Newsflash, buddy: IF IT WAS COPYWRIGHTED IT WOULDN'T BE POSTED AT YOUTUBE WITHOUT DUE REFERENCES! And when was I warned? Wiki has my e-mail address, no? People remove material all the time, why are you singling me out? Do you work for Cheung? Are you a Wikipedia representative? I'm just trying to post the truth!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alouicious (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken - copyrighted material gets posted to Youtube all the time, posting to youtube does not denote non-copyright status. You were warned in the edit summaries, which is viewable by clicking the history tab. The first time, per policy, good faith editing was assumed. Subsequent reverts prompted the current response. I am not affiliated with Cheung (which is irrelevant regardless), and you trying to put in "the truth" is subjective - however Wikipedia policies on content, biographies, references, etc. are not. Likewise, nobody is singling anyone out. When material is removed without explanation, and repeatedly done over and over when reverted, that is what is termed as forcefull editing and is normally addressed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am merely trying to point out the truth(since no one has so far): that Cheung repeatedly boasted that his style was the only true style, and then proceeded to be publicly beaten by another Wing Chun practitioner. He apparently learned nothing, because he still says the same thing to this day. He has been very devisive to the Wing Chun community, much more so than Botzepe. Much of the material in the article is highly subjective as well, and is not backed up with any references. So I would also question your motives. Also, the video that you have condemned me for referencing is the same one that is referenced in the external link in the article, I was merely trying to call more direct attention to it. True, I need to study Wiki policy more- but at this point I don't care to, since many articles are clearly influenced by the opinions of small groups of individuals such as yourself, and are not objectively written.
Are you the same Marty Goldberg that used to have the Wing Chun publication in Florida? Because if so, you were indeed trained in the Cheung sustem of Wing Chun- And I hardly think that is irrelevant! Of course you are not unbiased!
And BTW that's not my only contribution, I have tried to improve other articles by providing references , etc. And please don't go deleting them- if they don't meet your standards fix them don't delete them. Fortunately I have made many 'contributions' anonymously, so you can't track them down and undo them. In any case, if you want me to leave your pet Wiki page alone them show me the same respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alouicious (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the one that had the publication in Florida is Martin Mark. I am not with William Cheung's family, and once again that would have little bearing if I was as long as Wikipedia policy if followed to keep material neutral. Again, you've been pointed to the relevant policies, I'd suggest becoming familiar with them. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was never a agreement that obscure consoles would be removed, and accuatly they are notable, as they are consoles that do exzist, also It would make more sence to have infomation about obscure consoles on wikipedia then common ones because everybody all ready knows everything there is to know about commen consoles, whereas uncommon consoles not everybody knows about them. More to the point, obscure consoles are releavent to any article that involves consoles, I belive more infomation needs to be known about obscure consoles, templetes make obscure consoles much easy to acsess and most importantly, there was no agreement that I could not relist obscure consoles and most importantly user 72.89.95.234 agreed that he would relist the consoles but said that IF A USER HAS A DISSAGREEMENT they could take the edits down, which I did, there was never a agreement that the edit was permenant, anyhow, on wikipedia the only reason there will not be a article created for a subject, dog, cat, games console etc... is if it does not exzist, for exzample I can not make a article for GTA 6 or the PlayStation 9 because neither do exzist, but I can make a article for Myst for the Atari Jaguar CD because both the game Myst and the Atari Jaguar CD exzist, and as always the reason I am a user on wikipedia is because I want to contribute to wikipedia to give more accesable and more detailed infomation for users of this site. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mcjakeqcool, there was a discussion on what the template is about and an agreement on consensus. This has nothing to do with 72.89.95.234. Nobody is saying the articles should go or they're not notable enough to be on wikipedia. However, Wikipedia does have policies against long lists, which is what this becomes listing every single console. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always do try my very best to contribute to wikipedia, and I apoligize sincerely do any wikipedia user or overwise, if I have caused inconvenience. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is Star Trek by For-Play? I can't find it anywhere. Please tell me, thanks. 83.11.48.138 (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply a pirate/clone of Computer Space and listed on that page. It has nothing to do with the Star Trek brand or series of coin-ops and home console/computer games. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marty, I'm almost done with my draft of "List of Space Invaders games". I posted at WT:VG for some general help, but I'd really appreciate your historical insight as the list covers SI games from 1978 to present. (Guyinblack25talk 19:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for the comments.
Just to get your thoughts on the matter. At WT:VG, I'm discussing whether or not the LCD games should be included. To me, the difference between average video games and LCD games has always been a grey area. My main thought against including them is that I've been unable to find reliable sources for most of them. Also, I'm unsure which are licensed by Taito and which are just rip-offs. :-\ Any other comments you have would be greatly appreciated. (Guyinblack25talk 17:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Hate to keep bugging you about this list, but I had one more question. Do you know if the 1999 WonderSwan version is the same as the home ports of Space Invaders DX (Space Invaders: The Original Game)? It features the same box art as the Saturn version. I currently have it as a version of the original 78 arcade though. (Guyinblack25talk 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Not a problem, I'm always happy to help out. Regarding question 1, I responded at WT:VG. As far as reliable sources, we had already gone over reliable sources for vintage handheld games in the whole handheld games definition discussion at that page. Electronic Plastic is the web page for the book and published author on the subject. handheld games museum is also another database and authoritative site with entries and pictures of said items you really just don't see anywhere else, and has been used by sources like Wired. As far as licensed games, any that were from reputable companies and actually had the name Space Invaders with the logo were licensed. All the other unlicensed versions (and there were a lot) were not. Entex had several very good unlicensed ones under the name "Space Invader" for instance. As far as the Wonderswan port, I'll have to see if I can dig up the rom to check it out. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few at Electronic Plastic, and will add them in later. It would probably be better to cite the book instead though. :-\
I'm trying to build a rationale for Handheld Museum to present at WP:FLC. The only reliable sources I've found so far are a CNET Asia article that was originally on Tech Republic and a Kotaku article from one of their associate editors. I believe they've been mentioned in Retro Gamer as well. I'll have to check when I get home. I found a Joystiq article, but I couldn't find much about the author's reliability so I'll probably leave it out. Everything else looked only like photo credits, which doesn't further reliability for text content.
Not sure if three reliable sources is enough though. Do you know of any more credits for Handheld Museum? (Guyinblack25talk 21:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Not at the top of my head, I'll have to dig. The main thing you have to look for is what separates it from a fan site, which I believe will solve the main issue of reliability and notability. And I think in a case where references are sparse to this specific subtopic are sparse, such sites are admissible. I did that with the handheld article to show the existence of the early em based handheld game since the only other mention and photo were at a blog. At the very least, you can refer to it for photograph only instead of reliability of the text. I.E. a page at that site can be used to verify the object exists (which is shown by the multitude of photos of it), without specifically referring to the text on it. Which is something I also did in regards to that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I'll be sure to include that in the rationale. Also, I found the magazine (Retro Gamer issue 42 p. 107). David Ellis also listed them as an additional resource in his book Official Price Guide to Classic Video Games. Hopefully that'll be enough. (Guyinblack25talk 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Can't stand the new article. Utter crap when held to WP standards, in my opinion. Gut instinct was to revert back to old version. I don't want to scare away the contributor, but that isn't how WP works...at all. Thoughts? -Pecoc (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say if you revert it, just also take the time to explain to him about what standards his edits violates. It does look like his edits are more of an advertisement nature. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough removing my link to 8 bit family I hadn't notice the link was in the lead. But then if i dont who does? This article on the whole I think needs a bit of rearrangement when I get the mind of how I would, can I talk to you to discuss them? There's nothing particularly wrong in the article just somehow it doesnt seem to flow very well. SimonTrew (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep removing my revision to the video game consoles list page?
