Talk:Ambition/Delete
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
The first half of this page is an archived delete debate that refers to content on the Ambition page about a card game. It was decided to revert to an old version. The reasons for that are shown below. For the latest discussion regarding the deletion of Ambition (card game), see #Ambition (card game) below.
- Mike Church and his card game Ambition (that should be reverted to its form as a redirect). Dont seem very popular. Muriel Victoria 16:08, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Delete his name if you want. Keep the card game. That's what this is encyclopedia is for, connecting ideas, old and new.
- Keep. I am a professor at Amherst College and have seen students playing Ambition, last November. They play it by that name and use exactly Church's rules. Mike Church is not a student at Amherst and therefore it is unlikely that this is just a "local" card game. Evidently it has some level of a fan base and the page should not be deleted.
- Also, while I think the Ambition card game page should definitely be kept, watch the Mike Church page. It looks as if these pages were written by outside authors (i.e. not Mike Church). That being-- or seeming to be-- the case, I don't see anything too inappropriate about the Church page-- it simply provides a small bit of info. about the author of a moderately well-known card game (which I have not heard of, but my wife has). If Church or someone else should, in the future, make it into a self-inflating "look at me!" page, delete it.
- I didn't believe for a moment that the three comments above weren't all written by the same person, so I checked (see below). Sign in future, please Mike. Onebyone 19:47, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Specifically, the first was added 16:16 by 195.56.187.125. The second and third were added by 62.112.223.199 at 16:48 and 17:00, and a typo in the first fixed during one of those edits. 195.56.187.125 has edited Mike Church and wrote the current text of Ambition. Onebyone 20:54, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Delete both, on the principle that no wrthwhile artical needs life breathd inot it by a sock puppet. -- Finlay McWalter 18:45, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I wrote the Ambition and Mike Church articles (I'm 195.56.187.125) as well as the first vote. After a phone call this morning with Church (a personal acquaintance of mine) Ambition's creator, I register a vote for the deletion of the Mike Church page. The man was glad to hear that his game was getting further publicity, but displeased with the existence of a page with his name on it, and expressed a desire for its removal. However, I still maintain that Ambition ought to stay.
- When the above comment was made, the dates on other comments where changed. My comment beginning "Specifically..." was altered from 19:54 to 20:54, and Finlay McWalter's from 22.45 to 18.45. I don't know what was hoped to be achieved, but it makes it look as though he commented before me, when in fact it was after. The typos in Finlay McWalter's comment were added then as well. The text of my "Specifically..." comment was also changed, but not in a terribly significant way. All done by 195.56.187.125. Very strange. Mike (or his mate, I don't know which) - didn't you realise that the edit history of the file is visible? Onebyone 17:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Oops, no, it was my first comment that was changed, not the "specifically" one. The change might make it look as though I now do believe that the comments were by the same person, whereas in fact I'm still not entirely convinced, even though they came from different IP addresses. Onebyone 19:06, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- When the above comment was made, the dates on other comments where changed. My comment beginning "Specifically..." was altered from 19:54 to 20:54, and Finlay McWalter's from 22.45 to 18.45. I don't know what was hoped to be achieved, but it makes it look as though he commented before me, when in fact it was after. The typos in Finlay McWalter's comment were added then as well. The text of my "Specifically..." comment was also changed, but not in a terribly significant way. All done by 195.56.187.125. Very strange. Mike (or his mate, I don't know which) - didn't you realise that the edit history of the file is visible? Onebyone 17:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I'm with Finlay. Delete both. Comments for keeping apparently cannot be trusted - Marshman 18:15, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Delete both. False Keep votes and messing with other users' comments are a big enough reason. Alfio 20:20, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- [link removed]?? LOL... Muriel Victoria 15:31, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I hope I am using this webpage correctly. It took half an hour for me to figure out how to post here and sign an edit, and hopefully I'll get it right. I am the inventor of the card game Ambition, and I'm sorry that it has created such a controversy. A personal acquaintance of mine has been "advertising" the hot new game in several public settings, partially at my request. Because his method of publicity has often been inappropriate, I have since asked him to cease. I will not identify the individual responsible, since his identity would be meaningless here, except to say that he does, indeed, live in Hungary (as do I, currently) and that he was one of several individuals who assisted me in playtesting Ambition. He recieved, along with others involved with the Ambition project, an email from myself, dated last Thursday: "I am in the final stages of the playtesting of (Ambition). Within three months the number of Ambition players, on two continents, has grown from zero to over 500, and all game designers who have been following its development agree that it is very promising. Therefore, I now want the concept to be pushed, forcefully, through all public media." Unfortunately, he and others involved with my effort got a little too enthusiastic, creating a mess in multiple public fora. Having written the email, last Thursday, that impelled him toward this controversial action, I must take responsibility and apologize for the controversy created. I want both pages to be Deleted. I want the page with my name on it removed because I am uncomfortable with its existence. I want the Ambition page deleted because, when I read the page history this afternoon, I saw that copyrighted material had been disseminated in an earlier edition. The only "permission" I give for this material to be disseminated is the implicit permission in the fact that I allow my game rules to be distributed, royalty-free, in any medium that will not expose it to uncompensated commercial use. I did not give specific permission for my material to be released in this or any other given site in particular. Therefore, I submit the wish that both pages shall be deleted. I myself will write a new, more appropriate Ambition page at a later date. Thank you for your time and consideration. 81.182.50.148 16:19, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- (This was written after the deletion of the item.) Thank you for the speedy deletion of the article. The promised "new, more appropriate Ambition page" appears as Ambition (card game) instead of just Ambition, so as to not interfere with the redirect to the Forty-Nine Charismatic Virtues. 81.182.49.50 16:59, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ambition (card game)
This section is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of Ambition (card game).
