking about the arcade system boards listed underneath the lead, which all looked to be microprocessor based.Asher196 (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Asher, not a problem. I came to the conclusion because I saw there's actually several pages that reference that article, including the category "Category:Arcade system boards" and its Discrete video arcade game subcategory. So I assumed the listing was simply incomplete. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember when I was about fourteen years old seeing a repair done on an old Spy Hunter board where the defective IC was replaced with another board created by the repair man using discrete TTL logic and some analogue components . I remember being amazed at how an IC can be replaced with a bunch of other components. :) Fnagaton 11:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yah, as time moves on I think fixing the older arcade pcb's are going to be a lost art. The newer ones are more PC like in structure, so I'm not as worried about those. The non-microprocessor TTL based ones though are harder and harder. There's a few people online (one runs a documentation site where he refers to the games as "Bronze Age" games) that will fix them for people, and I'm sure the diagnostics can be done by some of the older local coin vendors. But replacing the chips is a lot harder as they blow. Getting back to the topic though, we can probably greatly expand that list by culling system16.com. Do you guys think maybe that article should be expanded more to talk about the actual evolution of video arcade technology itself? It seems like a good place for it. I think that's what the original author was trying to do when it was created, but it had kind of an incorrect premise that all arcade internals used to be single board, which I tried to correct a little. I'm thinking it should not just focus on removable games, but rather the evolution of the technology as a whole. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Fear not, there are always people willing to spend their time analysing old ICs and converting them to VHDL. The whole history of these arcade boards is an interesting project, but it will be huge! :) Fnagaton 16:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Lee's teachers

I can completely understand listing Bruce Lee as a student of William Cheung if there were accurate sources for this. However the only sources that claim Bruce Lee as a student come only from William Cheung and his school. More accurate sources regarding this teachers only truly claim two teachers with certainty, and those are Yip Man and Hon Sang. There is no doubt however that William Cheung had great influence on Bruce and in fact introduced him to this first teacher Yip Man.

I will also not argue the fact that William Cheung taught him certain things, however this was never in the capacity as a teacher in the stricter sources. Think of martial arts classes in general. People who are more senior than you teach you moves all the time, but you don't consider them your teacher. It's the Sifu or head of the school that's your actual teacher. Bruce Lee, in general, learned many things from a number of skilled martial artists, one of which was William Cheung. However only two formal teachers have ever been truly sourced and repeated for him.

You are correct that William Cheung claims hims, but that's where the teacher/student relationship ends. If wikipedia is to be accurate, I would keep Bruce Lee as being listing as a student since it's not truly sourced and falls more into the category of promotion than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshen (talk • contribs) 02:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Manacpowers

I've already posted this:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Taekwondo edit war- and expansion, some of the edit are good faith but mainly I've just run out of patience with him, blocking is a short term fix unless he changes (which seams unlikely) he will come back just as bad & may get a ban, then may come back on an IP. I want to try & resolve it but I am too annoyed with the whole thing, so am trying to get clear of the blast radius as it seems likely to blow (possibly into an ABCOM case) unless he an both JJL stop it and I am likley to get so fed up that I break policy in response to the disruptive edits but go too far, which will make me just as bad as they are. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wing Chun linage

Some kind of reference or authority is needed for each section, as I see 1 or 2 added or changed (mostly by IP's) every week and I have no way to see if it's someone legit or a hoax. While I think it is useful, it is also precarious as large sections could be deleted as 'unsourced' and it would be hard to argue against. I've never studied Chinese arts and while I know most Japanese ones have written records, I think most Chinese traditons are largely oral due to being faimily based. Are there any books that give at least the sections/groups & top levels of the liniages? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Space Invaders releases

Hey, I've been trying to sort out all the different re-releases and sequels to Space Invaders, and there are some discrepancies I keep finding. Do you happen to know if Space Invaders 90 for the Mega Drive is the same game as Super Space Invaders '91? And do you know if the SNES, N64, and PS1 versions are entirely different games or if they are just a port of one of the arcade version? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

I'll try and dig up the info. My personal focus of expertise is in more "classic" systems (70's and 80's), and of course coin-ops (though I do have a broad general knowledge of later systems and their games).

