User talk:Ham Pastrami

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Re: Virtual Economy

There is no evidence that a virtual economy was part of Wizards' original design. Use of tickets are currency appears to have been a player invention. If this is incorrect, provide proof. Also, MTGO is now referred to by its owner as a Trading Card Game. Therefore, collectibility is inapplicable. If you have proof that Wizards intended the cards to be collectible (in the sense of having monetary value), please provide it. --BentFranklin BentFranklin (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added sources for the claim made in the article which provide first-party statements of the intention for players to collect cards. Note also that a virtual economy does not require tickets or currency. If you claim that it does, provide proof of your theory. "Collectibility" is an English word, not a trademark; the cards are collectible regardless of whether the product is called a CCG or TCG, as both "collecting" and "trading" are advertised features of the game. Note also that collectibles need not be intended to have monetary value. If you claim otherwise, provide proof of your theory. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Collectible is different from collectable. The first sense includes postage stamps, coins, art, and other things that have monetary value. The second means only able-to-be-collected, like Pogs. A virtual economy includes several facets as discussed in the Wiki page to which you link. See "5. Property Rights: ­ The world must record which goods and services belong to which user identity, and the code must allow that user to dispose of the good or service according to whim." The MTGO code does not allow users to dispose of the goods at whim. Trading is not disposal - that is covered by the preceding point "4. Trade: ­ Users must be able to transfer goods and services to and from other users." Therefore, by Wikipedia's own standard, MTGO is not a virtual economy in the same sense of Second Life (with Linden Dollars) or WoW (with Station Exchange).BentFranklin (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Collectible vs collectable are merely different spellings, as noted in the article with sources from a dictionary. If you claim that the two words have distinct meanings, provide proof of this usage. For "disposal" of goods according to "whim", it means the ability to give away goods according to the desire of the user, as opposed to the desire of the manufacturer. If you claim that a person must be able to "throw away" virtual goods in order for the system to qualify as a virtual economy, provide proof of this theory. Point 4 says that users must be "able" to trade, not that trades are guaranteed to occur. Your conclusion is therefore invalid. Ham Pastrami (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition, you are quoting an unsourced portion of the article. I have replaced it with a sourced definition, and it makes no such restrictions. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand "disposal on a whim." It means the property owners can sell the objects whenever they wish without getting anyone else's permission. Users cannot sell their objects *for money* without violating the vendor's stated policies. Therefore, the vendor does not offer a virtual economy - any virtual economy that exists emerged from the users and against the vendor's explicit warnings. Therefore it is inappropriate to have the very first sentence of this article refer to the virtual economy as if it were deigned into the program. All that was designed within their system was trading among accounts. Your source for virtual economy states that not all of their criteria need apply, but surely trading objects for money or some sort of real value is necessary if not sufficient. 69.95.133.32 (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You're making a tenuous distinction between legal ownership of the object and a freely transferable right to use such objects. The definition of "virtual property" does not make this distinction (and again, it is stated to be interpreted with flexibility). The fact is that the objects in an account can, in fact, be traded for real money, and this is not against the vendor's terms of use. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: MTGO - Redemption

I agree that some of the things I originally said are POV. However, it is a fact that the cost of redemption is baked into the purchase price of packs. Therefore, I believe removing "players feel that" is entirely justified. --BentFranklin

Well, no, the point is that it's not a fact (if it is, provide proof). It is a fact that some players feel that redemption is baked into the pack price. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
When you purchase packs there is a promise that you may redeem full sets at no additional cost, other than shipping and handling. Since there is no additional cost, that must must be included in the original purchcase price. No source is needed in lieu of simple logic. Nevertheless, I would refer you to the Terms of Service http://magiconlinestore.wizards.com/help/tos.htm if Wizards wasn't redirecting that page. Try this instead http://www.mtgnews.com/F/Pages/1078455887477/006.html.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BentFranklin (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Bent, please review WP:V, which is a Wikipedia policy. All claims (but especially ones that may be controversial) made in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. There is nothing in either the TOS or the article you linked to that suggests that redemption would be free or otherwise subsidized by any other cost of the game. The TOS in fact states "Wizards reserves the right...to limit or modify this exchange opportunity...by...charging additional fees for this service." How you interpret their pricing for this service is exactly that, an interpretation. You have not provided any evidence for the specific claim that you are making: that the cost of redemption is included with the purchase of cards from the store. This seems to be something that you inferred, perhaps from early sales pitches. If you can find an old copy of the TOS or official marketing material that does suggest this, then that could be used as evidence -- however, even if that is the case, you can only present the facts, not create an editorial around them. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Very well, you have convinced me on the facts. I now agree that "players feel that" is best. You can stop quoting Wiki policies. I don't need to read them for it to be perfectly obvious what style is appropriate for encyclopedia content.