It is true that the N64 was not a fully 64bit console as it did not have a 64bit Data bus and thus the machine itself only had limited access to 64bit machine interactions, thus it is a misnomer to put it into the "64-bit era" section without making note of this fact. KernelExcqtable(talk) 20:19, 11 June 2009
Because a listing of console is not a place for personal opinion and insight (i.e. WP:OR). That's not how Wikipedia works, and any sort of conjecture in that regards belongs in the article backed up with reliable and notable references. Currently, I don't see anything in the N64 article that states your opinion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's not personal opinion, it is fact, the N64 was not a 64bit console...
Then you shouldn't have a big problem finding notable and reliable resources to add to back that up, stating verbatim that the N64 is not a 64bit console. Likewise, parenthesized statement are always looked down upon content wise, most of the other ones should be removed as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the article already states my logic,so why can I not include a simple statement as to the contested nature of it's position within the article, regards KL. Excqtable (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not state your logic, it simply lists what's inside the system, and in fact only discusses the Jaguar as not really being 64-bit. You taking the leap that because not all of it is 64-bit its not a 64-bit system is purely WP:OR, unless you find notable and reliable references stating that verbatim. Feel free to ask at the video game project discussion page as well, there's numerous people involved in WP:GA and WP:FA video game articles that would be able to answer as well. Regardless, it also doesn't change the fact that the parenthesized commentary littered about the console listing page doesn't belong there either. If you do manage to find references of the type needed, I would strongly suggest adding them to the Nintendo 64 article in the section discussing the Jaguar (since that section is already set up for a such a contrast). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can a person who is a software engineer not realise that a system that has a 64bit processor but not a 64bit bus, is not a 64bit system?
The article itself does not cite a source in it's technical specifications for showing that the bus is 32bit, thus if this technical information within the article does not need to be cited, why does mine, which utilises the technical information of the Wikipedia article, to draw a conclusion based on the information present? KL. Excqtable (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of my expertise, Wikipedia has specific rules - that expertise does not entitle someone to simply add to an article based on their own personal insight. It must still be backed up with reliable and notable references stating as such. Likewise, the fact that the article needs more references is precisely the point. Adding more unreferenced material does not help, and the existence of previous unreferenced material does not give you carte blanche to add more of your own. And again, you're describing the very definition of WP:OR with your last statement - you can't add material presented as fact based on drawn conclusions. That's classic WP:OR, period, stated right in the opening paragraph - "This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." Like I said, take it over to the video game project talk page and get commentary there. It looks like you just signed up today and I really don't want to go around in circles on my talk page any more explaining these basic Wikipedia concepts to you, and I'm thinking that's the best solution at this point. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you as a person with presumably a similar expertise to me, must of all people realise that one cannot cite a source on the definition of the capabilities of a system (specifically in bus size) as this cannot be a truly reliably cited source to laymen. The fact is that a layman will simply believe that because the system has a 64 bit CPU, it makes it a fully 64bit compliant system , whereas a person from a CS background will realise that the mere fact that the technical specifications mark the bus as 32bit, refute the statement. I cannot cite a source for something that is a logical conclusion, that would be understandable to a member of our field and yet would be on the same level of informational discourse as non-CS or EE professional.
I am well aware of the need for citation within the article and do not need it to be explained to me however I have no sources that can simply and reliably convey my thought process.
Do you have any suggestions as to how I could cite this within the article?
I am unaware of any articles located on the web that relate to system capabilities related to bus size, that would be comprehensive to a person who is not a member of this field. Any help would be appreciated KL. Excqtable (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it doesn't need to be just CS or EE publications or a source citing the definition of bus sizes vs. bitness. It needs to be in relation to the point you're trying to bring across - that its not a true 64-bit system. Notable and reliable means publications and sites that have an established and known standard of fact checking and review, and may in fact have notability themselves as a factual publication. Even something from Electronic Gaming Monthly or similar publications talking about the N64 not really being 64-bit could be used. Again, look to the Jaguar as a precedent on this - there has been plenty published on the debate of it not being a 64-bit system (even though as a multi-processor system its bootstrapping 68000 and data bus are not, but the main processors and memory bus are). It has to be handled in a neutral manner. I.E. both sides of the argument need to be presented, such as stating Nintendo promoted it as such and this was why, and then go on to state why its not and present references that state that. And please, no unencyclopedic parenthesized commentary in any content you do add to the N64. While it may be appropriate for an informal conversation (such as this), its not for an articles that strive to be encyclopedic except in cases of dates, and things of that nature. You may also want to dig up technical references to fill in throughout the article if you're actually interested in improving the Nintendo 64 article itself. And I think any effort you're trying to give in these respects is more than welcome. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware EGM had such an article, I will attempt to locate it... thank you for your help KL. Excqtable (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They may or may not, I was simply using that as an example of the type of references you can look for. The general rule of thumb is stay away from blogs and fan sites. Other resources that are questionable and you're not sure of, you can ask here or at the video games project (the project talk page is your friend, get acquainted with it for getting a consensus on something major), or in other cases on the article's own talk page. Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well "welcome back" to be more precise, I have not contributed in years, and seemed to have misplaced my old account info, anyway thank you for the kind words KL. Excqtable (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm trying to do some fact checking regarding Tetris: The Soviet Mind Game and it's history, which actually seems to be scattered across quite a few different articles. I was recommended to ask you about any additional information you might know regarding it (trying to avoid Game Over for the time being vs. the horses mouth) and help fixing any facts in the development section that may be off.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, what specific things did you have questions about? Or did you just want me to look over the history of the article? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just need the History section looked over to make sure it's correct. (sorry for the delay, been a bit mired down over the few days).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the heads up Marty. I'll keep them in mind if I ever get around to the main Tetris article. Thanks. (Guyinblack25talk 14:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The Video Games project deemed the AVGN as non-notable and unreliable with regards to reviews, and a spamming problem. The main issue was his "reviews" are for "entertainment purposes only", which leads to the problems mentioned above. As such, we've removed him from all video game articles with the exception of articles that directly deal with him as a subject. We also patrol other articles for spamming of his reviews. Feel free to talk to User:A_Man_In_Black as well, he's the main admin who enforces this along with a few other admins and myself. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd like to know your opinion on the criteria that should be used to determine which generation a console belongs to -- specifically, the Zeebo. I see you've made some reverts in disagreement with editors who believe it is not a seventh generation console; could you stop by the talk page for a debate? Thanks! -- claviola(talk to me) 03:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the issue just died out. If that was Davis, I hope I didn't scare him off. :-\ Either way, I'd appreciate it if you gave the article a sweep for inaccuracies. There were a few confusing parts when I wrote the first two paragraphs. When you have some free time of course. (Guyinblack25talk 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Please explain your deletion of my contributions.[edit]
You removed my contributions and cited three Wikipedia pages with codes of conduct. After reading all three pages it's my understanding that I was not in any violation of the codes of conduct. Can you explain? I feel the information I provided would afford users the opportunity to hear information that was and was not discussed within the wiki-pages of certain people within the video-game industry that appeared on that show. I also was sure to give specific time-codes so users can skip ahead to said information. Is there I better way to share this information? Can you please explain your deletion of my contributions so I can understand how I can contribute to Wikipedia without offending you. Thanks. --Run button (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1st, unlike what your previously removed statements on my talk page stated, most of those people (Ralph, Walter, Ben) happen to be personal acquaintances of mine. Secondly, your edits to my talk page and continued re-adding of them after being removed were indeed gross violations of codes of conduct on here, specifically WP:Civil and WP:Soapbox.