Further comments should be made on the talk page rather than here as this page is kept as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to keep the page.
- This has reappeared. We agreed to revert to a redirect last time, but it wasn't actually deleted - hence listing here and being cautious. Secretlondon 17:57, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
- For reference the original delete discussion was archived at Talk:Ambition/Delete - note that Mike Church, the writer of the new article and inventor of the game has commented there (both before and after the deletion of the original article). The new article is well-written and is in the right place... its a shame the game isn't more widely known just yet... I am open to persuasion to deletion or to keep. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:05, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Undecided, but erring towards keep. Francs2000 18:26, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Delete, sets a dangerous precedent. If the game ever becomes popular re-ad (with an explanation of how it became so). -- stewacide 02:21, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. This seems to be a serious effort to develop a new game of cards (I read the authors previous notes to us about it). Since I do not believe the author stands to gain monitarily (I could be wrong?) it is not an advert., and if it becomes popular we will have lost our article. Keep and see if it DOES NOT take off. Delete in 5 years if no one has heard of it then. - Marshman 03:00, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Mike Church here. (By the way, I should explain now that I am writing in a public lab, frequented by a previous poster in the old Ambition debate. I am a different person from him, though the IPs may coincide. Also, I apologize if I am in violation of any standing rules or etiquette by posting such a long comment. I have parsed it into paragraph-like pieces for "flow" purposes.
- The original Ambition article was deleted for the following reasons: 1> It interfered with an existing redirect. 2> I, inventor of the card game, requested for its speedy deletion for several reasons, the foremost being copyright-related (there was copyrighted information in the page history). 3> The individual who had written that page, an acquaintance of mine not exactly known for his maturity, had committed several serious breaches of posting ethics in the deletion debate. 4> Some argued that Ambition was not popular enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reasons 1-3 do not apply to the current article, which I myself wrote. As for the fourth, I believe that to be a very poor argument for an article's deletion. General interest-- Yes. Popularity-- No. After all, how many people here have heard of the sedenions? Yet I maintain that the article should be kept-- it's useful information on a legitimate mathematical topic. (Also, hypercomplex numbers are just really cool.) My point is that if everything that were not a "household name" were deleted, if present popularity were to be the metric of what deserves to stay, Wikipedia would have to purge a lot of really awesome stuff.
- I also dispute the "dangerous precedent" comment. Ambition is not some improvised card game designed by 7th graders. (I'm a 20-year-old mathematics major who's been developing games since grade school, if anyone's counting.) It's a professional-quality product, developed and tested over months by several people. Given the enthusiasm that Ambition has thus far been recieved, I can say with utmost confidence that it has enough general interest to be worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. A professor of mine (a card game aficionado, as well as a leading algebraist) said that Ambition is among the best games he's ever played, second only to Hungarian Tarokk (played with Tarot cards and considered to be the best card game in the world). Ambition would set a "dangerous precedent" if the game were some half-developed concept with no general interest, but this is not the case.
- In support of Marshman's comment, the article is not an advert. Perhaps it's a plug in the sense that I'm obviously proud of the success that my Ambition project has shown so far, and want to share it for others to enjoy. I don't expect it to make me a dime, since there's nothing for me to sell (the sole physical component is the standard 52-card deck of cards). I only keep a hawkish eye on my copyrights because, in the event that Microsoft were to include Ambition in Windows 2008, I would want compensation. I encourage all noncommercial use and distribution of Ambition and its rules, royalty-free. I wrote Ambition not to make me a fortune, which I doubt it ever will, but to create a great game. I believe I have succeeded to the latter end.
- Thank you all for your time and consideration. Any who wish to continue this discussion in private (since I think I've said enough here) should contact me at churchm@carleton.edu. Cheers! 62.112.223.199 17:27, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Keep, but needs a rewrite. We should focus on a brief description of those features of the rules that make this particular game distinctive. This can be done so as not to infringe copyright, and it shouldn't be a complete copy of the rules. (Reading the note on copyright on the website that does list the rules, I'm not convinced that a complete copy on Wikipedia would infringe copyright, but IMO we don't want it anyway. So I'd delete the author's comment in the article that the rules don't appear for copyright reasons, that is completely wrong.) Andrewa 22:08, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Mike Church again. Thank you for the pointers on the rewrite. What I put up recently I only intended as a first draft. As I tweak the rules, learn more about the game, I intend on rewriting the page several times for purposes both of updating and improving clarity. As a writer, I'm never satisfied with my stuff till I draft it 4-5 times, and that goes even for emails. :) Copyright: My understanding-- and I could be wrong here-- is that, under the GNU FDL, anything submitted here is released for all noncommerical and commercial use. The latter is why I'm reluctant to post the entire set of rules here and keep a watch on the copyright. I want people to distribute, play, and enjoy my game through any medium that doesn't expose it to possible uncompensated commercial use. I don't expect a cent for any noncommercial use of the game, but if my game(s) were to be used by a casino (probably not an issue w/ Ambition) or coded up and sold as a computer game, I'd want compensation. Granted, a lot of those concerns are pre-emptive right now; I doubt any game company would steal my idea, which is completely new, when there are hundreds of proven games in the public domain. Thank you for your comment. 205.188.208.133 01:06, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Interesting point. The GFDL releases material for commercial use provided that the resulting material is also under the GFDL, and not otherwise. Any other uses still need to be negotiated with the copyright owner. So assuming you have some kind of right to charge a casino a fee (IANAL) I don't see how you'd lose this right by putting the rules on Wikipedia. Andrewa 10:44, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