A question popped up at Space Invaders' peer review. They asked how many levels the game had or if it went on indefinitely. I figured the number of levels borders on trivial game guide content, but if it just keeps going, then that should probably be mentioned. Any idea which it is?
Also, I'm going to condense the rerelease and sequels section to cut down on the level of detail. After that, it should be ready for FAC. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

I finally sat down and tried to do a rewrite of the "Rerelease and sequels" section. Let me know what you think. If there are no problems, I'll put it up for FA. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

Sorry

Hey, I'm sorry about the whole Coleco thing. I'm still new to Wiki, so I will talk it over in the discussion page first. We cool? --ZRetro (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I will definitely ask you questions in the future! I can see we are both in retro gaming! Thats cool! --ZRetro (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, got it. And what do you mean by "I'm actually in the industry." Do you work for a video game company or something?

Pac-Man

I am involved in a conflict in the Pac-Man article and I would appreciate it if you would get involved, as I respect your opinion in these matters. The conflict involves the paragraph "For the North American market, the name was changed from Puck Man to Pac-Man, as it was thought that vandals would be likely to change the P in Puck to an F, forming a common expletive. Puck Man machines can be found throughout Europe." An IP editor keeps changing the paragraph to include the "F" word, and I am not a fan of this. It seems crude and unencyclopedic to me. Also, if you could provide a source for this it would be helpful. The only sources on the net I can find don't appear to be reliable. Asher196 (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could go a couple ways. First and foremost, I would at least take it to the talk page so that you follow convention on resolving a dispute. You should make sure and provide a link to the previous discussion on the matter where consensus was achieved - the one you referred to in your edit summary.

As far as the word itself, while it is crude, the context of it could make it appropriate. And the word itself does have an entry here on Wikipedia, so it does have some scholarly merit. The question is also, is this anonymous IP just trying to add it to get a cheap thrill?

In relation to all of the above and towards a reference, Steve Kent manages to reference the expletive in his book Ultimate History of Video Games without actually saying it as well:

"Before Namco showed Pac-Man to Midway, one change was made to the game. Pac-Man was originally named Puck-Man, a reference to the puck-like shape of the main character. Nakamura worried about American vandals changing the "P" to an "F." To prevent any such occurrence, he changed the name of the game." (Page 142) --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the source I was looking for. The IP user seems intent on having the word in the article. Thank you. Asher196 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Well as long as you follow the resolution steps I mentioned above, if he keeps trying to force it he can be blocked as a disruptive editor. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

RM port info

Re: RM port info, infobox is for actual release platform, platform refers to release platform as well (the plural is for games launched on multiple platforms

Sorry - I actually didn't realise I was undoing your work when I put everything back in the Thrust infobox but then did with JSW... but then realised you seem to be doing it with everything so I'd be fighting a losing battle! I strongly disagree with this - if there is a Wiki rule (point me to it?), I think you might be taking it too literally... I agree arcade games should just have info about the arcade version in the info box (and main article) with a seperate section on ports. Also, it isn't appropriate to put for example PlayStation 2 and Xbox on an old game that happens to be included on a compilation. There is a big difference between that and most 80s games that did have staggered releases but were released on most major platforms). Incidently, Thrust was simultaneously launched on the BBC Micro and Acorn Electron (with one version on different sides of the same cassette) but I still think it is important to show all platforms it was available for.Retro junkie (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The design of the infobox is in regards to the main platform, hence the inclusion of information such as mode, input method, cabinet, display, CPU, etc. etc. in the infobox template. This goes for all sub-templates as well. If a game was released on multiple platforms at launch (such as your Thrust example), then of course the multiple launch releases belong in the list (hence the plural). "Staggered releases" can still be considered ports however, unless its documented that the other platforms were being worked on at the same time and not as an after launch. Also, the issue here is unruly long lists of ports that have developed in the Platform line of the infobox, which Wikipedia does have policies against - prose is always preferred over lists. The idea of including all platforms it was available for is what the standard Ports section of the video game related articles is for, and the prose format these sections use are more inline with policy than a long list. If there's an article that section doesn't exist in (such as Thrust), feel free to create it. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This same question was posed on Talk:Donkey Kong (video game). I pasted the above response to that talk page, as it was a much more detailed answer than I could give. I attributed the quote to you. I hope I didn't overstep my bounds by doing this. Asher196 (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, its alright. Its an issue I think that has to be dealt with anyways, because some of those Platform(s) entries were getting really out of hand as lists. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a personal attack - AfD debate