As to why the edits to the articles were removed, I was quite clear on your talk page. You are a new editor, whose only contributions were placing paragraphs that read like advertisements of a specific web site, across multiple pages (the WP:Spam explination). That sets up big flags here, because when its usually done its also by someone affiliated with the website (i.e. the WP:COI explination). The third explination was that the information is simply not notable to be included in the article by Wikipedia standards. The fact that he did an interview with a (by Wikipedia standards) non-notable site, does not make it notable enough to include in the main article as some sort of important event - it wouldn't even matter if the paragraph stated he did an interview with USA Today. These people give tons of interviews on a regular basis, what would make it any more notable than any of the others? The fact that someone gave an interview is not notable in the same was as say Ralph receiving the National Medal of Technology from the President. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for a broader explination on that. In the spirit of compromise however, and in the spirit of Wikipedia:Assume good faith now that you've toned down your rhetoric, I took the links to the interviews themselves and moved them from the main part of the article to a single external link in the external links section. The paragraphs themselves however, can't stay because of the above.
Now, the links themselves could wind up being used as a reference back in the article eventually. For example, Walter is doing a lot of work promoting his International Video Game Hall of Fame and Museum, and also getting Ottumwa, Iowa recognized as the birth place of video game competition. So if there were a section covering this, and say there was a statement by Walter used from said podcast (i.e. a quote), then the link to the podcast would be moved back in as a reference to said quote (and would use one of the reference templates on here that includes spaces for author, duration, etc. etc.). It would then at that time of course be removed from the external links section, since we don't include links twice.
Hopefully all of this explains the process here a little more. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I felt discouraged and bullied when my contributions were removed. Obviously I am a new user, but I do not have any connection to the We Talk Games website nor podcast, other than I'm a listener. I apologize for my less than kind words and my failure to comply. I didn't feel that I was spamming or advertising, I just thought I was sharing information. For example, Bushnell's interview with We Talk Games revealed that the selling of Atari Japan to Namco is what launched that company into the video-game industry, but this piece of history is absent from Bushnell's, Atari's, and Namco's wiki-pages. I thought I was truly contributing something new, not advertising. I appreciated you re-posting the links. For future reference, is that the appropriate place and format that I should use when posting that kind of content?--Run button (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a perfect example of what I was mentioning above that could be done. You could add a statement like "According to Nolan Bushnell, the selling of Atari Japan to Namco helped launch Atari Inc. in to the video game industry." to the articles you're talking about (just make sure you add it an a section that has related material, you don't want a random statement sitting in the middle of nowhere or the wrong section). And then you can use the specific podcast you got that from, as a reference. You would simply use one of the appropriate citation templates then within the reference tag (probably the television/radio one would be the appropriate one here) to list and link to the specific example. This would be a perfect example of a adding useful encyclopedic information, complete with a reference. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just put Pac-Man (Atari 2600) up for GAN. It's the last in line, so it will probably be there for a while. Anyway, I know you some time on the article and was hoping you could give it a sweep. (Guyinblack25talk 14:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Well, off the bat there's a contradiction in the development area. Development couldn't have first finished in April of '82 if it was already being shipped in March of '82 according to the release date sources. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. You deleted an addition I made to the Galaga page over a rule that a Wiki page should not be a walk-through. Okay. But did you have to DELETE it??? Geez, man, you could have just left it that there is a way to get the baddies to stop shooting and that it's programmed into all versions, and left the reference! Seriously, man, chill the heck out. You sure seem to be delete-happy... Deejaye6 (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's standard practice for gameguide material and I'm hardly the only one who does it. If you wish to contest such material being removed from articles based on the guideline, you're welcome to try and change consensus at both the video game project and that guideline's talk page. Likewise, please don't use my talk page for WP:SOAPBOX commentary. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't soapboxing. It's me not understanding your love of the delete key. You are removing valuable (and verifiable) information without even a warning! Most editors (upon seeing info they don't trust the reference of) will put a note on there asking for a better reference. Which I am glad to do. Is there a list of gaming sites that are "notable"?
[UPDATE]: Here is the most relevant information I can find on Wiki's rules regarding what is or isn't a reliable source. 'd like to know how my reference falls outside of this purview:
How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.
Again, this is not soapboxing. I'm asking you a question, as I don't think I violated any rules here.Deejaye6 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Making commentary about some supposed "love of the delete key" is soapboxing, plain and simple. Likewise, once again, information about cheats is considered gameguide material and removed - it is not considered valuable or important. Finally, a "cheat site" does not pass "high quality" or "reliable", sites that have editorial overview and pass the standards of the reference review for the video game project are. And a note for a "better reference" was not required - gameguide material that's being removed doesn't require it. Once again, the aim of Wikipedia articles is not to collect information. The aim of all articles here are to pass GAN and FAN status - something that requires peer review and that includes trimming of gameguide material of the type you were trying to put in. This has also been touched by an admin over on the Galaga discussion page. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I was referencing is when you said to me "you obviously don't know about these other lineages..." I was pointing out that a) my argument was not predicated on the assumption that the Yip Man lineage was the only one and b) statements about what other editors do or do not know are inferior to statements directed to the content of the other editor's argument. If you feel my reaction was overly strong I do appologize, I've been over at falun gong for too long. :) Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I told myself anyway. I had some projects finish up so I have more free time now. Hopefully I can catch up on the backlog I built up here during my "break". (Guyinblack25talk 16:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.
All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:
Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.
Go for it man. You've certainly earned a break. E.T. is interesting, but I've been dying to work on arcade games for a while now. Hopefully I'll have started actually editing for Defender (video game) when you get back.
Thanks for the sources too, I was starting to worry when I couldn't find any from the 80s. (Guyinblack25talk 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Very cool. Once I whittle down my todo list, I'd like to try some biographies or console articles. I'll definitely hit you up for more sources and fact checking if that ever happens.
