User talk:Wgungfu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 wozniak 2 Commoddore Vic 3 Thanks for Gen Con edit. 4 Video Game Flyer Links 5 Your Advocacy Request 6 Block of 85.241.144.243 7 Joust clones 8 Claimed Edit War 9 Wing Chun 10 Modifications 11 PONG and trademark symbols 12 You misunderstood the common use of Breakout 13 Spamming the MobyGames link 14 A slew of... 15 Video Game History

[edit] wozniak

Hey, you're right, 4 times in 2 days is pushing it. I'll hold off for a while. 64.194.176.5 17:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commoddore Vic

Was there really a documentary. please please please tell me more. I would like to know about the story of this company. Bona Fides 19:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're refering to my edit in the Commodore International entry? On The Edge: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore is actually a book. A wonderful one, available at www.commodorebook.com.

--Marty Goldberg 20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Gen Con edit.

Thanks for these edits, I appreciate the additional information on MIDI Maze's history and future. Alan De Smet | Talk 22:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Game Flyer Links

They were all added by the same IP in a breif timespan, often where there many such similar links on numerous pages. Furthurmore, most of them seemed to be hosting copyrighted pictures of the promo content. What relevance does it add the historical signifigance? They may be more appropreate in an article about arcade games. Finally, the IP is located somewhere near Beaverton, Oregon, and the arcadeflyers.com is near Hillsboro, Oregon. Google maps puts the two cities as a 10 miles apart on roads. Thus as a result, links normally to be avoided #3 likely applies for these links. Kevin_b_er 19:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I also went for a second opinion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. To also expound, it should be that people decide a particular link is very useful, and add it. Not for wikipedia to provide a complete indexing of a website by the actions of one person. Its developed that several websites such as IMDB have become a stable to many articles, though that sort of came up through gradual consensus, not by one person adding it to every article they can. Several of those articles already had KLOV too, and mobygames. I would not have done such a thing if it were not for what I specified in the first post comeing through. --Kevin_b_er 19:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

While I won't argue the possible spamming (though being located in the same city is circumstantial at best), I do have to address this comment: "What relevance does it add the historical signifigance(sp)?" As a writer and site director of a major commercial website in this genre, I can say it has a large significance when discussing and informing about arcade platform games. These flyers represent the commercial viewpoint of the manufacturer and its vision for the game (which is a commercial product). This includes relevant vendor and operator info (if you're not familiar with the coin-op terms, vendor is the distributor or "middle man" and operator is the end location - i.e. the arcade owner), specifications (including design advancements, settings, available formats such as standup, cocktail, cabaret, etc.), artwork, designer info and more. This is also why these types of materials are frequently referenced and presented in books, articles, and references on the subject. --Marty Goldberg 20:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey I have a related question then. Do you see any reason why some of the images of flyers couldn't be discussed/commented on in the articles themselves then? --Kevin_b_er 20:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

They certainly could, its just nobody has taken the time to do it from what I've seen. It would probably entail creating a seperate header however in each entry, becuase the current histories/content in the entries here are written purely from the consumer/game reference. (Which they should be, as that's the average reader). --Marty Goldberg 20:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I should also add that copyrighted advertisements are allowed here under Wiki's view on fair use:

[edit] Your Advocacy Request

Hello, I'm Steve Caruso, the Coordinator of the AMA. The kind of problems that you are having with an anonymous IP spamming that article are better suited for the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Reporting the IP there will result in a quick block and prevent the anonymous contributor from continuing their vandalism. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve, thanks for your response. I can do that for that address. But now another user has picked up where the IP had left off (and oddly the unregistered IP has stopped posting) - User:Haham_hanuka. So the problem will still be there regardless of reporting the IP that was originally spamming. --Marty Goldberg 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of 85.241.144.243

Hey, I blocked 85.241.144.243, but I did not block the other IP vandal (85.241.144.11) because only one edit was made on that account, and it seems that the guy's IP address just randomly changed (static IP). --Nishkid64 21:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, I appreciate your time and assistance in the matter. --Marty Goldberg 21:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joust clones

Hi there. I wonder about your decision to delete the "Joust Tributes and Clones" section from the Joust article. I spent a lot of time compiling the list, and think it was a useful resource to have in Wikipedia.

How does this differ from the "references to X in popular culture" or "influence of X" sections in most Wikipedia articles? It all seems like information that people interested in Joust would like to know about.