I realize marking Midwest Gaming Classic as AfD so soon on the heels of my voting for the deletion of The GOAT Store may have seemed like a personal attack - and for that I apologize. It is impossible to form opinions and take sides without causing tension, and Wikipedia is the perfect example of that. I do feel we have both made valid arguments both for and against the deletion. Now we can let the rest of the community decide which way to go. I did want to say (on here, rather than in the AfD discussion) that despite how it may have seemed, I do recognize your contributions to Wikipedia, and the VG project in particular, as a great benefit. Addionne (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Midwest Gaming Classic

See?  Frank  |  talk  17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies...

Concerning Commodore 64, on reflection I now agree with your decison to reinstate for now, the magscan link was NOT intended to be removed, and appears to have been a victim of 'wrong version' syndrome, I've checked - It's reinstated Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wing Chun

I have proof that my statements are true, my scources are as followed: http://www.uk-martialartist.co.uk/articles/bareknuk.php and http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/misconceptions.php I just don't know how to put the links properly on the page. Kaiser jkd (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless then, that sort of material should go on the History of Wing Chun page under alternative theories or something. If you need help, I can help you with adding the references. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I added to wing chun history could you please add the references for me, thanks. Kaiser jkd (talk)

Anti Aircraft

Thanks :) - Will check the other link I recoded.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:VG

I've always wanted to complete that guide Ryu_Kaze started. Do you think there would be resistance for adding in unofficial methods, like using those "disallowed" sources? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 06:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For right now, I'd discuss the sources you want to use on the talk page of the guide and include your reasoning for wanting to use them. I.E. the legwork you did in establishing notability. As long as you demonstrate the notability and reliability of what you want to add, people are usually willing to listen and make exceptions. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A note about undoing

I do not look at the diffs for edits which are almost certainly exactly what they claim to be. If I am to make a pledge of looking at changes, perhaps you should make a pledge of making sure the edit summary is correct. Have a great day! :)  Asenine  16:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It was easier to simply use undo to fill in the reference tag material rather than retyping it again. And as I long time editor, I tend to check edit summaries because other people tend to do that as well. Likewise, luckily you don't decide what is correct in an edit summary - all sarcasm being the lowest form of humor and moderation. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you might want to take another look at the page you cited - the sentence you are citing starts with 'apparently', which practically nullifies it.  Asenine  16:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't cite a sentence, cited a page that includes a section that discusses the matter and includes other references. You might want to change the "on vacation" status on your page as well, doesn't look very accurate. ;) --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding external links to the historical marketing material of defunct companies

I want to know that I have reverted your removal of external links to historical marketing material of defunct companies as I do not believe it is linkspam. The following articles that I have reverted are Digital Equipment Corporation and Atari. The editor who added these external links added such links to more articles, but I am unsure whether you have reverted those edits too. I am not going to check those articles, but if you have reverted edits to them, I ask you to restore the removed external links if you agree to the below case supporting the inclusion of the external links in question.

How can the historical marketing material of a defunct company archived at a non-profit organization, the Computer History Museum, a respected organization qualify as linkspam? Is it the fact that the editor who added the links has a user name that is similar to the name of the organization? If this is the reason, I would assume that there is no connection between the editor and the question the exact connection between the two. The term "computer history" is common and could simply mean that the editor is interested in computer history.