Marty- Pac-Man (Atari 2600) is undergoing A-class review here, and a question was raised that I'm hoping you can answer since I never played the Atari 2600 version. Does every level in the game only have 4 power-pills or does it change? (Guyinblack25talk 17:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Just like the arcade version - 4 pellets. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marty- Hate to be a bother, but I've been having a hard time getting the gameplay footage for this game into the ogv format. I just don't have the time right now to edit out a short bit of gameplay and hunt down the ogv conversion process. Have you had any experience with this? (Guyinblack25talk 15:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'll see if I have any video editing software that handles ogg. Is there a reason it has to be converted to that instead of just the native .flv? Is wikipedia only embedding ogg format? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. Yes, Wikipedia only supports ogg files for audio and video because it's a free, open format. I was able to get the video in mp4, but don't have the software to edit that specific type or to convert the file to ogg. Any ideas? (Guyinblack25talk 16:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Yah, going to MP4 is the wrong direction. The original format on youtube is flv, and googling there are a number of free flv to ogg convertors (just make sure they're not just audio convertors, OGG apparently was primarily used for audio and video appears to be more recent. To get flv's off of youtube, just install realplayer. It comes with a plugin for IE that allows you to download any flv by simply moving your mouse over the video, causing a little popup to come up. Just click on it to download the flv automatically. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For fact checking, offering suggestions, and digging up sources that always seem to elude me for almost every classic video game articles I've worked on. Space Invaders, Pong, Pac-Man (Atari 2600) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) would not be what they are today without your help. Just wanted to let you know that your help does not go unnoticed and is greatly appreciated. (Guyinblack25talk 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'm a bit busy this week and I'm still trying to brush up on the facts of the argument. I'll try to post something tomorrow. (Guyinblack25talk 22:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
While looking at the edits of a user who was issuing personal attacks, I ended up on your talk page. I think you deserve this barnstar for keeping cool in multiple occasions when you were personally attacked by editors. Thanks for your work and for keeping a level head! -- GorillaWarfaretalk 17:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In your answer to #2, "Steve's birthplace incorrect" on the Steve Jobs talk page, you quote from his Smithsonian vocal history interview. But someone (Albert Ibarra) has vandalized this and confused the quote. If you have time to correct this, it might also be worth adding the date of that Smithsonian interview: 20 April 1995. After all, the gentleman protesting the birthplace says it is only "in the last few years" that the California birthplace has been mentioned. The interview was 14 years ago.
The Albert Ibarra footprint pops up again in #7 on the same page: "Current Status - as of September 2009". It notes that this second comment was unsigned & gives his
IP number: 74.100.48.167 (talk). By clicking on (talk) it was educational to see how long this vandalism has been allowed to continue.
It seems there's confusion at Atari about which fuji they're using.[edit]
It seems Atari's website is using the "classic" fuji, whereas Atari SA (and, it seems, their games) are still using the current style fuji. I'd noted this on Atari Inc's website. Wait and see, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sslaxx (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're in the middle of switching over the Fujis, it'll probably take some time as this was a recent decision (past month or two). And actually, I just came from Walmart and there was a new version of the Jakks 10-in-1 Atari plug and play joystick that included the classic fuji now on the box and on the stick. So they're starting to use it on products as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you removed the Video Game Critic reference from the Kasumi Ninja page. I'm not at all clear why The Video Game Critic site is "Not a notable or reliable source per Wikipedia and the video game project's standards." Could you fill me in?--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the project oversees all video game related articles on Wikipedia. That includes issues of acceptable references that meet Wikipedia's policies on WP:Reliability and WP:Notability. User contributed sites, such as Video Game Critic, do not meet reliability standards. They have to have a certain level of demonstrated editorial oversight. Likewise, notability comes with the territory. References have to come from notable sources, i.e. sources that are proven notable for their position as a source for the subject. That for instance can be, having a site used as a reference by another notable and reliable source - such as how something like AtariAge.com or say the Killer List of Video Games have been used by various news outlets and publications. The Video Game Critic site has nothing that differentiates it from a host of other fan based review sites - which fail to meet encyclopedic standards on reliability and notability. Comparably, you have the situation of the AVGN not being allowed as a reviewer - while he may be notable as such, his reviews are purely for entertainment purposes rather than informational, and as such were deemed unreliable. Hope that explains it. The video game project does have a listing of widely accepted sources if you're interested. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that definitely helps, thanks. If you could give me a link to good information on the video game project, that would be much appreciated; I searched Wikipedia for it before, but couldn't find anything and thus had to resort to your talk page.
I thought I'd seen the Video Game Critic referenced elsewhere(and I know I've seen it as a reference on several other Wiki articles), but I suppose my memory deceives me. Seems a shame, as it's such a good review site. I've never seen factual errors or blatant genre bias in their reviews, things which show up on more "prestigious" review sites such as IGN on a regular basis. Ah well, I'll make sure not to use Video Game Critic as a reference anymore.
It amazes me that people try to use AVGN as a reference. James Rolfe says right in the Nerd FAQ that he doesn't stand behind any of his reviews, going so far as to say "I may actually like some of the games I'm complaining about." Reading comprehension is apparently a real challenge for some folks.--Martin IIIa (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized you may have overlooked the above post due to another person posting on this topic. If you read the above and just chose not to reply, can you post a quick acknowledgment that you didn't overlook it? Thanks in advance.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! By the way, I remembered where I saw Video Game Critic used as a reference: It was on AtariAge.com (funny that you had just mentioned them). I know that by itself is not enough to make VGC a usable reference, but I figured I should pass that on in case Video Game Critic comes up for review as a possible notable/reliable source.
Also, sorry to keep bugging you, but I need advice on how to handle situations like the one on the Kasumi Ninja page. I scoured the WP help pages, but every single page concerning editorial disagreements assumes that every editor involved is (1)mentally sound, (2)willing to read and attempt to understand other people's comments, and (3)interested chiefly in improving Wikipedia's content, rather than simply picking a fight or using Wikipedia as free advertising space for the editor's favorite creative property. This rather disturbs me, as one would think(and this holds true with what I've seen on Wikipedia) that most editorial disagreements start precisely because at least one editor fails to meet all three criteria. I don't see how an encyclopedia that is effectively edited by whoever is willing to argue and revert war longest without care for whether his edits are appropriate can ever become reliable. Also, while in the case of Kasumi Ninja I'm willing to just walk away, I can foresee there being situations that I will not be willing to walk away from.
Again, sorry to bother you about this, but I absolutely cannot find anything helpful on Wikipedia about such situations, and I don't know who else to ask.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marty- Some sources in Defender (video game)#Impact and legacy state that Defender was the first to introduce scrolling, specifically horizontal scrolling. However, I'm sure that some Atari games came first. Since the content is verifiable from a reliable source, I plan on keeping it in there. But I think a mentioning the earlier games in Defender (video game)#Notes would be good. (Guyinblack25talk 02:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Depends what you mean by "scrolling". Scrolling enemies and player, or scrolling landscape controlled by the player, or both? 1976's Cobra Gunship gave you a scrolling play area, as did 1979's Star Fire and included a scrolling star scape. Both do multi-directional "scrolling". The very first one with a fully detailed scrolling background was Atari's 1978 Sky Raider (which is playable in MAME if you want to verify it your self). This is what was later ported as River Raid by the Activision guys (most of their 2600 games were ports of 70's Atari arcade games). Features full vertical scrolling of the landscape. There's also Super Road Champions from that year (you can see it through out this video here. Atari's Football (1978, seen here) also features full vertical scrolling. Atari's Lunar Lander (1979) of course has full horizontal scrolling of the landscape (which can also be verified here). So in any of the definitions, I don't see where Defender is first at all. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HA! Too cool. I actually contemplated going there for lunch today.
