Talk:Bruce Woodcock (computer games analyst)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Update[edit]

There hasn’t been any news on Bruce for a while. His website hasn’t been updated for half a year, he hasn’t made any public appearances for quire a while and hasn't responded to e-mails. Anyone know what’s up? DocVM 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was dead for a while. But now I'm alive again. Actually I've been so busy consulting I haven't had any time to update the website for public consumption. My email box is filled with spam. But I just got back from GDC and hopefully I'll be able to put together something new. SirBruce 17:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With mmogchart never updating, why doesn't someone else pick up the job? We really would like to see some new numbers! 85.227.226.168 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has... http://www.mmogdata.com/ Seems that someone has taken SirBruce's data and added to it. Should that be mentioned in the article now? DocVM 12:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I don't think this link has any place on Bruce's page. If there were a page on mmogchart then it would be highly useful to redirect people to this new page, however. 195.24.29.51 14:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- What is the purpose of having a wikipedia page for a person who 'maintains' a small website which hasn't been updated in over a year as of this post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.107.118 (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Changes[edit]

While I think the entry is very good overall, there are some changes I think would improve the article.

Where it says:

eventually leaving in 1997 with $250,000 in stock options. He started to maintain a presence on the Yahoo! financial message boards as he closely tracked the performance of Network Appliance, helped the company's fortunes, and built his own portfolio to $3 million.[1]

I don't think my personal wealth is really all that relevant to my notability; in fact, the article quoted was really not about the money I had made, but my status on the Yahoo finance boards. Indeed, it is this sort of activity that's far more relevant to my subsequent interest in MMOGs. I think instead the entry should be revised to remove the dollar figures and instead focus on my emerging status as a micro-celebrity, also known as a brand champion or brand ambassador.

In the Public Speaker section, add:

What the Market Research Tells Us - Where MMOs are Going and How Are we Going to Get There (Speaker), Austin Game Conference, September 6, 2006

In the References section:

Change Biography to point to the new one: http://www.gameconference.com/speakers/brucewoodcock.html

Remove the higher entry for "Network Appliance's Knight of the Message Boards", since it's already listed lower down in chronological order.

Anyone who wants to make these changes (in lieu of me doing it myself) is welcome to do so.

Bruce —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirBruce (talk • contribs) 07:42, July 5, 2006

Non-NPOV?[edit]

This article seems a little.. politically correct might be the term. I remember SirBruce from the LumTheMad forums and jokingly recall his title of 'The Man Most Banned From Forum Boards', not to mention the WW2O controversy things. While I don't remember the exact details of everything that happened, perhaps someone else could come up with counterpoints to the situations I've mentioned? It doesn't seem right for all the good to be posted without all the bad. I'll see what I can remember and find out. PratzStrike 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional viewpoints would be great. One of the main sticking points so far, is that "controversial" information, especially about someone who's living (as opposed to a historical figure) on Wikipedia has to be referenced, meaning it has to be linked to an outside source somewhere that isn't a message board or blog. So Lum's forums, in general, can't really be used as a source.  :/ Check the Wikipedia policies at WP:LIVING for more details. If you can find other sources though that verify the participation or controversy, then I fully agree, that would be an excellent addition to this article. --Elonka 10:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to add that I have no problem with controversies being added, but as Elonka said, she would prefer them to be sourced. I think it would be fair include a general blurb that I also became notable for butting heads with various people on the LtM/SND/P2P and other such forums, but I don't know if there's really a need to go into specifics since individual controversies probably never rose to a sufficiently notable level. SirBruce 03:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the no blog/no message board rule for sourcing, Bruce is probably in the clear, since message boards (and Usenet prior) were the 'scenes of the crime' as it were. Since I have personal experience from the time and can act as a hopefully NPOV source I'll add a brief sentence. Feel free to edit as appropriate. SJennings 15:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that the no blog/no message board rule has been heavily relaxed due to circumstances like this one where we're describing something that happened on blogs and message boards. Phil Sandifer 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you went a little further than butting heads, Bruce. You were highly entertaining, but you had a talent for getting under peoples' skin. I don't think I ever saw Lum get that frustrated with anyone else who wasn't actively trying to get banned.

I also think a mention of your post-response style might be useful. "SirBrucing a post" was a commonly understood term on the message boards I frequented after LTM went away, and it's an adequate descriptive term with a colorful history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.147.124 (talk • contribs) 19:56, August 10, 2006

Category: St. Louisans[edit]

