User talk:Doktor Wilhelm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
| Old Talk topics |
 |
|
| Wikipedia Ads | file info – show another – #50 |
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doktor_Wilhelm. |
| This is the user talk page for User:Doktor Wilhelm, where you can send messages and comments to Doktor Wilhelm. |
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Sega and Sonic Portals
Thank you for the invite. Both portals should be a part of the project. Janadore (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The deletion of Sonic's Edusoft
Unfortunately this went by without me noticing. I can't believe you did this on the basis that you believe this was or is a fan game. While you might ask what evidence people had to the contrary, I would also ask what evidence you have that it is a hoax? A lot has been explained on web sites about this title, very detailed responses about why analysis of technical evidence and related suggestions as to why it might have been a hoax have been put forward and a number of leading archive experts and sceptics eventually came forward and express their belief in this, some of whom contacted the author.
You didn't do your research before taking this very whimsical action. I am not surprised there was a delete because the people who supported it also have no idea of the game. Another suggested that if it was not a hoax, then it was notable and worthy. Well, again...what evidence do you have of this being a hoax?
You made a mistake and you deleted important history. This was the first Sonic game that never made it to market.Freakchild (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- So to have responded as you did about this, I guess you did not look at both links that were on the page before you deleted it. I am guessing that because you mention you looked at the link on the page...but there were two and this other link explained much of what you appear to be sceptical about and even noted Sega's involvement with the project. Your correct course of action on this should have been to asked for additional verification prior to deleting. This is an advised alternative prior to taking that course of action.Freakchild (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- The link provided very detailed information about the title, including very detailed information on technical implementation. While not proof, it was generally regarded on that particular site to have the webmasters concede this was not likely a hoax as is explained in that thread, as well as a number of others on that same site. There thoughts were further supplemented at a later date with a number of additional screenshots that were eventually linked here, which do indeed provide some evidence that this title exists. While some people can go to elaborate lengths for a hoax, the number of screenshots in existance and the variety of graphics available, the variety of game modes depicted, along with the technical information available and explanations of screensshots suggest a considerable level of credibility to what is going on, much much more than an article worthy of deletion, without asking for improvements warrants. Now I personally don't care whether you think there is enough proof or not. You have the right to question it as any other editor, but ultimately you are not an authority on the subject just a sceptic. There are other sources of information about this title on the web, a google will tell you that. A ROM image was once linked from the wikipedia article too. You should have followed the guidelines and asked for the article to be improved if you felt strongly that there was an issue with it. As it is, two links is enough for verifiability and it should not have been deleted on this basis. Reliability could likely have been questioned, but there is also benefit of the doubt which should have been called into question and debated prior to deleting it. You certainly could have done no wrong by asking for the article to be improved and you might have helped Wikipedia by following such guidelines, as opposed to deleting a factual article. Freakchild (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, simply suggesting that something is not good proof based on a guest of a forum using a psuedonym for anonymity isn't good enough. Most people, including yourself use an alias of some sort to post information on the internet. The fact that is was a guest account is irrelevant as it only suggests the poster is not a regular or had reasons of anonymity. It is clear from the article that this is what the poster wanted, despite the fact he couldn't elaborate. While this might add to the mystery of the post, it does not make it any less valid. Freakchild (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- According to the reasons for deletion, the only reason it is felt not to be notable it because it was felt to be a hoax. Felt is the key word and there is as much evidence either way. Even if you feel this is a hoax, there are famous Sonic hoax games listed on this site. It is not a reason for deletion and you should have moved where it was linked from and stated your reasons for moving it there. Again, one of the people who backed up the idea of deletion even said that if it is not a hoax it is notable. Other people will come along and put this article back at some point when more evidence appears, this should be acceptable to you. Now if beyond debating the subject of a potential hoax a number of key SMS historians have accepted as plausiable then you still feel that what was going to be the second or third Sonic game to be released, the first on the Sega Master System, the first Sega sanctioned (licensing and approval is a different issue and I wouldn't expect you to have insight