I'll certainly have to bug my local Taco Bells to find out when they're coming out. Plus those would be interesting tidbits for the Centipede and Asteroids articles if I ever find the time to work on them. Thanks for the heads up. :-D (Guyinblack25talk 22:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Picked up all four today during lunch. It took about three people to understand what I was talking about (despite an advertisement behind them), properly enter it into the register, and actually find them. :-P
Hopefully I'll have time to check them out after work tonight. I never played Asteroids or Lunar Lander before, and figure it's about time to correct that. (Guyinblack25talk 21:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
They work fine on my laptop. Asteroids and Centipede are awesome. I was probably too young to really enjoy Centipede before, and Asteroids is quite a treat. Those two articles just moved further up my to do list. Lunar Lander, however, is impossible to play and the original creators should be thrown in jail. :-p
Thanks again for the heads up on the games (Guyinblack25talk 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Marty, I noticed that the Wing Tsun article currently has two discussion pages; the 'correct one' and an old one that has not been deleted yet. On a cursory glance, the old discussion's archive page does not appear to have been fully merged into the current discussion. Would you be interested in taking responsibility for merging the old discussion into the current one? I notice that you were involved in the discussions, so you would be better at ensuring that nothing is lost in the merging. (If this would not be feasible for you, though, just let me know.) Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for your information, I have now merged the discussions and requested for the old discussion pages to be deleted. Janggeom (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you change the page about Weng Chun to redirect it to Wing Chun? As specified on the page, these are two different styles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddotk (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was explained already on the talk page and the edit summary. There were already long and drawn out discussions on it. The characters were used interchangeably in both arts over the years (hence it's coverage on the wing chun page), and weng chun already has it's own content page at Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but that doesn't take away that weng chun is not wing chun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddotk (talk • contribs) 22:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're a bit confused on actual art vs. Chinese characters. Once again, the Chinese characters for weng chun and wing chun were used interchangeably by some teachers during it's history. Hence the coverage of that on the wing chun page. There's really not a lot more to say. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is; i know that the characters are the same. I am not discussing the similarities or differences between the styles here, i am trying to make clear that because weng chun is a different style, it should have it's own page. If praying mantis and baguazhang had the same meaning and characters, they would still need their own page.
Don't get me wrong but weng chun deserves just as much its own page as wing chun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddotk (talk • contribs) 03:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has it's own page as already mentioned. Again, this is just going around in circles. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - those references in the first-video-game were pretty lame; congratulations on taking the time (as I didn't) to find a good one! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Marty, saw your work on the Ms. Pac-Man release date using copywrite materials, and this raises an interesting question for the Super Mario Bros. release date that caused quite a discussion awhile back. Looking at the copywrite info, it seems there are three listings for Super Mario Bros., one for the game, one for the packaging, and one for the instruction booklet. The game is given the release date of 9/14/85, which would be the Japanese release date, while the info on the packaging, which is probably North American specific, is 10/19/85, and the instruction book copywrite is for 10/31/85, which would support Nintendo's claim of the game being available at launch. I like all the eveidence we dug up for a 1986 release date, but am also curious on your opinion as to how this new info fits in. Indrian (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that as well. As far as the 9/15/85, you're correct - that's the Japanese release date. If you look, it even states Japan game "Imprint: [Japan] : Nintendo, c1985.". Remember, the US version was a translation of the Japanese game, afaik there were no actual game graphic/play changes for the game itself, hence the immediate filing in the US off the Japanese version. And because it was a division of the Japanese Nintendo, it also winds being different than say Pac-Man which was filed under Midway. That unfortunately skews the ability to use the copyright system to get the actual US release date. As for the box and manual (which is filed as a translation), I mentioned on the Ms. Pac-Man page, a lot of this stuff like boxes and such were used for display purposes pre-game release. I.E. "These games are/This game is coming as well....". We also showed that clearly SMB was not front and center during actual press material or ads, nor was it in the launch commercial that played in the NY area. And in actuality, it actually disproves Nintendo's claim of being available at the NES's launch which they date 10/18/85, because even the manaual and box were not ready then - which further supports Lincoln, and Arakawa et. al. about it not being ready for launch (the NY test marketing). My guess at this point is anywhere from late December through the March '86 verification. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with all the points you raised. I was just getting tired of seeing the current state of Wikipedia articles relating to the dedicated consoles, which were fragmented, not very well-written and incomplete. Additional organization of the content is fine by me. Bumm13 (talk)
Pac-Man has been previously removed several times on grounds of Wikipedia's policies on notability. Likewise, as you are involved with the game, you are violating Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest edits and advertising. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Videocart 27: Pac-Man exists, I made it, is it OK if someone else mentions it? What about all the homebrews mentioned, don't they deserve a place here or are readers supposed to think the system is totally dead? Since there are so little about Channel F I thought it should be worth mentioning, someone who looks for it at Wikipedia should get all information, right?
You also removed the official Democart and Democart 2 from the listing, why is this? These are officially made cartridges. / Fredric —Preceding unsigned comment added by E5frog (talk • contribs) 20:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made the page at and I have now gotten domain of my own, channelf.se with the same contents - why change that, and why add the last link again when it's there twice? Do you actually check what you are changing before removing things? Is wikipedia a living document or is it supposed to be just static information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by E5frog (talk • contribs) 20:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that something exists does not make it notable. Same for the other homebrew games. If the games were covered by a recognized reliable and notable source, such as Retro Gamer magazine for example, then that would be more in line with Wikipedia's policies. As far as what people are supposed to think, Wikipedia does not exist to support or advertise the Channel F homebrew community. That's what personal websites are for. Likewise, you can't add links to your own sites, that violates the self-promotion policy again. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about citation needed for the mention of Jet-Stick, I have the scanned papers, where do I upload it? --E5frog (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the papers are from a magazine or such, you can't without getting permission from the copyright holders. If they're literal papers sent out from the company, putting a direct link to the scans on your site is fine in this case. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it was papers sent out by the company.
Oh, I also added the VES-wiki-link, and updated the address when it changed, I have been writing a lot there as well to promote the homebrew scene, maybe that should be removed as well, let no one know how to program it and no one should know what the stuff looks like - sine my gallery is now also removed... I understand why Google is used to find stuff instead of Wikipedia, all the interesting information is removed - what IS the aim of Wikipedia then?
How do we know by the way that someone else wouldn't have added a link to my Gallery but didn't do that since it was already there - you're destroying the information. And what about the Democarts why can't they be listed?
The "Market Impact" BTW rambles on about Atari and doesn't really have anything to do with Channel F, that belongs on the Atari VCS/2600 page. --E5frog (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can cleanse Wikipedia of more horrible copyright violations like this...
--E5frog (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A site having copyrighted material somewhere on it's site isn't what the problem is. A site being provided as a link in a Wikipedia article for the purpose of it's database/collection of copyrighted works is. Old-computers is not being used in violation, nor is the doteaters. Likewise, per Wikipedia policy, a limited number of copyrighted images are allowed on the Wikipedia article if no free ones exist. Certainly the Channel F 2 picture can be replaced by a user submitted personal photo of a Channel F 2. Additionally, Wiki's are not allowed as reliable and verifiable references. Any site that relies on openly editable user contributable content is not allowed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wgungfu. You have new messages at Abani79's talk page. Message added 16:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hi I've noticed that you have made my changes to the article on Magnavox Odyssey reversed, of course I agree with you, the blogs should not find any mention in Wikipedia. Now I have time for other sources to demonstrate that the production of the console, actually was closed in 1975. [[1]] and [2]] would in my opinion, good information, they would not be meaningful as evidence? There are at least known important facts. Abani79 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad that some people behave so childishly about this stuff, like it's the end of the the world that their favorite band might not have an entry in an encyclopedia. I've been threatened to be sued, called on my telephone, emailed, and ranted about on forums and blogs three different times, all because of AfDs I've started. It's not fun and—despite the fact that we appear to be on different sides in this AfD—I'm sorry to see it happening to you.