According to Category:St. Louisans people associated with the town of Sullivan should be included in the category, but the two other notable Sullivan people, Bottomly and Harney, are not listed in the category. However, Sullivan does fall within the geographic boundary defined for the category. Given this, I have no problem being added to the St. Louisans category, and I think if there needs to be a change, it should be a redefinition of the St. Louisans category to represent only a much smaller area. SirBruce 20:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City limits aside, how do you regard yourself? Someone from Missouri? Or someone from St. Louis? :) --Elonka 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter? I regard myself as a lot of things that don't meet the defined Wikipedia criteria for those categories. SirBruce 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it matters, because it would help in the discussion about who Category:St. Louisans should apply to. As you're from one of the areas on the borderline, your opinion can help to clarify Wikipedia guidelines on this matter. Though it might be a violation of WP:AUTO for you to edit your own bio, you are as welcome as anyone else on the internet to participate in Wikipedia policy discussions. So perhaps I should rephrase the question: "To a typical resident of Sullivan, Missouri, do you they regard themselves more as "from Missouri", or "from St. Louis"? :) --Elonka 23:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I agree my opinion would matter for THAT discussion, but it hardly matters for THIS discussion. SirBruce 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Woodcock was a British Champion Boxer![edit]

It is distressing to me to find that Bruce Woodcock's famous name has been co-opted by a young modern computer games programmer with a website. Google his honorable name and see what you get! This is just one reference to him [1]. The late Bruce Woodcock was England's most famous heavyweight boxer, and fought for the world heavyweight title endorsed by the British Boxing Board of Control when he lost to America's Lee Savold in June 1950. His boxing record is a piece of boxing history, and I think that this Mr. Woodcock should graciously concede and re-title his page in some way, and let the famous Bruce Woodcock be the simple name belonging to the boxer. And if a technical reason needs to be given, Bruce Woodcock's name appears in several other boxer's pages, but is not linked, because you, sir, keep popping up! I've no doubt that someone will write him up, but I don't have the time. - JohnClarknew 07:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the boxer is notable. He's already referred to on such pages as Abergele, Freddie Mills, and Lee Savold, among others. I'd recommend making a stub page at Bruce Woodcock (boxer), and then we can work out later whether Bruce Woodcock should point to one or the other, or just be a disambiguation page that points to both equally.  :) But until there's an actual page on the boxer, it's moot. --Elonka 07:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see that this has already been worked out to everyone's satisfaction so quickly. Bruce Woodcock was my boyhood hero, famous for his "glass jaw". Now he has the start of his own page. Thank you for the intervention. JohnClarknew 15:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Removed[edit]

I'm not sure exactly what happened, but some crazy automatic program deleted my picture claiming it was dispurated non-free content. It wasn't, and in any case was uploaded before the appropriate date and no notice was given. Elonka, could you restore the image? (SirBruce (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

As I am the original source of the photo, I've reuploaded it and released it into the public domain. SJennings (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Scott, that'll work, though we'll probably want to get the image moved over to the Commons at some point (that way its in a central location from which it can also be used in other language 'pedias). I can handle that, if you want. Also, since you're online, I'd appreciate if you could doublecheck the latest rewrite at Lum the Mad? If you see anything that needs changing, let us know. :) --Elonka 11:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self Promotion[edit]

I do not believe this page deserves to be on Wikipedia. You can clearly see the majority of edits and additions are made by the user himself. This includes removing content he did not think was flattering, even though it was true and verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notsirbruce (talk • contribs) 08:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. This article has been proposed for deletion before and that motion was defeated. My entry has been primarily written by others, not myself, and includes many facts that I would not include as a self-promotion vehicle. I have, however, been undoing the changes by yourself and the user before you (assuming you're not the same person), as they are basically vandalizing attempts by someone with a personal axe to grind regarding a forum discussion. This issue is beyond the scope of the Wikipedia entry, and no more valid for inclusion than the forum post where I allegedly supported date rape. Please refrain from such edits in the future if you're not familiar with Wikipedia policies. Normally Elonka would monitor this entry for such changes but she is currently indisposed. (SirBruce (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
This is disengenuous to the core. To quote you, "But yes, I have pirated games! At least I'm willing to admit to doing so." "In my mind, it's okay to *try* it first, yes, and if trying it I find out it's six hours long with no replay value, I'm not going to buy it." You then go on to suggest others pirate short games as well. These comments are public record, anyone can check that thread. While the whole tone of your entry is self-serving, to you yourself remove negative, quoted information about yourself is to break a fundamental ideal behind wikipedia. If every ranting idiot who pirated games had an entry in Wikipedia, where would we be? And yet, that is where we are.
May I suggest you study this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notsirbruce (talk • contribs) 09:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're disingenuous to the core, and Wikipedia does not welcome your vandalism. Again, there is *plenty* of negative information about me, and about others, that aren't in their entries. It's not notable, and it's not relevant. (SirBruce (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
This new information is notable. You are a man who is only on Wikipedia for writing about video games. With your admission of piracy,you note that the length of a game is what is important to you. So an outstanding 5 hour game that cannot be replayed would, or in your case, should be pirated because it does not fit your criteria of a good game. That is important and it is important only for the reason you are here.
That you continually object to this piece of truth only speaks to its importance to you.
The fact is verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notsirbruce (talk • contribs) 05:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, looks like you're having a spot of difficulty. First, Notsirbruce, I'd highly suggest getting an account name change; names that attempt to impersonate or attack other users are against Wikipedia username policy. Speaking of policies, before you both get to far in to this debate, can I suggest that you look over Wikipedia's policies and make sure you're familiar with them?

