User talk:Wgungfu/archive 1

Vector vs CRT

Hi-- didn't wanna get into a revert thing on the First Video Game page, but I'm curious about why you changed my mention of "CRT" back to "raster." You mention in your edit summary that vector displays are CRTs, which was my reasoning as well (thus my change of raster to CRT to reflect that any CRT display was included, not just raster-type), so why not leave it as "CRT," which is thus inclusive of both raster AND vector games? Student Driver 11:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vectors are CRT's but not video, that was a typo. If you actually read the article (which is what the article was based around in the first place), its about the fact that those games were not considered video games by the courts or in the literal sense because they have no video signal. Vector monitors have their beam directly controlled by the computer and/or code. Your change seemed oblivous to the purpose of the article, like you just briefly glanced at the beginning and decided to change it. --Marty Goldberg 14:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sega, Gremlin, Blockade, and one big mess

The sources are a bit muddled on this one, so I was hoping you could clear some of this relationship up for me. You are correct, of course, that the purchase of Gremlin came later, that was my mistake. According to High Score!, this purchase took place in 1980. High Score is also the source that states Blockade was a Sega game. Now Blockade was clearly a Gremlin game, I can see that from KLOV and the Arcade History database, but it is also clear that Sega and Gremlin had a relationship before 1980, as KLOV has some games that clearly bear a combined Sega/Gremlin logo. System 16, the excellent documentor of various types of arcade hardware labels the Blockade hardware as a Sega creation and lists both Blockade and its two sequels as as Sega/Gremlin collaborations, though KLOV does not. Do you know what the exact Sega/Gremlin relationship was before 1980 and how Blockade fits into it? This has me curious and I would really like to clear up the confusion. Indrian 04:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here's an exact account of when Sega took over Gremlin by someone who worked there: [1]. Also, the claim on Sega's Fonz being the first motorcycle game is suspect, as Atari's Stunt Cycle was also the same year. As far as High Score as a resource - you're starting to see its not a great one, the book makes a lot of mistakes and presents the author's personal claims (like the Pole Position one). With regards to Pole Position being the first popular color driving game - High Score would be wrong on that as well, as Turbo was released the year before that and was extremely popular at the time. --Marty Goldberg 04:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have always known High Score is not the best source. The problem with video game history is that there are very few sources and each one contradicts all the others. The best those of us not part of the industry can do is muddle through what is available and come up with the most likely outcome. As to Turbo, that is a game I am aware of and certainly an important game as a pioneer of full-color graphics and getting most of the way to the rear-view angle (still slightly more overhead than Pole Position), but I did not state Pole Position was the first popular game, merely that it was the first to really establish the genre and enhance the realism of the experience. Turbo was a rail game in which the player did not have full control over the vehicle as in Pole Position, and Pole Position was still a better seller than Turbo and more influential as a whole. I would mention Turbo too, but there is just not enough space for every game in the general article. I figure that if the article goes from Gran Trak 10 to Pole Position to Out Run to Hard Drivin to Virtua Racing to Ridge Racer to Daytona USA the reader will get the basic idea on how racing games evolved. Just one man's opinion of course. Indrian 05:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the whole Gremlin thing, the page you pointed me to was definately interesting, but it still does not solve the underlying problem. Gremlin and Sega had a relationship in the 1970s from all appearances, though not necessarily on Blockade. What I am interested in is the extent of this relationship. Was Blockade a Sega hardware in a Gremlin body? Several sources say no, several sources say yes. I am inclined to think it was not at this point, but pre-golden age non-Atari video games are simply horrible to find information about. Do you have anymore information about the pre-1982 relationship between the two companies? Indrian 05:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Videopin.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Videopin.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PONG

I'd like you to know why the Simpsons reference to PONG is "unimportant trivia" to you. To me it is more important than a lot of the other crap on there. The reference meets the criteria set forth in the comments of mentioning PONG by name. To selectively delete users' valid contributions from an article like that based on some subjective internalized criteria is kind of rude. –Andyluciano 13:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC):[reply]