In any case, I had a feeling that something like this might happen, just because of the past AfDs. Hopefully the tag at the top of the page helps. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marty- I was wondering if you could take a look at Special:Contributions/69.181.155.54. The nature of the edits remind me of our encounter with Wbdavis29 (talk·contribs). I'd hate for developers to think we're difficult to work with, but we still have to play by Wikipedia's rules. :-\ Any thoughts you have on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks. (Guyinblack25talk 10:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
He just mentioned Frye in the 3rd person in his last edit summary, so I'm going to say it's not Frye. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that if the anon doesn't respond soon, I'll reduce to semi-protection. I want to give him the chance to explain himself if this is a content dispute, but if he's going to revert without discussion, it's legitimate to see it as vandalism or disruption. Cheers, SlimVirgintalk|contribs 04:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. If you don't mind, I'd like you to stay involved in the discussion even if he does try and engage. I'd prefer a neutral party involved. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Congratulations. I've been buying RG less and less as the US price is not budget friendly right now. :-\ But I'll try to keep an eye out for that issue. (Guyinblack25talk 15:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
If you fix the article, I'd be willing to withdraw the AfD. I just don't want to withdraw it on an unreferenced BLP that currently fails to show notability. Otherwise, I'd say this article should be deleted and recreated when someone wants to do the job right. Papaursa (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you could help me out with something here. I've been delving into some of the early Atari history stuff and trying to write about the Bushnell buyout, but it is difficult with only Bushnell's side of the story. You don't have to read me the riot act about his self-promoting nature or the fact that he changes his story all the time and all that; I am well aware of these issues. Anyway, in the most recent interview with Bushnell I have seen from the middle of last year, Bushnell stated that he wanted Dabney out of the business because he was not happy with how his partner was running the manufacturing operation and wanted to bring in someone else, so he essentially forced Dabney out. That's Bushnell's side and I am running with it in the sense that this is the most up-to-date expression of Bushnell's thoughts at the time (yeah I know he has said other things in the past). However, it would not be fair to put that in without also presenting Dabney's side. I know you interviewed him, and I am not asking you to spill the beans on all the juicy info I am sure you want to save for your book, but can you provide any insight at all into Dabney's side of the dispute? Its a hard topic to write about fairly when Bushnell's version stands unchallenged and I would hate to present this information in a manner that is unfair to Dabney. Oh, this is not for wikipedia, so I am not worried about reliable sourcing from a wikipedia standpoint, just in any info you can give. Indrian (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, email me off site. I've interviewed Ted extensively. Who's this for? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to email you and explain everything, though I am afraid I don't know your address. Can you point me in the right direction? Indrian (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just sent you a private message on facebook since I do not know your email. I hope you don't mind. It is a little long, but it fully explains my position on the matter. Thanks. Indrian (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate all the Atari articles you have created and maintained. It is a great resource in the Wikipedia community.
Recently I made a change to the Atari 2600 article to clarify which of the numerous Atari company entries actually was the manufacturer of the Atari 2600 and to provide a wikilink in the body of the article. You reverted my changes stating that the wikilink was only allowed once in an article and already appeared in the infobox. I wanted to call to your attention the MoS entry for linking WP:REPEATLINK that actually states that the one wikilink per article is a general position with many exceptions including where the first link was in an infobox or a navbox, or some similar meta-content. For that reason I have made a separate edit to replace that particular change since I believe it helps clarify who created the device and provides an obvious wikilink that could easily be missed in the info box. Again, thanks for all your significant work in the Atari community. § Music Sorter § (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the Atari (disambiguation) page, I reviewed the changes you made after mine and I did learn a few things after reading the MoS in more detail on disambiguation. I see a number of your changes were per the MoS guidelines and I will pay more attention to that in the future thanks to your feedback.
The other three things I see on that page now I thought I would mention to you here for your consideration since you currently manage this page so well.
1 Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries we should only have "exactly one" navigable (blue) link. On the "Atari, SA" entry you added the wikilink to the Infogrames Entertainment company. I believe the wikilink on the old company name should be removed.
2 On the "Atari Interactive" entry you added that it was privately held by Infogrames and you removed my comment it was a division of Atari, SA. My information was based on researching the various companies on their web sites. Based on that public information your change seems to be out of date. Do you have some other public information to support that they are still privately held by Infogrames still, and not a division of Atari, SA?
3 The company Atari Interactive is officially Atari Interactive, Inc. based on what I found on their web site, but the article was written without the Inc. My original version correctly linked to the article and properly named the company. Was there a reason you reverted my change on that?
Again, thanks for all your continued support of the Atari articles. § Music Sorter § (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address your questions one by one. 1) As the MOS DABRL also states, "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics". There was one brief blurb period a full two years ago on DiCaprio opting (Hollywood term meaning taking the the rights) to play Nolan in a possible film partnered with Paramount. A process done all the time to lock up the rights on an idea, or script, or film. Nothing has been heard of since then. It would not have notability or enough supporting content at this point to support its own article, hence the removal. Should something more substantial come along, a red link (and the article itself) could be created. But at this point the only thing that could be supported are mentions (with reference) on DiCaprio's, Nolan's, and the Atari brand page. 2) (Regarding one blue link per line) This is true and my mistake, I'll correct it. 3) Atari SA is Infogrames SA, that should read "Privately held by Infogrames". Privately held denotes a holding company, which is what Atari Interactive is. It holds all the licenses and trademarks for the Atari name, logo, and properties. A privately held company can still be a division, so I don't see a conflict there other than one is more descriptive and the other (division) denotes a more generic one. We can compromise if you like and simply expand the description to be "A holding company for the Atari brand that's a division of Atari SA" or something similar. 4) Yes, because first you had the dates wrong and second because the article is not solely about the current Atari Interactive Inc. Please read through the actual Atari Interactive page. There are three separate entities that used Atari Interactive in their name, not one company that's been around since 1996. First was a PC software publishing division of Atari Coproration. It was not incorporated, and simply a briefly used brand name that was around about a month before being disbanded before the merger of Atari Corp to JTS. Next was the holding company (and later "classics" publishing arm) under Hasbro, Hiat XI Corp, which was renamed to Atari Ineractive to tie in to Hasbro Interactive its owner - not a direct continuation of the PC publishing division under Atari Corp. which it seems like you assumed. Thirdly was Infogrames Interactive, which held Hasbro Interactive's propertes (and consequently the Atari properties), and which was renamed Atari Interactive during Infogrames' rebranding of all it's subsidiaries to an Atari branded name. It is not the Atari Interactive from under Hasbro as it seems you also assumed, it is the former Hasbro Interactive itself which was renamed Infogrames Interactive and then Atari Interactive under the Infogrames subsidiary rebranding. Three seperate entities, two of which happened to derive to an Atari Interactive name completely unrelated. Just as the current Atari Inc has nothing to do with the original one, it arrived at the name by rebranding Infogrames Inc. Hope that explains everything for you sufficiently. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marty, thanks for the very detailed response. It appears that you are more closely aligned with the details of the various Atari companies and I am happy to follow your recommendations on the DAB page. I also appreciate the feedback on item 1) and your acceptance on item 2). I am happy with the Atari DAB as you have adjusted it. Thanks again for the great Wikipedia work. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I saw that you're the leader of the "Atari Task Force" on Wikipedia. I wanted to bring to your attention that the image displayed in the "Atari" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari) is not the current logo. The company has recently changed their logo in a restructuring. Here is the new logo: http://i38.tinypic.com/35314r4.png—Preceding unsigned comment added by Timoty777 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for finding that ref - the GameSpot article states that they were only available in computer stores, and that felt unreliable, so I was asusming that there must be something that would fix this. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I'm writing in regards to the changes on the Wing Chun Terminology page. I noticed you undid some changes I made regarding terms for lineage. Although I will not contest that "grandmaster" may be an inappropriate term to use for master's master, I am fairly certain that a master's master's master is called a Si Tai Gung, not Si Jo. I would like to implement this change on the page, perhaps we can discuss this further. Tokyup (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)tokyup[reply]
Marty- I put Joust (video game) up for GAN recently and while it's waiting I was hoping you could give it a quick sweep for accuracy. One thing in particular is the game's 96K memory. The sources I had only stated "memory", but not what kind. I assume this is ROM, but I'd feel better about getting another perspective to confirm this. Anything else you can catch would be appreciated as well. Thanks. (Guyinblack25talk 17:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for the comments.