Sirbruce, please especially read our guidelines on conflicts of interest; its important to note that some editor may come along and flag the article to be checked for neutrality because of your editing here.

Notsirbruce, please provide a third-party reliable source (See WP:V nad WP:RS policies) for information you want to include. Also, if you plan on contributing to this talk page or article, its going to be very important that you read the policy on biographies of living people. You may be blocked from editing very quickly if you do not follow that policy here.

Hope that helps everyone. Please feel free to contact me if there's anything I can do to help. Shell babelfish 06:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to understand that quoting the person's own words and providing links to those words is not a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notsirbruce (talk • contribs) 07:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forum posts are, in general, not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Especially in the case of controversial claims, you need a trusted third-party source that verifies that claim. Reliable sources are discussed in detail at WP:RS. Shell babelfish 07:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stepping in Shell. Like I said, Elonka would normally be policing this page but she is currently indisposed so I needed another administrator to step in. I'm quite aware of the policies you cite, but under the guidlines Dealing with edits by the subject of the article I feel entirely justified in my actions. I actually don't think this an issue of reliable sourcing, and although it was motivated as a personal attack, the really issue os one of relevance. I'm sure plenty of people in the video game industry have a variety of controversial opinions on issues like game piracy, game censorship, griefing, and so on. Yet it is not relevant to enumerate these opinions in every biography of such people, even if they are known. Only in the cases were the person is particularly notable or active in that topic should it even be considered for inclusion. Shell, I also encourage you to check the user HolloHollo and 24.17.15.190; Notsirbruce could simply be a sock puppet. (SirBruce (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
No problem at all, just wanted to make sure that someone had show the applicable policies to you so that you didn't accidentally run afoul of them. I'll take a look into those accounts you mention, thanks. Shell babelfish 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWII Online Discussion[edit]

While I appreciate the efforts of FCYTravis on this page, I have reverted the edits that were made taking out the stuff about my notability regardily WWII Online. That section was agreed upon way back when this article was first constructed and I don't want to have it deleted at a time when another user is accusing me of vanity. That paragraph was not the contentious information that brought this article attention; it was Notsirbruce's edits that were at issue. Now, if you think that section really should be edited down, I think there's an argument to be made, but I think other users would be more comfortable with an edited version that still reflected their interests rather than removing it from the entry entirely. (SirBruce (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It doesn't have sources, and thus any accusation of "vanity" you might receive for its removal, I consider to be completely invalid. I think you've been more than patient with the accusations. I consider a paragraph that, without a single source, calls your forum activity "pedantic" and "confrontational" to be written in a flawed and biased manner. FCYTravis (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can agree with you that it is flawed and biased. :) But it's certainly true that I achieved some notoriety for it which many others felt important to include in my entry. Certainly the "SirBrucing" label is accurate; perhaps just the line about being pedantic and confrontational should be removed. As far as sourcing goes, it would just be forum links, so they wouldn't apply here unless I myself wanted to include them under WP:SELFPUB.(SirBruce (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I have removed the following paragraph:
Woodcock has been no stranger to controversy among MMO community forums. He participated in the MMO community forums for World War II Online, and as the game shipped and users become frustrated with its flaws, Woodcock became a lightning rod for the community's anger. As Woodcock moved from game advocate to game analyst, his postings became less contentious.
I'm not saying that the information is false.  :) However, to put something like that in a Wikipedia bio, per the policy on Biographies of living people, we need multiple sources that affirm that the information is notable. The only thing that message board posts can really be used for, is to source "Woodcock said <quote>". We can't draw our own conclusions based on those comments. Now, if someone else has sources showing that Woodcock's participation was notable, then the information can go back in, but we should stick very closely to what the sources say. --Elonka 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well let me just say that, generally speaking, I am not opposed to *something* along those lines being said, even if it's a negative comment, so long as it's factual. But I shall defer to the expertise of other editors. (SirBruce talk) 20:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Editing[edit]

DaveBurstein (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Removed the editing limits because they do not seem to reflect current issues. Edited substantially because much of the article was out of date (old stock portfolio) or items not appropriate for Wikipedia (parent's name, high school, etc.). I'm comfortable including his work in the gaming field and believe the article appropriate.[reply]

In particular, following the link to the value of his stock portfolio to a year 2000 Business Week article, I discovered "Network Appliance stock makes up 85% of his more than $3 million personal portfolio." I checked and Network Appliance stock has since declined about 80%. With no information on whether he lost 80% or changed things after 2000, I decided to delete this as out of date. People who made millions and then lost them in technology options are so common in that period I wouldn't include this information even with more current information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveBurstein (talk • contribs) 21:38, June 16, 2008

It is not good form to remove sourced information as "out of date". Business Week is a reliable source. As for checking current stock price, that's what is called original research and is against Wikipedia policies. I am restoring the information. If you would like to change it, preferably by adding further sources, please do, but please do not removed sourced information. --Elonka 22:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bruce Woodcock (computer games analyst). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bruce_Woodcock_(computer_games_analyst)&oldid=1210992070"