Because it was decided as such by consensus. Read the talk page. Also, you missunderstand or missrepresent the criteria - "mentioning by name" is not one of them. Very specifically, Either the actual PONG (not just a pong type game) is a part of a scene (not just a background prop) or integral to the storyline, song, etc.. One liners mentioning the name are not "integral" to the scene, nor are "pong type games". The criteria were created to save this section, many of the regular editors wanted to remove the section entirely as trivia sections are not welcome on Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg 13:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the talk page for Pong I was hoping to receive your feedback on how to include references on the appearance of Pong in the 2007 film Zodiac. I notice that you deleted my early entry (copied from IMDB). I do feel that the appearance of Pong in that scene of the film is a notable appearance. I am fairly new to wikipedia and hope that you will be able to point me in the right direction. --Retrodouggy 00:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues: The fist issue is whether or not it is an important part of the scene or not, and something playing in the background is not by the current standards. The second issue - it is not identified as the actual Pong, but rather as just another pong clone. The Pong entry differentiates between that, and what you attempted to add assumes one over the other. This is in difference to the Pong scene in Airport '77 where the game is a central part of the scene (with all characters hovered around a cocktail version of the game while having dialog with each other about the game). --Marty Goldberg 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say, for sake of arguement (and to clarify how wikipedia guidelines are to be interpreted), that the director of the film had been interviewed as part of an "Empire" maagazine review and had stated that it was, in fact, Pong used in the film. If I was then to reference that article could I then include the information in the Pong wikipedia entry? Please note that this is hypothetical! I'm just trying to get my head around this. Thanks in advance for your comments. Retrodouggy 20:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that had occurred, you could write an entry in the Pop Culture section that is in regards to that interview then and not what you originally had. The interview itself and him discussing why he wanted it in the background and how it plays in to the scene would actually be more notable than the appearance of the background prop pong clone itself (since its an interview with someone discussing pong directly and its appearance in their movie), and would have to be the main subject. --Marty Goldberg 16:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnotable modern shareware clone

Hello, I would like to ask about your deciding to delete Ricochet and Ricochet Lost Worlds from the Breakout clones article. I understand you most probably had a good reason for this deed. My only problem is that I do not realize this particular reason. May I ask you what are the criteria for a Breakout/Arkanoid clone that need to be met in order for a game to be notable? And I also thought that the particular article was meant to provide more of a complete list of all the clones instead of only the 'chosen ones'. Thank you. --IJK_Principle 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things - 1) No, it is not a list for all clones. Clones of notability are clones from the time period or of a historical nature. Modern shareware clones are specifically forbidden per the CVJ project. 2) Putting up material related to your own products is a violation of Wikipedia and a Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest.

Thanks for your answer. Only a small note about your second statement: I am not in any way related to the development team of those two games, I'm just a fan of the series. So that you know.
Thanks. --IJK_Principle 13:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joust links

Have you tried them? I'm no fan of AOL but it happens to be a fully playable working link, and the others are not. Saying it's an ad for GameTap is a red herring. All links to free Joust are ultimately going to be an ad for something. 75.185.127.48 14:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The midway link just plain doesn't work. Wikipedia should be a source for quality information, ~~and it's becoming a plaything for control freaks with too much time on their hands~~. Besides, the midway link is also an ad. 76.6.165.236 19:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The midway link works fine for me. And it is not presented as an advertisement like the GameTap entry. GameTap's was literally an advertisement for GameTap sold and placed on the refered page, to promote their game service. Midway's is simply presented as a gallery of Midway's own old games (not being sold or promoted as such) that you can play on their site. --Marty Goldberg 19:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, although midway is in fact selling the games at the bottom of the very same page. Maybe midway will resolve the error for affected configurations (I'm surely not the only one) 76.6.165.236 19:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1942 link

Re: link www.stickycarpet.com/dam/dam194X.htm

Why do you feel that a whole page dedicated to the complete 19XX series, of which there is no comparable comparison on the whole web, is not 'notable' enough to be featured here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942_(video_game) --User:91.125.208.144 09:29, 7 August 2007

For the same reason the other person removed it. There are defined linking policies for Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a collection of links. A link has to add significant info to a page that is not already included. A page with a bunch of screen shots and personal comments does not qualify. --Marty Goldberg 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page gives a complete history of the series and has been on wikipedia for months with no complaints. The reviewer is a writer for Retro Gamer Magazine UK and his comments are pertinent to the games and the series. I suggest you re-instate the link.

No response huh? Well I wonder if there would be any difference if the site was hosted by Classic Gaming? I don't see any of the Hardcore Gaming 101 links being removed, and that would be classed as a 'fan' or personal site. Surely your position would be grounds for a conflict of interest here? I abolutely hate censorship in all it's forms and this is what you are doing. It's nobody's self-given right to delete pertinent content on Wikipedia, this is a community not an autocracy. I would also suggest you need to examine your elitist attitudue.

ClassicGaming is not an encyclopedia, and its not "my site". It has no rules in regards to this. This place does. It also has rules on people spamming from multiple IP's (all originating from the same place). Likewise, just because I'm not sitting around my computer 24/7 and haven't gotten around to removing it yet from the R-TYPE page is a little ridiculous to call a conspiracy. Lastly, you seem to have a hard time understanding how Wikipedia works. There are guidelines for posting links, and there is a video game group that decided on what content is valid or not. Likewise there are rules for posting links to your own site. If you continue on this path, I will report your ip's to the admins for banning and the pages will be protected. --Marty Goldberg 18:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#stickycarpet.com. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting request

meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#stickycarpet.com (permanent link)

I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of disabling the stickycarpet.com link above by stripping off the "http://" ... otherwise you'd find this page locked up by the spam blacklist filter until you removed or disabled the link. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OP