I realize you're a much more seasoned Wikipedian than I, so I'm really just asking for you to explain so that I don't waste my time on other articles in the future.

Just to be clear, none of it was self-linking or anything of the sort. Elliotharmon 20:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elliotharmon. The decision is a general policy by the Computer and Video Games Project here and contributors overall across all the games (it wasn't specific to Joust). Clones don't have a bearing on the article content, and aren't viewed as being pertinent for explination (or illustration) since they aren't the actual game - they're clones, and usually written by homebrew authors. Listings of clones also tend to be personal "me to" links (regardless of whether they're yours), and Wikipedia's policy is not to be a collection of links. Well known commercial games that expanded on the original concept of the game (or attempted to copy the gameplay without infringing) are an exception but are generally refered to under "Influences" or "Legacies". An example is Arkanoid, which is an update of the game play in Breakout. Arkanoid itself, for example, does have a clone section of its own (which actually looks like it needs some trimming) - but its been reserved for well known commerciall "me to's", or well established (longstanding) freeware/shareware versions. You'll see a specific range of years and well established (enough to have some history) titles - very different than the typical fly by night plethora of "play alikes" that are usually promoted in "clone" sections. --Marty Goldberg 21:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claimed Edit War

Wugungfu, this concerns the Wing Chun kung fu article. I posted my proposed changes in the discussion section for one weeek and you did not respond and simply reverted my edits after I made them yesterday. You offered no explanation and simply changed them however you wished. This is edit warring which is discouraged. Could you please state your reasons, on the Wing Chun:Talk page, why you reverted the above changes? Tarkovsky 22:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been busy in the "real world" and other contributions, likewise I didn't just simply revert the edits. Out of the five seperate edits done you'll see some were kept (and very agreeable), and others were edited (including some of my own original text) and this was mentioned in the blurb. Simply claiming an edit war doesn't make it so. I was planning on responding to the previous questions in detail either today or tomorrow (sorry my schedule doesn't meet your demands). However, the posing for questions in the previous sections were by 203.10.77.190 and 220.101.85.11. Are you saying those are both you? Once again then, "fancruft" and your other previous useage of language ("pure fan bullshit", "fan shit", and condescending statements such as "i'm getting tired of these so-called....") doesn't exactly portray a neutral point of view to your edits. Nor does it help your position when claiming an "edit war". --Marty Goldberg 22:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wing Chun

I wont change your edit but I based the change on Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts and the Spelling and Capitalization sections. I do think that wing chun is in the same class as judo, aikido and escrima. Please take a look and change it or not.Peter Rehse 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modifications

I appolgise for my actions. but i'm glad you didn't mind, and thanks for warning me. in the future I'll make the changes we disscussed as a recomendation on the talk page. photodude 22:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PONG and trademark symbols

There is room for interpreting the guidelines, but as a general rule Wikipedia articles are not littered with trademark symbols. This is an affectation found in commercial literature and is unnecessary in an encyclopedia article. Stating once that the name PONG is a registered trademark is sufficient. I agree with you about spelling PONG in capital letters, but not the excessive use of the trademark symbol, which is something of an eyesore. Please reconsider on this.--Ianmacm 08:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is scope for disambiguation in the opening paragraph, which could be expressed as follows:

"While Pong is used as a term describing a wide range of video games that use a paddle and ball, the original PONG was spelled in capital letters and is a registered trademark."

This kills two birds with one stone, since it reminds readers that the original PONG is not the same as its modern clones, and avoids the need for all the subsequent TM symbols.--Ianmacm 09:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

--Marty Goldberg 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You misunderstood the common use of Breakout

Breakout (disambiguation) - You removed the Breakout Clones link from the page. Usually, if someone mentions Breakout, they refer to a clone of the original, not the original. I was actually looking for a page like the one I started (Breakout Clones), but instead found one on the original Breakout, that did not help me, because I am writing a clone myself. I went to the disambiguation page, but could not find a list of ideas to put into my version of Breakout. :-( That is why I made the clones page and added it to the disambiguation list. The name 'Breakout' refers to a whole genre, not just the original game, and so the genre should be explained through the disambiguation page. Please add the clones link back to the disambiguation page!
Kristopher Windsor 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not missunderstand. As per the video game project page, Wikipedia is not for promoting self-made, homebrew, modern remakes. Only historically valued/significant commercial clones are allowed (List of Pac-Man clones) is a good example). Self promotion itself is also against wikipedia policy. --Marty Goldberg 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Wikipedia is both a place for learning history - what is already well known. But it is also a resource about what is current now. That should include pages like mine, which list the elements of a popular game. If Breakout Clones is not listed in the disambiguation page, for people who want to study all forms of Breakout, how will they find that page?
Kristopher Windsor 22:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming the MobyGames link