If any marketing material, historical, archived or not qualifies as linkspam because of some clear and unquestionable policy, then please let me know so I start the process of having such a ridiculous policy removed. Historical archived marketing material is informative and relevant in the context of an article discussing a computer company. There is no argument for how such material cannot be informative. Thank you. Rilak (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please be advised, the link was removed per Wikipedia policy on WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:COPYRIGHT. The link was added by an acknowledged staff member of the museum (coi), whose sole contributions have been to place links to the museum across Wikipedia (spam, advertise). Likewise, direct links to copyrighted material (brochures, manuals, etc.) are strictly forbidden. This has been well discussed at the video games project and elsewhere on Wikipedia. And while a company (such as DEC) may be defunct, the ownership of its IP and related materials is not. Permission must be granted by HP/Compaq for said materials. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See my talk, thanks. Rilak (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I consider your edits to be immensely disruptive. You are selectively removing external links by a certain editor under the guise of "linkspam", "conflict of interest" and "copyright" concerns. There is no conflict of interest" when everyone but you agrees that it is of value.

From WP:COI

"What is a conflict of interest?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest.

There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars."

Also, please note this statement:

"If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously."

The edits by the editor in question have not been assessed as conflict of interest by most editors. You are taking a guideline too seriously.

From WP:EL:

"Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright."

Please note that text which is in bold print has been added for extra emphasise.

I hope that you stop your removal of these external links as they are of no benefit whatsoever. Rilak (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "guise" or "selectivity" (all his edits were removed), policy is very clear on Spam - this user works for the musuem and the account existed solely to place links across Wikipedia for the museum, for which they place many. Likewise, the editor is placing links to copyrighted material without demonstrating any such rights to have said material digitialy copied and displayed. Simply stating on a talk page "We have the rights" vs. actually providing evidence of such rights, are 2 entirely different things. Your selective interpretation of policy is what's coming off as disruptive. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, did you even read the bolded text? Rilak (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell me you comprehend already that your interpretation is not being perceived as in agreement to actual execution of policy? Sfan (who's very involved in enforcing copyright protection here) has already commented on your talk page regarding policy now. I'd suggest doing further responses to your interpretations there.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Link Policy Question

Hello Marty,

I received your message (see below) about the Computer History Museum links I had been adding to Wiki pages on computer topics. My name is Bob Sanguedolce and I'm VP of Information Systems for the Computer History Museum. Our intention by adding the links was not to spam users or influence search engine results but instead to provide Wikipedia users with what we believe are relevant museum exhibit content at the Computer History Museum website. I've looked at the Wikipedia policy pages and frankly aren't sure what is and what isn't appropriate links for an article. If you would please let me know what is and what is not considered appropriate linking on Wikipedia, we'd be happy to comply.

Thanks very much, Bob Sanguedolce VP, Information Systems Computer History Museum Computerhistory (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia as you have been doing with computerhistorymuseum links. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. All your contributions to Wikipedia have been spamming of links to this site. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Computerhistory"

Thanks for the info

Marty, Thanks for the information on linking and I completely understand Wikiepedia's position. Again, we hadn't considered it a link spam issue becuase the information we linked to was thought to be a close match to the article but the policy makes sense and we'll of course abide by it. Be assured that I hadn't yet see your first message when I had added the last couple links. Also, I now better understand the issue of linking to copyrighted marketing materials but what I had linked to are materials that the Computer History Museum has been given full rights to by the original copyright holders when they were added to the museum's collection. In the future, we'll look to contribute to Wikipedia more in the form of article additions and edits than as links. Thanks again, Bob Computerhistory (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Computer History Museum

Pls let's hear it on this talk page. Thank you. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 22:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, but

dont you think the article needs something on the quality and lasting impact of the software of the time, rather than dryly factual stuff like "two dots chased each other around the screen."? Shouldn't something be in the article about how the earliest era of games relates to today? Tehw1k1 (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because what you're trying to add is purely based on personal opinion and most of what you wrote violated neutrality policies, and was encyclopedic in content. If something along the lines of relation were to be added, it would have to be in regards to how the first generation set the seeds for the industry today, etc. Not a compare and contrast between first generation and the current generation, which serves no real purpose in the description of a first generation article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't purely based on personal opinion, but I can see how you might feel that way, and I realize you have more knowledge on the subject than I do. At any rate I wasn't trying to disparage the games or the people who made them. Tehw1k1 (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It honestly has nothing to do with having more or less knowledge. Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, from any background, skill, and knowledge level - that's the beauty of it. The issue again, is standards for content on Wikipedia, what encyclopedic material is, and what actually improves an article here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oom Yung Doe "Styles"

Sorry if I stepped on your toes by altering your edit shortly after you posted it. Thanks for your insight on the differences in between Oom Yung Doe movements and other styles.