Please watch your edits, you added text right in the middle of a report. Q ^{T C} 10:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"please keep opinions out of the edit summary"

I have every right to express my opinions in edit summaries and talk pages. --Golbez 18:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plain and simple, Wikipedia:Edit_summaries are for summation of "Why did you make this edit?", not "What do I think of this console?" The edit summaries are there (and to be used as) a tool for other editors to see if its "worthwhile for them to check a change". Color commentary is WP:Disruptive of this process, and disrespectful to the other editors of the topic who take the subject matter seriously. --Marty Goldberg 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rise and Fall of Commodore

Just deleting a valid reference source seemed wrong to me after thinking about it so I was going back reverting my deletes and replacing with: http://worldcat.org/isbn/0973864907 instead of the advert. What you did is much better. Can you help me with this? I'm finding it hard to root out all the times it was linked but if you follow my edit history you'll see all the links I've found so far. Alatari 14:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you were right on the initial link. Commodorebook.com used to go to the author's web page, which included excerpts and interviews from the book. Apparently now it just forwards to the publisher's order page. So its good you caught this and we can replace it to the link of actual excerpts. --Marty Goldberg 14:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there excerpts that actually mention Jay Miner or the Amiga? It's tentative to use that same link on article when the subject of the article isn't even mentioned. Alatari 16:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I've seen, other than the original CommodoreBook.Com page that is no longer there. There are reviews (such as this one which mention the content. But that's about it as far as citable sources. --Marty Goldberg 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kB vs KB

I like that you change KiB but please use the correct kB, and not KB (which not correct, but it's widely used. Incorrectly). It is the small caps k that stands for "kilo", ie "a thousand". K is something else.. it's not a prefix. On a side note.. where's the discussion about this, and the alleged banned user? I'd like to see. -- Henriok 18:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the archive of WP:MOSNUM, and the banned user (not alleged) was/is User:Sarenne who went about making massive sweeping edits across Wikipedia last late winter/early spring changing all kB/KB/MB to KiB/MiB, etc. (which was one of the things he was banned for). We're still going around trying to undo the damage he did. --Marty Goldberg 18:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks. -- Henriok —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you didn't even check what I changed at KB. I did not violate any consensus at all. I rephrased it, separated kB and KB adding a tiny bit of information making it less ambiguous. There was no reason in reverting my edit. --217.87.99.127 16:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use image galleries

I noticed you've gone through and restored a number of fair-use image galleries removed by an IP account. However, such galleries are generally correct in being removed because as the images' status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis). Rather than do a(nother) mass-reversion, however, I'd rather first ask you if these galleries are really necessary. Nifboy 04:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was the point in the reversion. They were removed with no notice and no warning tag giving people time to find a suitable replacement if one exists (per the guidelines), done by an IP account who was doing mass removals (literally within seconds after another). Likewise, I'd disagree on your "generally correct" point. The galleries in question are all generated screenshots, and WP:FAIR clearly states under Acceptable Images: "6. Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary". Also - that's Critical (of essential importance), not criticism (the act of passing judgment). The galleries are in fact for the purpose of showing side by side analysis of the ports of the game, whose graphics often differed per platform during the era of these games/consoles/systems. --Marty Goldberg 05:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Binary prefixes

It looks like someone else is trying to use IEC binary prefixes but this time in the Playstation 2 article. I've written something explaining why on the user's talk page. Fnag aton 16:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll try and keep an eye on it as well. --Marty Goldberg 16:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. Fnag aton 16:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've recently reverted the anonymous editor's changes. Thank for that. You've got good timing, I was going to send you a warning after lunch if the user kept on making changes. I do hope it's not Sarenne coming back again. :( Fnag aton 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Dabney

This is neither here nor there for anything currently going on at wikipedia, but I happened to come across a post by you on some forum somewhere while I was looking for any information that might exist on this elusive individual stating that you and a group had actually interviewed him at some point. Has this interview ever been published anywhere on or offline? I know you are (were?) compiling information for a book on Atari history and would not expect you to let all your secrets out of the bag if you still intend such a publication, but this rare window into Atari's earliest days would no doubt make for some interesting reading and fodder for discussion. Indrian 01:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, three of us (myself, Curt Vendel, Leonard Herman) did extensive interviews (Curt talked with his family members as well). Leonard's will probably be in his book, Curt and mine's will be in the Atari book. However, I'll also be covering the material in my Video games misconceptions series at CG.Com in the near future. Specifically in the "Myths of Nolan Bushnell" discussion. Ted left the industry in the mid 70's, but had a lot to say about his period with it during the late 60's through mid 70's time frame. Ted pretty much lives in a cabin in california and is very very hard to get a hold of now, but during the time he talked with us put a new spin on a lot of the material that we've only taken Nolan's word for. --Marty Goldberg 02:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I look forward to reading some of this when it becomes available. Indrian 02:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Tyun Kung-Fu

