User talk:Wbdavis29

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Wbdavis29, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Qbert[edit]

After looking at your username and edit history, I assume this might be Warren Davis. If that is correct, I consider it quite fortuitous to have the opportunity to bump into you. Regardless of your identity, let me be the first to welcome you to Wikipedia. :-)

Anyway, I am Guyinblack25, the main editor that got Q*bert to its current state, a Good article (GA) rating. I would like to discuss the recent edits you made to the article. If you are Warren Davis, then you would have an inside track to the development of the game. Something that I didn't have when researching for the article. However, that would also bring up a few issues.

The primary one is a conflict of interest. While I sure you want to make things as accurate as possible, I must admit that the edits show your contributions to the game in a more favorable light. With your help, however, I'm sure this issue can be resolved. And the article can be edited to comply with Wikipedia's policies. To be honest, I was a little confused when I was wrote the first few paragraphs because some pieces of info didn't quite fit together. Even though they were all based on interviews, there were a few bits that conflicted between Kent's The Ultimate History of Video Games, Retro Gamer's The Making of Q*bert feature, and Edge's The Making of Q*bert feature.

The reason I used those three sources for research is because they satisfy Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Such sources are required for the article to be rated GA, and demonstrate to the reader that the article is accurate. I stumbled across CoinOp.org in my research, but avoided using it because it has not been established as a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. Also, because it looked like I got everything I needed about development from the three sources above.

Anyway, my goal is to make sure the article is as accurate as possible while complying with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, of which there are many unfortunately. If you don't mind, I'd like to go over my sources again and try to flesh out the development with you. We can discuss the details at Talk:Q*bert, which is a discussion page specifically to discuss improvements to the article. If you have any question, please don't hesitate to ask. Have a good day. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've started a discussion at Talk:Q*bert#Development inconsistencies. You input on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]