into this) 3rd party Sonic title in development, the first game involving Sonic outside of a 2d platformer, first educational game on the master system...and so on, if you find that to not be notable then you probably shouldn't be editing things on this site and certainly shouldn't be involved in a Sega Project. As I've said, you are a sceptic and that's fine, but at least be open minded. You've provided no evidence to back up your claims this is a hoax and you have to understand that if you are to delete things without investigating them thoroughly enough, then occassionally you will delete something that is factual, even if it is incomplete or open to question. This is precisely why this system encourages alternatives prior to deletion. I would like to politely recommend you re-read the guidelines for deletion. As it is, this article had been questioned before and further information had been provided in response to that. The article continued to exist for over a year since the last debate about it, so it is safe to assume that other peers had deemed the updates enough to keep the article open. In the meantime my edits to this topic are over. Someone else can bring this back online when the programmer publishes his up and coming article. Wikipedia is getting a bad name because of excessive and unreasonable policing between peer editors and I for one don't have the time to play my role in jumping through the hoops. Facts and history are being destroyed in the process and there's too many people prefer to take the negative approach of deletion instead of asking for articles to be improved, which does not make the site better at all. How can deleting factual information be better than asking it to be improved? Freakchild (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- So it was originally linked from the Sonic page under unreleased games. I can't see a reason why it would be linked from anywhere else. I will leave this for now. You have your viewpoint and I have given mine. The article will be added back in due course when the appropriate links have been updated. These will verify the name of the programmer and witnesses to the development of the software. Freakchild (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- According to the reasons for deletion, the only reason it is felt not to be notable it because it was felt to be a hoax. Felt is the key word and there is as much evidence either way. Even if you feel this is a hoax, there are famous Sonic hoax games listed on this site. It is not a reason for deletion and you should have moved where it was linked from and stated your reasons for moving it there. Again, one of the people who backed up the idea of deletion even said that if it is not a hoax it is notable. Other people will come along and put this article back at some point when more evidence appears, this should be acceptable to you. Now if beyond debating the subject of a potential hoax a number of key SMS historians have accepted as plausiable then you still feel that what was going to be the second or third Sonic game to be released, the first on the Sega Master System, the first Sega sanctioned (licensing and approval is a different issue and I wouldn't expect you to have insight into this) 3rd party Sonic title in development, the first game involving Sonic outside of a 2d platformer, first educational game on the master system...and so on, if you find that to not be notable then you probably shouldn't be editing things on this site and certainly shouldn't be involved in a Sega Project. As I've said, you are a sceptic and that's fine, but at least be open minded. You've provided no evidence to back up your claims this is a hoax and you have to understand that if you are to delete things without investigating them thoroughly enough, then occassionally you will delete something that is factual, even if it is incomplete or open to question. This is precisely why this system encourages alternatives prior to deletion. I would like to politely recommend you re-read the guidelines for deletion. As it is, this article had been questioned before and further information had been provided in response to that. The article continued to exist for over a year since the last debate about it, so it is safe to assume that other peers had deemed the updates enough to keep the article open. In the meantime my edits to this topic are over. Someone else can bring this back online when the programmer publishes his up and coming article. Wikipedia is getting a bad name because of excessive and unreasonable policing between peer editors and I for one don't have the time to play my role in jumping through the hoops. Facts and history are being destroyed in the process and there's too many people prefer to take the negative approach of deletion instead of asking for articles to be improved, which does not make the site better at all. How can deleting factual information be better than asking it to be improved? Freakchild (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pacman quote
Hi,
Just thought you'd like to know that the original author of the quote on your user page is Marcus Brigstocke (who hates the way he almost never gets credited for it!). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Idea for an ad banner
Hey, Doktor Wilhelm, I've been looking through your awards setups on the discussion page for Awards, and the more I think about it, the more I think we could modify the text (and maybe color or something else) and use it as an ad that we can put on our userpages to attract more users to Wikiproject Sega. What do you think? Redphoenix526 (Talk) 20:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sega Newsletter
| The Sega Project Newsletter | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||