I had removed the MobyGames links from those articles I edited for a reason. Basically they added nothing new to the article. You've seemed to just added the links blindly again without actually looking at what your adding. If you look at the bubble symphony link you added you will notice that there is nothing on the MobyGames link also that it is a different version to the article. Is there a reason that you're spamming Wikipedia? (Mathsgeek 20:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

Actually, there was no spamming and you're throwing the word around pretty blindly. Your complete removal of the links was reverted, not spammed. As was told on the talk page, it was decided by consensus to have links to Moby on all game pages. If you find an error (linking to a wrong page), then correct it. But the links were put there by decided policy. --Marty Goldberg 21:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the consensus but I disagree with the links that you've added as they do not have much content, a majority of the pages are filled with empty space and affiliated links such as links to ebay and amazon. I do believe that MobyGames links do have some relevance, but not in the articles for which have been edited. Please can you look at the links that you add before you revert my edits (which is what you'll probably do) as you will notice that they don't have much in them. (Mathsgeek 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

I did not add any. They were there (added by whoever went around and did them with the previous mentioned policy) and you came along now and removed them completely. I went and took the page entry, which was then reverted back to the one previous to your edit in order to enforce said policy. Once again, feel free to add in correct links if there are errors in the links. But do not completely remove the Moby link because you feel it doesn't add anything. --Marty Goldberg 21:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at my Bubble Symphony edit you would have noticed that I added a link that is more beneficial than the MobyGames link. It seems you are just reverting my edits and making libellous comments about me "at a whim". (Mathsgeek 22:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

Nothing libellous about your continued complete removal of Moby links. That's vandalism. As was stated, feel free to correct links, do no remove them. --Marty Goldberg 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You say that it is vandalism please can you elaborate on how this is the case. As nowhere in the list of policies (Wikipedia:List_of_policies) does state that removing a link constitutes as vandalism. However by knowingly adding links that lead to pages with little to no real content does compromise the integrity of the article, therefore can be considered vandalism. I would like to reiterate that these specific links that I have removed have nothing new to add to the article. Please can you direct me to the policy of adding MobyGames links. --Mathsgeek 22:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As Frecklefoot stated very clearly in the talk page for Moby, it was decided by general consensus the members of the Video Games Project - the people who regularly contribute, edit, and police the video game related articles. Moby (and other sites such as KLOV) are well known and regularly referenced sites by professionals (such as my self and others) in the industry. Regularly enough cited in fact that it was decided to create templates for their additions as references in all the game articles. Now, once again, I think its great you want to go through and correct incorrect links, and my apologies on Bubble Symphony.--Marty Goldberg 00:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A slew of...

Hi there, I changed a slew of to several because the former phrase is considered informal usage rather than the formal style expected in an encyclopedia article. Would many be better in this case? See WP:MOS Sorry, forgot to sign killing sparrows 05:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's a better substitute I think. My only issue with "several" was that actually there were a lot of PONG clones that popped up at the time, creating serious competition and actually causing one of the founders of Atari to leave because of the pressure. "Many" covers that just fine. --Marty Goldberg 05:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, thnx killing sparrows 05:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video Game History

Thank you for the kind words on the rewrite I have started. I just wanted to let you know that my goal is to get this up to featured status and that I do plan to add references eventually, but not until after I have the body text in a form I am happy with. Please feel free to add references yourself anywhere you like, and I also welcome feedback and suggestions. Indrian 06:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as my profile states I work in the industry so I've been a bit busy as of late to start doing major additions like all the references you'll need. The only reason I brought it up is because I recognized a lot of the material and points being made from various known resources (some written by friends of mine). And I just know how the POV and Citation police get on here. So I'd rather not see all your hard work go to waste or get riddled with citation requests. You might consider adding in the references or citations as you write any future entries. I did make a few small changes or additions as you can see, but otherwise everything looks good. --Marty Goldberg 06:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)