You pointed out on my talk page that "Kung Fu" really isn't a style. According to what little I understand, you are completely correct. However, that hasn't kept Oom Yung Doe practitioners from practicing what they call the style of "Kung Fu." Yeah, I know that probably doesn't make much sense, but this is exactly what they call what they practice in their own handbook available here: [2]. IF you are curious the rest of the handbook is here: [3].

You see, within this OYD "style" of "Kung Fu" there are several "forms" called the Main Hyung (supposedly the more important forms) and the "short forms". An example of "Main Hyung" would be "Tang Nan" (supposedly Ocean Form), "Ho Bar Su" (supposedly the Tiger Form as you saw on youtube), etc. Thus they view "Tiger Form" as a subset of "Kung Fu."

I can guess that you are probably thinking "Hey that is all wrong." While you might be completely correct, that doesn't keep Oom Yung Doe practitioners from practicing what they call "Kung Fu."

Thanks for the help! If you have any further advice or ideas, please don't hesitate to send me a line. I am new at this, and I appreciate your experience with wikipedia and TMA. Cjim63 (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking a bit more at the article and your comment, I think I should clarify a bit more on what I said before. The OYD schools have an unusual way of dividing up what they claim to be the 8 styles that they teach. You pointed out that Kung Fu is a catch-all term that includes Tai Chi and Bagua. However, the OYD schools say they teach Bagua, Tai Chi, and Kung Fu as separate styles. They don't view these three styles as being the same thing, even if the rest of the world does. You can see that in their handbook here: [4].

So, I am hesitant about using the formating you suggest because Kung Fu, Tai Chi, and Bagua are three of the styles that they self-reportedly practice.

This is why I was asking for some advice about unlinking the 8 OYD "styles" from the the TMA styles with the same names. You see, I think they really aren't the same at all and that the names just confuse TMA practitioners into thinking they are similar even though they aren't at all. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make sure that readers know that the names used to describe the 8 styles taught in OYD only have meaning within the OYD rubric.

Thanks again. Cjim63 (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Computer History Museum..

Huh?

I don't recall commenting on this, even though I may have removed some links... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I take offense at this statement.

I take offense at this statement of yours at User talk:Sfan00 IMG:

"Having some issues with people reverting removal of links to copyrighted material that was spammed. Specifically at Cray and Digital Equipment Corporation. Thought you may be the one to explain things better for User talk:Rilak, considering he doesn't appear to understand policy given what he wrote on my talk page. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)"

I hope that you are not implying that I am too stupid to understand policy. Rilak (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And I take offense at condescending and blanket statements like "I consider your edits to be immensely disruptive. You are selectively removing external links by a certain editor under the guise of "linkspam", "conflict of interest" and "copyright" concerns. There is no conflict of interest" when everyone but you agrees that it is of value." So we'll call it even on the offense issue. If I have to, we can file an rfc or have admins step in to comment. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask to become involved in this, but I am inclined to comment that the above did seem a little strong.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My comments is an observation. I can only comment on what I see and I still see other external links to the computer history meuseum.

The following is a quote from the talk page that is addressed to Sfan00 IMG but can nevertheless be applied to all parties related to this dispute:

"Yes I get that. I get that since the very beginning of this dispute. The current course of this dispute is heading towards unpleastness. It is clear that we need to contact the Computer History Mueseum to encourage them to get a proper statement regarding the copyright status of their materials displayed somewhere on their website. I suggest that we, being involved in the dispute, create a user subpage on one of our user pages and draft an email that can be sent. Since I am supporting the inclusion of the disputed external links, I feel that I should provide this resource. It can be accessed here. However, if you wish to not use mine, that is fine, just let me know where it is.

I also propose a halt to all edits to articles in response to the external links in question. If you choose not to, that is fine, but as a demonstration of good will, I will halt all edits of such nature until this dispute has been resolved."