[edit] Re: MTGO - Shortages

The net effect of IPA as prizes is *identical* to selling the packs, not just similar. Packs in circulation (opened and unopened) that would have been from current standard sets are instead IPA and the amount of money spent on the game is the same, if not more (due to the lure of IPA in tournaments). Also, this paragraph needs some sort of conclusion statement about the impact of this on collectibility. --BentFranklin

Nowhere near as many IPA packs are distributed as prizes, as the amount that would be if they were on sale at the store. So the net effect is not identical, because the volume is much lower. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at by talking about other sets; I am only talking about the effect on IPA itself. The rest, at any rate, is more conjecture on your part. Again, you need to provide proof if you want to present it as fact. The paragraph does not "need" a conclusion that is not supportable with evidence, and that would be in violation of several content policies. It is not Wikipedia's job to publish opinions. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The net effect per pack *is* identical. For the same amount of revenue collected by WotC, packs in circulation that would otherwise be from standard sets are instead IPA packs. Consider two scenarios: (a) current situation where, for discussion purposes, WotC gives out 100 IPA packs are prizes and sells 100 packs of standard at the store and (b) same situation but instead, the prizes are standard packs and WotC sells 100 IPA packs at the store. The two outcomes are identical, so it's not a matter of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BentFranklin (talk • contribs) 15:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Per-pack effect is not net effect. That's why they're two different things. Yes, having one pack given out as a prize is the same as receiving one pack from any other source. This is obvious, and doesn't really say anything. That's also not the claim you made in the article. The claim you made was that the net effect of giving out IPA prizes was the same as if the packs were on sale at the store. This claim is saying that IPA prices now are the same as they would be if packs were on sale. If you insist that it's true, then it would also follow that actually putting them on sale would have no effect at all on the current market (since, by your argument, giving them out as prizes is the exact same thing). I don't think you will find any other person who can agree with that, much less actual evidence that such is the case. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
WotC said they would not sell IPA packs again. If they would then make even only 100 packs available at the store, that would be breaking their promise. But giving 100 packs as prizes has exactly the same outcome as selling them at the store (WotC has money and packs are in circulation). Perhaps we could agree on the following wording: "...so the net effect was the same as if they had sold that many packs at the store." —Preceding unsigned comment added by BentFranklin (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
But what that really says is "opening 100 packs from a tournament produces the same amount of cards as opening 100 packs from the store", which borders on stating the obvious because it's true of all sets, not just IPA. I don't see that it contributes anything meaningful to that section of the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's meaningful because Wizards stated they would never sell the cards again, yet they did essentially just that. Just because it was not a huge number of cards is not relevant. To the extent that they sold additional IPA cards, they took that value from the collections of their customers. The fact that they would make this kind of end run around a promise is very significant. It is a precedent. It shows that they are willing to break their promises. Breaking a promise is a very bad thing for a vendor of digital objects to do. It is a black mark on their record and it should be recorded as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.187.52 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
They said they would never sell cards out of print again. You took it to mean "No more objects of this type will ever be created". What they say and what you heard are not the same. WoTC is not responsible for your misunderstanding. 67.187.27.29 (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so what you actually want to say is that WotC has broken promises; that is the claim that you should be making in the article, and trying to find evidence for. It doesn't do any good to argue the point if you can't verify it with documentation. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Do we agree that WotC made that promise or do I have to document that? Do we agree that WotC broke that promise or do I have to document that? Do we agree that keeping promises is important for digital object vendors or do I have to document that also? Keep in mind that if I feel I have to document obvious or well-known facts or logical lines of reasoning, I may apply that same standard to anything else written in this article
Ideally, you should try to document every claim. Stop thinking of it as a burden. That is entirely the wrong attitude to have for an encyclopedia. If you want to a place to vent about your personal dissatisfaction, there are many places on the internet where you may do so. Wikipedia simply isn't one of them. You absolutely must document claims that are challenged. You may challenge any other unsourced claim you wish in the article, but be sure you are not editing to make a point or otherwise disrupting the article in bad faith. In other words, don't try to game the wiki. We have guidelines for that. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Warhammer Armies Orcs & Goblins cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Warhammer Armies Orcs & Goblins cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Reversing secrets of reverse engineering cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Reversing secrets of reverse engineering cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Warhammer Armies Orcs & Goblins cover2.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Warhammer Armies Orcs & Goblins cover2.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache James

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache James

If you think you can write a properly-sourced article--and it appears you may have found sources--then you definitely should. I'll move the deleted content of Apache James to User:Ham Pastrami/Apache James and you can work on it there. When you've got it up to speed, drop me a line. If it looks good, I'll help you move it (if you need help). Cool? — Scientizzle 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Thanks. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple other links that might be useful--I don't really know as the topic is a bit esoteric for me.