Hi, I see that you removed my addition to the Wing Chun Page where I added Wing Tyun as a Romanised spelling, your comments were that it was non standardised. I would like you to review this for the following reasons. 1. Wing Tyun is arguably more phonetically correct that the other options. 2. We use this spelling in the UK as Wing Tsun is copyrighted by Leung Ting. 3. We have a thriving organisation and are recognised by the World Martial Arts Alliance. Check out www.wingtyun.co.uk Considering this is it possible to replace the amendment? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notrogm (talk • contribs) 10:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

68000

Hi, thanks! Yeah, I'm not so good with references. Hopefully that will discourage ppl from adding "24-bit" :v) Potatoswatter 01:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Hopefully it will discourage him from continually trying to reference it as a purely 32-bit process as well. You can't really argue with what the designer/manufacturer itself calls it. --Marty Goldberg 01:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page template

You don't have to create a separate template for the talk page, unless you really want to have one. You can just use {{cvgproj|tf=Atari}}, which gives: {{cvgproj}} Cheers, JACO PLANE • 2007-10-26 17:44

Thanks, I'll put that in the table instead. --Marty Goldberg 18:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP: OBVIOUS

Wgungfu,

I appreciate your attempt to cut to the heart of the matter over on Super Nintendo Entertainment System, but I'm going to revert you for two reasons.

First of all, there is an ongoing discussion on the subject of verb tense which is both civil and productive. There is a great liklihood that when the dust settles, we will in fact apply the change that you have made. But for now, you have inadvertently injected a bit of fuel in an area that was already a bit hot.
Secondly, if you go back and re-read the intent of WP:OBVIOUS, I believe you will see that you have misinterpreted the intent of the policy. It is actually intended to push editors towards including factual material on a subject with which they are well-acquainted, but which the reader of the article may not be familiar. It has nothing to do with points of contention between editors. Indeed, given that there is currently an editing issue under discussion, some editors might interpret your use of the term "obvious" as bit of an insult, with the implication that others are too stupid to see what you alone recognize as "obvious".

Anyway, please feel free to engage in the discussion, both at this page and at the project page. While your mind probably won't be changed, you'll at least see that there are some valid reasons out there for the other point of view. Cheers. Unschool 23:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (tari 2600)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (tari 2600), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (tari 2600) is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (tari 2600), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 15:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting together a sock puppet report for Sarenne

I've been putting together a draft sock puppet report for Sarenne. Please feel free to add any links or argument to it that I have not thought of. Fnag aton 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll do it later tonight. At the very least, he's done 6 of Disruption items required for a blocking. --Marty Goldberg 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Seems you know a lot about this Sarenne person, thanks for your help there.

Also, Milwaukee is an awesome city. Kwsn (Ni!) 04:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The whole Sarenne is really well documented at the MOSNUM talk page archive as mentioned, as well as that sock puppet report I gave. In February through April he had bots up changing 100's of pages at a time from the kB to kib, etc. and engaged in revert wars, even when told his edits were being disruptive. That's what sparked the call for consensus over at WP:MOSNUM, and when he didn't like they way things went started doing even more edits and taunting people to stop him in the edit summaries. That's also why User:NotSarenne's appearance and recent edits threw up a flag when he started coming from multiple IP's, changing kB's to kib's, etc. even when explained it was against mosnum, using rude and taunting behavior in his edits, harrasing people on their talk pages and giving them directives, etc. etc. All the same behavior and language, which flew up big flags because the damage that Sarenne had done is still being taken care of. There's a partial documentation of NotSarenne's behavior here. And thanks, love Milwaukee as well. You pass through here or do you live around here? --Marty Goldberg 04:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go over and look at the talk pages. I'm normally from Milwaukee but now I'm in Platteville for college. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, whereabout in Milwaukee are you from? I'm in the north shore area. --Marty Goldberg 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smallfoot

We crossed paths a few articles ago at uWink -- somehow I found my way to the Smallfoot article and made some minor edits, but it needs more computer expertise than I can offer, and I feel like I'm leaving it out in the snow. Is the subject something you know more about or know editors who do? And...the last computer game I played was Leisure Suit Larry...never got out of the lobby. :) Flowanda | Talk 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just worked on it a bit now and got at least the opening summation to a better standard. But the entire rest of the entry needs a lot of work. --Marty Goldberg 04:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NotSarenne