If you have any more spare time, I gave Joust 2: Survival of the Fittest a go this week. I didn't find much, so if you know of any sources, especially for reception, please let me know. (Guyinblack25talk 05:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
How would you add the information that the power glove was used by hackers, musicians, artists quite extensively, even to this day ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.57.70 (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why do you remove my Wingchun Bio-energy contribution ?[edit]
why do you remove my Wingchun Bio-energy contribution ?
It was explained in the edit summary. 1) The page is for a generic overview of the art as a whole, not a discussion on one individual's or school's viewpoints or agenda. The content you are attempting to add is not of the norm, and not in any way written in an encyclopdic manner. It also violates original research at worst and represents synthesis at best. Wikipedia is not a place to put forth your own theories and viewpoints to try and give credibility to them, no matter how much you may believe in them. 2) You can't use your self as a reference. That violates Wikipedia's policies on Conflict of Interest, and of course reliability of references - and even further ventures in to violation on no advertising when you start using links to your own school as an attempted reference. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Videopin.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Videopin.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kellyhi! 11:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
I try to expand the text of Video Pinball so we can put/fit the images of different version of the console. I think that this images explain more than a lot of words.
Let me know what do you think.
--Arosio Stefano (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I really want to rehash this discussion again, but I wanted to let you know of a reply I left for both you and GuineaPigWarrior on Template talk:Seventh generation game consoles, regarding the latest round of Zeebo arguments in October. (I would have replied then if I'd known the discussion was going on, but the page wasn't on my watchlist.) The jist: Please be careful when quoting other users to support your arguments - the quote from me that you used included my block warning to GPW and also pointed out that I'm an admin, and that's not really a very good way to argue a point.
Thanks. In case you're interested, my attention was brought back to that discussion by an anonymous user who left a message on my talk page, asking me why I was "deliberately allowing" you to be combative in the arguments. I left a reply for him/her as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see the reason of your scrupulousness to include the reference. But the text how it is now is evidently wrong. The given reference proofs it even just with the pictures in the review. (see discussion) What do you personally think is better? Incontestable wrong information or a reference with German description?
213.196.139.251 (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has specific requirements, which include reliability of references used and that information in the article must be backed up by said reliable 3rd party references and must reflect their content. Besides being a non-english source, the source does not meet reliability requirements. Additionally, the content you tried to change to and add, which was based on said unreliable reference, fails because of the same reasons. If you can find a 3rd party reference that meets Wikipedia's guidelines and qualifications, then by all means the information is welcome. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. But I stink still it’s a pity. Wikipedia is so powerful that it is able to make colportage. People who decide to write an article about anything are tended to look up some information on Wikipedia. In this way error might be copied multiple times, read on multiple placed an induce a new wrong reality. You can search the web: There isn’t any ware a more complete review than on the cited webpage. Proves of the facts are difficult as they are non-quotable such as the game itself, YouTube Videos showing the game play, or walkthroughs on semi-commercial sites. The problem is that media with many viewers such as AVGN and Wikipedia posted wrong information. A book printed wrong information. As a affect of this you won’t find any other proof, besides the cited site, YouTube Videos and Walkthroughs, which can’t be effected of colportage.
What disturbs me personally: I do not belief that anybody who edited, revised or wrote in the article did actually played through the game. Or at least played it for longer than one hour.
Do you have a copy of the recent Alcorm interview? We can't really omit Bushnell's claim, but we can balance it with other sources to show it in a neutral light. (Guyinblack25talk 21:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Your edit looks good to me. Ii frames the information much better and flows well. (Guyinblack25talk 21:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, I can't seem to figure out what you are trying to say, and I didn't want to just revert. Dave Nutting (the person; if we mean his company we should make that clearer) designed the pinball, Bally didn't want to build it, so they licensed it to Mircor. Please have a look. -- Nczempin (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you keep removing the link to my website. http://www.videopac.nl. When I check the history page I see that you're arguments are that fan-sites and forum's are not allowed. On my site is a lot of usefull information about the videopac and also the forum contains a lot of usefull info maintained by enthoudsiastic O2 and Videopac collectors worldwide. Also you removed the website: http://www.ozyr.com/o2/o2.html. This site might be called a "fan-site" because it is maintained by a fan, but contains a lot of information concerning manuals and other videopac game-related articles.
I don't see how people are going to be able to find more info on the Videopac/Odyssey2 if Wikipedia keeps refusing really usefull links.
Also for some reason I still see a link or two for websites that are fan-based and even contain a forum. If you are going to delete these too then people will only be able to read about the history of O2 and how to program games for it. I think most people interested are collectors and concerning the amount of new games being released there aren't many programmers actively searching.
I hope you are willing to take my arguments into consideration.
The external links area on Wikipedia does not exist for people to find more general info on the subject, it is not a link directory. Google is easily used for that. The external links area has the very specific use of giving links to extensive reliable (per WP:RELIABLE) material that doesn't meet the needs to use as a reference in the article but still enhances the *encyclopedic* quality of the article. An encyclopedia is not a collection of all arbitrary info on a subject. The needs of Wikipedia are as an encyclopedia, not to be a social hub or fanpage on a subject, nor a directory of "useful links" nor to advertise a fan's website. Per WP:ELNO, fansites are not acceptable to include and are only done under extremely rare cases. Likewise, links to copies of manuals and other copyrighted materials reproduced without permission is also against Wikipedia's copyright policies. Additionally, there was already one videopac site in the external links that was given some leniency to be included - your site does not include much different, and continuing to add things one the basis of "me to" simply goes against the WP:EL policies and the stated purpose of the external links area. Finally, it is also against WP:COI for you to be promoting your own site here. This is not your site being singled out or anything personal, these are Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And personal attacks on me in your forum (including false claims of it being because I'm a so called "atari guy") or claims about "being in a circle" do not help the issue and only further violate policies here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of site from Odyssey2 link, and non-removal of another site[edit]
I noticed that my site, which references Odyssey manuals and magazine as reference material has been removed from Wiki. I can deal with it, as Wiki can do whatever it wants, but if the rules are no Forums or Personal pages, then why is http://www.videopac.org/ listed!? It is a personal page, and it opens to a Forum page (and the site sells things too)!!?? Is this a mistake, or a double-standard? (Frankly, I think anything that help promote the Odyssey2/Videopac should be left as is, but what do I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.192.12 (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure who User:Grandmastercheung is, but that article is turning into a mess. Thanks for helping me out with it. On BLP, though the "citation needed tags" don't cut it, especially if it's controversial. Better to just remove that stuff altogether, if it is verifiable, the burden is on them to add it. Some of those refs were spurious, too so I removed them. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to make this short; why exactly did you delete my comment on the Retrogaming article talk page (it was justified criticism) and since I'm very concerned about said article, why is it staying the same with obvious bad jokes and biased descriptions in it?