Keep up the good work. — Scientizzle 19:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dungeons & Dragons: Dragonshard

Hello. Thanks for your improvements to this article, it's in much better shape thanks to your edits. Regarding this edit, the discussion referred to was this RFC: Talk:Baldur's Gate#Sorcerer's Place link. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chaos League Starforce cracked?

You've added a comment to that apge that says just that but it has no citation. Now I know wiki isn't really for this but where is this cracking link/method? I'd like to crack Chaos League: Sudden Death you see. Cheers. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright notices.

More a matter for talk pages, but the reason I was somewhat snippy was due to your first line:

Looks like all the images in the article have conspicuous copyright notices, as if somebody is trying to tell us something.

I interpreted this as "these notices are clearly here thanks to WotC plants." Which would be, uh, me, apparently. Glad to see that apparently there was a misunderstanding somewhere? If you're willing to remove/strike this line, I'll certainly remove my comment as well. SnowFire (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It was my initial suspicion that WotC was behind it, but I did not accuse you personally of being a WotC plant, and after lifebaka referenced the permission letter from WotC, which contained the instruction to include the copyright notices, I already revised that in my response indicating that fact. I see how you would feel that I was targeting you, but I knew nothing about who made those edits, which is why I asked about them. You're right though, I could have started on a different assumption and thereby avoided any chance to offend. And I also accept that this was a misunderstanding, with your initial response based on a hostile interpretation of my initial comment; I don't hold anything against you. This part of the conversation probably should have taken place on the same page as well, if you're concerned with how it looks to everyone else. Personally I don't consider it a big deal. You have my permission to strike that sentence if you wish. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pasta code

But why wouldn't you also prod Lasagna code? -- Robocoder (t|c) 07:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said I wouldn't? I didn't scan the entire list of pasta metaphors, I just came across the ravioli one. By all means, prod lasagna, I won't contest it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apache James

Hi. Is this article still under development or do you think it is good enough to go into the main article space now? I came across it while searching for an Apache James article in the main space. ~~ [Jam][talk] 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I went ahead and moved the article back into the mainspace. Personally I think it could use just a tad more improvement to make sure it doesn't get deleted again, but I haven't had the time to work on it. Hopefully the community will make the effort now. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I had a look through the article, and it seemed OK to me. I'll see if I can add anything to it. ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MfD for early computers wikiproject userbox

Can you comment on whether the problems at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Template:User_WikiProject_Early_computers are solved? If you think so, could you withdraw your nomination or explain why there are still problems so they can be solved? --Enric Naval (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the nomination. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes.

Argh; sorry to stop by your talk page to disagree again... I haven't really been up for Wikipedia lately, and let me say first that I am glad you're taking an interest in the Magic articles, despite my disagreement with some of your edits - better for them to be tended by somebody, certainly.

But you said in a recent edit to the MTGO article "no more unnecessary notes please." I'm not sure if you disagreed with my notes in particular or if footnotes in general, but at risk of pointing out the obvious, "additional commentary" is precisely what footnotes are for. See, for example, Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre and several other Featured Articles that feature simply explanatory footnotes that cover corner cases. Removing this kind of information outright strikes me as a bad idea, since the fact that it is a license is important but would distract the flow of the writing if written out and is generally irrelevant for most people. There are lots of explanatory footnotes in the main MTG article, too, which serve the fairly important purpose of making sure people don't add long-winded "corrections" to statements that are 98% correct. As an example, I seem to recall anonymous editors listing out every possible win/loss condition in that article when really only two are relevant and the others can be mentioned in a footnote. SnowFire (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My disagreement is with using footnotes to A)present facts that could just as easily be part of the main body (and in most cases, I did move them to the main body), and B)as a way of inserting commentary (that is, OR/POV) that is not derived from a source, as you would then have to provide a reference for the footnote (i.e. a footnote for the footnote). Perhaps it would make more sense if I had tagged each line in question with {{fact}}. In your example of Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre, the notes are being used to relay passages from a referenced work -- it would do even better to use a citation with quote, and I don't think the editors there would disagree if someone made that change. For the specific edit that you linked, that footnote was left out because it is redundant with content already in the article: Technically any transfer of cards in the game is not considered a "sale" because, for legal reasons, the digital objects are not actually owned by the collector, but rather Wizards of the Coast themselves.[11] If you believe that this fact should be more prominent, by all means, make it so by moving it to the lead or wherever else it may be appropriate. In conclusion though, for this article and these comments I don't see any compelling reason why footnotes were necessary or preferable, and they were in fact being used to insert unsourced commentary. I haven't examined the Magic: The Gathering article in depth. I may do so at a later time. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you add defamatory content once again, as you did to Fairlight (group), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please ensure that you cite reliable sources when adding controversial material or criminal information about living people. See WP:BLP for more information. Toddst1 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do you have an issue with the source that was provided? Why is this considered defamatory? It is presented as a neutral fact. Whether you consider association with any particular group defamatory is your own POV. Aside from that you seem to be having quite a strong knee-jerk reaction. Try using some civility. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Raw Story is an WP:RS????? Gimme a fucking break. You linked to a fucking agenda blog that doesn't even link/cite any sources of its own, doing a hit piece / smear job / libel on someone. That's a clear violation of WP:BLP.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.205.2 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 May 2008