Consider this fair warning, I just blocked Fnagaton for harassing NotSarenne after the block. I am not blocking for one reason only: you did not have a sock. However, if I see any harassment from you two again directed towards Sarenne or NotSarenne, you will be blocked. Kwsn (Ni!) 05:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little puzzled at this, User:Sarenne/User_talk:NotSarenne is a banned user, not blocked. He was banned six months ago, then violated the ban by showing up as NotSarenne with additional sock puppet IP's. Likewise, any commenting about him was done with another admin on a talk page in relation to his emailing the admin (User:Bsf), Fnagton, and others (including the admin KieferSkunk who mentioned it on his and your talk page). He's also just created another sock today to harass on here, which was in turn blocked as being a sock puppet, and you're calling me now for harrasment of him? What are you considering harrasment? The discussion on Fnagton's page about a banned user's continued harrasment of wikipedia editors and attempt to evade the block by using sock puppets, or the vigilance of monitoring the disruptive edits of a banned user? I'd like to know specifically what you're refering to. --Marty Goldberg 06:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- But|seriously|folks 06:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reverse KiB to KB can be wrong too

Your recent reversal of a "640 KiB" back to "640 KB" in an article I've been consistently editing for quite some time, would also violate MOSNUM if done against all WikiPedia articles. I perfectly understand, and would most definitely agree with you, in wanting to keep anyone from changing KB to KiB across all Wiki articles for one VERY IMPORTANT REASON: That would destroy the integrity of every historical quote from a computing era when 'KB' quite often meant a BINARY kilobyte (rather than its official decimal standard). However, my change was not in any quoted or referenced material, and was done on purpose to fit the context. I'm working on the footnotes now, and will be sure the whole article is consistent in this regard. Daniel B. Sedory 21:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. MosNUM clearly states that the original prefixes used in the articles are to remain. "There is consensus that editors should not change prefixes from one style to the other". You changed those over to kib's in March from their original KB notation. How many edits you've done since then is irrelevant. That passage was included in MOSNUM for specifically this reason. If you really want to add kib to the entry (which I'm not entirely opposed to), then follow MOSNUM by using the "256 KB (KiB)" format. --Marty Goldberg 22:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll go ahead and add " (KiB)" for clarity then. It certainly would have saved us both a lot of time if you'd done that too rather than just revert. As to the original article, it had no 'KB' in it. The very first time a 'kB' (not 'KB') was added, was by BruceEwing (who hasn't been heard from since), and he included much factually incorrect data in that edit. I only care about not confusing our readers who have been taught in school (and rightly so) that the 'K' in 'KB' equals 1000 (and recently, that 'KiB' should be used for a 'Binary kilo'). At present, I'm trying to establish whether or not it's the first 500h or 600h that a booting PC actually uses for system purposes. I don't recall when or by whom that change was made. Daniel B. Sedory 22:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not intended to take away from the great work you've done. I think you're doing a lot of great and important contributions to that article. This is all just blowback from the mass of disruptive edits that were done in December through March regarding KiB changes. Keep up the good work! --Marty Goldberg 22:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lasseter/TRON

Hi Marty. I ended up removing the John Lasseter trivia item altogether from Tron because the interview article very clearly stated he did not work on the film - he only saw what was coming out of the studio. That hardly seems noteworthy in this case. But I also wanted to mention something I think you'll find interesting:

I'm not sure where you'll find this, but the name "Pixar" was the unofficial title of the group that Lasseter worked for at LucasFilm, and their contributions to Siggraph and other computer animation festivals at the time were submitted by that name. It didn't become an official company title until Jobs took over, that's true, but as far back as Andre and Wally B., they had been using the Pixar name. (I know this because I got to see some of the early development work they were doing while my father worked at Lucasfilm in their games division, well before it was spun off as LucasArts.)

I'll work on trying to find a source for that - it would be good information for the Pixar article. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I was just trying to find a way to keep the information somewhere because I thought it was interesting (even though I'm not the one who added it). The Pixar article sounds like a better fit. --Marty Goldberg 01:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines

Hi, regarding the edit you reverted, the spoiler templates referred to appear to have been deleted. Cheers, Miremare 18:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, he just needs to put that in his edit summary so people know why he's removing content from that page then. It would be more applicable to have started a discussion on the discussion page mentioning the templates had been deleted and getting opinion on what should be done regarding it. Since the possibility remains to create a VG specific spoiler template to replace it. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Video game" etymology

The earliest I can find of this term is in a flyer for 1 & 2 Player Computer Space, apparently released in 1971. "Most competitive and fastest action of any video game ever"[2] As you may know, Computer Space was the first commercial arcade game, and I assume the "1 & 2 Player" version was the second. What does this mean? Does it mean that "video game" was in use before arcade games, maybe for some sort of electronic amusement game? Does it mean that the term was invented for Computer Space by Nutting Associates (Atari)? Does it mean that Ralph Baer used it for his Odyssey before it was released? Does it mean that 1 & 2 Player Computer Space was not released in 1971? Since you're quite experienced in the classic gaming field, you should be able to help - I'm really confused! --Teggles 04:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...any progress? Heh. --Teggles (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tramiel Technologies