I hope that you will act on my proposal to deal with this dispute in a more constructive manner. It is clear that what is occuring is less than pleasant. Rilak (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Space Invaders for FAC

I added in the info about the disputed inspirations. Check it out and let me know what you think. If it looks good, I'll put it up for FAC. Thanks again for all the help, it has really sharpened up the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

FYI- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space Invaders. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, you should be proud of all the hard work you put in to it. Feel like tackling Pong next? I think its in very much the same developed state Space Invaders was before you moved it towards FAC. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't have any good sources to do the research. I mainly have magazines from the past five years or so, and only a few books that are about more contemporary eras of gaming. I did Space Invaders because I happened to come some good sources around the same time.

Thanks again for the help with the article. I'll keep my eyes open for Pong sources, because if it's on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles, I'd like to get it up to at least GA. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Sorry, I hadn't considered you'd have the necessary references. :-p That sounds like a great idea; I'd very much like to see such an iconic game get to FA.

I've got Pong on my watchlist now. Feel free to get started. Just give me sometime to finish up some articles for Wikipedia 0.7. In the mean time, I'll see if I can find a couple mentions in some of my magazines and books. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

AVGN edits

Well What do you mean by reliable source?! it was just a review not a statement. and if he isn't reliable then why does he have a 500GB wikipedia article?--Megaman en m (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're 14, so I understand why you may be confused about how things operate here. Video game articles have a group of reliable sources put together by the video game project. Specifically, after much discussion, consensus was achieved and AVGN was found not to be a reliable source for use in Wikipedia articles. The value of his show is purely for entertainment purposes only, which does not meet Wikipedia reliability standards for content, references, and external links. It was also found that the inclusion of his material in articles was bordering on promotion because of this, since the fact that a game was reviewed by AVGN is not notable in itself. In most cases, his inclusion was borderline spam, as fans were constantly spamming articles across Wikipedia with even just one liners that he had reviewed said subject. An administrator then proceeded to remove all instances, and it was decided that vigilance in monitoring articles against edits for him was more appropriate then banning him outright. As far as his own page (which has constantly come up for deletion by the way), that has little to do with the matter here. He is entitled to his own page here because he himself (after much debate on the matter) meets requirements for a topic or subject to have an article on Wikipedia. I.E. he is a notable enough entertainment figure to have an article on Wikipedia because of his popularity as an entertainment figure. This has nothing to do with the content and quality of his reviews for use in an encyclopedia however, other than in articles whose subject is directly him. Also, I'm not sure where you get that a page of text is 500GB? The page is 39kB long. Lastly, I should also point out regarding your reasoning that the fact that other stuff exists on Wikipedia with AVGN in it (specifically his own article), does not mean his content meets guidelines for use in other content here. One is a subject, the other is a source. To have an article here, a subject simply has to meet notability requirements. To be used as a reference or content in unrelated articles, a source has to meet a different set of standards. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I get it. And the 500GB thing was just an exaggeration.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pong

Thanks a lot for your very nice photo. I move it into Wikimedia Commons. An image into Commons can be used on every Wikimedia projets without more work, that why, its better to upload an image on Commons (but only free images). I will spend sometime to move your free images on Commons, if you want to upload more, please do it on Commons.

You are welcome to help us on Commons:Home game consoles by generation. Its just a summary of all models we own.

Thank for your contribution. bayo 15:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

AVGN

May I have some insight as to why he is not "reliable" enough? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There was an entire discussion at the video games project, which you were a part of and is archived, that states why he is considered unreliable as a source in video game articles for anything other than himself (i.e. his article). Please don't pretend like it didn't happen. Likewise that also states removal and continued vigilance against the Wikipedia wide spamming of material regarding him was the best course of action rather than blacklisting outright. The closing admin proceeded to remove all (then) found references to the AVGN in video game pages, save for pages that actually delt with the AVGN himself. This is a continued part of that process. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus, and at no point did anyone explain why his opinions were less reliable on the basis that he acts as a "character" than Seanbaby's. Like Seanbaby, his videos are his opinion amplified for humor's sake. There is nothing insinuating that his opinion is fabricated in any way for humor's sake. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a consensus, the topic was closed as such, and its a matter of record per the archive now. Just because you disagreed and tried to drag it on does not make it any less of a consensus. I've contacted the admin involved in these so you can take it up with him. Or we can continue going in circles with you with your head in the sand pretending nothing happened, and I can invite everyone else involved in the consensus over here to comment once again how ridiculous you're behaving. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The key issue is that there is no editorial oversight, ALTTP: I'm not suggesting we use Seanbaby either, or Zero Punctuation as well. They may be notable themselves, but that doesn't translate to a reliable source for reception. Besides, we shouldn't be trying to create reception articles crafted from talking heads. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(the archive is here, for posterity's sake.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