Also, sorry for taking your time, but I can't really read through all the hundreds of thousands of how-to and F.A.Q. sites in order to just report things I've seen while flying over articles. At least I'm trying and don't vandalise articles without exchanging info first.80.219.27.101 (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the edit summary, it was reverted because of WP:NOTFORUM. Your edit wasn't constructive, and read more like soapboxing or typical forum conversation. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Marty, just opened a discussion about sales figures for Pong on the Pong page. As you may have knowledge of further sources or info, your input would be appreciated. Indrian (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I recently posted a question regarding the reliability of Atari HQ here at WP:RSN. In researching the website's staff I recognized a familiar name. It may just be coincidence, but I thought I'd give you a heads up in case it's not. If you have any information that you think is relevant to the discussion I invite you to give your 2 cents worth, but if you think there may be too much danger of COI for you to give any input then that's fine too. I'm not sure how it would appear to other editors. You could limit yourself to purely factual matters perhaps or simply recuse yourself. Either way, I thought you might like to at least observe from the sidelines. -Thibbs (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just stumbled across your page, and I'm not sure if you've noticed, but your Personal Wiki-Info section doesn't work right. Since userboxes are set to float, funny things happen. If you add {{clear}} to the end of every {{hidden}}, it will work nicely. MrKIA11 (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Though I still can't get the very first one formatted right. Feel free to make the necessary edits if you would. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the HTML for the one userbox with a template. I also just noticed that made the border disappear, so I'll edit it again to get that back. MrKIA11 (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look I don't want to handle this on your talk page. Lets just go to the Atari talk page, because Atari is rated C Class and its priority is High and all I am trying to do is take it to A-Class. Now on Atari's talk page I've included the structure that I propose, lets talk there. --Schmeater (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a video game project matter at this point, as you had already started the discussion there. Please go to the link I gave you to join back in to the discussion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marty- Sorry I've been out lately. It looks like the matter is heading to a amicable conclusion. Do you still need input? (Guyinblack25talk 18:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Since you seem to have knowledge of the Intellivision product, your input would be appreciated over there. Many thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you PLEASE help me with the talk page? I was trying to correct a gross error in the article and I can't insert my references correctly. I undid that change, but it loused it up and now I can't post on the talk page. Please reply there, thanks75.21.152.173 (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it would be a bit more appropriate to continue this discussion here rather than where it started, in First_Video_Game Discussion. One of the arguments against CRT Amusement Device being the first video game, is that it used overlays to create the game field. This strike, however, also applies to Ralph Baer's Odyssey, as it also used overlays. The only thing the Odyssey could really put on a screen was two moveable dots, (ok, sometimes there were three or more.) 71.168.246.159 (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Startropic1[reply]
Listen, I'm sorry you're not familiar with that device and it's history in relation to industry patents. But that's completely irrelevant and that was not the point about overlays. The CRT amusement device uses the CRT as a prop, it's an EM game and has never been seen as anything else including by all sides (Magnavox, Atari, Midway, Activision, Nintendo, etc.) during the patent defenses. It was even referenced in Ralph and company's early patents because it represents an early attempt at mechanically interfacing with a CRT for amusement purposes. The usage of the CRT could be replaced by a flashlight and a sheet actually, there's nothing video specific being done - motion, collision, etc. is all being done by actual gears. It's not even a vector display to even be able to argue in that direction. Honestly, as I said previously, this isn't exactly the first time people have attempted to draw a correlation here where there is none. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The references I produced was indeed linked to people's website. That is the idea of this particular page, is it not? Indian wing chun schools are affiliated to grandmasters in other countries. The purpose of this article is to give all the names of the schools in India, and give references to their affiliation, which are available in the grandmasters' sites!
I had provided such references to three out of four lineages.
Come one man, at least my edit is better than the way the page is being viewed now, with no references at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faruspace (talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the purpose of pages on Wikipedia. They do not exist to promote people's schools. In fact the article is ripe for deletion because of that. Likewise the references you provided do not meet Wikipedia standards because of the reasons mentioned several times already. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just read your Atari, Inc. article in Retrogamer the other day and was curious about one point. In the article, you state that the VCS experienced shortages in the 1978 holiday season. In two articles written in the early 1980s, however, Joe Decuir and Joe Keenan both recall that Atari had a backlog of 300,000 to 400,000 systems sitting around in warehouses due to a lack of retailer orders. Those two propositions are not necessarily contradictory, but I was just curious how those two pieces of information fit together. Indrian (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At that point the sales season for video games was still the Christmas season. Atari was late getting getting VCSs manufactured and to the retailers, hence the shortage and cancellations of orders which resulted in the systems sitting in warehouses in to '79. That's ultimately what lead to the decision to try and sell year around. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That all makes sense, but it still leaves the IEEE articles. I am sure you have seen these articles as well, but just to quote the relevant sections, the first states: "It was a very bad year for the company," explains Joe Keenan, who was president at the time. "Clearly we built too many units, which translated into potential disaster. We're talking $40 million worth of inventory that the company was stuck with." That sounds like overproduction not late manufacturing and is a direct quote from Keenan. The other is not clear on what comes from Decuir and what may come from elsewhere, but it says: In 1978 Atari decided to build 800,000 VCS machines, more than twice as many as the year before. A total of 500,000 orders came in by late summer, and after fall shipments went out, they disappeared from retailers' shelves in a few weeks. But few additional orders came, and Atari was left with 300,000 unsold machin es; the company had doubled its sales volume for the second year in a row, Mr. Decuir recalls, and still it lost money. I know that your research is of the highest caliber, so I am sure your sources are solid, but I still wonder why Keenan talks of an overproduction problem if the root cause of the issue was production delay. Indrian (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's still an overproduction problem, I don't see a contradiction here - two sides of the same coin. They produced more than what they were actually able to sell, and the reason they weren't able to sell as much is what I mentioned above. They were late in the season for manufacturing and orders didn't come in as expected or were cancelled. That's why there were large losses for the company that year and the coin division is what was keeping the company afloat. Then you have the meetings behind Warner's back with Nolan, Joe, and a few others trying to decide what to do and Warner getting pissed and putting Noloan "out to pasture". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it can be interpreted that way. I still think its strange that Keenan would not just say they were late, but who knows what the article writer might have done to mangle a longer quote or something like that. As I said above, I do think what you are saying makes sense and I know you have the sourcing to back it up. I just wanted to see how it all fit together since none of the older sources, which each have their own set of limitations and errors, had talked of holiday shortages that year. Thanks for running through this; I am quite satisfied that another small part of the Atari historical record has been straightened out through your work. Indrian (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you undo my change to Template:VG_History? I changed the 2012 to 2011, because one of the consoles, the 3DS, started production and shipping in 2011.
Please reply ASAP,
-lesderid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.96.31 (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Handhelds are not considered to denote console generation changes here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly is that stated? 84.197.96.31 (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entire bulk of lengthy discussions on the 8th generation page, the multiple page deletion discussions over the past year when people tried to create it when the 3ds was first released, and in the video game project (the body the watches over and sets policy for video game pages here) which you're welcome to go to and ask as well.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Sorry for the mistake then. Have a nice day. ^^ 84.197.96.31 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wgungfu. You have new messages at Talk:Atari video game burial/GA1. Message added 07:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
wikimedia.org.