Google of "Tramiel Technologies" it's referred to as Tramiel Technologies, Ltd on Atari's site so which is it? You'll need to get an incorporation document or other unassailable source to end the spelling debate. Alatari (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its Tramel Technologies Ltd. - [3]. As Jack's son Leonard told me in an interview I published several years ago, they spelt it Tramel so people would pronounce the name properly. Likewise, the link that comes on Google with the misspelling is to Atari Singapore, an Infogrames division. Not the actual Atari (Atari Inc.) Either way, its wrong. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I award this purple barnstar as an apology for assuming the worst and not checking first. - Tim Vickers

I was commenting at User talk:Thingg and it appeared, at least to me, that you were being a bit unwelcoming to an new and inexperienced user. In particular it is usually a bad idea to hit people with abbreviations, WP:OR is easier to write, but original research makes it less like alphabet soup to a newbie. I know this wasn't how you meant it to look, but people can read things in a way that is much harsher than you intended. Anyway, minor gripe. All the best - Tim Vickers (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, actually the conversation was across several pages, and the meanings of WP:OR and NPOV had already been discussed as well. Please check Talk:History of video game consoles (second generation) as well. I actually took quite a bit of time to explain to him the entire consensus and research process. --Marty Goldberg 04:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my mistake. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battlezone Vandals

The Battlezone vandal is back. I reverted one edit already. Better keep an eye on it. Rees11 (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will. May have to put in a request for an sprotect again. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Hey Marty,
I just wanted to say Merry Christmas and thank you for the help you gave me back in the beginning of December with my edits. Looking back over my edits in the past three weeks, I've just realized how much your advice and guidance have made a difference in the way I edit Wikipedia. I think the main way you've helped me is to make me aware of the importance of providing adequate citations for material (especially controversial stuff), and to not take honest advice personally. (I did do that to you and if I didn't apologize, I'll do it now: I'm sorry about that.) Anyway, I know this "letter" may sound a little weird, but I really do appreciate your help and wanted to thank you. So, thanks. Thingg (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muk Yan Jong

I moved the image of the Wing Chun dummy to keep the page from having a huge gap. If you take issue with some of the history of the woonen dummy, what exactly are you willing to let me say that you think is correct, as the section is pruned down so much nothing is even there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchamps comb (talk • contribs) 03:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple problems, all centering around the issue that the article is not wing chun centric. Other Chinese arts have "mook yan jongs" as well. Moving the picture to the top rather than in the actual wing chun section violated that. Likewise, not all of your edits were taken away. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. I'm not saying other Chinese arts don't use wooden dummys only WE need to add to the History section as it is only two lines, their is a rich history at the Shaolin Temple. I also disagree that the quote "Traditionally made from wood, the dummies are now also made from modern constructs such as steel and plastic", is not a NPOV.--Ducha mps_comb —Preceding comment was added at 14:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The materials that a dummy is made of have nothing to do with NPOV on Wikipedia. Saying things like "this is the only way to do it" or "Traditionally, this is how a dummy is used" goes against NPOV. Saying that dummies are now being made with other materials is a statement of fact, and one has only to look at web pages selling dummies made out of other materials. I prefer wood (teak) my self, but this is an encyclopedia and we have to include the facts. The opening paragraph is in reference to all mook jong apparatuses, not just a specific sub-set (i.e. wing chun). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good logic, I see your point. So your view is that the issue of not having the page be "Wing Chun" heavy? Still to say it was "traditionaly placed in the ground" is NPOV. Maybe we could add information that is "style neutrial" in the history? --Ducha mps_comb 22:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could say that in the wing chun section for sure (About being traditionally planted in the ground). For other arts and their dummies it may not be true. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, of corse it's TRUE as all of the "arts" branched off from shaolin... Itis only in modern day we have stands and freestanding dummys. Yes, Martial artists have always used things to simulate an opponent, one a living tree, and two a log in the ground! (regardless of style)--Ducha mps_comb MFA 18:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) No, not all arts dummies were always planted in the ground. b)Wing Chun is not considered a "shaolin" art by everyone. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-Man (Atari 2600)

Thanks for cleaning up my edit. Have a great day! -DevinCook (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Chun

hi, what was the reason of this edit? It contained interesting information and was referring to another website. Pundit|utter 15:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put back part of it (which was actually my information). The first sentence however was WP:OR. That user has been engaged in disruptive editing across several pages, trying to push WP:OR and has in fact been blocked for this conduct. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and happy new year! Pundit|utter 15:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you to! --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's just been blocked again, so we should be good for whatever the block period was for. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research. The style that Koonleg50 refer to is associated with the White Crane style coming out of Fujian province. So your incorporation of Koonleg50's contribution is correct - the article points out that there is another style of this name. In the chinese articles, Kooonleg50's styles are referred to as 永春白鶴拳 (Wing Chung White Crane) or 少林永春拳 (Shaolin Wing Chun), if he keeps his information in those sections, then I think we all will be happy. After more research, I will make a note of this style in the list of chinese martial arts and the section on White Crane. I think this should satisfy everyone. --Ottawakungfu (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at that, can't read Chinese so left them in (tidied up) with the improvement tag article is looking better but still not great --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Omegatron is trying to push his opinion on MOSNUM again