ELs content

Can i make a modifications bloc and put info under it for battlezone 1998 video game? As was done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlezone_II:_Combat_Commander

It seems most of the links for battlezone 2 that you allow have been denied for Battlezone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.160.56 (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact thanks for bringing that to my attention - they've all been removed. Discussion forums are not allowed, likewise for "Warez" (i.e. mod) sites. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So the modifications bloc stay in Battlezone 2 and Battlezone is not allowed to have one?? You realilize only the first paragraph speaks of modding and the rest talks about released mods? Also the Battlezone 2 last Offical release from the publisher Activision was 1.1 patch, check the current 1.3 public beta4a in the versions area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.160.56 (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussing mods is not inherently forbidden, as long as they are notable in and of themselves (most of which look like they're not). Linking to them is forbidden. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:External link policy talk

Well handled. It is a good example of fans vs editors (with an amicable ending for all). In fact, it's almost a perfect, textbook example. :-p

That reminded me of an incident which wasn't as smooth. See Talk:Oddworld#External links. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, I've had ones like the Oddworld one as well. Which is why I thought since this one went so "textbook", it'd be good to use as a future reference for something to shoot for resolution wise. :) --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)--Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

ELs content continued...

From what i read in wiki rules this should be allowed under EL but was deleted many times. Don't go by domain names, check the content on the site. http://www.battlezoneclub.org/org.htm

How do you define noteable this is too ambiguous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.255.50 (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A link to a club site has nothing to do with enhancing the content of the entry in question, and falls under "social networking". Its clearly spelled out in the WP:EL guidelines. Once again, Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia and seeks content that supports an encyclopedic article on the subject. It is not a game support or fan site. If someone is that interested in unofficial BattleZone II support sites, they'll google it and find that link easily. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a link to info on Battlezone and about the non-profit 501(c)3 corporation, it doesn't go to the club forum or area. Would you explain why it's not allowed but as a example, http://www.mobygames.com/game/battlezone is allowed and it has 3 advertisments on it as a non-profit 501(c)3?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.255.50 (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We went through this before, a site having advertisements on it has nothing to do with being a commercial site. I.E. a site whose sole purpose it is to sell goods. Mobygames is considered a trusted source by the Wikipedia video games project. It has gone through peer review for notability and verifiability. And even then it doesn't always get linked to in the external links, only if an entry contains information relevant to external link policy on how external links should enhance and support the subject, which is clearly outlined. A "Battlezone Club" and "non-profit" corporation that is a site that has the stated purpose of an "organization made up of Battlezone players and enthusiasts who share a common goal which is to improve the quality of game play for our members and community" has very little to do with supporting the Wikipedia article process. A community/social site is not admissible per policy, nor is a link that exists for the purpose of promoting the website (which is all that link does, since the content has no other value encyclopedically). Wikipedia articles do not exist to support a game's community, they exist to support an encyclopedic article on the subject. Likewise, a "club site" fails notability and verifiability requirements, besides the already mentioned external link requirements. Additionally, "game guide" material, downloads, information about "clans" and a short blurb on a storyline have little to do with enhancing an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia articles on games do not exist to support the game, i.e. provide readers with game support. They exist to discuss the main game property itself, and at most in this particular case could have a small referenced sentence stating that there is still community support - but that reference would have to be from a verifiable and notable source (i.e. an article from a reputable source, etc. stating about the community support). A link to show there's a website and therefore community support would not cut it. Now I'm not going to keep going around in circles with this, I've gone way beyond what's required for explaining this to you again and again, especially when your ip's sole purpose has been to promote this site. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)