If so, that discussion should have taken place prior to appealing to higher powers. The fact is that you (or whoever it is I'm talking to behind all these IP addresses) made no attempt whatsoever to assume good faith. You instead left uncivil editing remarks in response to not one but two attempts by two different editors to add the information to the article. You did not try to open a dialog to get a mutual understanding of why the source was not sufficient for verification. Even so, there does not appear to be anything on The Raw Story that would immediately indicate that it fails WP:RS. Which is why discussion is important. As I see it, your aggressive removal and expedient involvement of administrator action exposes a non-neutral interest on your part. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
uh. no. BLP is BLP. Toddst1 (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
BLP states that contentious material should be removed if sources do not meet standards specified in WP:V. There was neither a determination nor a notice of that issue prior to uncivil comments being left by the anon editor and a hostile warning left by you. Had either of you simply left a notice explaining why the edits were reverted, that would have been sufficient. This is regardless of how the article was handled. Your attitude and subsequent actions were excessive and make a poor example for Wikipedia admins. Period. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I found your recent edit of Micromanagement (gameplay) thought-provoking (see below), and I notice the appreciation you've received in some earlier postings on this page.
Re the Strider business:
  • I completely agree with you that Toddst1 was heavy-handed and violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and that 76.30.205.2 grossly violated WP:CIVIL. IMO they should have presented their case as I am now going to do.
  • Your identification of Strider as a currently active politician could get Wikipedia into deep doo-doo. The article you cited says the ultimate source is an anonymous e-mail, and such e-mails have been used for smear campaigns. It would be wiser to check the Web at intervals to see how the story plays out. Wikipedia is not in the business of investigative journalism.
  • Your comment "It is presented as a neutral fact" is inaccurate. I know the following will appear legalistic and I apologise in advance for that, but unfortunately we're into legal territory here. If you had written "Article X reported an anonymous email that alleges that ...", that would have been neutral fact, although personally I would not have used it at such an early stage in the affair - we're not trying to sell newspapers here so we don't need scoops. There's a policy somewhere (I can never remember all the WP: alphabetti spaghetti, I only look closely at it if someone starts a fight) that in subjects that are contentious, including BLP, editors should write "On date X, Y said that Z" rather than just "Z".
I look forward to discussing Micromanagement (gameplay) with you. Philcha (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Micromanagement (gameplay)

Your recent edits to Micromanagement (gameplay) are interesting as they raise some aspects that the previous version did not cover. Unfortunately at the same time they also hide the distinction between combat and economic micro, which is a significant topic on games forums that I've seen. When I started think about how to incorporate both the "twitch-based" / "policy-based" distinction and the "combat" / "economic" distinction I realised there were other aspects the article should cover, and that we probably need to discuss a wider range of game models. I've set out my thoughts at Talk:Micromanagement (gameplay) - please respond there. Philcha (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but you did not follow the recommended procedure Help:Merging and moving pages - you should have put a tag on the page "proposed move - please discuss" and waited for about a month. One consequence of moving without disussion is that it will set some people's vandalism sensors to brightest red with klaxons blaring, and you already know how some people can over-react. In this case I think the move you made was reasonable, although I would not have done it. But Revision history of Dinosaur for 12 May 2008 shows how an important article was moved by a vandal and quick action was necessary. Philcha (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that note in the guideline you linked. Of course if you object to the rename you may revert and we can discuss that part of my edit as well. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't say exactly what I said, but it does advise putting up a proposal and allowing time for discussion. As I said, I'm not upset about Micromanagement (gameplay) but doing it unilaterally on some other article might get you some needless hassle. Philcha (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)