User:Swtpc6800 brought this to my attention. Fnag aton 17:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub sorting: Atari-stub v. Atari-console-stub

I'm a little confused why instances of {{Atari-console-stub}} are being replaced with {{Atari-stub}} (e.g. Barnstorming diff). Both fall into Category:Atari stubs, where it is stated: "To add an article about a game released on an Atari console, use {{Atari-console-stub}}." I don't see any discussion on the Talk pages of the stub templates themselves to indicate that one has superseded another. D. Brodale (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Atari related pages fall under the Atari Task Force part of the Video Games Wikiproject. We're trying to use a unified look for all related stub entries, and have a listing of all used stubs under the project. I believe that Atari console stub is an older stub. If you want to use it, feel free to replace the joystick image with the one being used by the task force and place the template tag on the Atari Task Force page as well. The only thing I'm concerned with is having the games under "Atari Console Stub", since that title more denotes an actual console. I think it might be better to have it under an "Atari Game Stub"? Then that would set precedent for using other more specific stubs like "Atari Arcade Stub", "Atari Personality" stub, etc. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm misreading things, the stub templates all date to the same time period (mid-2007) in fulfillment of a request to WikiProject Stub sorting. The naming convention (i.e. your remarks re: "console") may stem from common usage by the Project, though I haven't investigated such. I suppose that would be the place to go to sort this out (I haven't had time to). Unrelated: I did note that the "Atari developers" template mentioned at the base of the Atari Task Force page is redlinked. D. Brodale (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, never saw the request there or the resulting stub sort. And I'll try and create the developers template later on tonight. Also, feel free to joine the Atari Task Force as well, love to have you on board. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As should be clear, I'm fuzzy on the details myself. I just want to sort things out to avoid stepping on anyone's toes. D. Brodale (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tube_bar (talk · contribs) and Stonic (talk · contribs)

If this is true, has there been a checkuser done on him? Should there not then be an indefblock template on Tube_bar's talk/user pages now? Or am I jumping the gun here, and the process is already running its course? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not jumping the gun. I haven't done it yet because I've had dealings with this guy off of wikipedia, and he's basically a psychotic person that will go all out to get what he wants (including harassment and "shady" methods". You're seeing some of the early stages of this in the discussion. The second I get involved, it was escalate it in to a whole new level. I'll point you to the thread in the discussion forum of Digital Press, where he's posting as Stonic and documenting what he's all been doing here - "the trouble with Wikipedia". I believe that also constitutes politicking, as he's trying to incite people to start up on Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, apparently I don't have access to "the trouble with Wikipedia"; I have to be logged in? No thanks. I won't even create a log in for The New York Times! I'm more of a simple vandal person. I can handle that. Not psycho Wikitrollers. Have fun! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: your comment to my talk page

Ehhhhhkcellent! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 03:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BL request

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#www.digitpress.com_repeated_spam_on_Wikipedia. I've added back the request, I'd like for more input. Also linked to a spam report. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed it because I didn't think it was needed because of Rlevse's initiation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Blacklist.3F. And truthfully, I was trying to skirt retaliation on myself. The user (Stonic - Scott) and his affiliates have a history of going from various IP's to register there, on ebay, and through various email accounts to harass a group of individuals (atariage, Curt Vendel of Atarimuseum, and Matt Reichart of atariprotos.com), and unfortunately they spilled it over to Wikipedia. The owner of AtariAge was going to share the logs for the several anonymous IP's (they simultaneously registered dummy accounts at atariage with those IP's to harass people there), if that would have helped things, but it appears unnecessary now. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous-ness

The more the anonymous user posts the more the user is likely to make a mistake that gives conclusive proof they are the banned user. ;) Fnag aton 23:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the long you wait to report it the more it will seem its just because of a difference of opinion rather than vigilance against a banned user. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but when I try to submit a sock puppet report against NotSareene or Sarenne I'm told the page should not be edited due to previous sock puppet reports? Fnag aton 11:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user has now been blocked for two weeks. Fnag aton 12:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you need a laugh check the edit history of my talk page and the edit history of the same IP user trying to blank the report you made. It is definitely a pattern with Sarenne that this user appears, makes arguments that are incorrect and then self destructs by using random vandalism. It's going to take me a while to collate all these IPs into the ongoing Sarenne sock puppet page. Fnag aton 20:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade game ports removal

Hello, I added a few comments to some arcade game pages and you reverted them all. I don't want to play this game and I'm sure you have a good reason. It would also be nice if I knew it. Please let me know. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.16.119 (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summaries said it all, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. They were removed because a)You're spamming links and content about your site, and b)They're not licensed ports and not allowed here by the guidelines. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to those guidelines that describe what can be included on some pages, will you? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSMain (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first there's WP:COI regarding promoting your own material. Then there's Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines with regards to content related to modern remakes/homebrew clones, etc. not being allowed, more specifically because of copyright violation. Unless you can produce official documentation on licensing of those games from Atari and Taito there's a big problem, because those are still active and protected properties of those companies. If they are officially licensed ports and documentation of said licensing or permission from those companies is provided, then there's no problem. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microprose

Is there any way to verify that? I coudl start a accound named "Nintendo", doesn't mean I would be from them. Besides, adding unsourced material isn't acceptable, and I was letting them know that they have to source the info (hence why it was only the Level 1 warning, which is assuming good faith level). TJ Spyke 23:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, yah, I just got done working with their people to write this article. I'm telling you, its their account, i.e. I know the person there contributing the edits. I told them to fill out their main page to indentify them. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated content

This site pays anyone to write articles on any subject. The writers are paid by the numbers of visits their stories receive. Thus it qualifies as both self-published and spam, as they have clear economic reasons to create these links. Thus, the link should not be used. Stealthound (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's just not right in this case. Self-published sources are allowed in this context (see WP:SELFPUB), likewise you need to document that the link was actually put here by someone looking to advertise their article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Admin Noticeboard. I won't revert again, but I do believe that there is a growing consensus on this. Stealthound (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Binary prefixes - Again

Hello Marty, this new talk section may be of interest to you. Fnag aton 11:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source clones considered harmful?

Clones and homebrew games do not inherently violate copyright. The Wikipedia rule says "Modern remakes (homebrew clones) ... may infringe on copyrighted works" (emphasis added). However, no copyright violations occur in the games linked-to -- all content was freely available (CC, PD, etc.) or created from scratch, and the code was created from scratch. The original games' names were also not infringed upon (e.g., strcmp("ICBM3D", "Missile Command") != 0)

The games in question are all open source and are in 'good standing' -- most (if not all) are included in Debian GNU/Linux, for example.

Wikipedia has plenty of actual articles on 'cloned' games, as well. See for example, two 'clones' I created:

SuperTux (it was originally a 'clone' of Super Mario Bros., but uses all of its own content, etc.)
Tux,_of_Math_Command (a 'clone' of the game "Missile Command", but created as a math game)

As well as an article on a commercial product that is, literally, a collection of cloned games:

South_Park:_Chef's_Luv_Shack

I was merely following what I had seen on some other articles (e.g., Defender already linked to my "Defendguin" game; Breakout links to some other external site with a game). Please realize that there is a benefit to society when one creates Open Source interpretations of commercial games. It allows decades-old game design concepts live on, even if the originals are no longer available. Additionally, it does so in a free, open, a modifiable way. The kind of work I've been doing for the past decade is precisely the reason Tux Paint and Tux, of Math Command are part of Google Summer of Code this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billkendrick (talk • contribs) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, the clone games having been coded from scratch has nothing to do with the issue. They are based on IP of the owner of the copyrights. I helped write the guideline, I know what what its there for, and its not what you're trying to say. "May violate" was refering to a clone being licensed or having permission (conditions where it would not violate). And the erason it was being applied to all modern homebrew/clones is WP:Notability. Likewise please realize that open source interpretations, regardless of the nobilitiy of open source, still violate the protected IP of the copyright owner. The guideline was created via consensus for the express purpose of a) protecting Wikipedia, and b) Cutting down on frivilous links, as external links sections were overgrown with lists of links to clones. Clones provide no benefit to Wikipedia external links, other than to promote the software for the author. External links have a very specific policy on content. Unless they were clones of historical value (i.e. clones released many years ago that have demonstrated value on their own), they're not allowed here. This is nothing personal, and goes across the board. Thanks for bringing the other links to my attention, they will be dealth with via the project as well. However, Breakout does not link to an unlicensed clone, it links to an officially licensed version of SuperBreakout. Likewise, a game article on your game existing is not a measure of its validity of being here. It simply means it hasn't been challenged to WP:Notability yet. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to Marty Goldberg for his contributions to most every video game article on Wikipedia. His continual work on improving this realm of the encyclopedia is very appreciated. — Frecklefσσt \| Talk

		The VG Barnstar
		Marty Goldberg has been award the VG Star for his tireless contributions to the video games articles on Wikipedia. — Frecklefσσt \| Talk

New MOSNUM policy to address more than just binary prefixes

Congrats on your barnstars. Since you voted on a proposal to no longer routinely use the IEC prefixes (kibibytes & KiB), I thought you’d be interested to know that the best we could muster at this time is a more general principal here on MOSNUM. I’m sorry I couldn’t deliver anything better at the moment. However, I hope you will agree that it speaks to the basic principal underlying that whole debate. Greg L (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burgerspace

Hi. You removed an edit I made to burgerspace, citing some clone guideline. That's news to me -- can you point me to the specific guideline so I don't make the mistake again? Thanks. 170.140.212.26 (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right here, item number 2. - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Unsuitable_content. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]